Why I will support Dean (sorta long, but its important that I explain)

[arendt]

A forward to Kerry supporters:

If he wins the nomination, I will support Kerry whole-heartedly because
he will be my only chance. I have no issues with him as a person. Its
just that my analysis finds him a weaker candidate. I do not want to get
into a flame war with Kerry supporters because I am willing to work with
him later.



"Its the War, Stupid!" or Why I will support Dean.
by arendt

I am convinced that if George Bush wins the 2004
election, any chance for restoring democracy in America
will end. So, I have been searching for the candidate
most likely to beat Bush. I am totally ruthless on
this subject. I intend to work in the primaries for
the candidate I believe most likely to beat Bush.
In the general election, I will support the Democratic
candidate unless it is Holy Joe Lieberman, DINO.

There are only two serious candidates at this point -
Dean and Kerry.

For at least a year, I have been waiting for Senator Kerry
to convince me he can beat George Bush. From what I can
see, Senator Kerry is taking the Democratic activist base
for granted, and pursuing the centrist vote by emphasizing
his military credentials, including his vote FOR the war and
FOR the Patriot Act.

Meanwhile, despite all the media feeding frenzy, I think
the ?Fortune? magazine article nails it: Dean is a
Rockefeller Republican: balanced budgets, socially
liberal, supporter of big government, but no screaming
liberal. His governorship was as calculating an act of
political carpetbagging as Bobby Kennedy going to
New York to be a Senator. Anyone who thinks Dean
is a true liberal is in a cargo cult, and should seek
treatment.

Having said all that, Dean has been AGAINST the war and
AGAINST the Patriot Act all along. Now, it is almost certainly
fair to say that Dean's anti-war stance was easier to pull off
than if he were a sitting Senator during the propaganda blitz
leading up to the disgraceful Iraq vote. Nevertheless, Dean
took the right stance on the biggest issues out there: saving
our Constitutional government from a corporate/fundamentalist
takeover.

For me, it all comes down to the various PHONY wars of
George Bush, and the two REAL wars. The phony war on Al
Qaida. The phony war on Iraq. The phony war on Drugs.
The phony war on domestic "terrorism". The very real war
on our Constitution. And the suicidal war on our middle
class.

Now, all the Democrats understand the war on the middle class.
These are meat-and-potatoes Democratic issues, a working stiff's
pocketbook, health care, job and retirement security. The problem
with the economy, as an issue in the PRIMARY, is that it fails to
differentiate the candidates. Worse, it allows candidates to duck
the tougher issues. They can say: I blasted Bush on the economy.
My reaction is: so what? Did you blast him on: the Patriot Act, the lies,
the Iraq quagmire, the lies, Guantanamo and the ICC, the lies?

The DLC democrats, with Joe Lieberman walking point, have
declared war on other Democrats for not supporting our glorious
maximum leader's anti-Moslem crusade and its home front,
John Ashcroft's religious Gestapo. Why am I having trouble hearing
John Kerry's, John Edwards' and Dick Gephardt's immediate and repeated
denunciations of Lieberman? Therein lies the fact that convinces me.

I am convinced that Gephardt, and Edwards are too concerned
with consistency and/or sounding "conservative". For all their protestations,
their behavior so far on the big issue, war, has been "Bush lite".
Kerry is more problematic.

He has criticized Bush's foreign policy, but in a very lofty way. He has
to be lofty because he is hamstrung by the position he has taken to
justify his votes for blank-check wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and for
secret police methods at home. A month ago, he was handed a perfect
set-up to say that his vote for the Iraq war was based on Bush's Lies.
But he mumbled and hedged and dodged. The result is that today Bush
sits at his ranch or runs around raising funds, while the country's infra-
structure and its two wars fall apart; and Kerry is not hammering the
shit out of him. But Rush Limbaugh and the right-wing hatchet brigade
are hammering Kerry with idiocy about cheese steaks.

It is the intangibles that drive me to Dean. It is intangible that Kerry
does not hit back at insidious, corrosive personality smear jobs about his
parentage or the propriety of marrying Senator Heinz's widow. I get
the sense that he does not understand what a stinking, slimy mess
it is to take on the GOP and their lapdog media. Running for office in
Massachusetts, he has never felt the full force of the GOP smear and lie
shop. This race will be all about smears, slander, slash and burn politics.
I want someone who can dish it out, not just shrug it off.

It is intangible that Kerry talks so softly when he is from such a safe state
so that he did not even have a GOP opponent in the 2002 election. The
sense I get is that he wants the liberal vote, but he is ashamed to wear
the liberal label.

It is intangible that Kerry says he won't spend his own money or his
wife's money to campaign. It is intangible that Kerry's wife is a very
liberal activist. It is intangible that Kerry threw SOMEONE ELSE'S
medals over the White House fence. But these kinds of intangibles can
be turned into liabilities by the GOP Lie Machine, regardless of their
veracity or their relevance.

Dean, OTOH, seems to be up-front. His wife is totally non-political,
which in itself ought to generate good publicity, with little room for
a smear job. How the hell do you smear a doctor doing her job?

The very things in Dean's resume that progressives wring their hands
about are what makes it possible for him to move to the center in the
GENERAL election. I have no illusions. Dean is a Rockefeller Republican.
He will run on an image of balanced budgets ( a great thing compared
to Bush, but not the Holy Grail of progressives), the right to carry
guns (anathema to the progressives, but starting to make more sense
as Ashcroft's Gestapo and stoolie squads take shape), and an honest,
outspoken criticism of Bush's phony and real wars. He may be able to pull
moderate Republicans away from the GOP. Now, THAT gets my attention.

The problem for progressives is that the twenty year downsizing/outsourcing
of our economy and the ten year media propaganda campaign have
produced an entire generation of cynical, politically apathetic, and generally
government-hating, tax-hating, celebrity-worshipping, non-voters. By the
application of huge amounts of money, the American public has been moved
far, far to the right.

It may be that, in this climate, a Rockefeller Republican is as far to
the left as the "center" can be dragged in the next election. If that is
true, then Dean really is our only chance. And yes, I know that is what
we were told about Bill Clinton. But, if Bill Clinton could be the Democratic
candidate in 2004, would you vote against him? (Note, I am no big fan of
Mr. NAFTA, GATT, Telecom "reform", welfare "reform". He did balance
the budget, though.)

John Kerry, despite his carefully groomed military background, is too easy
to caricature as a rich Massachusetts liberal, tax-and-spend Democrat, ex-hippie
war protestor. Its not true, but the public is too propagandized to spot the lie.
We've seen the media do it before. The GOP will tie him to Teddy Kennedy
(whom I love, but whom much of the rest of the country hates), Michael
Dukakis, and every long-haired, wild-eyed poseur on a soapbox in Harvard
Square that Fox News can find, entice, or bribe.

As far as I'm concerned, Kerry has waited too long; pulled his punches
too long. Dean has blown right past him. You can say that this is all
a dastardly Karl Rove plot. Myself, I'm sick of double and triple spin;
and so is the public. They want someone willing to level with them, like
Dean. They don't want more equivocations from an insider like Kerry.
His position is way too nuanced to get through the media filter that is
running. He doesn't have any clear soundbites. He has to talk around
too much baggage.

Meanwhile, Dean operates, as the German General Rommel did. He is
always on the strategic offensive but the tactical defensive. That is, he
grabs a strong position when no one else appreciates that it is key. Then,
he defends that position when others come to realize its importance and
try to take it from him. He has clear soundbites; he's against the war
and for a balanced budget. That's the level of nuance that can get through
the media filter.

If the media try to label Dean a liberal, he pulls out his Rockefeller credentials.
If the media tell the truth, they are forced to admit that Dean has appeal
to moderate Republicans and fans of blunt spoken, hot-headed John McCain.
Either way, he wins. OTOH, if Kerry tries to run as Bush-lite, he loses the
progressives plus he is called a hypocrite by the media. If he runs as a
liberal, you will see a lot of video of Harvard Square and Michael Dukakis.
Is the contrast clear yet?

The other thing about Dean is that he has the Internet-savvy people. He
even admits they came to him. But, once again, its that Rommel tactic.
He recognized the value of this asset, which he now deploys in his defense.
The Internet is critical because it is the only source of real news, as
opposed to the corporate/GOP propaganda that plays non-stop on all
the corporate outlets. It is also a fund-raising demon. I do not sense much
Internet presence in the Kerry camp; and, like campaign advisers, once the
heavy-hitters have signed up, the remaining candidates are SOL. The
internet heavy-hitters have signed up with Dean.

Those are my instincts and my analysis. I've picked.

Can some Dean activist in Massachusetts tell me about the organization
here and in New Hampshire? I'm ready to join up. How do I take over my
local Democratic organization?



To all DUers:

Can we please try to "model" appropriate civic courtesy regarding our
INTRA-party contest? The American public has been subliminally indoctrinated
that politics is all about shouting loudly, cheating, kicking people in the nuts,
and never apologizing. If we want to get our democracy back, we have to
behave civilly towards people who DO have honorable intentions but disagree
with us. We have to show "good sportsmanship" to people who play the
game fairly. But, we have to identify thugs and phonies like 98% of the
GOP POLITICIANS, and DINOs like Lieberman.

