Dean Calls Clark "a good guy"...

[gully]

DEAN: "Well, I think that Wes Clark is first of all a good guy.

A guy who I sought out for advice on military matters. But I think what you see in the Wes Clark candidacy is somewhat of desperation by inside the beltway politicians. You've got a lot of establishment politicians now surrounding a general who was a republican until 25 days ago, voted for Ronald Reagan, voted for Dick Nixon, supported the war last October in Iraq, although he has opposed it, I thought eloquently, since that time. Praised dick Cheney, praised Donald Rumsfeld. What I want is change in the Democratic Party. We are not going to win elections anymore by trying to be Republican-lite. What I think the Washington democratic establishment is terrified is now that their candidates are not doing so well they've gone out and found another one. Again, a good guy, very qualified, but he was a republican until 25 days ago and I think that's going to be hard to swallow for a lot of democrats."

SCHIEFFER: He said he wasn't anything. He was a member of the military, as I understand it. But you say he is a republican. Why do you say he is a republican?

DEAN: "He was a member of the military who he says voted for Reagan, voted for Nixon, praised dick Cheney, praised Donald Rumsfeld, whose resignation I and others have called for. He certainly was a member of the military, and a very good one. But he also was a republican. If you have a voting record like that and you support dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, it's pretty hard not to draw the conclusion that you are a republican. Now he has switched to the Democratic Party. I appreciate that. But I do not think that the solution for democrats to become democrats and win again is to draft republicans and to support people who have been in Washington for 25 and 30 years. The combined experience of the people I'm running against in Washington, if you include Wes’s time in Washington is over 100 years. A century in Washington. That's not a party of change. And I want the democrats to be a party of change."

Here are Deans statements in context...from Face The Nation today...

http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/001616.html#more

I don't see slanderous lies.

[Malikshah]

1. Just an observation

Gee--no responses yet?

Funny how the arguments cease when the words are laid out there for all to see.

Thanks for posting-- nice to have the transcripts.

[gully]

2. Heck the spin docs don't want truth...!

;) They want venom...

[Julien Sorel]

3. Perhaps the issue has been beaten to death?

Clark didn't support the war. Clark wasn't a Republican until 25 days ago. Dean lied. No spin required.

[gully]

7. Dean said Clark has eloquently opposed the war since October...

He also said how he feels about the Clark/Republican issue.

He did not say Clark voted for Bush.

He said Clark is a good guy who's "very qualified" in his opinion.

I don't see any lies about Clark. Sorry!

[Julien Sorel]

8. I will cut and paste:

Clark didn't support the war. Clark wasn't a Republican until 25 days ago. Dean lied. No spin required.

[gully]

10. There are quotes of Clark praising Bush's war efforts.

Perhaps some view that as 'support' :eyes: Also Clark himself said he'd have voted to authorize the war.

For a Clark supporter, you don't seem very educated on your man just yet.

[Julien Sorel]

17. You're being Deanhonest.

Dean made two statements, both absolutely false. As you are well aware, I know all about the nonsense regarding what Clark said about the IWR.

I've noticed over the years that the followers of someone often take on many of that person's traits. Dean certainly has his good traits, but in trying to spin this, you are picking up one of his bad ones.

[w4rma]

32. I fully agree with Dean's statement on Clark's IWR statements

Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War
…
General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."
…
"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

General Clark said he saw his position on the war as closer to that of members of Congress who supported the resolution — Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina — than that of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has been the leading antiwar candidate in the race.

Still, asked about Dr. Dean's criticism of the war, General Clark responded: "I think he's right. That in retrospect we should never have gone in there. I didn't want to go in there either. But on the other hand, he wasn't inside the bubble of those who were exposed to the information."
…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/politics/campaigns/19CLAR.html

Clark Explains Statement on Authorization for Iraq War
…
"I never would have voted for war," he said here this afternoon in an interview and in response to a question after a lecture at the University of Iowa. "What I would have voted for is leverage. Leverage for the United States to avoid a war. That's what we needed to avoid a war."

Speaking about the resolution on Thursday, General Clark said, "At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question."

He then added: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways, because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position. On balance, I probably would have voted for it."
…
About Iraq, he said "There was never an imminent threat," and called the war "a major blunder."

"We're not the sort of `you're with us or against' kind of people," he said.

"We're a come-and-join-with-us kind of people," he told a crowd of 1,000 in the main lounge of the Iowa Memorial Union. "Americans know in their hearts that you don't make our country safer by erecting walls to keep others out. You make us safer by building bridges to reach out.

