MYTH: "Dean pulled the other nominees to the left" (w/ anti-war stance)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

I really am tired of seeing this myth perpetrated here- That Dean pulled the other nominees to the left, because it is simply not true, and especially regarding Kerry. Even Dean himself admits he is not a liberal, yet so many continue to believe it.
All Dean's vocal criticism of the war last winter proved was one thing: He he can get mad, and he can get vocal. It did little to clarify where he actually stood on the war because the truth is his position is not far from Kerry's- who wanted to delay war as a last resort.

Kerry, though wanting to avoid war as any sane individual would, knew that the right thing to do was to show support for the President by voting for IWR. It does not mean Kerry wanted a war- it simply translates into support for the President to do the right thing. And to suggest that Dean pulled him to the left in any way is both absurd, and insulting to Kerry.

Now, the really down side of Dean's inheriting this mythical liberal status is that it dooms him in a general election. For he said he would have voted "NO" on the IWR, and it is now impossible for him to win the general election, because the fact is:
most Americans wanted to confront Saddam.
Most Americans thought Saddam was somehow related to 9/11.
Most Americans were afraid of looking weak before the world. And whether right or wrong, most Americans believe that whatever the decision, you must support your President- even if he is a royal flaming asshole such as Bush.

Dean's conduct last winter, though that of a hero to many here, make him a cowardly opportunist in the eyes of the electorate.

[David Zephyr]

1. In 1920, Over Ten Thousand War Dissenters Were Imprisoned.

In 1920, under a Democratic Administration, tens of thousands of dissenters against WWI lost their homes, their families, their freedom and in some cases their very lives.

If the need to win an election justifies lying to the American people in order to go war, to lose our children's lives in foriegn lands, then count me out of the process.

Please re-read your post, "Most Americans thought Saddam was somehow related to 9/11. Most Americans were afraid of looking weak before the world. And whether right or wrong, most Americans believe that whatever the decision, you must support your President- even if he is a royal flaming asshole such as Bush." Do you actually believe that pandering to such mob thinking is what Democrats should do?

[Jackie97]

37. Democrats are not very strong right now.

"Do you actually believe that pandering to such mob thinking is what Democrats should do?"

As of lately, YES. The Democrats in the house and Senate have not hardly stood up to the war against Iraq at all. They've been good for nothing. Now, they're starting to speak up more because more people are saying that they want their troops home, and because more people are wondering where their jobs went. Beforehand, the Democrats were good for nothing on this subject because they were afraid of the general public turning against them politically. Only one or more Congressmen voted against the war. Remember that.

[blm]

2. This article went after both Dean and Kerry for their war stance.

It's from counterpunch, but, the reporter's point is factual. Dean was not really the antiwar candidate as many believed. His stance was closer to Kerry's than he and his campaign will admit.

http://www.counterpunch.org/donahue10302003.html

Howard Dean wants the peace movement to believe that he is its best hope for bringing change in Washington.

In television ads and presidential debates, Dean has emphasized his opposition to Bush's decision to launch a unilateral invasion of Iraq--and downplaying his support for the continued U.S. military occupation of Iraq, and his earlier waffling over whether he might have supported a war in Iraq under slightly different conditions. Dean's emphasis on his opposition to the war in Iraq also obscures his earlier support for the first Gulf War, the war in Kosovo, and the war in Afghanistan.

Indeed, Dean's earliest statements on foreign policy in the presidential campaign were written with the help of one of the architects of the war in Afghanistan, Danny Sebright, who held the Orwellian title of Director of the Executive Secretariat for Enduring Freedom at the Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld. Sebright oversaw military operations that claimed the lives of over 3,000 civilians without achieving the stated objective of finding and arresting Ossama bin Laden. Under the Clinton administration, Sebright worked at the Pentagon helping to oversee weapons sales to the Middle East during the period in which the U.S. became the largest weapons exporter in the world.

