Kerry changes stance, takes on Dean

[ModerateMiddle]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/04/kerry_changes_stance_takes_on_dean/

The debate within the campaign of Senator John F. Kerry about how to deal with Howard Dean is over.

As he tries to reinvigorate his Democratic candidacy for the presidency, Kerry has made it clear he is not going to wait and see if Dean's surging campaign will fade. Since Sunday, the Massachusetts senator has criticized the former Vermont governor, who leads in the latest polls in New Hampshire, for his opposition to the Iraq war, lack of government experience in foreign policy, economic plans, and membership in the National Rifle Association.

snip

On Monday, Kerry took on Dean over domestic policy, questioning his economic plans. "Howard Dean said he's going to balance the budget in the first three years. Try it, and see what kind of pain is going to happen to the economy as a whole," the senator told reporters as his plane flew to South Carolina for his formal announcement speech.

Kicking off what is supposed to be his big week, Kerry also broke with his recent history and started criticizing Dean by name. "I think George Bush has proven that the presidency is not the place for on-the-job training in this new security world and foreign policy challenges," the senator said on Sunday during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press. "For governors, Howard Dean has zero experience in international affairs."

Kerry said in an interview that the formal declaration of his candidacy marked the appropriate time to begin highlighting distinctions between him and his eight current rivals for the Democratic nomination. The shift in tactics also appears to indicate a victory for hawkish members of Kerry's staff, who favored engaging Dean, over others who believed Kerry should continue at his pace in the hope that Dean's candidacy would sag.

more at link

I don't think that pointing out the differences between the candidates is attacking, and shouldn't be considered to be so. In the end, the Democratic candidate will have to point out why he would be a better President than George W. Bush, but in the primary fight, everyone already agrees that their own dog would probably be a better President than Captain Bunnypants. In the Dem primary, candidates have to point out why they would be a better President than their primary opponents. That's what Kerry is going to do.

And I'm ready to hear THIS debate, for very sure.

[ProfessorPlum]

1. highlighting his differences with Dean is definitely a smart thing

for Kerry to do, if he doesn't want to appear as if he wouldn't fight at all.

The differences in his foreign policy experience, NRA ratings, and his economic positions are all good valid, substantial points on which to draw the distinction.

I would advise Kerry (if I were his advisor) not to bring up the war - Dean's opposition to it was 100% right on the money and it is a losing battle for Kerry to delineate the two candidates based on it. After all, Kerry also opposes how Bush has handled the war, according to him.

[ModerateMiddle]

5. What's odd is that Dean's position

isn't all that different from Kerry's position. They both labored under the now proven misconception that Saddam had WMD. They both believed that he needed to be held to account. Even their differences as to how to accomplish that are not that far apart. Dean also says that he would have invaded had Saddam not ponied up the WMD, after a 30-60 day ultimatum.

But Dean didn't have to take a stand in Congress. Therein lies the difference. Dean can tell us what he "would have done", without really being very specific.

[ProfessorPlum]

7. I agree with everything you said

however, it is clear what Dean actually did - he took a stand on the war itself, regardless of the vote, and Kerry should have taken the same stand. If he would have, it would have been easy for everyone to clear up this "he voted for the war" misconception.

Dean is not going to go out of his way to clear it up, and neither, it seems, is Kerry. Neither are the presstitutes. The GOP is certainly not going to clear it up. And so the people will most likely continue to think that voting for the IWR was in fact voting for the war. Kerry's continued support for the war (and bashing Dean for opposing it) makes a hash of trying to straighten it out.

[ModerateMiddle]

10. In time, I think it will be cleared up

Kerry is so adamantly against HOW the war - and the aftermath - has been prosecuted, that his position will be clear to anyone who takes an open minded stance to trying to understand. Some will never do that. But, too, some will never vote for a Dem no matter what.

I think that given Kerry's concern in 1998 that Saddam still had some stores of WMD even after so many years of inspections - it would have been irresponsible of him to not support a military thread. If Kerry had been President, I'm sure war would have been avoided. Chimpy had a hard on for war since 9/12, and nothing was going to stop him and his neo-con chicken-hawk buddies. The Senate Dems (aside from the Rose Garden Betrayal duo) did as much as they could to make W. act responsibly. The power of the Presidency, particular after 9/11, was tremendous.

There is absolutely NO doubt in my mind that without the IWR and the credible threat of force that Saddam would never have let the inspectors back in. It should have stopped there, and the inspections allowed to continue. That it didn't was entirely Chimpy's fault.

And that's what Kerry emphasizes.