"We also have to recognize that force should be used only as a last resort, when all other means have failed."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/20/politics/campaigns/20CLAR.html

…
"I was shocked" by General Clark's initial comment on the resolution, Dr. Dean, former governor of Vermont, said in an interview as he flew from a rally in Boston to a series of fund-raisers in New York. "I was even more shocked that he switched the next day."

"He still has to clarify his position," the candidate added.
…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/24/politics/campaigns/24DEAN.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=401401

[gully]

35. You rock! Thanks I've read that on many an occasion

and Clark supporters had better prepare b/c the front runner is gonna get guff from every angle.

[Julien Sorel]

41. Where in that statement does it say Clark supported the

invasion? And, please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be calendarically (?) challenged. Dean said Clark supported the invasion in October. That would either be next month or 11 months ago -- not a couple of weeks ago.

[gully]

44. Well have to wait for the official Clark response.

I'm sure the campaign will have a rebuttal tomorrow.

[Julien Sorel]

50. However Clark responds, or not, tomorrow,

it doesn't alter the fact that Dean lied today.

[gully]

54. I disagree, Dean did not lie today. He qualified his statements.

:nopity:

[Bertrand]

20. your generalization misleads people to believe he

supported Bushs invasion. Find me solid evidence Of Clark coming out in favour of "the Bush Doctrine"

A vote for a war resolution doesnt constitute war since the president didnt have to come to congress to overthrow Saddam, as we have seen through all the other various military adventures by the executive branch over the last 40 years. Also, he specifically has said he would have wanted an addendum to make sure the president comes back to congress to have everything aired out before the public before any proposed invasion.

Also, Dean called for the US to wait for 60 days to see if saddam will comply before he would be in favour of invading iraq unilaterally to get Weapons of Mass Destruction, so i dont see how any Dean supporter can bring up Clarks anti-iraq war credentials while defending Dean. Both were against the concept of Bush invasion and both spoke out against it very early on, so lets drop this issue.

[gully]

24. Your spinning Dean's position and you know it...n/t

[Bertrand]

28. Please dont tell me my agenda

If you think im misrepresenting his POV, show me.

[gully]

40. naw, that's been done here 1000 times, this here thread is about Deans

comments on Clark.

If you like, start your own anti dean thread on the subject. I guarantee you'll be 'shown'...

[Bertrand]

52. You brought up that

you disagreed with my point, which was also an attack on my character, yet didnt present any evidence as to how you came about your opinion. Rather than taunting, you should back up your opinions because it's a good tool to learn for when you're dealing with Bush supporters and the like.

[gully]

55. The way it works here is we back up our claims with 'quotes' and links

you made the accusation, you provide the proof. I have nothing to refute but your statements.

[kiahzero]

36. *yawn*

:eyes: yourself, given that Clark's position was a hell of a lot more nuanced than "yes" or "no".. he would have supported the war resolution as leverage, but did not support the war, and would have preferred a resolution that stated that the US would go to war if Saddam did not cooperate, but did not give W. the power to actually invade.

Dean did what everyone's been doing on Clark: Taking a position that's laced with plenty of relevant qualifiers, and turning it into a B&W issue.

Here's a fact: The world isn't black and white.

[gully]

42. *yawn yourself*

The world isn't black and white, really? :eyes:

[kiahzero]

47. ...

Yes, really. Your statement seems like you understood this already, but your previous posts don't. Clark did not support the war, he supported a war resolution. And that's a huge difference. You're spinning.

[Bertrand]

9. that doesnt change the fact

that Dean mislead the viewers by claiming clark was a republican until 25 days ago or that he supported the invasion before october.

[gully]

12. Viewers who watch would have seen the entire explanation.

:shrug:

[Clark Can WIN]

30. If he's going let bullshit like that fly he'd better be

prepared to back up his words. I liked Dean very much early in this. I still like much of what he's had to say but boy did he alienate me with this zinger. What kind of shit is that? 25 days ago Dr.? He voted for Clinton and Gore so what do you mean by 25 days ago? If he was good enough to be your Vice President 25 days ago what does that say about you Dr.?

Maybe you were right to be afraid but that doesn't mean you had to stoop to holy Joe's level. It just comes off as desperate. You still have a big bag of money and alot of other things going for you. If you start looking desperate too soon, soon you will be desperate.

You went from #2 to #4 on my list Dr. I was once a defender of yours.

[w4rma]

21. I disagree with Dean's logic, but he's NOT lying.

Dean's logic:
If you have a voting record like that and you support dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, it's pretty hard not to draw the conclusion that you are a republican.

[gully]

27. Excellent point W4rma. I dont dig the logic either in this case...

but he qualified his 'logic' for people to agree or disagree with.

