Senior Fellow at Cato Institute Writes "The Appeal of Howard Dean"

[DemBones DemBones]

Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth as well as a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, immersed in the right wing world. And he likes Howard Dean. He describes Dean speaking at the Cato Institute several years ago:

"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.

Moore says that after Dean left, there was near unanimous agreement that Cato had finally found "a Democrat we could work with."

"This all may come as a shock to those following Dean's sudden and unexpected leap-frog over the other Democratic presidential candidates. Running sharply to the left, he's become the darling of the angry liberal intelligentsia. For now at least, he seems to have disavowed his credentials as a free-market enthusiast, a tax cutter, and an enemy of big-government excess. Among the real contenders, he favors the most radical governmental takeover of the health care system, and he supports the biggest tax increase. Also, he was the most vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, verging on pacifism. One thing about Dean, however, remains exactly as I remember it from the day I met him--his unapologetic leftist stands on social issues. As a candidate, he boasts of his support as governor for gay marriages, but as one longtime observer of Vermont politics says, "The one issue he cares most passionately about is pro-choice on abortion, even to the point of holding pro-lifers in total contempt."

"At one time or another, Dean raised just about every tax he could get his hands on. During his 12 years as governor, he upped the corporate income tax rate by 1.5 percentage points, the sales tax by 1 percentage point, the cigarette tax by 50 cents a pack, and the gas tax by 5 cents a gallon. Sure he balanced the budget every year--by digging deeper into Vermonters' wallets. "

"In 1997 his political career looked to be careening out of control. Dean signed into law a Robin Hood school refinancing scheme called Act 60, which guaranteed that every school would spend at least $5,000 per student. To pay for it, dollars would be extracted from wealthy school districts and channeled to the poorer ones. Local property tax assessments, which paid for community schools, were replaced with one uniform statewide property tax. But Vermont's highbrow liberals weren't so interested in redistribution schemes in which they were the ones to be gouged and their own children's schools would lose out. The class warfare plan spontaneously combusted into a thunderous tax revolt across the state. Three donor towns defiantly refused to send their taxes to Montpelier. Vermonter and bestselling author John Irving, a self-described liberal Democrat, famously lambasted the plan as an exercise in "Marxism." In November, voters took their rage out on Dean, who narrowly escaped a career-ending loss by only a few hundred votes.
But he weathered the storm. Dean is nothing if not a survivor--as well as an iconoclast. Even as he pursued wild-eyed social experiments, Dean carefully nurtured a reputation as a "business-friendly" governor. On numerous occasions he pragmatically swept aside onerous environmental regulations and last-use restrictions (this is the greenest state of all) to make room for business expansion and jobs, jobs, jobs. He supported electricity deregulation to take monopolistic pricing power away from big utilities. He even launched one of the nation's most progressive voucher programs for high school students."

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp

(EDIT: The comments below are mine. I thought this was clear from the lack of quotation marks but apparently not. Suffice it to say, I don't think Moore cares what Democrats wish for.)


There's an old saying about being careful what you wish for.


Do Democrats really wish for more deregulation?

voucher programs?

continued "free" market trade policies?

a nominee with a history of raising taxes?

a standard-bearer who thinks balancing budgets is so important he'd amend the Constitution to require it?

(Not mentioned in the article but he has advocated it in the past. On MTP in June, Dean told Russert something to the effect that it might be necessary because, according to him, people in D.C. don't know how to manage money. Transcript available online at MTP site.)

a nominee who has "pragmatically swept aside" environmental regulations to help business interests?


Do the American people really wish for another "business-friendly" governor in the White House?

[Brucey]

1. Maybe,

I think a lot of this is overblown... Dean looks good right now because he has a good message and a good delivery. His positions on issues aren't going to please everyone, and there is still a plenty good chance that he won't get the nomination (long way to go), but for now it is nice to have someone that the media will turn to who will eschew euphemisms about Stumphead, and will tell it like it is... for example, that while Stump looted the national treasury for his friends, middle class people are paying more for tuition and property taxes.

[Bandit]

2. Are they referring to Clinton or Bush*?

Do the American people really wish for another "business-friendly" governor in the White House?

[no name no slogan]

3. And why not?

Why shouldn't the ultra-libertarian Cato Institute like a Rockefeller Republican like Howard Dean? Their philosophies are amazingly similar (socially liberal, economically conservative).

Why vote for a Reagan Republican when you can vote for a Rockefeller Republican? :puke:

[DemBones DemBones]

5. Exactly. Economic conservatives should be Republicans.

Social liberalism isn't enough. "Oh, yes, you can have lots of civil rights, we'll just take your money."

[JohnKleeb]

9. economic liberalism made this party great

you know? FDR and LBJ classic examples of that.

[TheYellowDog]

14. Take whose money?

Isn't that you taking people's money? I think you have economic liberalism and economic conservatism confused.

[blm]

61. He supported electricity DEREGULATION?????

That's a total ReTHUG wetdream policy.

[DemBones DemBones]

67. That's what the man said. And the article seems to be accurate.

It's not in their best interests to print things that aren't true. They have a different worldview but I think they respect fact checking.

Moore likes Dean, aside from social issues. They keep in touch. He's not slamming him for being conservative -- he likes that.

[sendero]

101. the problem is...

... defining "fiscal conservative". I for one do not think it means 'no taxes for the rich' - 'welfare only for corporations', 'regressive taxation', and yet on some level I consider myself a fiscal conservative.

I think that what I mean by 'fc' is I recognize there is no uncle sugar and resources have to be distributed fairly and used wisely.

I'd hardly call the bunch in Washington right now 'fiscal conservatives', they've bought us a war it will take 10 years to pay for.

[sangh0]

4. Dean is the real Bush*-lite

.

[ibegurpard]

24. Sangha why are you attacking fellow Democrats?

I seem to remember you going off on a tirade about that some time ago.

[sangh0]

31. I have no problem attacking Bush*-lite Dean

and other forms of Republicans

[ibegurpard]

32. Funny

I seem to remember your absolute indignance when the same kind of accusations were being levelled against other Democrats. Whatever's convenient for you, I guess. :eyes:

[blm]

93. Maybe Dean shouldn't have unfairly called others Bushlite.

Y'know, it's that little glass houses thing.

Karma catches up eventually.

[blm]

6. That proves it. If Moore is pumping Dean, too,

as a formidable opponent, then it's definitely a new tactic.

[THUNDER HANDS]

7. like any of us have a choice?

Every Democrat is going to be a corporate-friendly Democrat. Both parties are bought and paid for by esentially the same business interests (the GOP a lot moreso).

