Assail my logic regarding Dean and Vermonters

[clar]

I'm not saying it's unassailable, but....

During the same period of time that Vermonters were electing Bernie Sanders, Pat Leahy and Jim Jeffords, they were also electing Howard Dean. Our Congressional delegation consists of some of the best elected officials in the country and some of the most liberal. And yes, Jim Jeffords is a liberal. (Voted no against the war in Iraq, has a good environmental record, has fought endlessly for full funding for special ed.)
So if Howard Dean is some stealth right winger, how is it that Vermonters, while simultaneously voting for one or more of the above mentioned, continued to elect Dean. Yes, the same folks voting for Bernie kept voting for Howard. Vermont voters are some of the most engaged and informed in the country, (I largely credit town meeting for this)
As a holder of statewide office here, you can't avoid the electorate; we're talking micro retail politics. Throughout Dean's tenure, there were at least two call in shows a month wherein the public had the opportunity to question the governor. In other words, the argument that the nefarious Dean fooled the public just won't wash.

[ProfessorPlum]

1. Don't worry

you will have plenty of self-deluded takers for your challenge.

People around here just like to argue, for one thing, and others insist he is a Torjun Hoarse.

I'm getting pretty sick of it. I think it is about time to take my energy elsewhere and do something postive with it instead of arguing with half-wits.

Good luck to you clar, and thanks for your perspective on things. I really love to hear from Vermonters on Dean. They tend to be very balanced and realistic about him.

[lastliberalintexas]

4. I've been away almost one week

and apparently it wasn't long enough. I've returned to the same old, same old.


Thanks clar for your post. It is always nice to hear from people who live in any of the candidates' home states and see what the long term voters of theirs say about them.

[ProfessorPlum]

6. It seems even worse than the same old, same old

to me, but maybe a week on the beach did me some good. I don't know. LastLiberal, you are all right with me. Thanks for fighting the good fight.

[clar]

5. thanks so much,

I hope you continue to be a presence here. You offer cogent observations and don't seem to spew. I think there are quite a few folks who rise above both the absurd and the muck at DU. However, if the level of discord continues to sink, those voices may well be crowded out. BTW, have you ever checked out the daily kos?

[ProfessorPlum]

7. I love that site

but the font is too small on my 'puter. Ha ha! What a complaint. I should spend 5 minutes and figure out how to fix it. Thanks for the encouragement.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. Click "View"......

View>>>Text Size>>>Largest

That'll be $20.00, Prof.

[ProfessorPlum]

13. It can't be that easy

don't tell me I don't have to reboot my computer!

Damn, that was the worst use of $20 in a long time!

[blm]

2. I don't think he fooled the people in Vermont as governor.

I think he was reticent about his centrism when it suited him to gain support from the left. He attacked any compromise by current lawmakers stuck negotiating with a far right administration, and taunted them with charges of "Bushlite" while having an 11 year record that showed he governed as a compromising centrist himself. Stealth rightwinger? No, not that bad. But a compromising centrist, himself, who disingenuously accused other candidates...YES!

[ProfessorPlum]

3. Right on time!

you are consistent, if nothing else.

[blm]

9. Marginalize me all you want.

But, you'll be hard pressed to prove that anything I've said is untrue.

btw...When are you buying that mirror? I'm assuming you don't own one.

[ProfessorPlum]

14. Well let's see

I called you prompt and consistent.

[Octafish]

24. Your implication was blm is a Dean-basher.

Besides making piquant observations regarding Dean, blm has made many thousands of posts critical of the Bush Organized Crime Family. blm wants, as much as anyone, to get rid of the Little Turd from Crawford. blm's posts on Dean work to ensure the best candidate will represent the Democrats.

[ProfessorPlum]

29. Goodness me, I would never accuse blm of being a Dean-basher

My stars, why would I ever do that?

[blm]

37. Did you ever see a post

of mine that scrutinized Dean on anything BUT the issues?
Did I ever post about his looks, his family, his personal life?

Find any post where I just attack Dean for the sake of bashing him without political content. You won't. I go after Dean on issues of political hypocrisy and counter attacks on the other candidates.

[ProfessorPlum]

40. You certainly do

.

[loyalsister]

72. What I have never seen

is a post where you have not tried to claim that if a candidate doesn't fit into your pigeon hole, they cannot possibly be suitable.
The whole reason for Dean's wide appeal is that he doesn't fit on a right\left linear spectrum. He does not have the appearance of having developed political ideology based on doctrine.
He is a true scatter plot of public policy positions, and the advantage of that is he will match issues with several different groups.
You continually try to paint that as a negative quality. It's actually kind of funny, because many of us are practical enough to know that offering something for everyong attracts plurality, and is the stuff of winning elections. Demanding ideological purity isn't going to get us where we need to be for 2004.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. I'll ask again.....