[ProfessorPlum]

14. that "distinction" is not clear to me

in fact, it makes my head ache.

It sounds like "the war itself is fine, but I disagree with how Smirky got us into it".

Look, nobody is going to disagree that it was important for us to keep looking into what Saddam was doing, but was the war good for the US overall, or bad, and why couldn't Kerry predict that beforehand?

As I said, this issue is a loser for Kerry - he should be quiet about it, at least.

[Nicholas_J]

19. What is odd

Is that Deans early opposition to the war changed and then "BECAME NOT THAT DIFFERNET FROM KERRY'S"

If you read Dean foreign policy speech at the Georgetown, and high school teacher could tell that Dean had someone re-write Kerry's speech from 4 months earlier, as each paragraph of Deans speech contains the very same references as Kerry's: comparaisins to the Roman Empire, the history of Foreing Affairs under Truman and Kennedy, all Dean speech is laid down in EXACTLY the same order and format as Kerry's.

THe best part will be Kery showing how much like Bush, Howard Dean was as Governor.

[ProfessorPlum]

21. sniff

my heart breaks for you.

[clar]

2. He'd be wise

not to bash him on his opposition to the war unless he wants to further alienate the substantial numbers of dem activists who also opposed the war.

He shouldn't attack him on him membership in the NRA. Dean's not a member. In any case, Clinton, I believe, was.

[demnan]

3. I can't wait for the debate!!!!!

It's going to get interesting now. As far as Kerry goes, he's doing what he has to do to win and he's offering his own alternative.

What should Dean do?

If I were Dean, I'd let Kerry duke it out with Kucinich. Now there's a guy who can argue!

Sharpton is always a joy to listen to! He's easily the funniest candidate.

Mosby-Braun will weigh in soulfully. Easily the most charming of all the candidates

Graham will bring up the intelligence failures of the Bush Administration.

Gephardt will explain and defend his health care program.

Edwards will provide more down-home antidotes and his hair will be pretty, too.

Lieberman will probably continue to attack Dean - I think Dean will chew him up if he tries.

It's going to be a fun night!!!! Get your beer and pretzels ready. I really live for this!!!!

[ModerateMiddle]

8. It's going to be good

Although I object to the characterization of Edwards. Next to Kerry, I find the Edwards proposals to be the closest to my own views. I don't think Edwards is the best candidate for the Presidency - yet - because of his lack of experience. But the man is very bright, and has very good policy recommendations.

If Clark got into the race, he might be my second choice. But right now, it's Kerry first, Edwards second. I disagree too much with Dean's focus on balanced budgets in the face of this economy to support him.

[uberotto]

4. The best thing about the democratic primary....

is that we get to see cable news reporters asking difficult and challenging questions and deomcratic politicians grow backbones and starting to attack the opposition.

Unfortunately, the majority of this is still not being directed towards the republicans.

[ModerateMiddle]

6. Right now it can't be

Right now they have to put up or shut up against each other, for the right to challenge the Chimp in Chief next year. Only one man can be our standard bearer. They have to take on one another.

So far, I've not heard Kerry demonizing Dean as a person, just his proposed policies as being inadequate or wrong (the tax cut/balanced budget thing, with which I so heartily agree!).

I would hope that it would not devolve into personalities, but OTOH, it was one of them who characterized "the democrats in Washington" as needing a spine transplant :(

[ProfessorPlum]

11. do you disagree that

the Democrats as a party need a spine transplant?

I can respect that view if you do, but I think that diagnosis is right on the money. (Dr. Dean knows about spines, after all ;) )

[ModerateMiddle]

12. I think the whole country was shell shocked

after 9/11 and the Democratic Party, being even MORE genuinely patriotic than the scheming neo-cons and Delays of the Republican Party - really tried to work AS one united country.

I do think that there was political miscalculation about the IWR, with several advisors saying that the resolution was going to pass regardless of Dem opposition, so that the Dems might as well vote with it to innoculate themselves against charges of being "soft on terrorism". It was a mistake, and I was horrified to watch it happening.

I have to wonder how Dean would have behaved had he been in Congress to have his official vote recorded. But maybe that's why Governors are more often elected than congress critters - because there isn't that vote trail.

[ProfessorPlum]

15. 9/11 didn't create spineless Democrats

they laid down for impeachment, they laid down for Republican sexual hypocrisy, they laid down for the theft of the election in 2000, they laid down for Cheney and the GAO having to fight for his energy task force notes.

The fecklessness inherent in the party as a whole, if not in every individual in that party, is not a product of terrorism.

Let's hope that the Dean candidacy, at least, wakes people up to the need to fight.