If you take that into account, and resign yourself to the fact that there aren't going to be any Teddy Roosevelts coming back to life anytime soon, then you can live with Dean...or Kerry...or Gephardt...or Lieberman.

The only one who might challenge the business powers that be is John Edwards, and that's because his main interest group oftentimes competes directly against big corporations.

[David Zephyr]

10. Sad, But True.

n/t

[Eloriel]

You two are wrong about that

The numbers aren't in for this quarter, but last quarter Dean only had $1500 from PACs, and what I saw wasn't broken out by what PACs, just "PACs." The overwhelming majority of his contributions have come from individuals, and I don't see him going after big business money at all.

In fact, quite the opposite: if they can "people-power" this campaign financially too, that's exactly the way they're going to go. And they talk about it now and then, too, along the lines of: what if we had a million people each giving $20?

I think too many non-Dean supportes think his "We're going to Take this country back" line is just so much cheap political rhetoric. If so, you'd be mistaken.

Eloriel

[JohnKleeb]

12. ummm Gep isnt exactly corporate friendly

Edwards :thumbsup:

[DemBones DemBones]

19. I think you mean Franklin (not Teddy) Roosevelt

[blm]

27. Look again, Rat....Kerry's goin after the robber barons

From his NH economic speech"
>>>>>
Third, we need to return to the basic American principles that have always built our economic future.  When those who break the law or cut corners get special benefits while those who work hard and do what’s right get the short end of the stick, it’s not just our budget that is out of balance.  It means our values are out of whack.  And we need to send a clear message to the American people that we favor those who are doing the right thing over those who are doing wrong to their employees, their companies, and their country.
If you are a corporation using loopholes to avoid paying taxes, if you are a foreign nation breaking trade agreements and stealing American jobs, if you are a CEO giving yourself a bonus while your employees get laid-off – with George Bush, you have a friend in the White House.  But if I’m President, you’re in for a change.

But if you are working hard, raising your kids, trying to build a better future – I’ll be there for you every day.  While George Bush has been in the White House, middle class Americans have been forgotten – their main street interests ignored, their mainstream values scorned by an Administration that puts privilege first.

Middle class families feel they can’t catch a break.  They’re getting battered by high taxes, high health care costs, high energy bills, high college tuitions, and a high cost of living that means they are working harder just to stay in place.  For all of this President’s talk about tax cuts, the lion’s share of middle class families – those earning between forty and ninety thousand dollars a year – have seen their share of the tax burden go up, not down.
>>>>>
If I am President, I will repeal George Bush’s special tax breaks that go to only those earning more than $200,000.  I will end corporate welfare as we know it and tax giveaways to special interests.  But I will provide working families with a tax cut.  Putting real money into the pockets of the hard working middle class is true to our principles as Democrats – and right for the American economy.

As we do more to reward those who are doing the right thing, we also have to set and enforce new standards of corporate accountability and ethics.  The Americans who build up businesses, create jobs, and make a profit along the way are a vital national asset.  I’ll cheer them on – whether they have a stand on the boardwalk or a seat in the boardroom.  But in a Kerry Administration, we’ll hold corporate criminals in the corner office to the same standard we apply to common criminals on the street corner.  The only special access CEO’s who cook the books, siphon off retirement funds, and manipulate stocks will find in my Administration – is access to the criminal justice system. 
It is also vital to restore the balance between those who run companies and those who work at companies.  Corporate responsibility is critical as a matter of defending the free market system and producing jobs and opportunity in America.  It is the best way to defend profits and the marketplace.

That is why American companies should live by American values.  CEO’s shouldn’t get bonuses while their employees get left holding the bag.  For instance, K-Mart lost 2.1 billion dollars.  The result was 300 closed stores, 22,000 laid off workers, creditors scrambling to be paid, and shareholders left with nothing.  But that didn’t stop the company from giving its CEO a 9.5 million dollar severance package when he left.  On the other hand, the people who worked the cash register or stocked the shelves didn’t get a single cent in severance.  They just got the boot.  That’s wrong but what makes this even more unfair is that the government gives corporations an unlimited tax allowance for CEO bonuses even if the executives have done nothing to deserve the money.  As President, I’ll end this giveaway and force corporations to report special perks to the public
>>>>>>

[cosmicdot]

45. the only one who might challenge the business powers ... Edwards?

... Sharpton wouldn't? Kucinich? a Kucinich-Edwards administration might be an interesting combo ...

[JohnKleeb]

48. Kucinich doesnt have a chance

;) I am joshing
and that could work too!
Those two are buds according to Dennis.

[denverbill]

8. Were we reading the same article?

Dean raised many taxes but cut personal income taxes. Even so, he managed to balance Vermont's budget AND insure virtually every child in the state, plus left Vermont with a rainy day fund. He signed and strongly defended a civil unions law.

THAT'S responsible, progressive governance.

Bush promises tax cuts, military spending increases, AND balanced budgets, knowing he was lying through his teeth. His irresponsible, reckless leadership has erased a $200 billion budget surplus and replaced it with a $500 billion deficit. His stupid policies threaten the entire social safety net, as well as the economy as a whole.

[no name no slogan]

26. Woo Hoo!

Yay, he balanced the state's budget, at the expense of the poor and working class by cutting back on welfare benefits! He covered "almost" every child in Vermont (that's "almost every child", as in "NOT EVERY child"). Even better, his healthcare "solution" is in danger of bankrupting the state of Vermont!

http://www.state.vt.us/health/commission/docs/report/finalreport.htm

From the report:
"C. Health care costs in Vermont, now exceeding $2 billion a year,
are of a sufficient magnitude, however, and are increasing at a
sufficient rate to place state government itself in jeopardy,
including every program for which it appropriates money. By
comparison, Vermonters budgeted $1.8 billion for all state government
services in FY 2001 (not including federal funds). SEE NOTE 4

We are rapidly approaching the point at which these costs will
directly conflict with our ability to do such things as to maintain
roads and bridges, for example, or to provide cost-effective services
to our infants and children, to promote agriculture and tourism, or
to provide any other services our citizens have come to expect."

Dean promises to balance the budget yet fund our bloated military at present levels. And he's not going to cut public spending, Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid?

Finally, 2 + 2 really does = 5!!! :toast: Reaganomics at its finest!

[maxomai_vs_rove]

11. Yep

I'll take a "business friendly" governor (such as Dean) over a fake progressive with a horrible abortion rights and gay rights record (such as Kucinich).