When Sebright left the Pentagon in February of 2002 he went to work for his old boss, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, at the Cohen Group, a Washingon-based consulting company. The firm uses its political connections to help companies obtain contracts with the Pentagon and with foreign governments. While it is discreet about its clientele, the Cohen Group does list some of its successes on its website--a list that includes helping to negotiate arms sales to Latin American and Eastern European countries, and "Advis and assist U.S. company in working with U.S. Government officials and the Coalition Provisional Authority in securing major contract related to Iraq reconstruction" The fact that a close Dean advisor works for a consulting firm involved in pitching contracts for reconstruction projects in Iraq raises questions about the true motives of Dean's support for the President's $87 billion Iraqi reconstruction program.
>>>>>>>>>

[RetroLounge]

3. This is such utter bullshit I don't know where to begin...

"Even Dean himself admits he is not a liberal" - so you trash him for what others think? Nice logic.

"the truth is his position is not far from Kerry's- who wanted to delay war as a last resort." - So to prove this he voted for the blank check? Yeah, they are just the same...

"And to suggest that Dean pulled him to the left in any way is both absurd, and insulting to Kerry" - So why Bash Dean for something you just admitted he hasn't said or done. See above.

"most Americans wanted to confront Saddam" - Based on your knowledge of most Americans? You are wrong and spouting RW talking points.

"Most Americans thought Saddam was somehow related to 9/11" - and again, they were wrong. Even Dumbya has said there was no connection. But since "most" Americans are mis-informed, we need to give them a candidate thaey can feel good about.

"most Americans believe that whatever the decision, you must support your President" - Yup, just like they did when President Clinton was impeached. I saw "most" americans just rallying to his aide, chastising those Republicans, shaming them into dropping the impeachment, in fact, I don't remember a single person not supporting him. Oh, except the media, the talking heads, the repugs, and some Dinos. But yeah, "most"

"Dean's conduct last winter, though that of a hero to many here, make him a cowardly opportunist in the eyes of the electorate." - No, only to bashers like you are just desperate as their own guy takes a poll dump. Pathetic conclusion to a pathetic post.

You are welcome to your opinion, but like I said, YOUR POST was total bullshit.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

17. My tea leaves will be legible to those with an open mind..... eom

[RetroLounge]

21. Yeah, whatever. You may think my mind is closed, but

my wallet is open.

and everytime one of you Dean-Bashers post bullshit, I will toss a dollar in a jar, and then when it builds up (which won't take long), I will send it to Dr. Dean, in your DU Name.

So keep the Bullshit coming...

edit: spelling

[NewYorkerfromMass]

29. and "Dean is a liberal" is bullshit

what's "bullshit" to you is the notion that a lot of people in the party would prefer that Dean not be the nominee.

[bbmykel]

4. Dean certainly made it safe to criticize Bush

which they all do regularly now. Gephardt now calls Bush a "miserable failure" after standing in the Rose Garden with him last year.

Do you really think they would be speaking out now so bluntly if Dean's poll numbers hadn't gone way up the more he spoke out? So who's the leader? Sorry, like him or hate him, Dean was loud and out front and the others only followed when it was safe to do so (Kucinich excepted, of course!)

As for the rest of your Dean bashing, it's tired and doesn't help your candidate any. You don't like Dean--fine, I get it. But give him credit where credit is due. He provided a voice against Bush when it was not easy or popular to do so.

As for Kerry, in MY OPINION (and mine only) his lack of leadership helped to make Dean. If you don't like that Dean is the frontrunner, you need only look to your own candidate for creating the vacuum that Dean filled.

Mike

[blm]

12. Untrue. The media wouldn't report much of the criticism throughout 2002.

Here at DU the big flame wars were about whether Kerry or Gore was the one attacking Bush harder. The problem is that the media would rarely delve into the substance of their criticisms, instead taking the angle that the president is popular meme to justify marginalizing their criticisms. Dean was asked about Gore and Kerry's criticisms of Bush's military strategy on MTP in July 2002, and he backed up Bush.

For example, Conason August 2002:

Kerry Shows Courage In Challenging Bush
Thursday, August 8, 2002 By: Joe Conason

New York Observer

>>>>>
But it was John Kerry who delivered the most interesting, substantive and challenging message. His subject was George W. Bush's shortcomings as a world leader.