[Julien Sorel]

37. He voted for Clinton twice and Gore.

He campaigned for Cleland in 2002, and endorsed a couple of
Dem candidates for state office in that same year. Anyone who makes a claim that Clark was a Republican until 25 days ago is either lying or ill-informed, and I feel pretty certain Dean wasn't ill-informed.

[w4rma]

46. note the qualifier

...praised dick Cheney, praised Donald Rumsfeld, whose resignation I and others have called for....

...and you support dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld...

I disagree with his logic, but he's definitely not lying.

[Julien Sorel]

61. Look, he made a bald-faced statement:

Clark was a Republican until 25 days ago. It's a lie. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings or whatever, but it's pretty dang obviously a lie. The speech from 2001? Even assuming the speech itself 'proves' he was a Republican then, his behavior since clearly indicates otherwise. You're already underwater here, why don't you relax for a while and hope you float to the surface? Continuing to thrash around isn't going to get you there, sad to say.

[w4rma]

62. I realize you'd like a smoking gun, BillyBunter, but there is none here

give it up.

[Cha]

4. Thank you for this, gully! I love this guy, Dean! Bless his

This is what I like..
"Bob, I had done that about two or three months ago. I thought after the allegations and the revelations about the false information in the president's state of the union address, I thought George tenet should step aside because he took the fall for something he knew was not his problem. Loyalty can be rewarded but not obfuscation to the truth."

[janekat]

14. Where is it that Clark said he was a Republican 25 days ago?

What is this 25 days ago? I'm confused. He voted for Gore in 2000 and Clinton.

[gully]

16. Clark officially changed his status to Dem recently

perhaps thats why?

I don't hold it against Clark, but I agree with Dean. It's tough to swallow for many.

[janekat]

29. How do you "officially" change your status??

I'd still like to see a link to the spot where it says that he was officially a Republican or Independent before this?

[gully]

38. He was an independent, comb the threads, you'll find the info.

Also, you officially change your status when you register as a Democrat.

[izzie]

5. Sounds right to me, think Dean hit it on the head.

I like a Dem who is one and not a cooked over Rep. Anyone that voted for Reagon can not lead our party. I have not got over the 80's yet.

[blm]

13. I love Dems who act like Dems for their WHOLE career.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Archive/Articles/Article/23996

MONTPELIER - A leading environmentalist was asked to leave Gov. Howard Dean's council of environmental advisers after she criticized the governor's short-lived proposal for a coal-fired power plant in Vermont.

Elizabeth Courtney, executive director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council, was one of 20 members of the governor's environmental council, which meets about once every three months with the governor.

But after Courtney wrote a newspaper opinion piece faulting Dean for his brief advocacy of a coal plant, she learned she was no longer welcome on the council. David Rocchio, the governor's legal counsel, wrote her late last month to say she will be replaced on the council by VNRC's board chairman. The move came after she had written the governor on energy issues and showed his staff her draft newspaper piece, Courtney said.

"From the tone of your letter (to the governor), the content of your (newspaper) essay, and your rejection of the concerns we have raised with you in conversation, it appears that you do not seek a dialogue," Rocchio wrote to Courtney and to VNRC's board. "The governor sees little point in continuing to try to discuss these issues with you."

Meanwhile, another prominent environmentalist - Mark Sinclair, Vermont director of the Conservation Law Foundation - was also asked to step down from the council. Sinclair said it was not yet clear whether he was being removed to make way for another environmentalist, as he was told, or because he had criticized Dean's environmental policies.
>>>>>>>

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/43125.html


Dean raises money from energy sources

February 27, 2002

By David Gram

ASSOCIATED PRESS

MONTPELIER — When Gov. Howard Dean wanted to raise money for a possible presidential bid, he followed the example of a former governor of Texas and called on his friends in the energy industry.

>>>>>>>
“Administration actions going back some years betray an inappropriate coziness with the utilities,” said Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Service Research Group. “I am not prepared to say it’s a result of contributions given. But these contributions present the appearance of impropriety or appearance of influence that it probably would have been better to avoid.”

Dean’s close relationship with utility representatives dates back to the day he became governor in 1991. A lobbyist for Green Mountain Power and a GMP employee were among the first people Dean called in to help his transition.

A list of the Governor’s Council of Economic Advisers includes Green Mountain Power Corp.’s chairman, two company board members and a vice president, all of whom made donations to the Fund For A Healthy America. It also includes two longtime utility lobbyists.