[KaraokeKarlton]

9. Weak arguments...

Now Kerry has taken to calling BOTH Bush and Dean wrong on Iraq. Sorry, but Kerry is the one who is wrong simply because he can't decide whether he supports going to Iraq or not. At least both Dean and Bush HAVE a position...and Dean's is clearly proving to be right more and more every day.

NRA...not only is Dean NOT a member of the NRA, but Kerry is DUMB for highlighting guns. It's going to essentially destroy any chance he would have to beat Bush. After 9/11, anyone critical of gun rights or who hints even remotely they will be pro-gun control is dead in the water. Kerry has guaranteed a Bush victory IF he is the nominee. Ignorant move...totally ignorant.

Anyone can get foreign policy with common sense, fairness and respect for the rights of other countries. Good advisors take care of any lack of experience on that one. I'm not concerned about that...but I am concerned about experience balancing a budget and executive experience. Kerry has NONE. The financial matters are MORE important right now than foreigh policy is...and the executive experience Dean has makes him more experienced for the job. So Kerry fought in Vietnam, that doesn't make him any better suited to handle the military or foreign policy. If that's what people are going to vote for they will vote for Clark over Kerry because Clark is more experienced in that area. Senators lack executive experience, which is why they almost never get nominated to run for president. Governors have that experience and that's why they are usually the ones who end up president. The only way Kerry will ever be elected president is if he is a VP first or becomes a governor first.

[ModerateMiddle]

13. Obviously we have different priorities

I don't have any trouble at all recognizing where Kerry stands vis a vis Iraq. And being against the NRA isn't being against the 2nd ammendment. The NRA is most definitely a "special interest" and Kerry is for standing up to special interests.

[KaraokeKarlton]

16. Kerry shouldn't be lying

and saying that Dean is a member of the NRA or even affiliated with the NRA. He's not. Dean has never pursued any particular rating from them. He has done what he believed in and they gave him an A rating as a result. Unless you are a gun owner or understand the importance of gun rights to people...you just can't "get" this issue. It doesn't matter that the NRA is special interest. What matters is that Kerry just told all the gun owners in the country that he has disdain for the NRA. When gun owners read and hear that they are going to take it to mean that Kerry is anti-gun, whether he is or not. He's set himself up to be portrayed as a gun grabber and in a post 9/11 America, that won't fly. He's destroyed any shot he had at being able to beat Bush. What is wrong with his campaign? Seriously, he keeps sabotaging himself by doing and saying the worst things.

[Fabio]

25. Whoa!

Some responese to what I think is an irresponsible post:

First, Kerry CAN think that both Bush and Dean have it wrong in Iraq. I know, because I do. I am sure we agree that Bush had it wrong for not building a coalition and letting inspections run their course, and for having no plan for the peace. Howard Dean has it wrong because he lacked an alternative plan of action, and by not pressing for Saddam to be held accountable, he would be undermining the legitimacy of the UN and encouraging Middle East radicals who see the US as a paper tiger, much less letting human rights abuses continue. I think JK is looking more and more right everyday.

Second, handguns and urban violence are a huge issue that affects the lives and deaths of way too many americans. What's the number one killer of african americans males ages 18-25? Gun violence. Jeez, I guess that's not an issue to a moralistic anti-war voter, right?

Third, the executive experience issue. Kerry was lieutenant governor of Massachusetts. He's served on the banking committee, the small business committee AND he started a cookie business in Boston that exists for 20 years...mmm...cookies...Howard Dean did a very commendable job of running vermont's finances, but before you scream at the legitamacy of a cookie company as a proxy - remember that Vermont has a $1 billion annual budget and 700,000 people - not exactly the three trillion and 250 million of the total US.

Finally, Kerry fought in vietnam and has 19 years on the foreign relations committee and six on intelligence. And that time that Dean spent trying to find his brother (you know, right after Aspen?) Well, John Kerry was in Vietnam over 10 times in the early nineties, and put the whole POW-MIA issue to bed. Oh yeah, and he fought and won the battle for normalized relations. IMHO, He definately is better suited to handle military and foreign policy.

The reason that Senators are having a hard time making it to the White House is not because of qualification, but because of politics. Because of amendments and pork, senators are always voting against bills that ON THE SURFACE they would seem to support. The best example - Max Cleeland and the Homeland Security bill: by voting against the Republican version which de-unionized many workers in their transfer to the new dept, he was later branded an anti-patriot.

[dorktv]

28. um the last census figures set the amount of people at an

estimated 280 million.