Take Dean out of the campaign.

Do you think that attacks between the candidates would not occur? If you do, you're fooling yourself. E.g., every campaign ever run.

Let your anger go, blm.

[blm]

22. No...but he benefitted from outright lying.

You know it. He knows it.

[ProfessorPlum]

26. I second that

let go your anger, blm.

If you want to look at it in a more positive light, think about this: Dean really really wants to win. Too many Democrats in the past have not had this kind of fire in their belly. That can be a powerfully good quality to have as well in a candidate.

He is out in the open about what he says - open in his statements, open in his retractions. He makes mistakes, he tries to minimize his weaknesses (or turn them to his advantage), he tries to leverage his strengths, he admits when he says something which is not true. He fights! We need him, both in this primary season and in this party. We are lucky to have him.

I have huge admiration for so many people in the Democratic party - brilliant, compassionate, hardworking, visionary people. But we need fighters, too.

[blm]

28. When did he start fighting for populism?

It wasn't his style as a governor. When did he BECOME a fighter? When it served his campaign?

[ProfessorPlum]

30. He fights as he campaigns

Who said anything about populism? And yes, he fights when it serves his campaign. That is a plus - it means he won't just lay down and take what the BFEE serves up, as so many Democrats have done in the past.

[blm]

33. Uh..."It is easy to second-guess

the commander-in-chief at a time of war. I choose not to do that."

Get real. If Dean had ANY interest in fighting against Bush only, he would have backed Gore and Kerry over Bush last summer when they were on Bush's case for his poor military strategy in Afghanistan. He chose not to, and instead, made an unwarranted swipe at Gore and Kerry as if they were offbase in their criticisms of Bush.

Dean likes to have it both ways.

[ProfessorPlum]

36. Don't we all

including some posters I could name around here.

Keep stewing in those juices, hon.

[clar]

18. blm,

I'm not going to get into tit for tat with you. We could all do that endlessly. Nor am I trying to paint Dean as an iconic liberal hero.
Generally, labels don't serve us very well.
I've been on enough threads with you; I'm assuming you've read some of my posts and know that I've criicized Dean, as well as praised him, but I won't ask you to take my word for anything. I would ask that you not automatically assume that every negative opinion by a Vermont progressive is spot on. The Vermont Progressive party is fairly large and contains it's share of disgruntled fringy people.

I wish I understood your antipathy towards Dean. You've explained it before, and it doesn't quite make sense to me. It's just so passionate and personal sounding. In my book, it's over the top.

There's a line from a Yeat's poem that goes: "The worst are full of passionate intensity and best lack all conviction."
I'm often reminded of that line by stuff I read on DU.

[blm]

27. I don't assume that, and if you read my posts

you would know I don't jump on every thread that has a lefty POV. I weigh counterpunch just as I weigh the American Spectator.

You asked for our thoughts on what you posted. I replied.

What did I say in my reply post that was incorrect? I just said that he masked his centrism earlier this year for political gain. He governed as a compromising centrist, then turned around and attacked those lawmakers stuck negotiating with a far right administration. He was disingenuous and benefitted from it.

I don't care that he governed as a centrist, but, those here who have complained about centrists in the Dem party, seem to be the same ones supporting Dean's centrism as "pragmatic" while pointing fingers at those whose records are to Dean's left.

[ProfessorPlum]

34. Let's assume that your heinous accusation is true

that Dean really did deliberately mask his centrism (horrors!).

That breaks his support earlier this year into two groups - the first which knew about him before the war, and when he was trashed as a pinko lefty, defended him against this charge. The second group knew nothing about him except he opposed the war, and may or may not have assumed he was a "liberal" (such an imprecise word) because of this. Those people have certainly learned the (horrible) truth about him by now, and have either withdrawn their support or stayed with him. Either way, he doesn't have any more support now than he would have had otherwise, except a lot of people got to hear about him because of his stance.

In the end, he took a stance which got him some name recognition. I also think it was the right stance. Now what again is so horrible about that?

Also, maybe his complaint against other Democratic candidates is not so much that they are liberal, or centrist, or conservative, but that they are cringing conciliators for Chimpy. That's my complaint with some of them as well. It has nothing to do with where he is on the political spectrum.

[blm]

39. It's not heinous. Why exaggerate?

It's accurate. The hyperbole belongs to those who use it in hope of obscuring the accuracy of my point.