This civility and courtesy can be carried over to INTER-party contests. How
do you separate the good sports from the thugs? My formulation is along
the lines of the classic diplomatic phraseology: "We don't have a problem
with the XXX people, we have a problem with the political leadership of
country XXX." The talking point in recruiting GOPers goes like this:

> I don't hate rank-and-file Republicans. When their principles and programs
> are not turned into ultimatums, they add greatly to the political discussion
> in this country. Recently, however, they have been led astray by a devious,
> secretive, phony leadership.
>
> I believe a lot of Republicans are appalled at how un-conservative this
> administration has been. The military, up to Joint Chiefs level, is angry at
> how it has been used and abused by the neocon Cabal. The NRA is appalled
> at Bush's action, both in America and in Iraq. The Libertarians think Bush
> is worse than Clinton. The states rights conservatives were double
> crossed by the Supreme Court in 2000, and by John Ashcroft many times
> since then. The people of Nevada were double-crossed by Bush over a nuclear
> waste dump. The business community is suffering heavily under extreme financial
> mismanagement and the lack of prosecution of well-connected crooks.
>
> I think rank-and-file Republicans should take a good look at Howard Dean,
> a centrist from a rural state, a supporter of gun rights and balanced budgets,
> a doctor, a person with Wall Street experience. Your loyalty to America
> is our strongest asset. I ask you to consider if George Bush has respected
> your loyalty or just thinks you are a chump who will salute the flag and
> obey orders. Look at Dean's record, and compare it with the "another
> McGovern" smear job that you are being told to swallow. Tell me that
> Dean is worse for the country than Arnold Schwarzenneger.

[Iverson]

1. nice post

It appears that you have thought through your reasons and made peace with your decision without rancor toward others. I say run with it.

You may want another term besides "intangible."

I echo your call for civil discourse. Glad you emphasised it.

[liberalmuse]

2. Excellent!

Bravo to you for writing this! You've just stated many of the reasons I'm supporting Dean, though I don't have the eloquence to say like you have. I also share the same stance in that I will support Kerry if he is nominated, but cannot support Lieberman.

If people in this country thought out every decision, especially in regards to voting, as you have so aptly demonstrated in this post, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.

Thanks for sharing!

[Jacobin]

3. Thank you for saying so eloquently and cogently what I have been

thinking but have been unable to put into words so very clearly.

Your call for civil discourse is appreciated. I too will support Kerry if he's nominated. However, I live in the South and you are accurate in your prediction that he will be smeared as a "Ted Kennedy" liberal, which pushes very hot buttons in rural america. Dean doesn't have that baggage.

I'll take a "Rockefeller Republican" over a neo-con warmongering idiot any day of the week and twice on Sunday. If that's as far as we can drag the country back toward the middle of the political spectrum (the alternative being to allow it to continue to fall off the RW cliff), then we should grasp that chance and run with it, IMHO.

I'm bookmarking this analysis. Thank you for putting it together. :-)

[Ardee]

4. Where to begin......

I guess I should begin with thanks for the well crafted post and the call for civility.

I do not disagree with your assessment of Dean as a moderate republican, Ive been saying that since his entrance into the race after researching his governorship. My problem with Dean his his apparent lack of honesty in defining his own position. He has attempted to don the mantle of Paul Wellstone, not Nelson Rockefeller.
I also have no problems with moderate republicans, I sympathise with them for their loss as I sympathise with democrats for their own loss!

If I have a problem with your post, other than it seems, in total, an apology for compromise, it is that it fails to consider the Kucinich campaign. It is still rather early in the race and ,while Deans campaign is long on savvy and technical know-how, if short on solutions to many of the problems we face (single payer health care being only one such), I want to vote for a President, not a computer literate campaign staff.

I have decided, after long and agonising decision making, to cast my vote for that candidate which best represents my own view of this nation and its direction. My vote will not go to someone I think electable at the expense of my own ideology.If I voted for a Dean, should he survive the DLC coup that seeks to silence him,then I betray my own political wants, a cut in the defense budget, increased safety nets for seniors,single payer health care, increases in education spending, and the panoply of needs for my fellow americans and the world.

At this point in the history of this republic, this nation that I love dearly, I see a sleeping electorate, I see voter turnouts at around 35%, I see a growing disgust with and a distrust of the entire political process.Compromising my conscience and voting for one who thinks himself a less literate Clinton will not change the course of this nation, it will only put the voters back to sleep, while the corporate interests that infect the body politic continue to sap our freedoms and our morals.

[Jacobin]

5. Here's the problem, IMHO

Kucinich reflects my political philosophy more closely than Dean. I'm completely and unalterably against the death penaly, for example, (I've been involved in the "justice system" and know what goes on there...its a farce) but I know that until the political discourse gets back toward the middle or left of middle, that there is absolutely no hope whatsoever of someone having that plank in their platform getting elected. NONE. His stance on gun control will create huge problems in the south, midwest and west. Huge problems. I'm not as gung ho on gun control, because i think it will simply create a black market for guns and won't be effective, but that's another story.

I don't want to say Kucinich is "unelectable" because for months, before Dean gained steam, I got furious at those who used to say Dean was "unelectable". However, I don't think he has nearly the chance to carry moderate and conservative states that Dean does. I won't repeat the reasons set forth by Arendt, but I think he has it nailed.

We desperately need to get the PNACers out of office before they start WWIII. (Lieberman is a PNACer, so he's out of the running for me). That, to me, is more important than a host of other social issues that I care about.

[arendt]

6. Let's see if I can do this "civil discourse" thing as well as you

First, let me say that Dennis Kucinich has written and spoken
words that belong in any honest history book of this terrible
time.

Intellectually, I can support a lot (but not all) of what Kucinich
says.

But, he is not as clean as you make him out to be. First, he has
the abortion-flip/flop baggage. How can you criticize Dean for
taking up Wellstone's mantle when Kucinich has been anti-
abortion his entire career. Please note the distinction. I am
not criticizing Kucinich for his change. I am criticizing your
double standard regarding candidate honesty.

Second, his platform is pure populism. It is too easy to target.
I hate to admit it, but when he spoke at the Chicago AFL-CIO
event, I cringed. He was shrill, his expression made him look
like a Ferrengi. In short, he doesn't care about the media image,
which is great if you are a politically committed person, deciding
on the issues. But, its terrible if you want to get the moron-
American vote.

Third and last. He cannot beat Bush. His record isn't strong enough.
He has no political base (a three term Congressman from Ohio
with a controversial stint as mayor). He has no money in this
Mammon-worshipping culture that is the kiss of death. And he
has no media oxygen - Dean is sucking up all the "outsider"
column inches.

I am sorry that I cannot support Mr. Kucinich for President. I would
definitely like to see him in some cabinet post.

I am too old to start over. I don't want to spend the rest of my life
in some GOP hell. Yes, I am compromising. I am compromising to
save my life and my country. This isn't a perfect system. In fact its
a system that gets uglier every day. Mr. Kucinich is too extreme to
be politically acceptable. Therefore Bush would beat him. I cannot
take that risk. I will not work to support a marginal candidate, in
spite of the fact that he is an amazing human being.

I must have really gotten conservative in my old age, because I'm
going to close with a quote from Admiral Sergei Gorshkov, commander
of the Soviet Navy:

"Better is the enemy of good enough."

The Democrats are not as rich as the Republicans. We cannot afford
to be holier than thou, especially when running against sanctimonious
hypocrites.

Thanks for your response. Please let me know if I gave offense in any
way.

arendt

[Ardee]

9. for both Jacobin and Arendt

Jacobin, a name implying extreme revolutionary outlook, is a bit ill used here, dontcha think? Putting another republican in office, and Dean fits that description (remember I already noted that Ive nothing against moderate republicans), is not what this nation needs in this moment of its peril. I do not seek to make this thread a Dean v. Kucinich one, frankly ,while I support Kucinich over Dean I do not commit a vote to him or anyone else at this time.

Arendt, your characterisation of my support of Kucinich betrays either an ignorance of the way he handled that right to life position or is a straw man. Dennis made it clear that he will do nothing to alter the law of the land regarding a woman's right to choose and his pro life opinion then becomes a big hint as to both his honesty and his leadership.He could have chosen ,as did Dean (sorry), to distort his real beliefs to gain votes. That he chose to tell the truth about his opinion on this explosive issue gives him much cred! Roe v. Wade is safe from Dennis' interference and is thus no issue at all.....

The real point of my rambling here is to say that I think it time for people to save this republic from itself. Frankly you can simply shove all the polls, I do not care for them in the first place, both parties do nothing at all without one or more of them and the whole vanilla, say nothing controversial crap sickens me! Never mind electing a compromise candidate who will aid and abet the continuing strangling of that which made america so special, who will continue to let corporate special interests rule this nation while ignoring the real needs of its citizens, who will just put folks back to sleep!

Frankly I would prefer a Bush relection as it will continue the polarisation of this country, it will not allow folks to resume their political slumbers, rather than see a continuation of the rule of the CEO's here!

[arendt]

12. Can't agree with you at all

You wrote:

Frankly I would prefer a Bush relection as it will continue the polarisation of this country, it will not allow folks to resume their political slumbers, rather than see a continuation of the rule of the CEO's here!



Then you belong with Nader and the Greens. You are standing on
principle and you want me to die for your principles. No thank you.
I'm not a revolutionary, and I don't like hardliners who can't compromise
to win.

Also, you missed my point about Kucinich. I was very specific that
I was not criticizing Kucinich, but rather criticizing your smear of Dean.
Your response was all about abortion, and nothing about your double
standard.

You also slammed Jacobin for his handle. Come on, give me a break.
Is that civil discourse? Or is it high-school name-calling?

arendt

[Jacobin]

16. So much for civil discourse

Cheap shot at my name doesn't further the discussion, but, what the hey.

Actually, I read a good biography of Napoleon a couple of years back and there was a long section on the French revolution and the extreme backlash against the Catholic church for attempting to maintain the monarchists in power. It got so ridiculous that they even re-named the months of the year in the calendar. The Jacobins were rabid anti-catholics in the context of the church trying to maintain the monarchy in power. I'm sort of attuned to the RW religious fundies and their current role in maintaining the neo-cons in power and their role in pushing for war to start their little rapture non-sense. My name is sort of a tongue in cheek reference to my revulsion of xtians creating problems in government.