Over the years, the governor has sided with the utilities on many of the most pressing issues, including the push for deregulation of the electric industry, and later backing away from that as a goal. Among other major decisions:

— After years of pushing for the companies to absorb the excess costs of their expensive contract with Hydro-Quebec, Dean’s Department of Public Service agreed to let ratepayers be billed for more than 90 percent of what those excess costs are expected to be in the coming years. The extra costs will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
>>>>>>>

AND, OF COURSE, MY FAVORITE:


Dean kept his distance from his party's liberals during his governorship.

''He seemed to take glee in attacking us at every opportunity and using us as a way to form alliances with more conservative elements,'' said former state Sen. Cheryl Rivers, a leader of the state Democrats' liberal wing and former chairwoman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee.

. . .

Dean trimmed spending or held down increases in areas held dear by the liberals. More than once, Dean went to battle over whether individual welfare benefits should rise under automatic cost of living adjustments. Liberals were particularly incensed when he tried that tactic on a program serving the blind, disabled and elderly, which he did several times.

. . .

Rivers blames Dean for helping a third political party to flourish in Vermont that many say siphons votes from Democrats. ''The Progressive Party gained some momentum during his years as governor because he was so conservative,'' Rivers said, although she said she still may support Dean for president.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/139/region/Those_who_know_Dean_says_he_s_:.shtml

[gully]

22. Oh cripes not again BLM. This tired stuff has been gone over with a fine

tooth comb.

Let's stick to the issue of the day, shall we.

[blm]

26. No...no one has refuted one iota of this information.

And Dean's record does NOT get scrutinized completely here.The Deanut Gallery won't allow it, so they just attack the reporter or the progressive Democrats quoted in the articles.

[gully]

31. Bull, there's a site dedicated to defending Dean against slanderous

bs as it is so common place.

www.deandefense.org

[blm]

34. So THEY say. THEY spin.

THEY lie.

[Cha]

57. There are others who lie and spin against Dean and it is

only smart to have a Defence Force...so Dean will be able to defend himself the ones who have an agenda.

This is something that Al Gore could have used with all the lies that came forth against him.

[janekat]

25. So I guess because I voted for Reagan 22 years ago - I can't run

for President. And that also means that NOT ONE of the 60% of the population that voted for Reagan can run for President. Do you realize how silly that is???

Are you always this rigid and judgemental?

[gully]

33. Uhm, that's not what Dean said..

wrong answer, thanks for playing...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

56. You can run. But I wouldn't vote for ya.

The lack of judgment is appalling.

[Tinoire]

6. Thank you Gully - bookmarking this quote

Dean is looking better and better to me everyday. That is pretty much plain speak right there:

"he was a republican until 25 days ago and I think that's going to be hard to swallow for a lot of democrats."

Hard to swallow is putting it mildly.

[JohnKleeb]

11. yep

[Democat]

15. Pathetic spin of an obvious underhanded attack by Dean - and you know it

He uses a few minor compliments to try to make it seem nice. But everyone, especially a smiling Karl Rove, can see that he's attacking another Dem candidate.

Trying to spin this into anything but a Dean attack on another Democrat is pathetic.

If Dean continues his desperate Lieberman-like attacks on Democratic candidates, he will eventually lose the support of many people.

Most of us want to beat Bush, not beat each other.

[roguevalley]

18. I don't care.

Everyone needs to stop sniping at each other and unite against the idiot in the white house. All the crabbing in the world here won't change one mind when you enter the booth. You'll vote for whomever
you want and all the sniping does is create hard feelings.

I'm voting for Clark. I hope that doesn't mean I'm a 'bad' guy or a republican. Sheesh. I thought this was America and you could choose
whomever you wanted for whatever reasons you want.

Or is it?

[gully]

19. On the one hand, you all defend Clarks former voting record

saying 'so what if he's a former Republican' and then you call Dean a slanderous asshole for saying Clark was a Republican.

Is the Clark was a Republican issue an issue or not.

Perhaps many Republicans who are sick of Shrub, will be happy to embrace Clark because of Dean's statements.

[Cha]

23. gully is just pointing out that Dean is once again saying exactly..

how he feels. I for one I'm glad that Dean is saying this...I don't want Dean shutting up about anything that bothers him. :kick: Haven't the other Dems have pointed this out, too? They all had their turn and now it is Dean's turn.

[jonnyblitz]

39. It sounds different out of context and posted by hysterical Clark

supporters. Sounds less strident in context. Thanks for posting.

[tjdee]

60. Actually, I find it to be more so.

We'll disagree on this, but the transcript is much worse in my opinion, than what was going around this morning.

[Darranar]

43. Thanks, gully!

Go Dean!

[joe_momma]

45. Dean has lied before....

He will lie again. Does it surprise you? He practices ends justify the means politics. Clark is in it to win it, and Dean is pissed he rejected his VP offer. Wah.