[Larkspur]

20. Dean never portrayed himself as a liberal the way you define liberal, blm

My mother considered herself a liberal but the words "irresponsible behavior" were not part of them. That's how my mother saw liberals of the 1960's and 70's. My mother was a liberal of the 1930's-1940's mode when liberals also believed that citizens had a duty to be responsible citizens to their community and country as well as demand that our government do its duty to provide for the commonwealth and it's most.

Howard Dean never veered left to attract the anti-war vote. Many anti-war protesters were moderates to moderate liberals, like me. Dean's position on opposing the war was based on Bush's inability to base his case on sound facts. Dean's anti-war position is a lot like Al Gore's position, which he described in his Sep. 23, 2002 speech.

[blm]

31. I said he was RETICENT about his centrism

when it suited him politically.

Why do you insist on arguing points that were not spoken?

[ProfessorPlum]

38. Well, that's certainly a reason to hate him

I also heard that liberals in Vermont barely survived his reign of terror. That's more of a reason to dislike him then being reticent about his centrism, wouldn't you agree?

[blm]

41. More hyperbole, Plum?

Surprise, surprise.

[ProfessorPlum]

42. it's the only way to stay sane in the face of your

relentless, tank-like assault against reasonability, community, and perspective.

But I do like it when you bring facts to the table. You can be an excellent resource and I do appreciate your insights the first ten times I read them. But for the love of Pete, would it kill you to acknowledge just once that Dean isn't the Antichrist? (sorry, more hyperbole)

edit: grammar and spelling, hoo-boy

[blm]

43. I do.

Every time I say that if he is the nominee, I'll fight just as hard to defeat Bush.

I also state repeatedly that I am not personally against his centrism. That's who he is and centrism has its benefits to society, even though I am a far lefty myself. My beef is that he used any bit of compromise made by those with records to his left, as a reason to accuse them of being "Bushlite" and put up a false front of anger that any Democrat would even negotiate with the GOP. Nevermind that NOT negotiating with the Republicans in power would have been a gross dereliction of duty.

He also made a spectacle out of himself as an antiwar candidate benefitting from the appearance of being antiwar when he avoided all of the actual work against the war that Kucinich took on.

[ProfessorPlum]

45. those are legitimate concerns,

clearly expressed, and I think they do speak to Dean's character somewhat. I don't think he is the noblest candidate ever to run for the presidency.

But I think he is the best campaigner we've got, and that will make up for some nobility in my book. Other's mileage may vary.

[renie408]

10. Cautious

I am very cautious about Dean. I keep reading and reading, and I am not sure where he stands on the 'right-left timeline'. It could be that he has a variety of opinions on a variety of issues and that they cover a broader spectrum than can be defined as either/or.

Or it could be that he has convenient politics. I dunno. As soon as I think I have a handle on him, something else comes up that make me look again.

[dajabr]

11. Oooh goody! my chance to post this again...

Thanks for the opportunity to run this by you clar. Does this praise sound accurate? Any points you would dispute?

To other Deaniacs, is there anything in this endorsement that we didn't know about Dean many months ago? Did he obscure any of these characteristics to get our support?

Dean for governor
October 31, 2000

(from the Editorials section)
The race for governor this year offers Vermonters stark choices. Howard Dean's record of accomplishment, his policies, and the respectful, forthright manner with which he answers to his constituents have earned him a fifth elected term.

Amid the controversy of the current election season, some voters might overlook all that Dean has accomplished since he became governor in 1991. On fiscal management, health care, education, welfare reform, and the environment, Dean has followed a course fusing hard-headed pragmatism with a concern for the well-being of all Vermonters.

He remains committed to the goals he has pursued his entire term in office. These include ensuring that all Vermonters have access to health care and ensuring that good schools are available to all Vermont children. His experience and grasp of the issues make him the candidate best-suited to achieving continued progress in these and other areas.

When the Supreme Court handed the issue of civil unions to the Legislature and the governor last December, Dean did not equivocate or shirk what he saw as his duty. The court had found that same-sex couples had a right to marriage or something like marriage.

Dean felt pressure from both sides - pressure for a law offering a full-fledged right to marry and pressure opposed to anything resembling marriage. He decided to support a bill providing for civil unions, maintaining marriage as the bond between a man and a woman, but extending the benefits and responsibilities of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

More: http://www.rutlandherald.com/election2000/deanfg.html

[ProfessorPlum]

16. No, in answer to your question

great post. Nice to see the Rutland Herald is not completely off their rocker, too.