There are a lot of Naderesque thoughts going through your post "gotta get worse before it gets better". I understand and sympathize with that approach, I really do. However, at this point, we are talking about the survival of our country. The dimwit in charge is clearly a danger to our survival, whether its attributed to his utter incompetence or the idiocy of his policies. My personal attitude is that we need to have something left of the country to save, rather than enabling Smirk to finish it off in another four years, but that's just me.

Hey, best of luck to you with Kucinich's campaign. If he gets the nomination, he'll get my vote. :-)

[Ardee]

17. no,no,no

there was no cheap shot intended in anything I said, sorry for your sensitivity or my clumsy efforts.....

Arendt, you raised the abortion issue, not I, you framed it in an inaccurate light , and I assume you did so with intent. I merely noted that Kucinich was completely honest wrt his position, stated his personal beliefs would not interfere with his upholding of the laws, while also noting that Dean has been rather disingenuous from the first, jumping on a dead mans shoulders, posing as a moderate while his entire political life is blatant in its conservative leanings. His term of office in Vermont was characterised by cutting of services to seniors, to the poor, to children and the weakening of environmental protections in favor of corporate interests. if these are your desires for the nation then by all means support Dean for president.....

Once again, any inference of insult or impolitic remark is unintended and merely reflects my lack of writing skills and not any mean spirited effort on my part, I save those for the neodemocrats, right wing republicans and the other enemies of my nation.......and yes, I firmly belief that ,if relecting Bush is the only way to energise this nation, then so be it. Electing Dean or any other centrist does nothing to resolve the root rot we see here.

[Jacobin]

21. What a disingenuous post

You are sorry for my "sensitivity" or blaming "clumsy writing skills" for dissing my name? I don't think it takes advanced writing skills not to be a boor.

And "if it takes the re-election of Smirk to galvinize the nation so be it". Hell that was the war cry of Nader in 2000. Look around you. Things have gotten awful. It hasn't worked. The media still analyzes Dem candidates in a vacuum and picks out their perceived "flaws" while covering for an complete and utter idiot in the WH who would be running against them.....someone with so many flaws and someone so inept and evil that there is no comparison to any president in our history.

[Ardee]

26. good day to you, incivility is your metier apparently

http://www.bartleby.com/61/70/J0007000.html

Jacobin

SYLLABICATION: Jac·o·bin
PRONUNCIATION: jk-bn
NOUN: 1. A radical or extreme leftist. 2. A radical republican during the French Revolution. 3. A Dominican friar.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, Dominican friar, from French, from Old French (frere) jacobin (translation of Medieval Latin (frter) Jacbnus, Jacobinic brother, from Jacbus, James, after the church of Saint Jacques in Paris, near which the friars built their first convent). Sense 2, from the fact that the Jacobins first met in the convent.

Why a rather innocuous comment, meant in jest, should provoke such a pathological reaction from you simply boggles my mind but Im far too busy to continue to care about being rebuffed for a slight that was imagined to begin with.........

As to Nader's comment he stated that IF it took the destruction of the democratic party to turn it around then so be it. I read and understand that he deeply regrets the demise of that party, wants deeply for it to be restored to its former position as a party embracing all democrats and sees its move to the right as a grave danger to the process here in america. Under Clinton we had full employment and a balanced budget, so, despite the growing unrest around the world, despite the growing prison population domestically, despite the ending of welfare without the necesary training and job searching for those cast out, despite the seeds planted by NAFTA and GATT that now sprout into job loss, unemployment and growing xenophobia, we saw fewer and fewer taking part in the political process. I do not want to lose the gains we have made among those who now see their responsibility to engage in that process, and that is what an election of a conservative democrat like Dean will mean.

While Dean will bring the same thing to the national stage that he brought to Vermont, the aforementioned cuts in services to the less powerful and the continued favoring of the corporation, he will also bring a sense that we have done our job, ridding the world of Bush, thus putting folks back to sleep while the real peril remains.......I truly and firmly believe, with no malice or insult intended, that we need far more sweeping reform to the political process than we will see under Howard Dean.

[arendt]

30. Stop hijacking my thread to rant about Jacobins.

The more you protest your civility the phonier you sound

I said that I am going to differentiate good sportsmanship
from weasel-wording and cheap shots.

You are wrapping your rocks in pretty paper before throwing
them. They are still rocks, and they hurt the discourse.

Jacobin gave a clear explanation of the meaning of his
handle, which he did not have to do. You insist on hammering
him after he has explained. You have the nerve to claim
that the "slight was imagined to begin with". I didn't imagine
it.

Civil discourse means acknowledging another person's
legitimacy, and refraining from getting into a slanging match.
You are deliberately provoking a fight. Those are exactly
the tactics that I hate.

arendt

[arendt]

24. Good luck to Kucinich, I would support him if he is nominated

That's about all the positive stuff I can think to say in response
to your heavily spun and manipulative post.

arendt

[Ardee]

29. gee Im manipulative and heavy handed too

fancy that....Scratch the surface of conservative ideology, however gently and one finds such hatred and vituperative response......You are so full of something found in excess in barnyards that to continue to respond is futile. Instead of honest debate you twisted what I said to your own purpose, while you raised Kucinichs stance on abortion, and did so with meanspirited intent to decieve, you then accuse me of support of a nonexistant double standard. When I noted that Dean is guilty far more of that double standard for his attempt to adopt the Wellstone mantle, an attempt that had poor Paul spinning in his grave no doubt, you simply repeat, in fine Rovian fashion, the earlier misleading innacurate slur........

Have a nice day...........

[arendt]

31. You sure dish it out, for a "liberal"

You have personally dumped all over my call for civil discourse.

It is the height of manipulation to start a fight and then blame
the other guy. Read the thread. You started the bashing. And,
you don't let up in spite of several attempts to stop it.

I'm putting you in my left-wing nut category. Go converse with
jacinto. I'm sure you have a lot to talk about.

Good bye

arendt

[dansolo]

56. Not interfere with his upholding the laws

Didn't Ashcroft say the same exact thing?

[Zuni]

20. about Dean

It would be a mistake to charecterize him as a 'moderate Republican'. I think he is a center left democrat and has the best chance of winning the primary and the election.
That is why I think we should put ideology aside and get Bush out of office by uniting behind Dean lock step.

[mandyky]

7. Your Questions about the Dean organization...

"Can some Dean activist in Massachusetts tell me about the organization here and in New Hampshire? I'm ready to join up. How do I take over my local Democratic organization?"

Have you been to a MeetUp? Or looked at deanforamerica.com? They have Camp Dean in NH this weekend, and the get local tools on the Dean website. Also try http://www.nhfordean.com/ (NH for Dean) and http://www.massfordean.org/ (MA for Dean), and email folks involved there for more info.

Welcome to Dean Nation!! Feel free to private message me if you need more Dean resoources or look at the links on the Dean blog.

[arendt]

8. Thanks for links; I'll get back to you after this thread winds down n/t

n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. Your post

articulates my feelings far better than I could. My husband and I have decided to support Dean because we believe he has common sense, realistic answers to the problems of our country. I am talking to Republicans who are unhappy with Bush, and telling them about Dean. So far, they are impressed.

[hippywife]

11. On the other hand...

I received this in an email yesterday and, being a Kucinich supporter, fully agree, of course. I do agree that useful dialogue regarding each candidate's stance is what is needed. We also need to stop with the threads bashing individual candidates and the "unelectable" mindset if what we want is significant and meaningful change, not just from the current administration, but from business as usual in this country.

An Open Letter to Dean Supporters

Dear Friends:

I write to you as a college student, an activist, and a friend. I write to you remembering the collective strength we carried when we filled campus quadrangles, city centers, and world capitals in protest of the attack on Iraq last spring. I write to you with deep pride and respect for the progress we continue to make toward true equality despite gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class or nationality. And I write to you as a personal believer in Congressman Dennis Kucinich. I urge you to please listen to what I have to say before turning away. We share a profound criticism of the Bush Administration and a fervent desire to defeat him next fall. A stubbornness and unwillingness to consider outside information will do nothing to strengthen our movement and everything to fracture it. I'm willing to consider any of your thoughts. Please take a moment to consider mine. Together we will truly "take back America."

I truly understand the power of momentum. I know how it feels to be part of a winning team. Having advocated tirelessly for peace and justice, I understand the tendency to want to run around screaming, "We were right!" when the press corps finally catches up with the Administration's lies. I see the excitement and the contagiousness of the movement for Governor Dean and I sincerely respect his ability to capture the support of so many who have been unwelcome in the American political climate for far too long. But when we, as a party, have the opportunity to select the candidate who most closely represents our ideals and who stands the best chance of beating Bush, it's imperative to look beyond sheer energy and towards a more nuanced solidarity. It's easy to stand for someone who is experiencing a popularity surge. It's ultimately more courageous and more important to stand for someone who stands for us.

So many are quick to look to the polls and determine that at 2%, Congressman Kucinich is "unelectable." I ask you to consider how President Clinton was polling at this time in 1991: 0%. He didn't even enter the race until October. I ask you also to remember how Governor Dean was polling his first few months in the race. Congressman Kucinich becomes "unelectable" only when progressives think too little of ourselves to believe that we can get the job done.

With his own passion, Governor Dean has electrified hundreds of thousands with his profoundly correct position that something is very wrong in the White House right now. I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly. While this election is about beating Bush, it is more importantly about spending the next four years righting his wrongs and setting the course of our Nation towards peace and prosperity. It is time to be brave enough to replace a system that leaves forty million people without health insurance, nine million people without jobs, and thousands of people without their lives as the casualties of wars without end. It is time to change the system so that we may advance towards the greater good of humanity. Congressman Kucinich provides us with the vision, the plan, and the experience to do so.