The New York Times reported that Mr. Kerry "offered a long attack on Mr. Bush's foreign policy," although the paper gave short shrift to the details in the Senator''s speech. What he began to articulate was a Democratic critique of this administration''s blunt and myopic unilateralism, and a vision that restores international alliances to the center of American diplomacy.

He agrees with the objective of removing Saddam Hussein, but objected to the vague plans for what will replace the Iraqi dictatorship. He called the latest arms treaty with Russia a "cosmetic" one that inadequately safeguards decommissioned weapons. He denounced the "Cold War" approach to North Korea that has undone the progress achieved by the Clinton administration. He expressed scorn for the administration''s disengagement from the Middle East crisis before Sept. 11.


He demanded an increase in foreign assistance as the best guarantee against suicidal terror. "If we fail to reach the children and families wrecked by the violence of poverty and seclusion, the growing population of unemployed and unemployable kids will find in fanaticism an answer to their problems," he said.
>>>>>>

Mr. Kerry is staking out a politically perilous position at a time when conventional wisdom declares foreign and military issues to be the exclusive province of the President. As a Senator from Massachusetts--whose last Presidential nominee suffered humiliating defeat by a candidate named Bush--he risks highlighting negative assumptions about his own viability on a national ticket.
 
According to the scientific measurements made by political consultants, Mr. Kerry''s chosen path is marked "dead end." The safer domestic route is crowded with competitors who talk only about corporate responsibility, prescription drugs and Social Security. The boldest among them now criticize the lopsided tax cut that shouldn't have passed last year.
>>>>>>>>

[Brucey]

5. Wow, I want to weigh in here, but there is so much....

I'd better just pick one item: Are you saying that a United States Senator should not vote his own conscience, but should vote to support the position of the President? What kind of constitution do we have? Aren't Senators part of the legislative branch? Don't they represent people? Should the President decide everything? Perhaps we should have a resolution that absolves the congress of every action and gives the President final authority to do anything and everything. Anyone who votes against it is not a good politician because they're not supporting their President. Anyway, they have to vote for it or they'll never win another election. Even if that last bit of nonsense was true, it would still be the right thing to do. Better to lose an election than your soul.

[mot78]

6. "Club for Growth" Doesn't bother me

They're helping us unseat Spector:evilgrin:

[ozone_man]

7. Saddam who, Bin Laden who?

Sorry, but this isn't good enough. Kerry is either very naive or was playing politics (as usual) in voting for IWR and then later crying foul that Georgie didn't tell him about the rules.

"Kerry, though wanting to avoid war as any sane individual would, knew that the right thing to do was to show support for the President by voting for IWR. It does not mean Kerry wanted a war- it simply translates into support for the President to do the right thing. And to suggest that Dean pulled him to the left in any way is both absurd, and insulting to Kerry."

[HFishbine]

8. Turnabout is fair play

Now, the really down side of Kerry losing his liberal status is that it dooms him in a general election.

For he voted "YES" on the IWR, and it is now impossible for him to win the general election, because the fact is:

Most Americans now question the need to have invaded Iraq.
Most Americans thought Saddam was somehow related to 9/11 and Kerry did nothing to reveal the truth to them, but played that misconception for political gain, just as Bush did.
Kerry was afraid of looking weak before the American electorate.
And whether right or wrong, most Democrats believe that whatever the decision, you must not blindly support the President- especially if he is a royal flaming asshole such as Bush.

Kerry's conduct last winter, though that of a hero to many here, make him a cowardly opportunist in the eyes of the electorate.

[ima_sinnic]

11. fabulous!

great answers! :kick:

[ima_sinnic]

9. "most Americans believe that . . . you must support your President"

most Americans, that is, like you and apparently also Kerry: "Kerry, though wanting to avoid war as any sane individual would, knew that the right thing to do was to show support for the President . . ."

that's feeble. bad enough that B*shit is leading us straight to hell, but to think that a Wannabe President would so willingly follow--but thanks, you've brought to light another one of those things about Kerry that just I don't like.