[Fabio]

30. Thank you

for reiterating the appropriateness of your screen name. Go to bed.

[Nicholas_J]

17. NO

Keery campaign staff have been at odds and split between wanting to remain above the fray and keep on issues, but Dean has gained so much of his support by attacking other democrats that they are not only going to point out the differnces between the two candidates, but use Deans own capign claims and pick them apart by looking at what he is saying about himself as governor, and what actualy happened in Vermont while Dean was governor, which in a mini way resembles what is happening with Bush now. Deans economic policies caused a tax regression in Vermont, this weill be brought up, while he was governor, more people sank into poverty, while the Clinton boom was going on most everywhere else. Deans evivironmental record is piss poor and he brought most of the polluters into the state, while his campaign staff and supportes scream about it, there is a lot more pollution in Vermont as a result of Deans actions, and statements about the laws Deans created about various levels of certain chemical irrelevent as there are many other toxins that are now there that his regulators ignored. Most importantly his opposition to thhe war in Iraq when late polls show swin voters widely supported it an the swing voters who did are largely hispanic, black, and blue collar, is a good reason to hammer at Deans initial opposition to the war, and his later flip flops on the war.

Largely, Deans flip flops will be used to indicate that he has no spine or real political stance or sense of direction.

Kerry does not like taking this tack, but his advisors who do have won the battle of convincing him that he must at the end of the race, play the game that Dean played to get where he is.

[ProfessorPlum]

20. one might equally validly argue that

Dean has gained so much of his support by attacking Bush directly, in a way the other candidates are just starting to understand and mimic.

But your story is very entertaining. Thanks for sharing it.

[Nicholas_J]

18. NO

Keery campaign staff have been at odds and split between wanting to remain above the fray and keep on issues, but Dean has gained so much of his support by attacking other democrats that they are not only going to point out the differnces between the two candidates, but use Deans own capign claims and pick them apart by looking at what he is saying about himself as governor, and what actualy happened in Vermont while Dean was governor, which in a mini way resembles what is happening with Bush now. Deans economic policies caused a tax regression in Vermont, this weill be brought up, while he was governor, more people sank into poverty, while the Clinton boom was going on most everywhere else. Deans evivironmental record is piss poor and he brought most of the polluters into the state, while his campaign staff and supportes scream about it, there is a lot more pollution in Vermont as a result of Deans actions, and statements about the laws Deans created about various levels of certain chemical irrelevent as there are many other toxins that are now there that his regulators ignored. Most importantly his opposition to thhe war in Iraq when late polls show swin voters widely supported it an the swing voters who did are largely hispanic, black, and blue collar, is a good reason to hammer at Deans initial opposition to the war, and his later flip flops on the war.

Largely, Deans flip flops will be used to indicate that he has no spine or real political stance or sense of direction.

Kerry does not like taking this tack, but his advisors who do have won the battle of convincing him that he must at the end of the race, play the game that Dean played to get where he is.

[KaraokeKarlton]

22. Clearing up some BS being posted on this thread

And for those who think it looks like a mini version of what Bush has done to this country...if that were really the case the US would have a huge surplus and not a massive debt, or Vermont would be in debt. Vermont had a $10 million surplus this year and everyone in the state attributes it to the fine leadership and financial management of Howard Dean that has led the way here for well over a decade.

(This message is NOT directed at the author of the thread. I choose not to respond directly to BS posts that are false because it's notgood to reward those individuals with any attention.)

[sandnsea]

23. 2003 Vermont Budget Address

“If we continue to spend at the current rate, a deficit of $30 million will fall upon us in the coming fiscal year.”

"Without reform, the Health Access Trust Fund year-end balance for FY '04 will be just over $4 million. By the following year, the fund will run a deficit of $14.6 million; and left unresolved, this deficit will balloon to nearly $150 million by FY 2008."

Things are not totally rosy in Vermont. It's most likely due to the horrible economy, but it's important to have all the facts. Because you can sure bet Karl Rove does.

http://www.stateline.org/story.do?storyId=284175

[KaraokeKarlton]

24. A lot more rosy then other states...

And even the Repbulican Governor, Jim Douglas has gone on record saying that much of Vermont being in better shape than other states can be attributed to the fiscal responsibility of Howard Dean. That's the truth. Dean taught the tax and spend faction of Vermont Democrats that balancing the budget is part of being able to have good programs.

[Nicholas_J]

29. Great Endorsement

Now try to find a democrat or progressive in Vermont who agrees with Deans fiscal policies....

I always laugh when Dean supporters can only find Republicans to support Deans fiscal actions.