Governor Dean embraces a number of progressive issues; however, when compared to Congressman Kucinich point-by-point, his vision falls short. As progressives, it is in our nature to hold firmly to our ideals. Congressman Kucinich gives us the opportunity to no longer have to compromise them. On health care, Congressman Kucinich supports universal health care for everyone-a system promoted today by nearly eight thousand doctors who understand the national health repercussions of an uninsured populous. At both the Sheet Metal Workers debate and the AFL-CIO debate this week, Governor Dean rattled off a list of countries with health care for all and told us that it is time for the United States to "stop being second-class" in this regard. The nations he listed, such as Canada, provide single-payer universal coverage. Governor Dean's plan neglects the very important sector of the population between ages 18 and 67, and expands a flawed system instead of replacing it with one that has a proven track record worldwide.

Governor Dean should be praised for his landmark passage of the Vermont civil unions legislation. But Congressman Kucinich recognizes that we will never have true equality without full equality of opportunity. He is willing to go a step further than Governor Dean and support gay marriage. Likewise, Governor Dean understands the importance of protecting a woman's right to choose. Quite honestly, it took Congressman Kucinich some time to get to this point. But he now comprehends that without a progressive Supreme Court, our most important freedom as feminists is in danger. Congressman Kucinich is the only candidate who will require a Roe v. Wade litmus test for federal judges.

Further, Governor Dean supports a worker's right to organize. However, he refuses to cancel NAFTA and the WTO, which fundamentally restrict that right abroad, necessitating a race to the bottom in terms of environmental and human rights standards. We are the people who lined the streets of Seattle in 1999 to protest the ills the reckless globalization. Congressman Kucinich was literally one of us. Under President Kucinich, we will return to bilateral trade agreements that protect both workers and the world economy. Governor Dean is unwilling to take this stance.

On other issues, Governor Dean stands quite clearly apart from the progressive vision. He rejects federal gun control legislation and he supports the death penalty. While his popularity has boomed among antiwar activists, he repeatedly emphasizes that he is "not a pacifist." As progressives, we reject a view of the world that places American lives above all other humans. We see a sameness in humanity that does not distinguish between the civilians of the United States,Iraq and Afghanistan. Governor Dean has spoken out in unequivocal support of the first Gulf War and the invasion of Afghanistan. He is also on record with the Los Angeles Times for supporting a unilateral attack on Iraq if weapons of mass destruction were uncovered. When we protest war, we object to more than missing weapons. We stand in solidarity with the victims of the Taliban and the victims of Saddam Hussein and we reject a foreign policy that carelessly sacrifices their lives and makes ours less secure. Congressman Kucinich proposes a Department of Peace to advance nonviolence and diplomacy. Governor Dean, on the other hand, refuses to cut one dollar from a Pentagon that can't account for a trillion dollars this year alone.

Now is the time for courage. We need to stand strong and recognize that not one of ideals need be compromised. This is an unprecedented opportunity. When we face Bush next year, we will provide voters with the choice between jobs and unemployment, health care and HMOs, and peace and war. We deserve a candidate who will bring us to that point. Governor Dean brings us energy. Congressman Kucinich goes a step further and brings us vision.

I hope that you'll check out www.kucinich.us

In peace,
Mia Eisner-Grynberg

[newsguyatl]

13. blah

[Jacobin]

22. My question:

Will Kucinich supporters vote Nader/Green if Kucinich is not nominated?

[Iverson]

36. curious

How can any one person possibly offer assurances about what an entire group will do? Very probably, different people will do different things.

edited typo

[dsc]

40. baldly dishonest

To pretend that he has always been a supporter of gay marriage is just dishonest. When he ran for Congress in 96 he stated he saw no need to repeal DOMA. When we needed him on this he was AWOL. His campaign needs to set the record straight.

[Mairead]

48. Got a cite for that?

[dsc]

51. ah yea

You asked once before and I gave it to you then. Go to www.kucinich.net and click on the Plain Dealer Article dated July 23 about same sex marriage.

Here is a direct link to the article itself.

www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1058348272157840.xml

Here is a quote:

As a candidate for Congress in 1996, he said he opposed a change in law to allow same-sex marriages.

But yesterday, at a forum for presidential contenders sponsored by a gay-rights group, the Cleveland Democrat said "there should be a federal law that would allow gay couples to be married," rather than leaving the matter to the states.

"We cannot have states making separate rules with respect to basic human rights," Kucinich said at the Human Rights Campaign forum.

Asked about his apparent change since 1996, he told The Plain Dealer that gay issues were not in the forefront of his race that year against former Republican Rep. Martin Hoke. "The prin- ciple of equal protection un der the law should be ex tended to gays - and that in cludes mar riage," he said of his current position.

Again this is exactly what I said and I provided this once before and to you it should be noted.

Finally a quote from his website's gay rights section. It is exceptionally difficult to reconsile this quote and the stated reason he gives for his lack of support for repealing DOMA in 1996.

Dennis Kucinich's support of equal rights and civil rights for the GLBT community is unsurpassed by any presidential candidate. Indeed, he entered Congress in the mid-'90s after defeating a Republican incumbent by confronting and overcoming GOP "appeals to anti-gay bigotry," in the words of the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review. The incumbent had sought to make an issue of Kucinich's support for gay rights and support from Barney Frank.

[Mairead]

70. Sorry, I vaguely thought you had, but couldn't find it when i grepped

So thanks.

Now, do you have a cite for him claiming that he's 'always' supported GLB rights? (I think he should always have supported them, but that's a different issue--I'm old enough to remember when one couldn't even find a politician brave enough to say GLB people shouldn't be imprisoned. And he is, too.)

[dsc]

73. Post 11

Governor Dean should be praised for his landmark passage of the Vermont civil unions legislation. But Congressman Kucinich recognizes that we will never have true equality without full equality of opportunity. He is willing to go a step further than Governor Dean and support gay marriage. Likewise, Governor Dean understands the importance of protecting a woman's right to choose. Quite honestly, it took Congressman Kucinich some time to get to this point. But he now comprehends that without a progressive Supreme Court, our most important freedom as feminists is in danger. Congressman Kucinich is the only candidate who will require a Roe v. Wade litmus test for federal judges.

The implication here is clear. At no time during this campaign has he volunteered that he changed on this issue. Here in the very same paragraph that this letter writer says he took some time to come to his current position on abortion no mention whatsoever is made of it taking some time to come to his current position on same sex marriage. I presume that this letter was approved by the campaign. If so the campaign is being baldly dishonest.

[Mairead]

74. I asked for a quote, not an inference by you

If you haven't got one, then own up.

[nolabels]

76. What the heck is this an inquistion or something, what kind of tone is..

That? We run a civil board here and if you insist on attacking fellow members many might dog pile on it. Howard has stated repeatedly about supporting equal rights for all involved in our society. That is a fundamental tenant on any body that would get my vote. This whole crass business about marriage and such is so over the top.

These people that want bring religion into the matter of whether the state should allow it or not are sanctimonious at best. Frankly I could care less if religion ever indorsed a marriage I or any body else engaged in; this is strictly their business and nobody else’s

[dsc]

78. It is a hell of a lot more

than you have on the supposed draft dodging of Howard Dean. He has left the false impression amongst his supporters that he has always supported gay marriage. That isn't my fault it is his.

[Mairead]

87. Fine, you don't have a cite. Thought not.

[CMT]

14. Excellent post

which picks up on many of the same reasons I think that Howard Dean is the best candidate the Democratic party could nominate in 2004 and why I support him. It should be noted that New York Senator Jacob Javitz was also labeled a "Rockefeller Republican"--and he had ADA and Labor scores approaching 100% and was even endorsed and put on the ballot by the Liberal Party of New York when that party really did stand for something. A Rockefeller Republican is in many ways more liberal than many Democrats of today. When The GOP moved so far to the right many of the Rockefeller Republicans died off or moved to the Democrats. Only a few, such as Lincoln Chafee and Jim Jeffords (before he bacame a Independent) remain.

[Eloriel]

15. Yes, there are many times when I have thought of Dean as

a Rockefeller Republican. AND, having grown up in the 50s, that's NO insult to Dean (just in case anyone who is considerably younger than we are thinks it might be). I actually find Dean to the left of Clinton, which continues to validate whoever's line it is that put it this way: "Clinton is the only Republican I ever voted for."

I don't think you'll be disappointed with Dean. He continues to surprise me and in the most delightful of ways (such as performing at a Blues club on steel guitar and harmonica AND learning that he never even had music lessons -- not that this is in any way "important" but as I said, I find them delightful).

And yes, he's attracting Republicans, and many, many others:

Republicans for Dean
http://republicansfordean.blogspot.com/

Independents for Dean
http://deanindependents.org/

BRAND New Democrats for Dean
http://brandnewdemocrats.blogspot.com

(Senior Citizens for Dean doesn't have a website yet)

African Americans for Dean (new)
http://www.africanamericansfordean.com/AA/

Doctors for Dean
http://www.doctorsfordean.org/

Americans with Disabilities for Dean
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=community_americanswithdisabilities

Official Website
http://www.deanforamerica.com

Official Blog
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/

You'll want to check the Official Blog at least daily, AND read some of the Comments posted.

Eloriel

[arendt]

28. Thanks for the links. n/t

n/t

[poskonig]

18. Nice job!

I've seen many junk Dean > Kerry threads, but this was sincere, well thought, and insightful.

Thanks!

[WilliamPitt]

19. Good work

A well-made case indeed.

[arendt]

25. Thanks, and please pass along what you think appropriate to your guy

I tried real hard to get excited about Kerry. I visited his office,
talked to his people.

I felt and still feel that they are way too low-key. They don't
have the right level of urgency, and they are counting too
much on his military credentials. You can't just show up and
expect to beat the neocons. You have to hit them hard and
don't stop even when they are bleeding and unconscious.