[JohnKleeb]

15. Kucinich's gay rights record

2002 On the votes that the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 2002, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 Bsed on legislative votes, sponsorship of legislation not voted upon, and endorsements of special "dear colleague" letters that the Arab American Institute considered to be the most important in 2002, Representative Kucinich supported their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda considered to be the most important in 2002, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 91 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2001, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 86 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 2001, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda considered to be the most important in 2001, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 91 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda considered to be the most important in 2000, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2000, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 93 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1997-1998 On the votes that the Campaign for a Color Blind America considered to be the most important in 1997-1998, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

Yeah 100's from the human rights campaign, on the abortion issue, he changed number 1 and number 2 he was never for the death penalty and the Iraq war at the same time. So does having 100's from the Human Rights Campaign make you bad on gay rights? Also color blind America is a very anti Affirmative Action organization. BTW on abortion, I am very pro choice myself, I am glad he changed but he was still a fine guy while pro life.

[Woodstock]

53. Now list Kucinich's abortion rights record

If the record is good to make a point for one issue, it should be for another.

[JohnKleeb]

56. fine I will

Abortion
(Back to top)


2003 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in the first half of the 108th Congress, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 40 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2002, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 25 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Planned Parenthood considered to be the most important, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 10 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 71 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Planned Parenthood considered to be the most important from 1995 to 2001, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 10 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2001, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2000, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 95 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the Planned Parenthood considered to be the most important in 1999, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 10 percent of the time.

I did disagree with him on abortion but I respect the fact he changed his mind.

[Woodstock]

79. Great response!

Seriously, that took courage.

[JohnKleeb]

81. I try

:shrug: but I see that poster who said he was very anti gay and abortion rights hasnt responded. Well I am used to it. I didnt agree with his past view on abortion and I think saying he has an anti gay record is class A bullshit, yeah getting 100's from the human rights campaign is nothing to be proud of. All those civil rights marks together I should say are like on the average in the upper 90's which in school is an A. His abortion record isnt the best but it isnt a horrible one and I must repeat unlike the congressional republicans Congressman Kucinich never supported the death penalty and limiting appeals, nor did he support the current war, and nor does he support the idea of cutting from programs that help the poor. He is a devout Catholic, and I respect though disagree on the past view.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JohnKleeb]

21. thanks yellow

on the abortion record, I disagreed with him on that but he changed number 1 and it wasnt like at the same time like many GOP congresspeople he supported the war and the death penalty.

[TheYellowDog]

20. Well I see that John

beat me to it, but emphasis is always good. :)

[JohnKleeb]

23. thanks yellow again

I for one disagreed with his past abortion view but I realize other than that on life he was pretty consistent, an opponent of the death penalty, the current war, and above all he wasnt cutting services to poor mothers. That was the GOP congress. I dont like the fact that FDR didnt try to intialite racial rights if he did my mistake but FDR is my favorite president.

[TheYellowDog]

13. I know

Everyone knows Dean is trying to run from his penny-pinching record in Vermont. His mother has already said that when the truth comes out, people will be disappointed

[Bandit]

17. Please provide a link to that comment by his mother

I would like to see another source for that kind of comment.

[SweetZombieJesus]

22. It was in the Time magazine article from when he was on the cover

I'm a Dean supporter, and I read it, and I had no qualms about it. I know what he is, but I'm not about to go on some ill-informed tirade about how it makes him some sort of wolf in sheep's clothing, because, see, I ACTUALLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO THINK CRITICALLY. It's a lost art, I know.

[DemBones DemBones]

25. It's been posted here before. She said it. Specifically, she

said something to the effect that she hoped people wouldn't find out too soon that Howard's not a liberal.

Try Google. I found it easily last time this came up.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemBones DemBones]

34. No, I thought it was funny. I took it as her making a bit of a joke.

You won't find me comparing Dean to Goebbels. I'm not a Dean basher. I am concerned about Dean because people are viewing him like tea leaves -- reading anything they want into him. I'm interested in what he's done and don't understand why anyone is NOT interested in learning all they can about candidate's records. None will be perfect but pretending someone is perfect is dangerous.

[SweetZombieJesus]

38. If serious, sober reflection of the candidate's record is really your goal

try broaching the subject without using an article from shit-tossers like the CATO Institute as the catalyst for said discourse. That's all I'm saying.

[DemBones DemBones]

54. Sorry, I'm not going to post puff piece from Dean's famous blog.

His supporters do that more than enough.

Look at the evidence here:

Moore likes Dean's economic policies.

Moore is very, very right wing.

ERGO:

Dean's economic policies pass muster with at least one very, very right wing person.

QUESTIONS:

Are Dean's economic policies inherently conservative?

Should the Democrats nominate a man whose economic policies are inherently conservative?

Surely those questions are worth debating, are they not?

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[no name no slogan]

39. I invoke Godwin's Law on this thread

I hereby invoke Godwin's Law on this thread.

Get over it already-- not everybody who doesn't support Dean equates him with Nazis.

non-Dean-supporting progressives (especially here in my state of Minnesota) find it really despicable that Dean stole Paul Wellstone's "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" to describe himself, when his record shows he governs as a Rockefeller Republican and is as conservative as Liebermann and the DLC crowd.

All we're saying is that Dean, who masquerades as a "different" kind of politician, is no different from the usual cast of zombies that clog the Democratic presidential primaries and change their opinions whenever it's politically expedient.

And you better get used to your pal getting bashed-- it's common knowledge that the "front-runner" gets the lions' share of the negative press.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[denverbill]

43. You might want to remember Dean was awarded the Wellstone award.

You know, the award created to honor politicians who put doing what is right over doing what is politically popular?

[no name no slogan]

65. Ever hear of the Congressional Progressive Caucus?

As a former Wellstone campaigner (delegate to state convention in 1990 for Wellstone, btw), I find it only fair to remind you that Dennis Kucinich is the chair of the House Progressive Caucus, the largest Caucus in the US House.

Senator Wellstone was a member of the Senate Progressive Caucus, which as worked hand-in-hand with the House Progressive Caucus to get the progressive agenda passed in both houses of congress.

I first got involved in politics back in 1988 because of Paul Wellstone. He helped out on a campaign to elect a fellow Democrat (and college professor) to the state legislature, which I was heavily involved in. After that, I worked hard to get Paul elected to the US Senate. His untimely death is one of the greatest tragedies I ever experienced in my 34 years on this earth.

I for one have to agree with Wellstone's ex-spokesman Jim Farrell when he says Dean's no Wellstone.

And it's downright despicable that Dean thinks he can masquerade as a Wellstone Democrat when the truth is far from that.

[tjdee]

99. That award was for ONE instance, not his overall record.

The year before, he'd helped nurses unionize.

As far as I read, the award was not a commentary on anything in Dean's record other than that.

[DemBones DemBones]

44. Thank you. The Dean supporters are often quite blind in their

allegiance to him.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[SweetZombieJesus]

49. Still waiting for the non-biased link on this subject

Or have you decided to just dismiss me as one of the "blind" Dean supporters?