[clar]

21. Hi, dajabr

It's quite accurate. Really there's not much hidden about Dean. (OK his personal records for 10 years instead of 6) As I pointed out, it's really hard to hide who you are politically in Vermont.
I will say Dean did occasionally piss people off in every quarter during his years as gov. But that was never due to his obfuscation of his positions or agenda. He's a guy who could be alternately charming and engaging and brusque and impatient. He did have a way of blurting stuff out, but he does have a high teflon quotient.
For the most part he was a good governor. Sometimes he was middling. Rarely, he was on what I considered to be the wrong side of an issue. At times he was extraordinary. He surrounded himself with capable people. His appointments to the Vermont Supreme Court were fantastic. I think he'd be a good President. My doubts about backing him come from his lack of Washington insider experience, though I worry about that less than I did a few months ago. Both Clinton and particularly Carter got screwed because of their outsider status. For me, that's something to think about.

[dajabr]

25. Thanks clar...

As always, your detailed "on the ground" insight is always appreciated. Just reaffirmed for me what I've known for quite some time.

I think he'll build his past and has learned a great deal (without pandering) on the campaign trail, and will make an excellent President!

:-)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. It might be noted that clar is not a Dean supporter.

Yet.

Thanks, clar.

[AP]

17. Dean was never elected the first time and he benefitted from

incumbancy every time he ran.

Obviously, Vermonters would have voted him out if he were drastically out of touch with state politics. However, I think it would be wrong to discount the fact that incumbancy might outweigh slight differences. Would Dean have been elected if he ran in an open race? It's a question impossible to answer.

Also, Jeffords, as a Republican won election a couple times, so it's not like the conservative impulse is totally dormant in VT.

[dsc]

19. The don't give the title of Lt Gov

in cracker jack boxes. Believe it or not he was elected to that position at the same time a Repubican was winning the top slot. I realize that in your opinion everyone but Edwards has had everything handed to them but even candidates aside from Edwards run in elections and have to earn votes.

[AP]

46. You're saying that, in a year a Republican was elected Gov.

Dean was elected Lt. Gov?

Hmmm. Perhaps a reflection of the mood of the electorate?

Another reason why Dean might not be a super-liberal, yet be from VT.

Also, I think you're misreading my tone. I'm trying to have a dialog, and not sound partisan, yet answer the question intelligently.

[dsc]

49. No one is saying he is a super liberal

Of the three people mentioned in the post only Sanders would qualify as one. The point is that he evidently must be pretty good at his job to have won as often as he did. By my count he won at least 7 straight elections (1 state house race, 1 lt gov race, 5 gov races).

[AP]

50. I think Leahy is a super liberal.

I don't mean left wing. I mean not a moderate, or a democrat uninterested in issues that affect average people.

Again, what I'm saying is that he won his first state-wide race as an incumbent. You get over a hurdle the easy way when you do that. I have no idea what would have happened if he had to run his first statewide race as an open seat or as a challegner. I'm just saying that he got over a hurdle.

Incumbency certainly didn't help Gerald Ford. But it did help LBJ (who might never had won if not for it), and it helped TR for at least one election. TR definitely would never had been Mark Hannah's choice to top the ticket if not for incumbency.

(By the way, I appreciate your passion, but I think I'd fall over dead from shock if you ever agreed with me about anything.)

[ProfessorPlum]

51. thanks for the history lesson

you're missing the point - Dean was not an incumbent in his first state-wide race.

[AP]

52. For Governor?

See, I didn't know that they didn't run as a ticket (Dean benefits from coming from a small state about which people don't really know much).

I could now either argue that people aren't thinking as hard about who wins the Lt. Gov race (do they spend alot on these campaigns, do people really know the candidates, ????) or I could argue that he won his race in the same year as Republican winning the top ticket, so he might be a product of that mood.

But you know what, I don't know VT politics, and I'll leave it to someone who does to take my argument to the next step. I'm just throwing out ideas.

[dsc]

55. They don't anymore

but it has been widely discussed that he took over from a Republican governor which should have been a pretty good clue. This isn't some sort of state secret. I used to live in a state which elects gov and lt gov seperately and I have to say that at least in that state people paid attention. Though the Lt Gov had a lot of power in his own right so that may not be the case in VT. I lived in MS.

[dsc]

54. and I am saying you are flat out wrong

Dean won his first state wide race when he ran for Lt Gov which was a seperately elected office at that time.

As to Leahy I didn't know what you meant by super liberal. Many are saying Dean can't be a liberal due to his position on guns. Both Leahy and Sanders have the same one. I would call Leahy a stuanch liberal to be sure.