I hope Kerry snaps out of it. He would make a good candidate
if he would go back to being the guy who ran the Kerry commission.

arendt

[GalleryGod]

35. I Think Kerry Might Know A wee Bit More About Politics & War

I'll trust his judgement. I printed and graded your paper B+
you are welcome in my "American Presidency" class anytime.

[GalleryGod]

38. Sit down,Pitt! (Thwwwwhack!)

:crazy: besides that,you're 10 minutes late for class again!:evilgrin:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. I agree...mostly

I'm a tepid Dean supporter only because he is the one openly anti-war Democratic candidate that has a viable chance to defeat the pro-war Democratic candidates and Bush. My first choice would be Sharpton and would gladly vote for him if I thought he had a chance. Followed by Mosely-Braun and Kucinich. But, realistically speaking, I don't think any of those 3 have a chance unless Dean falters.

But, where I part from you, is that if Kerry (Lieberman, Gephardt, or Edwards) should win the nomination, I'll be voting Green.

He's far from being liberal enough for me but Dean will do.

[arendt]

27. I'm with you on Lieberman and Edwards, but not Kerry.

> if Kerry (Lieberman, Gephardt, or Edwards) should win the nomination, I'll
> be voting Green.

If Lieberman or Edwards wins, it will be evidence that the Democratic
party has already suicided.

If Kerry wins, I will work very hard to get him in because he has a
chance of getting Bush and the neocons out of the government and
most importantly, out of the military.

We have to root out these traitorous neocons, who have been
implanted all over the government. Kerry has the contacts to do
this.

But, in any case, we can have this discussion after the convention.
Why waste energy on hypotheticals when we can go out and
gather votes?

arendt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Hypotheticals?

I was responding to your hypothetical when you stated that you would vote for him "if Kerry wins".

From what I understand (I could be wrong) DU will not allow discussions that are tendered by those who are not going to vote Democratic after the convention.

[arendt]

33. Sorry, I'm confused, could you unpack it a little?

Yes, we are both dealing on the hypothetical result of the
convention.

I said, hypothetically, that I would vote for Kerry if he were
the nominee.

You said, hypothetically, that you would not if he were.

> From what I understand (I could be wrong) DU will not allow discussions
> that are tendered by those who are not going to vote Democratic after the
> convention.

As I read this, you are saying that you are in violation of what
you understand to be DU rules. That doesn't make sense to me.

Please explain.

arendt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. "after the convention"

is the telling point. After the convention, once the nominee is selected, (no matter who), I have heard that DU will no longer allow comments from people who are not going to vote for that candidate. As I said, I could be wrong. I merely read it on another thread that accused us of "disloyalty" to the Democratic Party if we refused to march lockstep to the voting booth and do as we were told.

[arendt]

43. Since when is DU the political correctness police?

I would argue that it is in your own self-interest to vote for
Kerry if he turns out to be the nominee. I will not try to
intimidate you into voting my way. I will try to convince you.

If it were only yourself that you were looking to martyr,
I would say "have fun". But, its my neck you are also putting
in the noose.

So, please, please, work your heart out for Dean, but if you
have to, vote for Kerry.

There are a lot of Democrats who think that, with all they
know now, it would have been better for America to vote
for Hubert Humphrey over Nixon and Jimmy Carter over
Reagan.

Please think about the pain our country will go through if
Bush is not defeated.

arendt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. I've certainly taken it all into consideration.

My belief is that Bush has but one leg on a three legged stool holding him up. That leg is the perception, generated by Rove and similar puppetmasters, that Bush is a great "War President". The truth is that the invasion of an impoverished 3rd world country with a 5th rate military led by an egomaniacal tyrant, was a slaughter condemned by most of the world. The public is slowly becoming aware of that.

On virtually every other issue, the economy, the environment, civil rights, health care, etc, the public is in opposition to his policies.

Kerry, or any of the Democrats, in a debate should be able to demolish Bush on any of those issues. But, on the one issue, the key issue, what can Kerry (or, the other three) say without twisting themselves into pretzels?

IMO Kerry, if nominated, can't win in the face of his "war" vote and Bush's $$$$$ supplied by his capitalist pals.

That said, even if I thought he (or, the other 3) could win, if nominated, I still wouldn't vote for him. They have the blood of innocents on their hands, just as surely as Bush and his cronies have.

Voting in favor of naked aggression, in the face of world opinion, with the known consequences of the act, for the sake of political expediency and ambition, is unforgivable in my eyes. I've often compromised and voted Democratic despite differences in what I believe and what this or that candidate stood for (Clinton, Gore, Carter), but there is a limit when it comes to the shedding of blood for political gain.

I remain unconvinced.

[arendt]

53. Yeah, I know how it feels, but...

I lived through Nixon and Reagan.

Think of Kerry as a lousy, corrupt top sergeant, who might
know how to fight. If he happens to be the commander of
your army, you fight for him because you will get killed by
the enemy sooner or later if you just walk away from your
own army.

Yes, Kerry is all you say. But he is not Bush. We have to
win first in order to survive, and later to fix things.

If Kerry wins, we can settle with him later, with time off
for the good behavior of winning.

I am totally pragmatic here. Four more years of Bush is
more than enough time to complete the ruination of America.
It would be the ruin of all I have worked for my entire life,
the ruination of this once-great country for a long time.

Set against that, the fact that our chosen leader is a crud
is just not enough to make me walk away from him. This
is triage, people are going to die. We have the thankless
task of deciding who lives and who dies.

I respect your opinion, but I beg you to keep an open mind.
Bush is a disaster, and I will not scruple to be saved by a knave.

arendt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. Point taken and considered.

I don't think that Bush will "ruin" America in four years if reelected. The forces that are ruining America, corporitsm, nationalism, materialism, arrogance, racism, etc, are not run by Bush, he is merely their representative. American society's drift to the right isn't a result of Bush's election, it was already moving in that direction with the tacit approval of much of the Democratic Party leadership. Bush is merely speeding the process a bit faster than some of his "opponents".

To me this conflict isn't between Republicans/Democrats, liberals/conservatives, centrists/leftists, but the poor against the rich, the weak against the powerful. It's not going to stop because this or that candidate is nominated or elected. Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, could do no more than slow it, perhaps humanize it bit.

Don't mistake me, I don't despair. To paraphrase Gandhi, We will win, we always win.

Just a matter of picking sides. You don't stop murderers by passing them ammunition. Kerry was an ammo passer.

[redeye]

34. Very insightful...

...The actual reasons I support Dean is not electability but rather leadership and issues. On many things, such as the death penalty, I agree with Kucinich more than I do with Dean; however, Dean's so much better on separation of church and state (which is essentially my most important issue), ties on foreign policy, and loses very narrowly on privacy and the Fascist Act.

As for Kerry, I'm ambivalent about him. Like Dean, he shows leadership skils, but not anywhere to the same extent. Dean strikes me as being a better leader than any living politician I can name other than Clinton; Kerry is better than Kucinich on that point, but still clearly trails being Dean.

Waht I like the most about Dean, apart from his secularism, is his way of giving voters a choice. "You can either vote for Bush and have your 200 dollars in tax cuts, or vote for me and get better health care, better education," he says. He gives voters a clear alternative rather than plays the populist card and forms his opinions according to what the people like.

Oh yeah, and on another note, check my NK Government thread on the back apges of GD - it's called "A better model for government - sicne the current one is outdated" - will you?

[arendt]

37. Can you give me a bookmark or something for the NK gov thread?

Sorry I got distracted off that. The voy website was pretty dead.

These days I'm into Hierarchical Bayesian Inference and
Support Vector Machines - the latest in Machine Intelligence
technology.

I will try to read what you are saying.

I'm hoping to wind this thread down soon, having stopped
listening to Ardee's rants.

arendt

P.S. Interesting points on Dean's secularism

[redeye]

41. I'm trying to find it

I posted a new thread here asking people where it is. Last time I did it a moderator deleted that thread and PMed me, informing me that my original post was moved to the Meeting Room.

[jiacinto]

42. I support Dean

Mainly because he is actually standing up to Bush, whereas the other candidates aren't. As for Lieberman he isn't a DINO, but the sheer hatred for him on this board borders on the irrational.

[arendt]

44. Okay, sorry for the cheapshot

Thank you for supporting Dean. I was remembering the
vehemence with which you defend your postions.

But, Lieberman is a DINO. He is a Zionist, corporatist,
militarist whore. He sold out Al Gore in a New York
minute. Please lets not divert this thread to Lieberman.

arendt

[jiacinto]

63. It is a cheapshot

And I love how you said the word "Zionist". Why is it that you are singling out Lieberman for his views on Israel when almost EVERY OTHER Democrat running shares the same position? And Edwards and Kerry voted for the war too. Why aren't you labelling them with the same label? Also, if you bothered to go to Project Vote Smart, you would see how little the conservative organizations that rate senators think of Lieberman.

[Jacobin]

72. I think there is a difference

Joseph has been on TV a lot of late promoting the invasion as "just" and continuing to try to pretend that it was a good idea despite the WMD fantasy. Kerry, to his credit, is questioning the rationale for the invasion (although he's not out of the dog house for voting for the war resolution in my book).

Joseph is a PNACer through and through and unapologetic about it. Do you have any doubt at all that he will support Smirk to the hilt when he proposes invading Iran and Syria??

[jiacinto]

75. Iran is a terrorist supporting country

That country was more of a threat than Iraq. But the point is that every other Democrat running supports Israel. So why is Lieberman getting singled out for it by the Palestinian extremists on this board?