[SweetZombieJesus]

16. Oooh, the CATO Institute COULDN'T have an ulterior motive in this article!

They just COULDN'T be trying to turn off progressives who will take one cursory glance at this article and have the erroneous link of "Dean is a Republican in disguise" form in a completely knee jerk fashion!

Read between the lines, for Christ's sake.

[DemBones DemBones]

29. Of course they could. But the facts stand. Can anyone prove

that what Moore says about Dean is not true? If you read the article, he doesn't like Dean's social liberalism, but he loves his fiscal conservatism. So abortion and same-sex unions will be supported but Dean would balance the federal budget by raising taxes, based on his Vermont history. I want someone who's more liberal about fiscal policy.

[SweetZombieJesus]

37. The facts are, this is a smokescreen

You wanted one thing to happen by posting this tripe:

Embed a positive mental connection between a slimy right wing "think tank" like the CATO Institute and Howard Dean. Given your penchant for inflammatory rhetoric, I'm not real keen on giving you the benefit of the doubt and just assuming you really want to open up a dialogue on the merits or lack thereof of fiscal conservatism.

If you really want to discuss said topic, maybe you can link us to a similar article that isn't penned by right wing sleaze?

[Character Assassin]

50. Et tu, Bubba?

Embed a positive mental connection between a slimy right wing "think tank" like the CATO Institute and Howard Dean.

Slimy, right-wing? Oh, please do substantiate your claim.

Given your penchant for inflammatory rhetoric, I'm not real keen on giving you the benefit of the doubt and just assuming you really want to open up a dialogue on the merits or lack thereof of fiscal conservatism.

Given your apparent paranoia about CATO, I'm not sure such an exchange would be possible.

If you really want to discuss said topic, maybe you can link us to a similar article that isn't penned by right wing sleaze?

Ah, I see. It's factual, but only, somehow, 'correctly' factual is the same data is cited by a source that you don't consider sleazy.

Sure.

[SweetZombieJesus]

59. I'm sorry, do you know who the CATO Institute is?

Or the Club For Growth? Two of the most shameless right wing propaganda arms in recent history? The people who fund all those generic smear campaigns masquerading as "South Dakotans For Exposing Tom Daschle As A Liar And Child Molester" or some such claptrap?

Please, don't pretend for a second that the CATO Institute is anything but a breeding ground for GOP talking points. Need I clue you to CATO's own "mission statement"?

"Cato's Mission
The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. Toward that goal, the Institute strives to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in questions of policy and the proper role of government.
Cato's Publications and Events
The Cato Institute undertakes an extensive publications program dealing with the complete spectrum of public policy issues. Books, monographs, briefing papers and shorter studies are commissioned to examine issues in nearly every corner of the public policy debate. Policy forums and book forums are held regularly, as are major policy conferences, which Cato hosts throughout the year, and from which papers are published thrice yearly in the Cato Journal. All of these events are taped and archived on Cato's Web site. Additionally, Cato has held major conferences in London, Moscow, Shanghai, and Mexico City. The Institute also publishes the quarterly magazine Regulation and a bimonthly newsletter, Cato Policy Report.
How Cato Is Funded
In order to maintain an independent posture, the Cato Institute accepts no government funding or endowments. Contributions are received from foundations, corporations, and individuals. Other revenue is generated from the sale of publications. The Cato Institute is a nonprofit, tax-exempt educational foundation under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. Cato's 2000 revenues were just under $13 million, and it has approximately 90 full-time employees, 60 adjunct scholars, and 16 fellows, plus interns.
How to Label Cato
Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution--individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law--call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism--the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known--as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.
"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" connotes a backward-looking philosophy.
Finally, "liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world--the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets--but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals.
The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.
The market-liberal vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, they recognize that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is--or used to be--the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.
Market liberals have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We reject the bashing of gays, Japan, rich people, and immigrants that contemporary liberals and conservatives seem to think addresses society's problems. We applaud the liberation of blacks and women from the statist restrictions that for so long kept them out of the economic mainstream. Our greatest challenge today is to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world."


Once again, READ BETWEEN THE LINES.

[Character Assassin]

64. Yes, that's why I asked. I donate to CATO regularly.

Or the Club For Growth?

Two totally different animals, and it is intellectually dishonest to attempt to portray them as otherwise. The Club for Growth is unabashedly in support of Reagan all his policies; CATO is most certainly not.

Two of the most shameless right wing propaganda arms in recent history?

Unsupported by the facts, in the case of CATO and, again, dishonest to try and group them together.

The people who fund all those generic smear campaigns masquerading as "South Dakotans For Exposing Tom Daschle As A Liar And Child Molester" or some such claptrap?

Please cite precisely when and exactly how CATO has been involved in anything resembling what you mention.

Please, don't pretend for a second that the CATO Institute is anything but a breeding ground for GOP talking points.

I don't have to pretend, because your statement is false. Tell me, do you see the GOP trying to legalize drugs? End the repugnant WOD? Lessen mandatory minimums? That's the best smell test for your theory, and your theory can't pass it. CATO supports all those that I mentioned.

Need I clue you to CATO's own "mission statement"?

No, you need to clue yourself in to what is inherent to that statement.

"It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism."

Yep, pure evil. No doubt about it.

[SweetZombieJesus]

68. Yes, and all those statements are 100% honest

None of them should be taken with a grain of salt, especially considering the CATO Institute played a big part in advancing the neocon agenda of the invasion of Iraq.

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/243

Oh look! The "friendly libertarians" were part of the academic world that were trumpeting the PNAC vision! So much for skepticism about foreign military adventurism.

So I guess I have to ask: If you donate to corporate fronts like CATO, why are you at an activist site like DU?

HAAAHCHOO! Whoops, I sneezed up another link!

http://www.accuracy.org/articles/cato.htm

Sorry to get the truth all over your apologism for CATO. Want a Kleenex?

[Character Assassin]

75. Of course they should be taken with a grain of salt.

None of them should be taken with a grain of salt, especially considering the CATO Institute played a big part in advancing the neocon agenda of the invasion of Iraq.

Oh, I see. This is the same CATO who publishes articles and opinion pieces on exactly why we should get out maximum ASAP? The same CATO who published pieces like "Faulty Justifications for War with Iraq" http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-10-03.html The same CATO who wrote "Why the United States Should Not Attack Iraq" http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-29-02.html I can find plenty more, if you'd like.

Yeaaaaaaah. Really big in advancing that agenda there, Ace.

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/243

Oh look! The "friendly libertarians" were part of the academic world that were trumpeting the PNAC vision! So much for skepticism about foreign military adventurism.