GO HOWARD DEAN!! Just sent another $25!

[Padraig18]

10. John Kerry was dangerously naive!

"...It does not mean Kerry wanted a war- it simply translates into support for the President to do the right thing...."

Kerry expected * to do the RIGHT thing? Since when has * ever done 'the right thing'? That is shit-for-brains thinking, Senator! :wtf:

[blm]

13. Dean on MTP in July 2002

Refusing to back up Kerry and Gore criticisms of Bush's military command:

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the military operation in Afghanistan has been successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: Yes, I do, and I support the president in that military operation.
       
       MR. RUSSERT: The battle of Tora Bora was successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: I’ve seen others criticize the president. I think it’s very easy to second-guess the
       commander-in-chief at a time of war. I don’t choose to engage in doing that.

[SahaleArm]

16. I'll be pre-emptive.

Your taking Dean's quotes out of context!
You're making this up, Dean has never supported Bush!
Kerry, Clark, and the DLC are Evil!
Dean is a true progressive!
Dean has always supported race based affirmative action!
Dean never lies, he evolves!
...

:)

[Guaranteed]

20. Kerry caved.

Alright? He's obviously a smart man, and he KNEW that the war was bullshit. But he was afraid of being called unpatriotic or weak on defense, so he caved. He lacked the leadership that we needed at what I remember to be the worst time ever for Democrats.
That's it.

On edit: If Kerry had voted against the IWR, I'd be voting for him.

[sangha]

22. Single issue voting

Now there's a new concept! :-)

[enki23]

14. considering the success he's having... "in the eyes of the electorate."

must have a pretty specialized definition for you. please, feel free to show how "the electorate" feels about dean with some numbers that show how his success in the polls is somehow obscuring.

while you're at it, show how your particular "electorate" however you define it, sees howard dean as simultaneously unelectable due to his unpopular anti-war stance, and a cowardly opportunist for taking an unpopular anti-war stance. that one should be interesting.

does anyone even fucking *think* anymore? all it takes is a few ganglia to rub together.

[sangha]

23. That's a laugh

Like Dean, still polling in the mid-teens, is on fire

[frank frankly]

15. sorry, newyorkerfrom mass, but I don't see it like that

Dean was the first to go after Bush with clarity, anger, and purpose. That is the switch in spectrum that he provided. Please don't bash a member of the Democratic Party for standing up against a war that has now proved (and then was proved) to be based on 100% false claims, and that is now FUBAR.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. Sad.

[Guaranteed]

19. Simply wrong.

"Kerry, though wanting to avoid war as any sane individual would, knew that the right thing to do was to show support for the President by voting for IWR."
That's where he went wrong. That was NOT the right thing to do. I believe he knew, just like I did, that the administration was pushing this for selfish reasons, but caved because he was afraid of being labeled unpatriotic or weak on self-defense. He had no faith in his own judgment, and, further, he had no faith in the intelligence of his constituents.

[sangha]

24. And when Dean gave Bush* "the benefit of the doubt"

when asked about whether Bush* was telling the truth about Iraq's WMD's it wasn't caving. It was the right thing to do.

[Eloriel]

25. VERY well said

And I'm tired of politicians at every level who can't seem to do what's the right thing to do for the right reasons. And I won't participate any more in my own betrayal by voting for them. Period.

Eloriel

[sandnsea]

26. 2+2 = whatever Dean says today!

You're wasting wind. I think these people get a charge out of being combative. The more you try to get them to see, the more they cling to their combative positions.

The fact that so many Democrats and DUer's would be thrilled if Hillary entered the race, even though she voted for the war; and then turn around and beat up the other candidates over the war, is evidence that there's something else going on besides the war vote. I don't know what it is, but I think it'll have to wear itself out and it'll happen alot faster if we just get out of the way and let it burn itself out.