[nolabels]

83. What was that MLK said about finding the biggest.........was his .......

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/



The CIA history of operation TPAJAX excerpted below was first disclosed by James Risen of The New York Times in its editions of April 16 and June 18, 2000, and posted in this form on its website at:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html
This extremely important document is one of the last major pieces of the puzzle explaining American and British roles in the August 1953 coup against Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadeq. Written in March 1954 by Donald Wilber, one of the operation’s chief planners, the 200-page document is essentially an after-action report, apparently based in part on agency cable traffic and Wilber’s interviews with agents who had been on the ground in Iran as the operation lurched to its conclusion.
Long-sought by historians, the Wilber history is all the more valuable because it is one of the relatively few documents that still exists after an unknown quantity of materials was destroyed by CIA operatives – reportedly “routinely” – in the 1960s, according to former CIA Director James Woolsey. However, according to an investigation by the National Archives and Records Administration, released in March 2000, “no schedules in effect during the period 1959-1963 provided for the disposal of records related to covert actions and, therefore, the destruction of records related to Iran was unauthorized.” (p. 22) The CIA now says that about 1,000 pages of documentation remain locked in agency vaults.
During the 1990s, three successive CIA heads pledged to review and release historically valuable materials on this and 10 other widely-known covert operations from the period of the Cold War, but in 1998, citing resource restrictions, current Director George Tenet reneged on these promises, a decision which prompted the National Security Archive to file a lawsuit in 1999 for this history of the 1953 operation and one other that is known to exist. So far, the CIA has effectively refused to declassify either document, releasing just one sentence out of 339 pages at issue. That sentence reads: “Headquarters spent a day featured by depression and despair.” In a sworn statement by William McNair, the information review officer for the CIA’s directorate of operations, McNair claimed that release of any other part of this document other than the one line that had previously appeared in Wilber’s memoirs, would “reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the national security of the United States.” Clearly, the “former official” who gave this document to The New York Times disagreed with McNair, and we suspect you will too, once you read this for yourself. The case is currently pending before a federal judge. (See related item on this site: “Archive Wins Freedom of Information Ruling Versus CIA”)
In disclosing this history, the Times initially reproduced only a summary and four appendixes to the original document. It prefaced each excerpt with a statement explaining that it was withholding the main text of the document on the grounds that “there might be serious risk that some of those named as foreign agents would face retribution in Iran.” Eventually, the Times produced the main document after excising the names and descriptions of virtually every Iranian mentioned.
(snip)

[nolabels]

58. Your correct jiacinto, I need to tone it down some

I think from now on I will only display my outright hatred for Joe Lieberman every other day; the days in between I will just ignore him. What part Joe's raise taxes on the middle class to support the War Machine don't you understand?

[dsc]

84. What middle income tax did Lieberman raise?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[lindashaw]

45. Bravo, beautifully said!

[helleborient]

47. Thank you - great post

There are a number of Democrats who are genuinely rather Conservative on fiscal issues while strongly liberal on social issues. That is what I see as possible with Dean as president, and is a strong draw for young Republicans in particular. I've talked to young registered Republicans who are terrified by Bush's budget deficit...and considerably to the left of him on social issues such as abortion, gay rights, and affirmative action.

To me a balanced budget with a socially liberal president means a real chance for universal health care.

I wish there were more Democratic candidates as successful as he is at this point in genuinely exciting the public. As a Midwesterner, I believe his release of a real plan to revitalize rural America is a stroke of genius. It telegraphs "I really do care" to Iowans and beyond out to all of these small Great Plains and Western states...much the same way television ads in Texas imply he hasn't forgotten about Democrats and liberal Republicans there.

Please, if Kerry and Kucinich do want me to take a second look, do something to get me excited, because I don't trust you can genuinely excite independents and leaning Republicans if you can't excite a committed Democrat like me.

[dkf]

49. Yup.

I'm supporting Dean because he is one tough you know what (and in addition, the man really cracks me up!).

In addition, I like the fact that Dean uses his veto pen. He is such a dominant personality that I really feel he can control a Republican congress. Can you imagine Tom Delay trying to take him down? I don't think that would work. In fact, I'd pay good money to see that happen!

From all accounts, Kerry is a tough guy (witness the Vietnam war) but I personally haven't seen it. All I've seen are things that are supposed to portray him as being tough, e.g. motorcycle, water sports, etc. These things just seem so contrived.

I can't see and haven't seen Kerry really taking charge and taking the Repubs on. Yeah he's trying to take Dean on, but Dean smacks back so hard that it's starting to look ugly.

In the beginning, I liked what Dean was saying, but I really loved Kerry's pedigree. I was so ready to jump for Kerry. Let's face it, it would have been so much easier for the Dems if he could just step up to the plate and be our true leader. Can you imagine if Kerry could energize everyone like Dean could? He and we would be unstoppable.

In the end, Kerry gave me no reason to put my all into backing him. I guess that is what makes me so mad about John Kerry. Theoretically he SHOULD be a better candidate than Howard Dean. Why can't he do it? What the heck IS he doing! I think he needs to get rid of those Gore advisors. They are pathetic.

God, if Kerry wins the nomination I'm gonna be pulling my hair out in frustration just like I was dying over those other "pink tutu" dems.

p.s. To all you Kerry fans out there who would like to wap me on my head, I know you go on about all the brave things he's done in the past, but I know what I've been seeing in this election and its all about that old saying: "Who do you believe? Me or your lying eyes".

p.p.s. Wow. Until I started going off like this I didn't realize that the thing that bothers me the most about John Kerry is that he is underachieving in relation to his potential.

[Cha]

50. Interesting read! Thanks!

[Cha]

52. Thanks, arendt! I really enjoyed reading your post!

To me Dean is a man who defies labels and just does what he thinks is right and best at the time! And Dean does change positions but I can relate to change if I think there is a better way of doing things.

Not like that bush character who is said to be rigid once he makes a decision (can't we just see the wheels turning?). :-(


Thanks for articulating your thoughts so well on the Board. :-)

[dean4america]

54. Bravo!

Arendt,

As a Dean supporter, I just wanted to thank you for the cogently argued post in support of the Good Doctor.

[dsc]

57. kick

kick

[pizzathehut]

59. Where does Dean stand on...

Corporate CEO pay?

Immigration?

Jobs being sent overseas?

He doesnt seem to want to confront these issues... just attack Bush.

[dajabr]

60. He might be a little light on immigration policy...

I watch his campaign closely and you may have a case there. But for the others, you're not being fair when you say he has not tackled those issues.

He's been talking about them a lot (Google search should prove me out). His policy points can be found here if you want a condensed version:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_economy

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[pizzathehut]

61. He says nothing about CEO pay or job losses overseas

First thanks for the links.

But they are all very vague with just general ideas like eliminating tax cuts and raisng the minimum wage. Neither one will create jobs.

His idea of putting more money into cities wont matter, that only works for a short time. Then they pull out later. Its still no good when they can outsource industrial jopbs to Mexico and tech jobs to India.

ps. thanks, its fun...

[dajabr]

62. You're welcome. Here's one more...

I guess we can debate the vagueness of his speeches til the sun comes up. But, he's been out there talking about this stuff.

You may find this more helpfull:

http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/politics/candidates_dean.cfm

[pizzathehut]

66. Much better thank you

That page was better. He at least mentions the pay gap.

"I was outraged when the CEO of American Airlines recently asked union members to sacrifice wages and benefits as part of a company-wide restructuring, while he was secretly protecting his own compensation package. As President, I will pursue policies that address the growing gap between executive pay and worker salaries. For example, I would explore proposals to limit the tax deductibility of grossly disproportionate executive compensation."

He says he will "pursue policies" and "explore proposals". Still vague.

I want a law that limits what a person can make. Say 20 times what others make. Like Ben and Jerrys did. Sounds simple to me.

And he says some about losing jobs overseas by negotiating trade agreements. Still nothing about outsourcing labor.

[nolabels]

64. Do you want to start from where we are, or from where we would ........

Like to to be. Sometimes the most difficult questions cannot be answered in one flailed swoop, piecemeal work is where its at sometimes. If you want someone to threaten everybody you don't like, you might have to wait a long time. Frankly I think low income people should not budge and inch (besides where would they go?) and try to bring moderate incomes with them. Class warfare in America is ripe for the picken, but should we want more on our plate to work with? I would like to get on a rant, but this read so much better.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/forum_dean.html
(snip)
One of the largest and most important and most significant problems in this country, which I keep telling my conservative friends that they ought to have a stake in, is the enormous growing gap between the wealthy and the poor in this country. And even if you're not motivated by humanitarian and social justice, even if you're a conservative businessperson who doesn't care about social justice, you ought to pay attention. Because historically, the result of the enormous gap in any country between the wealthy and the poor is civil unrest. We all have a stake in not repeating what went on in the Depression. And this President's policies frighten me greatly. Because we are taking money out of the social security trust fund and giving them an IOU in order to cut taxes for people who make $300,000 dollars a year. I simply do not wish to engage in class warfare, but I think that's just bad public policy. If you give tax cuts to people who have high discretionary incomes, they don't spend the money. And that's what this president has chosen to do to stimulate the economy.

Let me tell you how I want us to stimulate the economy. The first thing I want to do is reform the health care-- No, excuse me. I don't want to reform the health care system. I want to include everybody in the health care system. And in order to include everybody in the health care system, you can't actually reform the system. Because what happens when you do that is the Democrats all fight among ourselves about how would have a single-payer, or managed care, employer based. And then the interest groups come in and finance Harry and Louise to build a plan, and they do. What we need is to do what we did in Vermont. What john said is true. Everybody in Vermont, 99%, is eligible for health insurance. Ninety-six percent have it. I simply want to expand Medicare, Medicaid, and an employer-based system to cover everybody. If you do that, you don't just insure everybody and join every other industrial country in the world that guarantees health insurance for everybody. You also stimulate small business.