[AP]

56. You always do.

If the Lt. Gov's race gets one-tenth the publicity, people might be making choices for that race on issues other than how much the candidate's views reflect their own (eg, looks, the sound of their name, balance, whatever). That, or the same year they picked a Republican at the top they picked Dean 'cause that was the mood. I don't know. I'll let informed VT'ers reflect on this.

Leahy is alwasy standing up for liberals, especially as a member of the Judiciary Cmttee. I've heard him say great, liberal things. Dean, on the other hand, doesn't seem that liberal to me not because of guns, but because of how friendly he seems to have been to business, and his silence on many issues which are important for my liberal litmus test (most of which have to do with talking about allocating the benefits and burdens of society).

[dsc]

58. Nice pissy post

but bottom line I knew what I was talking about and you didn't. That is what happened here.

[AP]

59. Your post 55 almost sent me into shock.

This one's more your style.

[dsc]

60. I give what I get

to see why you got such different responses try looking at your posts. I am sick of you posting stuff, being wrong, and then bitching when it is accurately pointed out that you are wrong. You stated over and over that Dean hadn't won a statewide race as a non incumbent. You were baldly wrong about a matter of public record. Instead of acknowledging that and moving on you turn around and blame Dean supporters and somehow Dean for having the audacity to come from a small state. You didn't do your homework. You were ignorant of the facts. That is your fault, not mine, not Dean supporters in general, and not Dean's.

[AP]

62. Did Dean win an open race for Governor? Did he win a race

challenging the incumbant?

No to both, right?

I think I'm offering a decent theory in response to the quetion.

Was the question asked to ferrret out anyone who might not offer some super-positive commentary on Dean, or was it asked to hash out interesting theories?

I stand by my theory. There is something qualitatively different about running for Gov and Lt Gov. I guarantee you, Gov is higher profile race and the candidate's identities are made much more apparent to voters (who would spend more or as much money to run for Lt Gov?).

As for responding in kind. Read my first post to which I was responding and tell me, do you honestly think you were responding 'in kind'?

[dsc]

64. Unlike you

I actually lived in a state where they do run seperately. Unlike you I can say that at least in that state people do spend as much money for Lt Gov as they do for Gov. I personally know the person who ran for Lt Gov (he is now Gov) and I followed the race closely.

As to what does or doesn't happen or more accurately did or didn't happen in VT I don't know. You can't gurantee anything. After all less than an hour ago you didn't even know he had run at all. Neither of us know yet you offer guarentees and I don't.

[molly]

65. Here in Delaware, the LT GOV runs with the GOV

on the same ticket.

[ProfessorPlum]

23. Uh, read the original post re: Jeffords n/t

.

[AP]

48. Jeffords was a Republican. He may be a moderate Republican

but I'm going to guess that there was a more liberal Democrat who didn't get elected in a few of the campaigns Jeffords won. He also didn't switch to the Dem party.

[clar]

61. This isn't an insult

but you're right, you don't know much about Vermont politics. I've tried to explain. I'll keep trying.

sure Vermont has some conservatives, but most of the Republicans in the Vt house and Senate are not like conservatives from the so called red states. Most support reproductive rights. Even in a republican controlled house it's not possible to get a parental notification bill through. Death penalty? Nope, and it's not going to happen. The people who so vociferously opposed civil unions have moved on. It's not even an issue anymore anywhere in the state. In other words, this is a very liberal state.

Jeffords record was a fine one when he was a republican. I voted enthusiastically for him. The guy who ran against him last time is OK, but Jeffords is a stellar human being. New England republicanism is as different from right wing fundamental republicanism as liberal democrats were from dixiecrats. Or at least it used to be that way.
When Jefford quit his party, he caucused with the democrats. He handed them the power in the Senate. This was deservedly a big deal.
He's an independent and so is Bernie. So what? I wish there were a few more independents in congress.

People actually do pay attention to the lt. gov race here. Even though the job isn't terribly important, it can be a stepping stone. Last year's lt gov race got more attention than the race for governor.

Some people in Vermont think of HD as a centrist, but many more just think of him as Howard (or ho-ho), just as most people don't think of Bernie as a socialist, they just think of him as Bernie. Same goes for Pat and Jim.

I'd certainly add that there's nothing centrist about Dean's stands on reproductive health and civil rights.

[AP]

63. I'm not here as an expert on VT politics.

So, no offense taken.

When you have all the social wedge issues removed, you get down to the essence of what it means to be a republican. The essense is that Republicans want to shift the burdens of society on to the middle and working class, and the benefits on to the rich.