[DrFunkenstein]

27. Polarizing And Pulling To The Left Are 2 Different Things

Dean is not more liberal ideologically (IMO, he is to the right on far too many subjects), but he is more polarizing. He speaks in the "us and them" language that has been fruitful for so many conservative pundits. Long before this race began, people were looking for someone who would be a liberal version of some of the hardcore right's demagogues.

Personally, I don't find anything gained by being the Ann Coulter of the Bizarro World. With the exception of some trashy pundits, I think of most conservatives as opposing viewpoints and fellow countrymen, not enemies. That may sound corny, that may sound naive - but I think the last thing this country needs is another leader solidifying the divide between us in the post-9/11.

Kerry may have one of the most liberal records in the Senate (and he does), but he doesn't play for the easy points. He makes a point of finding ways to work with people much more conservative than him. I find that commendable. He doesn't compromise his own beliefs, but he searches out common ground. The Foreign Policy Committee is famous for being bipartisan. I would love to have some of that sensability in the White House these days.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

28. Indeed. Dean polarized himself, and falsely so.

It was a marketing move and it worked to separate him from the pack. Were Dean to get the nomination he would immediately work to distance himself from any sort of anti-war rhetoric. He would immediately disown all the anti-war supporters who rallied to his side. Unfortunately for him (and us should he be the nominee), along with his hypothetical "NO" vote on IWR, he will never be able to explain away to the general electorate his most untenable claim that "America will not always be the strongest nation militarily".

Dean is a dope.

[CWebster]

30. For the scabillionth time

Zzzzzzzzz.

You can dredge it up a scabillion times more and iy ain't going to change anything.

yesterday's news.

[mrgorth]

31. You suck

in so many ways I can't count it. You support the opportunists and Dean did pull the party to the left.

[blm]

32. When?

When the antiwar movement grew? This is how Dean was campaigning BEFORE he decided to switch to a populist campaign:

March 2002

http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/2794665.htm

Dean, a medical doctor, describes himself as "a bit unusual" for a Democrat. For one thing, "I'm very conservative about money," he said. Also, he pointed out, he has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association.

"I have trouble with the liberal wing of my own party," Dean said.

Other things working in his favor, he added, are: "I'm not from Washington. I'm very direct with people. I say what I think. People always know where I stand. ‘.‘.‘. I think people are ready for that."

[Scott Lee]

33. Way to pimp for Kerry!

Kerry, though wanting to avoid war as any sane individual would, knew that the right thing to do was to show support for the President by voting for IWR. It does not mean Kerry wanted a war- it simply translates into support for the President to do the right thing.

Goodness how CONVEEENIENT. Are you suggesting the Kerry was so politically dumb and unaware that he didn't KNOW president war would make the "wrong" decision? If you are then he has zero qualifications for the office of the presidency.

If you AREN'T, then you are suggesting that Kerry knowingly cast a vote that he knew would end up in war....which is to say he voted in favor of war. That means he is just another career politician out to save his own ass; the very thing that is killing the Dem party and politics in general.

I hope Dean eats this cowardly schemer alive.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

35. Yes. Supporting the President is the right thing to do

in matters of national security. That's why you can jump up and down and scream at Kerry all you want and demand he repent for this vote and admit it was a mistake... because he won't. It was the right thing to do. And even President Clinton agrees. Kerry has also characterized his vote as a "threat of force" and that is also correct. Inspections don't have much bite if you can't back them up with consequences for not complying.

And nobody can ever "know" what would happen in any event. The fact is if Saddam hadn't been so belligerent and pretended he had something to hide then there wouldn't have been a war. But all the legions of armchair quarterbacks like to pretend their crystal balls are flawless.

[leesa]

34. Dean pulled Kucinich and Sharpton to the left?? Doubtful, but if he did

good for him! The 'center' is far right hate/maim/kill/thieve mentality as far as I can tell.

[onebigbadwulf]

36. My greatest hope...

Is that Dean is pretending to be a moderate and then pulls a Bush and tips America into an ultimate liberal agenda with Kucinich as secretary of state.

[mitchum]

38. Maybe he pulled the other nominees to dressing to the left

otherwise this makes no sense (since he is a centrist)