So every organization is completely and irrevocably a carbon copy of its contributors without exception? You'd do well to think that through again.

So I guess I have to ask: If you donate to corporate fronts like CATO, why are you at an activist site like DU?

Because I believe in some of the postitions advocated at DU. Conversely, I believe in some of the positions dictated by CATO. Golly, what do you know? A world that isn't purely black-and-white. Do shades of grey make you nervous?

HAAAHCHOO! Whoops, I sneezed up another link!

http://www.accuracy.org/articles/cato.htm

Sorry to get the truth all over your apologism for CATO. Want a Kleenex?

I would prefer that you aquire some mental floss. It appears you are experiencing severe cognitive dissonance, and this is prohibiting you from rational analysis.

[SweetZombieJesus]

78. Rational analysis like equating Dean supporters with cultists, right?

Gee, sorry to lower the standards of discourse there Professor. Tell you what, I'll just keep quiet from now on and defer to you, since you're so worldly and varied in your opinions, and since you have the advantage of me, being so well informed by CATO and all. You're right, CATO isn't part of the think tank complex that gets marching orders from monied conservatives like Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife, and which has contributed immensely to the rampancy of right wing media advancing the agendas of people like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. Yeah, these places aren't thinly veiled PR firms for the Carlyle Groups and Halliburtons of the world, they're CLEARLY just advocates of libertarianism and honest, forthright debate.

Did I lay the sarcasm on thick enough, or should I get corporate funding for it first before you'll pay attention to it?

[Character Assassin]

82. You seem to have a prediliction for non-sequitors

Rational analysis like equating Dean supporters with cultists, right?

I'm sorry, what are you babbling about? Cult supporters? Where are you getting that?

Gee, sorry to lower the standards of discourse there Professor.

So why, then, do you continue to do so?

Tell you what, I'll just keep quiet from now on and defer to you, since you're so worldly and varied in your opinions, and since you have the advantage of me, being so well informed by CATO and all.

Why? Just try and remain rational. That usually suffices.

You're right, CATO isn't part of the think tank complex that gets marching orders from monied conservatives like Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife, and which has contributed immensely to the rampancy of right wing media advancing the agendas of people like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz.

Please detail how, exactly and precisely, CATO has contributed 'immensely' to this agenda, when they are against the Invasion of Iraq, they wish to end the WOD, are and were deadset against the PATRIOT Act and the Dept of Homeland Security, etc....

No, really, please go right ahead.

Yeah, these places aren't thinly veiled PR firms for the Carlyle Groups and Halliburtons of the world, they're CLEARLY just advocates of libertarianism and honest, forthright debate.

Debate that you seem utterly incapable of. Again, put your money where your mouth is and support your statements, rather than endlessly repeating them. Here's your big chance.

Did I lay the sarcasm on thick enough, or should I get corporate funding for it first before you'll pay attention to it?

What, is that supposed to be an attempt at a threat? As a contributing member, I am completely aware of the corporations that contribute to CATO. There's nothing to expose, Sherlock, it's quite public information.

Oh, and were you attempting sarcasm as well?

[SweetZombieJesus]

86. Alright, I got a little trigger happy

CATO may not be a thinly veiled Republican propaganda machine, but, the Club For Growth is, and I realize now that in my furor, I turned my guns on you in haste, and for that, I apologize. You have no reason to defend your contributions to CATO to me, and I had no right to call your contribution to them into question.

BUT....the Club For Growth IS a completely transparent propaganda machine that was used to support Bush's tax cuts and paid for ads that characterized George Voinivich and Olympia Snowe as being "French-like" because they wouldn't unequivocally support Bush's disastrous and fiscally reckless tax cuts. Stephen Moore, the author of the piece that was the foundation for this thread, is the president of the Club For Growth. While I will admit I was a little hasty in equating his advocacy for the tax cuts with CATO as a whole, I find it a little suspect that someone who's the President of such a sleazy, corporation coddling group as the Club For Growth is a senior fellow at the CATO Institute. If the CATO Institute is the libertarian minded group it bills itself as, why is a attack politician like Stephen Moore one of their senior fellows?


You were 100% right about me going off half-cocked on you, but I stand by my original position that an article about Dean by a guy like Stephen Moore doesn't even deserve honest analysis. It's clearly and transparently biased, and as such I don't think it merits any kind of honest debate.

[Character Assassin]

88. Thanks, and I think we likely agree more than disagree.

CATO may not be a thinly veiled Republican propaganda machine, but, the Club For Growth is, and I realize now that in my furor, I turned my guns on you in haste, and for that, I apologize. You have no reason to defend your contributions to CATO to me, and I had no right to call your contribution to them into question.

No need to apologize, but thanks. I, too, find the Club for Growth myopic and distasteful, trumpeting the desire to futher policies proven to have failed, and glaringly so.

BUT....the Club For Growth IS a completely transparent propaganda machine that was used to support Bush's tax cuts and paid for ads that characterized George Voinivich and Olympia Snowe as being "French-like" because they wouldn't unequivocally support Bush's disastrous and fiscally reckless tax cuts. Stephen Moore, the author of the piece that was the foundation for this thread, is the president of the Club For Growth. While I will admit I was a little hasty in equating his advocacy for the tax cuts with CATO as a whole, I find it a little suspect that someone who's the President of such a sleazy, corporation coddling group as the Club For Growth is a senior fellow at the CATO Institute. If the CATO Institute is the libertarian minded group it bills itself as, why is a attack politician like Stephen Moore one of their senior fellows?

There's probably sleazy people on the boards of many major organizations and/or corporations.

In short, I don't know why he's a senior fellow.

You were 100% right about me going off half-cocked on you, but I stand by my original position that an article about Dean by a guy like Stephen Moore doesn't even deserve honest analysis. It's clearly and transparently biased, and as such I don't think it merits any kind of honest debate.

Agreed.

[SweetZombieJesus]

89. See, I figured this was the case

I figured we we're closer to some kind of common ground, it just got lost in my rabid attacking. I've really got to learn to control my temper in threads like this and not lash out needlessly, but DemBones issue dodging raised my ire to Chernobyl levels.

Again, I apologize for my uncouth behavior. Chalk it up to my wildly fluctuating emotional states in the aftermath of my recent tragedy.

[Character Assassin]

91. Ha! You should see what happens down in Justice/Public Safety

Man, I could name some 'personages' who dodge out of what seems their very nature.

Ah, such is life, I suppose.

[DemBones DemBones]

70. My experience suggests that if these same facts were reported by

Mother Jones, The Progressive, The Village Voice, or any other publication, Dean supporters would be equally outraged and trash them as right wing slime.

There are no "correct" facts that reflect even slightly negatively on Howard Dean. Thus saith the Deanies.