I remember reading a while ago that Jeffords waited to switch to I until after some committee he was sitting on pushed through some incredibly insurance company friendly piece of legislation. That's the essence of conservativism, which I'd like to see Democrats fight against. That's what I vote for when I vote for a Dem.

[Octafish]

32. It took me 26 Hrs to drive from Chicago to San Antonio.

It took me three days to drive through Vermont. The state is a beautiful place filled — no, populated — with good people. (No offense meant to Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas: I was asked to attend a wedding and was in a hurry.)

True, clar. The record shows Dean has done many great things on behalf of the people of his state and he has appeared before them to discuss the issues of the day and Vermonters’ concerns.

My problem is that candidate Dean has clouded over many issues of concern. His environmental record is spotty. He seems to have sided with developers and the corporations in more than a few cases. And when it comes to defending the Bill of Rights, there are some questions regarding the then-governor as evinced by the Herald editorial.

So, as Dean has not been so forthcoming with the paper trail to demonstrate the record, I have my doubts about his true positions and core ideas. Most concerning is that Dean wanted his gubernatorial papers sealed for 20 years, by his own admission to preserve his political viability. He got them sealed for 10, four more than previous Vermont governors.

National security is going to be a major issue in 2004, no matter what 2003 polls or DUers say. The candidate is going to have to be able to provide first-class credentials to trump the GOP charge that the Democrats are soft on defense.

Regarding attacks on candidates: For the past year, some of the biggest slander machines on DU are Dean supporters. You, clar, are not one of them, as far as I know. From my perspective, Kerry has been called many vile things here on DU, libels that were repeated at every opportunity.

When I pointed out the unfairness, several posters wrote I was stupid for not doing the same thing. So, I thanked them and decided to dig up some dirt on the ex-governor ex-doctor ex-stockbroker. Those who don’t like what the record shows don’t understand why it’s in their best interest to bring this stuff up now, rather than in October 2004.

Most importantly: Should Howard Dean, MD, be the Democratic candidate, I will be doing all in my power to make him President. In the meantime, I wil do all I can to make John F. Kerry the next President.

[dsc]

35. Please site where you were told

to slander candidates. Please site some of the Dean supporters slander of Kerry. Many of our slanderers are not here anymore. Please put up on this. Your last example was pretty poor in this regard.

[Octafish]

47. Here are few examples for you, dsc.

Always nice to help you, dsc. You actually fight fair and argue square. These all worked a few minutes ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4927&forum=DCForumID70&archive=

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5389&forum=DCForumID70&archive=

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=9629&forum=DCForumID70&archive=

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=60912

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=195323


This one I’ve already told you about. Everyone else who’s interested, please note response #38.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=49380

There are many, many more on DU2 and going back more than a year on DU1. While I’ve got better things to do right now than chasing them down, I’ll see what I can do in

[dsc]

53. I checked your examples

Of the ones you provided on 1,3,and 4 seem to be problem threads. I know full well the author of thread 4 is a Kucinich supporter who strongly dislikes Dean. That leaves 1 and 3. The author of thread 1 clearly is delusional relative to Skull and Bones but said problem well predates Dean. He has been on this kick for a very long time back when Gore was still considering running. That leaves 3 which is posted by someone I honestly don't know well at all. If you claim they support Dean I would have to accept that.

Not all critcism of a candidate is out of bounds. I have no problem with honest disargeements on Dean. I don't like his death penalty position nor his justifications for it. But when one tells stories they like then I have a problem. Kerry did vote for the authorization for war (like it or not) and that is a legitimate issue. Eloriel's thread was a legit criticism and I don't see a problem there.

[clar]

57. Hey, thanks for the detailed post

I really appreciate this kind of substantive, thoughtful exchange. It's just so much more satisfying than blasting.

I'm not going to go point by point with you here. I don't get the impression that that's what you want anyway.

Quite often it's the tone someone uses regarding a candidate, and the refusal to look at any evidence refuting a specific charge that troubles me, not the criticism itself. Whether it's Kerry or Dean or anyone else. The folks here that are so incapable of self-reflection, that when called on for the current of hate and contempt running through their posts, declare that they never make personal attacks, are deceiving themselves. I don't see repeated bashes with the same information as fruitful unless it simply feels good to vent. If that's all you do, you end up marginalizing yourself.

Personally, I gotta say I can't imagine loathing a candidate as much as some here do And that goes for Lieberman too. I dislike him. He makes me angry, I don't want him to be the nominee, but he's not Bush. He'd appoint decent judges.

So Octafish, good luck with getting Kerry nominated. Here's hoping we can all come together after the primary season without a sticky residue of contempt and dislike. built up over the long months of campaigning.