[gully]

49. Wrong again...

SCHIEFFER: Governor, I have heard reports that you actually talked to Wes Clark. I know you had some meetings with him about what would be possibility of him possibly being a running mate with you if you wound up with the nomination. True or false?

DEAN: I have talked to Wes Clark extensively. I have not offered him any positions and I had not offered any positions. You cannot offer somebody the vice presidency on the basis of one series of meetings. That requires a very lengthy vetting process, and at no time has that vetting process been done or been considered.

Read the link...

[joe_momma]

51. You are naive...

Like I said, he has lied before and will lie again.

[Cha]

58. And you call People names.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

48. Dean Shows He Can Spin With The Best

by only mentioning some, not all, of the facts. He fails to mention that Wesley Clark has voted Democrat for the last 2 Presidential cycles (Clinton and Gore). He failed to mention that Wesley Clark stumped for at least two Democratic campaigns in 2002, including Max Cleland. He also fails to mention that in Arkansas one doesn't have to register with a party. If Wesley Clark were a Republican, he would have registered Republican. He didn't. While surprisingly true that Clark seemed to praise members of the Bush administration at a speech at which he was asked to appear to accept an award, let's wait to hear his explanation. I didn't hear Clark endorse their policies although he did offer them personal praise. He wasn't a partisan politician at the time, running for office. Also, at the time, I don't think anyone in the world could expect the Bush administration to go on this arrogant, militaristic, neo-colonial adventurism in which they have engaged. If Democrats in Congress now had the opportunity to again vote on confirming Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, I don't think it would be a unanimous vote. Things have changed that much. Personally, I'm more concerned with ideas instead of Party. Rignt now in the Democratic Party, there are millions of members alive today who voted for the likes of George Wallace, Orville Faubus, and Lester Maddox. There are millions more who voted for Ronald Reagan. People change and events change them. I'm willing to Judge Wesley Clark on what he says today, rather than how he voted more than a decade ago.

[gully]

53. Deans not campaiging for Clark...

"I'm willing to Judge Wesley Clark on what he says today, rather than how he voted more than a decade ago."

I think that's a good additude, but not everyone will agree with you, I think that's Howard Deans point.

Many Dems will take issue with Clarks past. However it could be a positive for Republicans wanting to 'come over' but I hate to see the party move any more to the right personally.

[tjdee]

59. This is actually worse than I thought.

A Wesley Clark candidacy is an act of desperation by party insiders?

So he really *doesn't* think Clark is a good guy. He thinks Clark is some kind of party insider puppet.

And he *keeps saying* he's a Republican. Try to hammer that in.

Of COURSE none of the DU Dean supporters (except one or two) will find anything wrong with this.

At this rate, I really will have to get liquored up good before I vote for a nominated Dean. He is not a nice man.

[Bread and Circus]

63. Dean is misleading...

and is misleading intentially for votes. Where I come
from that is called lying. Was Bush lying in the
SOTU address? Yes. By the same common-sense standard, Dean is
lying. It's proven in the text you so graciously have
provided, thank you for confirming my initial thoughts.

Dean is a liar and an idiot if he thinks this is how
to win the Presidential election.

Did we ever hear this shit out of Clinton? No!
Did we ever hear this shit out of Carter? No!
Did we ever hear this shit out of John F. Kennedy? No!

Dean wants change in the Democratic Party? Yeah! For the Worse!

He can go to hell. The statements he made are shitty, negative, divisive, and an attempt at vote whoring!

Wes Clark, whether he wins or not, can help the image of this
party and everyone with a damn brain knows it.

He (Clark) has stated he was "nothing" -- a direct quote -- until he declared himself a Democrat. But Dean calls him a Republican 5 times
in two paragraphs. So is he saying Clark is lying? Yes. And that's
the problem.

Dean has made a mockery of the office of the Presidency with
his lowest-common-denominator attacks.

Frankly, the more I watch all the candidates, I realize I would
certainly be happy with Clark, but I would also be happy with Kerry, Gep, or Edwards as well. If I thought Kucinich would have a snowball's
chance, I would love to have him win it all even though I disagree
with his Iraq exit policy. On the other hand, Dean has proven
himself dirty "politics as usual" which is the exact opposite of
the image he tries to project. It's kind of like a cop using the
uniform to hide his worst crimes. It's the lowest form of
politicking I have seen, on a par with the Lies, smears, and
mis-direction we get from Rove and Limbaugh.

Dean is a pied piper. I have no use for him.

[w4rma]

64. Is Clark the DLC candidate? Many folks say DLC = Republican. (n/t)