It's an interesting and frightening phenomenon, blind loyalty.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gully]

92. Can you name one negative thing about your candidate?

Curious is all.

[JohnKleeb]

95. sure I can

was once pro life voting
supported a flag burning resolution lately

[SweetZombieJesus]

96. He wasn't talking to you John

You're one of the reasons I'm so disappointed when I see Kucinich supporters resorting baseless attacks the way a lot of Kerry supporters here do: because honest Kucinich supporters such as yourself have set a higher standard for discourse in the past, it annoys me when I see other people who profess to support Dennis, who under different circumstances I would wholeheartedly support, act like jackasses and make baseless attacks on Dean. Kids, Dennis is a strong enough candidate that you don't have to take the low road. I expect that kind of thing from people who support Dems who voted for the Iraq resolution, but not Kucinich supporters.

I wish more Kucinich supporters were like John. If he were the standard, we Dean supporters would have a lot less baseless crap to defend against.

[JohnKleeb]

100. well I responded

As I like to say, good and bad on everything like religion as well. Ive seen negativity from all sides trust me, it aint easy being told that your candiate doesnt have a chance, now I do mention that annoys me and it saddens me, I guess some are different, I am not defending their behavior or anything. As a Kucinich supporter I say this, I am very proud to support who I support, win or lose I will be proud because I support who imo was the best. Now maybe some of us are frustrated, goddamnit I know I am, my reaction is one of "why" and I tell you this I am sorry all this happens, Ive seen it on all sides, and I dont like it one bit, with respect you SZJ you are one of the more respectable Dean supporters, youre cool with our guy but when I saw "Fuck Kucinich" the other day I felt like saying hey dude I could say Fuck Dean and you would get pissed and I could understand, and when people act like we dont have a chance and the like, and that our guy should withdraw I get so down. Its tough when you are where I am, knowing you are fighting the fight you feel is right but it is hard to get others to join although you know your candiate is one of the best.

[SweetZombieJesus]

103. John, I'm just as sick as you are of the "Dennis doesn't have a chance"

crowd. I just think it's poor taste to begrudge supporters of a great candidate like Dennis their support because "conventional wisdom" doesn't give Dennis much of a shot. Conventional wisdom also said my guy didn't have a chance at one point, and look where he is now.

Don't let the naysayers get to you, John. I know it's frustrating to hear "Dennis can't win" all the time, but if you believe in him, that's all that really matters. And I think Dennis is one of maybe three candidates who I can unequivocally say gets almost NOTHING but baseless attacks made on them. The rest of the candidates all have at least one or two things that bug me about them, but the only things that turn me off Dennis are really superficial image things, and even those aren't enough for me to write him off completely.

Dennis Kucinich is a good candidate. So are Graham, Sharpton, Moseley Braun and, if he runs, Wesley Clark. Those are the candidates I would support if I didn't support Dean, and I would go so far as to tell honest, civil supporters of any of these candidates that I've got your back in any and all defense of baseless attacks on these candidates.

[JohnKleeb]

104. Thanks I dont

Exactly on convential wisdom, unapologetic liberal has used this analogy too excepted he worded it different. I am proud to support who I support I am just plain old sad when I get the same rhetoric he doesnt have a chance, its so tough. I would probably be yelling my lungs out if this was a literal fourm you know like Athens and all, I got myself a bad temper and I think I hide it good enough. Ive been telling people lately if you think Kucinich is good enough for VP or a cabinet position, then thats cool for you. I just think he deserves a bit of attention for all hes done. Its a tough fight but I think people are gonna be shocked if he comes back. One must realize the bulk of the Kucinich support comes from the heart, thats why I support him. Now on some supporters who act jerky, it really is unfortunate but they can be nice people as well. I just wish more gave the Kucinich campaign a chance. I not only am nearly all the way on the issues with him but I have some other reasons. Thanks for being cool about it, I think all campaigns need fair people. I try my best to be fair and honest I think some of the attacks on Kerry are blatantly unfair as well so if you wanna know why I defend him thats why.

[DemBones DemBones]

109. Sure. He voted to amend the Constitution to prohibit

flag desecration. I don't object to patriotism but amendments to the Constitution are problematic. Dean has supported an amendment to require a balanced federal budget and I don't think that's a good idea, either.

I don't disagree with everything Dean says. I just think his economic worldview is essentially Republican, not Democratic, so I find it difficult to understand why liberal Dems would support him in the primary.

[zoidberg]

30. I sure the hell don't want an anti-business governor in the White House

The unemployment rate in Vermont is 4.1%, well below the national average. Do you think that maybe, just maybe it's because they had a governor who wanted businesses to come to his state? What would your alternative be?

Jimmy Carter deregulated the airlines. Mayor Anthony Williams in DC supports vouchers. Bill Clinton raised the gas tax. Were these people really just closet Republicans?

[DemBones DemBones]

36. Nor do I. Don't be obtuse.

Everyone agrees Bush* is corporate-controlled yet Dean is Mr. Clean? He's a little too far to the right and a little too close to business interests, physicians and pharmaceuticals lobbies, etc.

[trogdor]

33. Don't ya just love those left-handed compliments?

Among the real contenders, he favors the most radical governmental takeover of the health care system,

Umm, filling in gaps with existing programs is hardly radical. It worked in Vermont, hardly the richest state in the Union.

and he supports the biggest tax increase.

You have to ask yourself how much of that you will be expected to pay, vs. your typical client of the Cato Institute. You certainly didn't get much when taxes went down, did you?

Also, he was the most vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, verging on pacifism.

It it one thing to be categorically against war. It is quite another to recognize and point out (when everyone else was cowering under the bed) that this was the wrong war at the wrong time fought for the wrong (bogus) reasons.

One thing about Dean, however, remains exactly as I remember it from the day I met him--his unapologetic leftist stands on social issues.

So tolerance of other people who aren't really bothering you is bad because...

As a candidate, he boasts of his support as governor for gay marriages,

Um, it's called civil union. It recognizes that these people should be able to do whatever other couples get to do - file joint tax returns, use each other's health insurance, inherit each other's stuff tax free,....Maybe we should do away with these privileges extended to married couples. That would be fair, no?

but as one longtime observer of Vermont politics says, "The one issue he cares most passionately about is pro-choice on abortion, even to the point of holding pro-lifers in total contempt."

Maybe if they gave up the annoying habit of harassing people, shooting at them, putting bombs in their cars, or being a general pain the ass, we might be more inclined to listen to them, even if they are full of shit.

[JohnKleeb]

35. Why on pro lifers

True pro lifers arent like that, believe me I used to pretty jerky on pro lifers myself, and I personally am annoyed by republican ones now my grandparents who are democrats, want to help the child live life, dont support the death penalty, and didnt support this war. Just pointing out.