[Octafish]

66. You’re welcome, clar!

Thank you for the kind words. Please know I would never assail your logic or criticize you for your choice. Best of luck to you and yours. May we nominate and elect the candidate who is best qualified for uniting our nation’s people, moving our nation forward, and solving our nation’s problems. It’s a tall order, but it’s do-able. Hey! We’re Democrats. We’re the party that works to build a better country for all Americans!

I’m for Kerry because he is a genuine Liberal when it comes to domestic policy. And he’s not a pacifist when it comes to foreign policy. Kerry understands, with good reason, that America must remain the strongest nation in the world in order to remain free. These beliefs closely match the philosophy of my political guru, John F. Kennedy.

As a good New Deal Democrat, President Kennedy motivated the entire country to attempt and accomplish the impossible. He was following FDR, who created the spirit needed to defeat the Depression and the Fascists in World War 2. So Kennedy had the New Frontier and considered the next step in man's journey.

JFK wanted the nation to do something that had been dreamed about for as long as there had been dreams, but had been considered beyond man's reach except in the most fevered or fertile of imaginations. So the President said to the nation: "Let's go to the moon...not because it is easy, but because it is hard."

The results of the Apollo Program were more than advances in technology or the development of new industrial products — that kind of leadership and clarity of vision made what had been an impossible dream of man’s for centuries into reality. JFK had the vision and courage to prove to the world that America is the place where dreams come true. And a free people are the ones who do so.

In getting the nation to accomplish what had theretofore been impossible, the late President also gave us an idea of what the future might have been. If we could go to the moon and back, imagine what our nation could do on earth, where things would be relatively easier? Challenges Republicans like George “we’ve got more will than wallet” Bush Sr shrink from — like poverty, disease, ignorance, war — would be, perhaps not completely solved, but at least we would be working on solving them.

President Kennedy was murdered by people who hate Democrats and what they believe and are afraid of what they can accomplish. The same group has been running our country down the drain for 40 years now. On occassion, they expose themselves as they did during Watergate, the October Surprise treason, the Iran-Contra scandal, the Savings & Loan fiasco, the BCCI criminality, Selection 2000, the corruption of the Fortune 500, and the tragedy of 9-11.

And so I ask anyone who was alive then and remembers what happened that day: America today is not the same. Things are worse and they keep getting worse. That’s why I’m for John Kerry.

Alone among the candidates, Kerry has the credentials to garner support from the various Democratic constituencies. He has the record of service to demonstrate to the “vast middle” that his guiding priority is to do what is best for the country. And he has the vision and backbone needed to tackle and accomplish the impossible — and those are the challenges America faces today.

[indigo32]

70. Octafish

those were clearly stated and reasonable concerns, right up until the Dean supporter comment. Do you really need me to dig up alternate examples to the ones you give to DSC. Why would you listen to people who told you to do the same thing as the slanderers? Thats just wrong.

[Mairead]

44. My sense is that there's only one real question

'What will the money flow look like?'

When I answer that question using Dean's stated vision, I don't like what I see.

He has no plans to cut the military-industrial budget, the prison-industrial budget, corporate welfare, or take the hands of the elites out of our pockets on healthcare. Together, those four wealth sinks represent about $1 030 000 000 000 per year. It averages out to nearly $15 000 per year in taxes to a family of four, based on a 285M population. That's a lot of money! Worse: its a lot of misery, because that $1T+ isn't being spent for humanitarian purposes, it's being spent to maim, kill, subvert governments, and generally make a mess of the lives of people who have no say in the matter.

And, speaking of 'no say in the matter', he sees nothing wrong with the idea that 'money buys access'. Since you and I (or at least I) don't begin to have the kind of money that would buy access (maybe access to a broom closet. In Tierra del Fuego), I suspect that means we wouldn't be represented as well as those who can 'draw near the throne'.

I see no reason to be optimistic, honestly.

[dajabr]

67. Mairead, this will not mean a hill of beans to you...

As it's absolutely clear that you have no love for Dean - and never will. But I have to say, you are giving Dean the short shrift in your assesment.

With Dean you'll get:

Military Budget - OK, right off the bat, you can take star wars off the table. Not back to the drawing board - done. Over. Secondly, you'll see a move back to defense from the current offensive "bush doctrine" posture we are in now. Containment & diplomacy, IMO is cheaper than waging multiple wars. So, where will that money go? A few possibilities - blend of true National Defense & Homeland (hate that word!) security. Securing the ports, funding first responders, buying old soviet uranium stockpiles, bolstering (Constitutionally respectfull) Intelligence. Soldiers and their families will not be relegated to near-poverty. He will honor international nuke treaties, so you won't see ICBMs and mini-nukes rolling off the assembly line by the dozens. No, initially the budget won't be cut, but you can expect the funds to be applied quite differently in a Dean Administration.