Now, if you want to stimulate the economy, the most important sector to look at is small business. Why? Because small businesses create more jobs than anybody else. My first trip to Iowa-- One of the great things about running for president-- I think they call that a smattering of applause. One of the great things about running for president is you learn while you campaign, because if you listen to people, you can pick up a lot of things. One of the things I learned when I went to Iowa the first time, more than a year ago, is that folks don't trust corporate America anymore, and not because of Enron and Arthur Andersen, but because they are fundamentally convinced that American corporations are not really American anymore, because, even though they pay good benefits, and they pay good wages, that they'll move their jobs and their assets to any other country in order to maximize their return.

I went home after that early trip to Iowa, and I had a cabinet meeting. I said, "Look, we've been doing economic development wrong in this country. We've done it here wrong in Vermont." Because small businesses are much more difficult to deal with, you have to deal with 20 of them to get 300 jobs, instead of one. They can't hire architects and engineers. They're more likely to go into bankruptcy, and therefore more taxpayer money is at risk when you help them. But the truth is, small businesses not only create more jobs than large corporations, they don't move to China. That is a critical piece. We have spent an enormous amount of money in this country shoring up large companies that take their production offshore. We need to do this differently.
(snip)

[pizzathehut]

65. An interesting snip, but still short on solutions.

First, yes questions can be answered quickly by giving straight answers. Ross Perot was good at it. Not speeches, not stories or metaphores. Just answers.

Yes Dean says he cares about the little people (who doesnt). I like his idea of medical reform but he doesnt say how he will pay for it when their is no tax base because jobs have been moved overseas. What good is employee provided healthcare when you make less than $10 an hour? And what kind of small businesses is he talking about that pay such good wages they can be compared to whats offered working at an auto plant?

Is he in favor of tariffs? Taxes on imports? Will he pass a law saying nobody in any company can make more than 20 times what someone else makes? Sorry but I want to see specifics.

[nolabels]

67. I don't either, I didn't find too many and don't suppose I would

I have been looking at a lot of things. I haven't seen any bill proposed by congress person that's running for president that would target CEO's pay. That would fundamentally anti-capitalist making the sponsor a true form Commi-pinko.

Realistically though every candidate has faults. One of Howard’s is coming from the wrong side of the track and making it very easy for him to smooze with them and thinks it’s quite normal, while us at the other end would become upset with such things. Something to watch I would say. I don't think he is materialistic greedy, but some similar traits are noticeable.

Remember arendt post gravitated towards two people and do you think the other guy would be more progressive concerning such things?
I really don't like bash people, but I do like check peoples track record before voting for them. I try not to believe too much about what they say anyway, I like watch what they have done of their own accord.

[pizzathehut]

68. Yes look at record

instead of speeches. Politicians always like to hide their records behind speeches.

Unfortunately its those wealthy people who give the most money to campaigns.

[Lexingtonian]

69. That's too easy, in my opinion

Your post is cogent and reasonable and well written. And I would agree with it if I believed in the implicit premises you do. Some years ago I would have, but I don't now.

You make the overall presumption that the present campaign is about what middle class, middle aged, mostly white-ish, Americans think/want/hope for. And Dean holds a mirror up to this class of people and their concerns, tells them that he's going to be their candidate and play out their frustrations in Washington. And with a certain amount of finessing liberal and conservative labelling, that will do to get him elected. The summary diagnosis would then be that it's all sort of a corporate management problem and the cure would be Dean.

In my opinion that's easy, it seems obvious, and it is wrong. It ignores why Bush was (s)elected in the first place- that's where Dean supporters have to plead that the country got duped, when it obviously wasn't- and beyond that it ignores all the other stakes that the Nixon and Gingrich-led movement has played for for the past 20-25 years. These are really: who the elite is, what games they will play, the way the national wealth is distributed, and whether lines of class will remain racial as well. The white middle class is plays a large role in the sociopolitical evolution (or lack thereof) of the society, but the Dean campaign's political argument massively exaggerates its actual power (e.g. campaign dollars and number of swingable votes), suffering, significance (as proportion of voters), and- in my opinion- internal common ground.

I think your presumptions about Dean's real level of appeal to moderate Republicans and Kerry's lack thereof have become clouded by wishful and other thinking. Rove's obvious move against Dean is to run Bush as a Christian, as a 'Texan' (part of the Southern/Midwestern elites but looking like a noble cowboy), and as a warrior of action rather than loud talk. Do you really imagine that the Republicans you know will vote for Dean as William Lloyd Garrison and against Bush The Marlboro Man And Robert E. Lee In One? And Dean's real weakness is with black and Latino and other non-white voters- do you really imagine that they feel he speaks on their behalf, for things that matter to them?

In my opinion the Dean movement is perhaps the last or second-to-last stage of development of white middle class grief about their sociohistorical lot. Having achieved prosperity and social peace, their Mayberrys are suddenly smitten with the issues and problems of The Rest Of America and a political activist defense is mounted. Anderson was the Denial stage (sublimed into Reagan's Feel-Good-ness), Perot the Bargaining, Nader and McCain and Dean are various aspects of the Bitterness stage. Well, the American white middle class is what it is by being interposed between the white elites and the white and non-white working classes, and as such it profits from as well as pays dearly for that arrangement.

The major game of American politics, as I see it, is between two groups of elites. One is Southern and Midwestern and 'conservative'; the other one is Northeastern and West Coast and 'liberal'. There are two great trends in the past thirty years: Hispanic population growth has gotten the society halfway to majority non-whiteness, and technological change has driven similarly large economic change and wealth 'instability' to the point where the U.S.'s semi-colonial socioeconomic arrangement got into trouble. The conservative elites didn't need to do anything except harness white middle class fear of change, and so they've had an easy ride for much of that time. The liberal elites fell behind the curve politically with their constituents, except for Bill Clinton and a few others, and is only now catching up. The American white middle class is in a precarious balancing act between the two, and Dean is the latest political expression of the dilemma.

I agree with you that Dean and Kerry are going to be the major players in this primary campaign. What one badly lacks the other has too much of, for both of them. I don't see either one holding a real advantage over the other at this point, your claims don't persuade me about that. We'll see whether they are as even in December, when Bush will have either rebounded or be facing collapse of his Presidency. I find more promise in Kerry's run so far, though admittedly it has been slow to shift its focus away from the upper tiers of society and power, and clear limitations to Dean's. But at this point, Anybody But Bush will do.

[arendt]

71. Great response

I'm sorry that I don't have time to do justice to it in this
too brief response.

Your point about the whiteness of the Dean and Kerry
campaigns is well made. Also, I'm assuming that your
"two elites" is a reference to the Carol Quigley "Yankees
vs Cowboys" theory. Please don't bash. I'm not calling
you a conspiracy nut. Quiqley taught Clinton at Georgetown.
What you say about the fight behind the scenes is so
true.

But, to borrow from Lenin, "What is to be done?" Are
you saying the Dems have to run a person of color?
That would be the end of them. Count the votes.

With the William Lloyd Garrison analogy, it seems you
are saying that the cowboy mentality has totally and
finally defeated the morality component of the yankees.
You are saying there is no honest (as opposed to Rush
Limbaugh phony) moral outrage at what Bush is doing
to be found in the middle class.

The impression I get is that you think the middle class is
the problem, not the solution.

My personal opinion is that the middle class has always
been the most progressive; and if it goes, any hope of
helping the poorer people goes with it. But, since 1950
or so, the nature of the middle class has been in flux.
From 1945 to about 1970, a large influx of what used to
be just laborers joined the middle class. From about 1975 to
the present, those people have been shoved out of that
class by corporate downsizing and flight, union busting,
and tax cuts that wreck their access to opportunity. So,
these 50 years have been "a wash" as far as the middle
class goes.

A lot of the bad attitude you ascribe to the *entire* middle
class is the resentment of those who thought they had
finally grabbed the brass ring only to have it stomped
out of their hands - i.e., the working class guys who live
in a shitty suburb and can't afford college tuition for their
kids.

The energy for the Dean movement comes from the
people who have always been middle class - professional
people. They see the country being turned into a banana
republic with a bunch of religious loons given police
power. They are smart enough to understand history.
They have plenty of examples of Jews and Huegenots
being kicked out of fundamentalist countries.

Let me spell it out. The Dean supporters are committed
to there being an intellectual life in America. But they
are not suicidal. They will work their butts off for someone
who supports them, but if they lose, a lot of them will
head for the exits. America will start to look like Spain
after the Jews were evicted.

----

I'm sorry if I have misunderstood your post. At least you
say, Anybody But Bush. But, in general, I was left feeling
that you think the entire middle class is being punished for
its sins, and it ought to take its medicine. Although, I
never understood exactly what medicine you were proposing.

In any case, thanks for your lenghty post. I will read it again
if I have time, and try to get more understanding.

arendt

[Lexingtonian]

77. Ok....

I think the middle class is pretty evenly split between liberals and conservatives at this point. I don't ascribe great virtue or particular lack of virtue to the middle class- given its large numbers, there will be perceptible quantity of both to be found by those looking for it. I'm not convinced that there is middle class consensus to resist a banana republic, a Third World-izing, if the ruling elite(s) provide enough in the way of bribes/privileges. There are places you can go in California where people live and imagine and want the state to be as in the 1930s- and it's definitely a very cushy and nice life for middle class whites, and exactly what Republicans talk about in code, provided the white middle class can overlook the pain it causes by this colonial arrangement. So it's not new, it's the old way of doing things.

Sure there is middle class outrage over what is happening. I've become convinced that it's not a large enough proportion. Look at the tax cuts and the Iraq war- most of it responded with great attraction to the conservative baits and flimsy morality by which it is justified. When things go wrong it is on the whole more inclined to blame its social inferiors- it's less dangerous to do so- than its social superiors. Remember the fear of nonexistent 'crime' of the late '80s and early '90s in middle class neighborhoods that were becoming a little integrated, and the little that got done about rising crime in working class and working poor areas? The 'welfare queen'? The argument that those people who pay little in the way of taxes shouldn't get as much back from the government as the rich?