[DemBones DemBones]

41. It doesn't say he holds people who harrassing or shoot at people

in contempt. It says he holds "pro-lifers in total contempt." That means to me that Dean holds all pro-life people in contempt, including all those who've never protested or have only stood and quietly prayed across the street from an abortion clinic.

The vast majority of pro-lifers have contempt for those who assert they are pro-life but commit acts of violence or harassment.

And as you said:

"So tolerance of other people who aren't really bothering you is bad because..."

Why not tolerate anyone who isn't really bothering you, even if they're (gasp!) pro-life? Why hold them in contempt?

[JohnKleeb]

46. I told you I used to be ignorant and you know that for fact

When I was a n00b you gave me hell and I think now being more smarter that you were right for generalizing the pro life movement. That said most anti abortion people I know are kind of jerky, but the ones here at DU are fine people as are my grandparents.

[trogdor]

47. I'll answer both of you at once.

The problem with neocons is, they see things in black and white. Thus, the vast majority of pro-lifers who don't bomb abortion clinics, drive around in battered pickups with gory pictures plastered all over them, or harass 16 year olds who are already nervous wrecks get overlooked. I fell for it, and I'm sorry.

That being said, Cato's assertion that Dean has only contempt for pro-lifers is a flat-out lie, pure and simple, born of their belief that if you show justifiable contempt toward the one whacko who takes potshots at doctors, you show an equal amount of contempt toward all "pro-lifers." That is BS, and I shouldn't have fallen for it.

[JohnKleeb]

51. err my bad just the way you phrased it

is what bothered me. BTW I dont like when people harass the girls, in fact I am pretty pro choice myself and Dennis's past view I disagreed with. Its ok you are only human, I just dont like seeing pro lifers being generalized, believe me Why I was pretty damn guilty but the best pro lifers out there are ones like how Kucinich was and my grandparents are.

[DemBones DemBones]

60. It's not "Cato's assertion." It's a statement made by a "longtime

observer of Vermont politics," quoted by Stephen Moore (who is a Senior Fellow at Cato) in an article. Is the longtime observer correct that Dean "holds pro-lifers in total contempt"? If so, does he only have contempt for people who've engaged in violence? Or does his contempt apply to anyone who disagrees with him? I get the feeling from watching him, that he could well have contempt for anyone who disagrees with him. I get the feeling he's arrogant and short-fused like Dubya. I can't prove that, it's just a feeling, based on 56 years' experience watching people, seeing how they operate. I'm not comfortable with Howard Dean but I am curious to know why he inspires the ferocious and mostly blind loyalty that he does.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[no name no slogan]

58. Oh really...

"Also, he was the most vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, verging on pacifism.

It it one thing to be categorically against war. It is quite another to recognize and point out (when everyone else was cowering under the bed) that this was the wrong war at the wrong time fought for the wrong (bogus) reasons."

Hmmm, better check the record on that. Dean was in favor of a UN resolution that offered a "60-day waiting period" back in February that would allow Iraq to disarm, or face military action.

Not only that, he said we should "get behind the president" after he illegally sent troops into Iraq. That's pretty anti-war, too!

But oh, how the space of six agonizing months changes things! Now he's ALWAYS been "anti-war". Smarter monkeys, please.

"As a candidate, he boasts of his support as governor for gay marriages,

Um, it's called civil union. It recognizes that these people should be able to do whatever other couples get to do - file joint tax returns, use each other's health insurance, inherit each other's stuff tax free,....Maybe we should do away with these privileges extended to married couples. That would be fair, no?

Some "support" though! Was he in the trenches with the GLBT community, fighting to push a civil union bill through the VT legislature? Hell, no! He grudgingly signed the civil union law after a court order made it impossible for him not to sign it. But at least he dispensed with a big public display when he signed it-- he chose to sign it behind closed doors (and out of the spotlight of that pesky media).

He also thinks that civil unions, like gun control, is a "state's rights" issue, that should be left up to each of the fifty states to deal with.

So, in other words, good luck trying to get married or "civil unioned" in a state like Alabama. You're still a second-class citizen.

Misrepresentation ain't cool where I come from.

[trogdor]

42. This I like...

"In 1997 his political career looked to be careening out of control. Dean signed into law a Robin Hood school refinancing scheme called Act 60, which guaranteed that every school would spend at least $5,000 per student. To pay for it, dollars would be extracted from wealthy school districts and channeled to the poorer ones. Local property tax assessments, which paid for community schools, were replaced with one uniform statewide property tax."

Although this is easier to do in a small state like Vermont (pop. 580,000), it would be more problematic in a larger one, like New York (pop. almost 20,000,000). Still, the idea carries considerable merit. Most people would see their property taxes go down, and there would be less incentive to abandon the cities. Is that such a bad thing?

Maybe the neocons should just STFU, lest they give people more ideas like this.

[Woodstock]

52. Thanks for the link, I support Dean

and that confirmed one of the reasons why - he can get enough votes to win.

[sangh0]

55. If a candidate can't handle FAUX

then they don't deserve to be President

[library_max]

57. "My Candidate Sucks So Bad That I Have To Attack Yours"

All hail CoffeePlease1947! He has come up with the perfect formula for dispelling all these negative campaign threads! All you Dean-bashers, Kerry-bashers, any-Democrat-bashers, please repeat after me: “MY CANDIDATE SUCKS SO BAD THAT I HAVE TO ATTACK YOURS.”

If I were a Bush supporter, I would be ROFLMAO to see all these Democrats ripping each other to pieces. My candidate in the general election is Anybody But Bush. As for the primaries, I haven’t decided yet. Amazing, ain’t it? Considering that the primaries are only six months away.

Come on, ladies and gentlemen! Unity, please! Eyes on the prize! BUCK FUSH!

[DemBones DemBones]

63. Uh, no, it's LET'S EXAMINE THE CANDIDATES THOROUGHLY

and make sure we know what we're getting in each one, BEFORE WE BUY.

It's an attempt to AVOID BUYER'S REMORSE.

[SweetZombieJesus]

66. So let me get this straight

Say you're thinking about buying a book on, say, the Civil Rights Movement, in which the author injects a lot of his or her own opinion. Now let's say the Grand Wizard of your local KKK chapter finds out you're considering buying said book, and decides to dissuade you by sending you a glowing review of the book. Do you still buy the book, or do you let the Grand Wizard's "advocacy" of the book dissuade you?

Yeah, it's a rather shallow analogy, but given the basis on which this thread is founded, I thought it rather fitting.

[AP]

72. If the CATO institutes so awful and so biased, why'd Dean tell them

that they should like him?