Prisons - Invest in social programs to avoid investing in prisons
In 1991, I had to cut spending. The Commissioner of Corrections came to me asking for a 14% budget increase. Everyone else was being asked to cut spending, but prisons-the most expensive and least effective social service investment we make- needed more money.
My view of social spending changed in that instant. Because studies show that any competent kindergarten teacher can make a pretty good guess about the five kids most likely to end up in prison, I decided to focus Vermont's efforts and money on new families with very young babies and children.

Today in Vermont, we invest in our children. We visit every child and new mother in the hospital at the time of birth. We offer home visits two weeks after discharge to talk about everything from nutrition to housekeeping to substance abuse to the value of reading. Last year 91% of moms accepted our visit. I believe that one day this program will result in much lower incarceration rates in Vermont.

Source: Campaign web site, DeanForAmerica.com, "On the Issues" Nov 30, 2002

http://issues2002.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Crime.htm

Corporate Welfare - The name "Ken lay" appears in at least 51 documents on Dean's official site. He continually expounds on the need to re-build the middle class, strengthen unions (first AFL-CIO Paul Wellstone award winner) and protect working families.

Healthcare - Has backed single payer, "Canadian Style" universal healthcare. Has pledged to move to that end once he gets his initial plan passed.

Money Buys Access - Yes it does. In <$100 increments from 96,000 citizens. We the people have freed him from the potential influence of "Fat Cats" and now hold him accountable. Want to make your voice heard? Take a trip over to the Dean Blog and drop some ideas and comments. I guarantee you they take them seriously, amd act on many supporter suggestions. Read about it here: http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/001096.html#more

Honestly, I see many reasons to be optimistic.

[Octafish]

68. A kick up for DU

Hey, Deanies. Read and learn.

[w4rma]

69. He's not a liberal, either. Remember that Vermont has a Progressive Party

And Dean has always governed Vermont as a centrist.

Note, he's not a right-winger, either.

[Nicholas_J]

71. Dean Nearly Lost

His last election because over the ten years he served as governor, his failure to keep his LIBERAL promises caused massive defections from the democratic party to the Progressive:

Dean himself admits this in a gay periodical in Vermont:


There are a number of Democrats and a number of Catholics who I have lost the support of, and I need to get that support back. The biggest problem for me (in November) is (Progressive) Anthony (Pollina). Anthony is going to take votes away from me and he’s not going to take any votes away from (Republican) Ruth (Dwyer). So actually the better he does, the more likely it is that Ruth Dwyer is going to be Governor.

OITM: Do you plan to attend Vermont’s Gay Pride celebration on June 17?

Dean: I’ve never attended Gay Pride because it always coincides with a big soccer tournament that my kids are in. They always invite me, and I always say no because it is always the day of the Tom Lawson tournament.

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jun2000/news06_dean%20.htm

Again, where does Dean pick up the slack from losing Democrats to the Progressives:

"There are issues that I disagree with him on, but...never in the end have I ever had any question that the governor has good, sound fiscal management."

One of those issues was Act 60, a law that many Republicans have opposed. Several times during the news conference, the Republicans said they disagreed with some of Dean's policies but reiterated their support for his fiscal conservatism.

Even Dean acknowledged that his fiscal policy was the common ground he shared with the nine men and two women at the table, most of whom admitted to voting for Dean in the last election.

The group, known as "Republicans for Dean" represents the first organized GOP endorsement for Dean in any of his five campaigns

http://www.rutlandherald.com/election2000/repbackdean.html

In another article, Democratic Leaders blame Deans conservatism for Democratic losses:

Certainly the Democratic caucus was never 100 percent behind him and where there were differences, it was around how progressive or how moderate he was," Chard said.

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://premium1.fosters.com/2003/news/may%5F03/may%5F19/news/reg%5Fvt0519a.asp

The last criticism of Dean was that once he retired as Governor, and set his eyes on the presidency, he abandidned Vermont Democrats and did little or no campaigning for them to try to keep Dems in office in Vermont. Republicans them swept the state.

“And Governor Howard Dean, the Democrats’ chief recruiter of gubernatorial candidates, failed to secure a majority of governorships for his party — even after all the pundits had predicted it. What’s more, Dean couldn’t even keep his own state Democratic. He’ll be replaced by a Republican in January. And to think Dean fancies himself a Presidential candidate.”

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Local_Columnists/Story/56329.html