In short, I think the middle class is polarized but ultimately pretty evenly split at the polling booth in the present situation. The political majority it will give one side or the other is not going to turn on what activist factions of itself do and say- that class solidarity isn't there, in my opinion. It depends on what the leaders of the two sides do and to what extent they are perceived to be reliable- reliable as liars of a certain kind, even.

Btw, the middle class is not the intellectual class; a crust of the upper middle class is. The middle middle class is educated, not intellectual. It likes intellectual things like it likes art.

So my argument is that the white middle class is not the salvation that the Dean movement proposes, and Perot and McCain (lower/middle middle class) and Anderson (upper/middle middle class) and Nader (bohemian wing of the middle class) have already gone there before and revealed the limitations. The good news in the Dean phenomenon is that the liberal half of the middle class has finally decided to become more focussed and put more money and effort into their interests.

What is needed, in my opinion, and my previous post was to explain the problem in the most neutral terms that seemed accurate, is for the candidate to go at and unify the whole social pyramid, white and nonwhite, of the liberal/left electorate. But the Dean movement's mistake, in my view, is to want to lop off the upper classes in the Democratic social pyramid without any proper understanding of the amount of power and ability to govern they represent or what their dilemmas and efforts for the good amount to- they get short shrift as 'Skull and Bones', 'PNAC', or 'DLC' or several other classist and/or idiotlogical codewords.

So I'm still betting the other way, that Kerry gets more of the job I see necessary done that Dean does, but I can't say I'm happy with either one at this point. Kerry and I presume Clinton/Daschle/Pelosi have quietly gotten the Democratic leadership to increasingly pull together again, pulled the large Democratic donors in line and waiting for overall developments, started Latino and Southern Democrats working effectively with Northern Democrats again, on the upper levels, though it has yet to show much practical effect. Dean and Gephardt have focussed on solidifying the two largest wings of the party for themselves, white middle class moderate liberals and unions/working class voters respectively.

It now comes down to who unites the parts. Gephardt isn't convincing-scratch him, the unions are grateful for what he's done for them but are just waiting to bail out on him. Kerry is having some Gore-ish adjustment problems and maybe doesn't mind Dean taking the vanguard in the public mind and the media exposure at the moment much. Or the hubris. Dean has a (now mutual) scorched earth approach toward significant portions of the Party. I'll choose to gamble differently on the outcome of Kerry-Dean from you for the time being.

[arendt]

80. Thank you, that was really coherent

Do you really think that anyone can get all the pieces
of the pyramid to pull together again, like under
Roosevelt, given the massive media barrage that
encourages these people to hate and mistrust each
other and fight over their share of a shrinking pie?

I understand where you are coming from, and as I
said, I would have been for Kerry if he would have
only DONE SOMETHING, ANYTHING.

Also, I am willing to work for solidarity, even from
inside the Dean camp. Keep me posted.

---

Finally, is Lexingtonian a reference to the Revolutionary
War battle? If so, how?

arendt

[JeniB]

79. I am curious...

Why do you give such a lengthy review of Kerry, yet dismiss some of the other candidates with one sentence. My guess is that you have only really investigated those two candidates. In the spirit of the civil courtesy to which you espouse, I'd like to explain.
If you had investigated Gephardt at all you would not have called him Bushlite. For instance, he did not vote for the war to be "like" the conservatives. He voted for it because he has been looking at intelligence on the issue since Clinton's administration. Yes, some of the intelleigence was flawed but he saw some consistency. He does not apologize for voting to protect America. He does, however, fault Bush for going it alone in this war. Gephardt treated Bush like he would any adult. He insisted he go to the UN for help and was sure that this war would not happen without the help of our allies. He is disgusted with the way Bush cut us off from the rest of the world. The only thing you can attack him for is his belief that the president was actually an adult. This is a belief he has let go of. Gephardt has been in this business a very long time. What some of you guys call Bushlite is just the plain simple truth that when the Dems and Repubs get together in Washington they have to have some give and take. It's called diplomacy. Something the new republicans know nothing about, but something that is very important to the running of our country. We do not have to have it all our way, all of the time. And most of the republicans will agree with that. It's this administration that won't give. They obviously have to go. When that's done do we really want someone in there who will be just as bad, only on our side? I don't think so. We need realistic expectations. Someone who will try everything but lying and cheating to get their agenda passed. Someone who knows realistically how to do that and someone who won't go off yelling and screaming whe they don't get their own way. Remember the other problem we have now is that we don't have power in the house or the senate. You can't see any major Democratic moves. Their hands are tied. We must get one of the three back. I don't think Dean can do it. I think Gephardt can get more electoral votes than Dean. I think he has more realistic goals and I think if elected he will make one hell of a President. Thanks for listening if you got this far.

[arendt]

81. Gephardt may mean well, but he is not presidential material

He was called "robotic" in his 1988 try for the nomination.
Since then, I have seen him speak, and he comes across
much sharper. But, like Tom Daschle, as a Minority Leader,
he seems to have a built in inability to take on the Bush
administration for any length of time.

You can calll it experience or the way the House works or whatever.
But nobody cares what the reason for the inability is.
What people care about is taking on Bush.

I like Gephardt. I just don't think he can fire up the party
and pull in the independents. His labor voting record and
strong union ties just hand votes to the GOP without any
compensating benefits.

I think he ought to stay in Congress and use his domain-
specific skills to keep fighting the Republicans. His run
for the presidency just weakens the ability of House
Democrats to fight tooth and nail, with every parliamentary
trick in the book.

In some ways you are right, I did not look long at Gephardt.
I remember him from 1988, and I wasn't impressed then
with his presidential qualities. Like Bob Dole, he is a
good Congressional Leader. But, he is not a President.
(No offense to Gephardt meant. Bob Dole was at least
not a neocon, and he had a wicked sense of humor.)

arendt

[JeniB]

82. How can you say no offense meant to Gephardt

and then call him a neocon. He's a good solid liberal Democrat which is more than I can say for Dean. Dean hasn't even built his own "lead" in the polls. It's all been done via internet by people he doesn't even know or know him. I used to live in Vermont and I can tell you he's lied about a few things. You can't win an election by letting other people tell your story. You may be informed about him a bit, but most of the his young followers are riding the peace train. They think that because he says no war, they will be saved from a draft. And why shouldn't they vote for him on that issue. But by the time the real voters come out and the debates start he won't be around that long. You can't win by just yelling and screaming that Bush is bad. We all already know that. He'll have to be more solid than that.

[arendt]

85. Sorry, about how that sounded. I meant DOLE was not a neocon.

I meant:

Dole was a sarcastic ass, but at least DOLE wasn't a neocon.
He was a WW2 veteran and there were at least some things
he wouldn't stoop to.

Everything you say about Gephardt being a solid liberal is
true, and probably a lot of what you say about Dean is correct.
Remember, I never said Dean was a liberal. I said he was
a Rockefeller republican.

My point is that moron Americans are willing to give a listen
to Dean, while they have long since labelled Gephardt a
union-shill liberal. Its about breaking through the media
filter. Gephardt has not done that, and does not seem capable
of doing that. He has been around forever. I do not see him
all of the sudden becoming a powerful media presence.

I'll tell you what. The minute Gephardt gets some media
traction, as in "starts looking like a contender", I will take
another look.

As I say, I think he is a decent guy.

Sorry if I offended, I really did mean "no offense meant".
I'm not a weasel-worder or a coward. If I meant to smear Gephardt,
I would have come right out and said it.

arendt

[JeniB]

86. Thanks for the explanation.

I'm not happy about how he is perceived either. I think he would make a great president, but people have to forget about 1988. I don't know about you, but I'm not the exact same person I was in 1988. I think he has learned a few things. I respect that he says he will not copycat Dean. He says that Dean has a different kind of campaign and that just isn't him. Gep does have a lot of union support and I'm hoping that will come through. I REALLY think he would make mincemeat out of Bush in a one on one debate. If he wins the nomination I have no doubt he can win the general election. So, I'm staying with him and hoping he can pull off Iowa. If he does, he'll be OK. If he doesn't win the nomination, I will wholeheartedly support whoever does. I am a Democrat and that means I will NEVER vote for a Republican. Thank God Bush is not a Democrat!!;)

[Egnever]

89. Hey!

I liked Bob Dole!

In fact I would take old Bob over Bush in a NY minute! OMG would I!

[CWebster]

88. In one sentence

Kerry has demonstrated lack of presidentional mettle...A good senator.

[western mass]

90. if they're the future...

Gephardt and Kerry are good liberals. I'm happy to have Kerry as my senator. But if they're the forseeable future of the Dem Party, we're doomed. Gutless, polite, compromising, "reasonable", apologetic...that's what the Dem Party (with some exceptions, of course) has been ever since they rolled over and played dead during the right-wing coup of Clinton, and that's why the GOP controls the White House and Congress.

I'll give it to the GOP: they've mastered the power of unapologetically partisan, go-for-the-throat, loud, vocal, principled, combatative politics. People like Dean and Kucinich understand this. They understand that this is what it takes to keep the base energized, draw back the disaffected or apathetic who have nearly given up on the Dems, and excite young people who don't care because they've never seen much of a difference between the major parties.

I think progressives who criticize Dean as being all about rhetoric are missing the point. He's able to get his no-punches-pulled criticism of Bush out there in the mainstream, and that's something we desperately need right now. If his pugnaciousness forces the other major candidates to grow some balls and do the same, and if the success of his grassroots campaign based on tapping into a vast sea of dissatisfaction and outrage tells other Dems a thing or two about what their base really wants from them, then he'll have made a great contribution whether or not he gets the nomination.

[gully]

91. Wow, great stuff!

Wow, may I have permission to pass this on?