Here's what the article says he said:

"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire."
Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and
deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among
Democrats in Washington.

I know, I know. The quote might be out of context. Or it might not even be accurate. Maybe Dean never spoke to them.


Or maybe it's accurate, but Dean hadn't gathered all the facts about the CATO institute before he spoke to them.

[DemBones DemBones]

76. He was invited to speak to Cato and he did. Moore and he stay in

touch. Moore thinks he could beat Bush*.

Or Moore's a liar just saying things about Dean.

Take your pick.

Got to go cook now.

[SweetZombieJesus]

77. Key phrase: SEVERAL YEARS AGO

The article says Dean spoke to them SEVERAL YEARS AGO, which could mean anywhere between two and ten years ago. Several years ago, George Bush hadn't been selected to be President. Several years ago, the CATO institute wasn't helping the neocons advance the march to war. Several years ago, John Kerry might have had the guts to stand up and vote against an Iraq war resolution.

See what I'm getting at here in my own completely unsubtle fashion? Just because Howard Dean talked to the CATO Institute several years ago doesn't mean he'd have anything to do with them right now.

But hey, I'm the one who's just making ad hominem attacks. I'm the one who's reducing Kucinich supporters to some ridiculous caricature and dodging the issue that this little meme was birthed by a group that gets funding from Rupert Murdoch. :eyes:

[AP]

84. Several years ago I knew what the CATO Institute stood for, and I didn't

have the benefit of being a professional politician who gets paid to know what's going on in the political world.

Why would a democratic governor of a liberal state be interested in talking to the CATO Institute (or be invited for that matter)? Perhaps he wanted to work out some ideas where he thought their philosophy overlapped with his own?

I wouldn't just say this off the cuff. I only suggest it because he does seem to be a little too dismissive of progressive taxation, and a little too supportive of helping out that BIG company (the kind his father made a good living helping).

[DemBones DemBones]

74. I'll post other articles another time. I think this article is of

interest because the author is a conservative and he likes Dean's record. I don't agree with his worldview. I don't want to have dinner with him. I wouldn't buy his books. I posted another thread with quotes from Michael Ledeen earlier and I don't like his worldview, either, but I'm sure we agree on a few points about something.

However, I haven't seen anyone present proof that Moore lied about Dean's record. It's all argumentum ad hominem -- attacks on the author (Moore), his affiliations (Cato, Club for Growth), and the person who posted it (me.)

Right now, I'm out of here to start dinner. Maybe you can look at the article again and try not to see it as Dean bashing.

[library_max]

94. Hmm.

Interesting point, I said to myself, so I looked at your original post again.

Nope, it's just a bash, slam, smear, whatever you want to call it. It isn't a serious attempt to "examine the candidates," it's a cheap shot at one candidate with a view toward promoting another at his expense.

We are killing ourselves with our determination to "go negative" to help our respective favorite candidates. Try to remember that one of these guys is going to be the eventual nominee. What good can come of us shredding each other?

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

85. Did anyone read The Best Democracy Money Can Buy?

There's a section about the Cato Institute, and where they get their funding, and what Pallast thinks their agenda might be.

[SweetZombieJesus]

87. Haven't read it, what's Palast's take on CATO?

Care to summarize it for us?

[AP]

90. P. 112: CATO founded with 21 mil from the Koch brothers.

The Wichita Koch brothers run the nations only private, secure telephone network outside the CIA to control their core business as America's largest purchaser of oil and gas from small farmers and Indian reservations.

David Koch is so ultra-right wing, he ran as the Liberterian candidate against Reagan in '80.

Pallast says that the Koch brothers have spent close to $100 million to change the entire tone of political discourse in America, and it has worked.

CATO provided the funds to behind Newt's Contract for America and his successful run for Congress in '94.

[indigo32]

83. Heres a few issues I have with this article

what voucher programs they are referring to? He offered a public to public school choice program.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/Schools/vermont.cfm

I could be wrong but I bet thats not the only falsehood in that piece.

"he favors the most radical governmental takeover of the health care system" He doesn't... he supports exactly what he did in Vermont I believe. That's not a major change in position either.

What environmental regulations did he sweep aside? Did he not also aquire large tracts of land to prevent development?

YES IT'S OK TO DISCUSS ISSUES... but a little less spin would be nice.

BTW this doesn't seem to be a ringing endorsement, really. I can't imagine this guy appreciates the tax increases, the "Pacifism", ect.

[poskonig]

97. Stupid Article.

Dean is a Marxist one paragraph and uber-corporate the next?

Plueeeze.

[AP]

98. Read the Clinton Wars. That's what Sid Blumenthals says all the neocons

are. He says that what's going on today on the right wing isn't straight up capitalism, or even historically American conservativism (small fed gov't/state's rights). He says that most of the intellectual steam for the neocons is from people who were Trotskyites when they were younger.

I'm definitely not saying this is what Dean is. But I'm saying that, to a neocon, calling you a marxist and a capitalist might be a coded message to people like Christoopher Hitchens that you 'get it'.

[Freddie Stubbs]

102. The Clinton Years were good

The more I learn about Dean, the more he reminds me of Clinton. Without Clinton's "problem."

[AP]

105. How can you say that? Did you read the part where the first thing

Clinton said he wasn't going to do with the budget surplus was give it back as a tax cut?

This is the opposite of Dean.

[Freddie Stubbs]

108. Clinton promised a tax cut when he first ran

Does the phrase "Middle class tax cut" ring a bell?

[DemBones DemBones]

106. Dean reminds Stephen Moore of Clinton, too. Moore wrote:

"Ever since that first meeting with Howard Dean some five years ago, I've been trying to think of what politician he most resembles. The former governor of a small state, he is charismatic, good looking, wonkish, craving of the spotlight, and capable of telling a room full of people precisely what they want to hear. The obvious answer recently hit me: Dean is Bill Clinton, but without the skirt-chasing. "

The Clinton years *were* good, especially compared to today, but Clinton was basically a Rockefeller Republican elected as a Democrat.

Clinton cut welfare more than any Republican had ever dared.

Clinton passed NAFTA.

Clinton is all for globalization, "free" trade, etc.

That's conservative economics. Socially, he's more liberal, but took some conservative postures there, too. For example:

After the Oklahoma City bombing and the first WTC bombing, Clinton supported some legislation that began the infringement on civil liberties that continued with this crowd and the PATRIOT Act.

Clinton supported DOMA, which most people here see as ultraconservative.


What concerns me about Howard Dean is that he seems to be more fiscally conservative than Clinton was.

[DemBones DemBones]

107. Edited Post

This was a dupe, an accidental echo, of the post I made above.