He was offerd another method of balancing the budget other than cutting programs as he tried to but he rejected taxing the rich:

Medicaid cuts will affect thousands of Vermonters
January 23, 2002

By DAVID MACE

Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER — Tens of thousands of Vermonters would see their state health care benefits rolled back or cut off completely under Gov. Howard Dean’s proposed budget, which seeks to wring $16.5 million in savings from Medicaid.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/41169.html



Progressives call for higher taxes for rich
January 25, 2002

By JACK HOFFMAN

Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER — Vermont Progressives renewed their call Thursday for higher taxes on the wealthy in order to avoid some of the budget cuts that Gov. Howard Dean outlined earlier this week...

The Progressives said their proposal was designed to mirror the surcharges adopted during that last budget crisis, but they have not proposed an expiration date for the new surcharges.

Dean reiterated his opposition to raising the income tax shortly after the Progressives unveiled their tax plan. Dean contends Vermont’s marginal income tax rate — that is, the top rate paid by those in the highest income brackets — already is too high.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/41293.html

Come on KK...when Time were good and the federal money was soming in under Clinton, playing fiscal conservative is fine. But when times get tough, the canmdidates real character comes out.

And Dean decided to screw the poor and disabled and elderly in order to avoid adding a small tax to the rich.

THat is validated by his staemeents.

And in the end it wasnt necessary at all as the Senate was able to save the program and as you stated, the budget balanced.

So Dean was just screwing people for no reason at all.

Just out of pure mean spiritedness, as another progressive vermonter points out:


Vermont Governors of the Modern Era, Subjective Rating and Evaluation;
Brief Comments on Their Respective Contributions
by Michael J. Badamo


*Howard Dean:

Howard Dean is clearly the runt of this litter. Dean is shallow, glib, mean spirited and overly ambitious yet Vermonters continue to reward him with term after term. On issues that matter, Dean is regressive and responsive only to the needs of elite vested interests. Taking his lead from the new generation of grossly hypocritical, Bill Clinton type Democrats, Dean mouths the ancient words of Democratic Party idealism but then repudiates labor and the poor confidant that they have no where else to go. Big money motivates Howard Dean, a spoiled brat rich kid from Long Island who always gets his own way.

Dean has never had serious opposition in any election campaign. He slid into the Lieutenant Governor's office and took over the top job when Snelling died. He has won easily since because Republicans like to vote for him while their own Party candidates have been either little known or hopelessly right wing.

http://www.sover.net/~auc/6govs.htm

[Nicholas_J]

27. Most of it results

From the way Dean balanced the budget. He pulled funds that were slated for projects in 2003, and 2004, and moved them into the reserves. Calling those programs other people wish list.

[Nicholas_J]

26. Dean Propaganda Alert...

Government Surpluses Are not the same as the financial condition of the people living in the state. Or of the wealth being accumulated privately. Or whetther the system of taxation propagated under the executive was progressive or regressive. Goverment surpluses can be easily obtained by cutting health services to the poor, elderly, and handicapped as Dean tried to do and was partially blocked by the Vermont Senate:


Senate adds money to budget, angers Dean
May 9, 2002

By ROSS SNEYD The Associated Press

MONTPELIER — Senators passed a 2003 state budget Wednesday that the governor made clear he would veto if it ever reached his desk.

Even the governor’s closest allies in the Senate ignored him. Sen. Nancy Chard, D-Windham, recommended restoring $440,000 to one of the pharmaceutical assistance programs and the Senate voted 22-7 to go along with her.

“I’ve become convinced that we have a philosophical difference between the governor, the Republican House and this Senate,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham.

“The governor and the Republican House want to balance this budget on the backs of our most vulnerable Vermonters. The Senate wants to balance this budget on the backs of the pharmaceutical companies who are charging too much for drugs.”

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/46513.html

With Deans investments in Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies, I am not surprosed he aloowed trhem to charge too much for drugs.



Dena opposed income tax increases to the wealthy, favoring property taxes and similar taxes that burden the poor and middle class and favor the rich.

The information provided about Vermont came from the Econoics Policy Instutite which is the most prestigious non-partisan economic institute in the nation.

KK...Provide PROOF of your personal opinion. Again I will repost it"

And you prove that the Economic Policy Institute Data is wrong.


And not just give your personal opnion as a citizen of Vermont.

So are the people who had to keep Dean from cutting the programs.


Vermont at a Glance

Many families in Vermont saw moderate improvements in their standard of living over the 1990s as the wages of median-wage workers grew. However, low-wage workers saw their wages decline over the 1990s, and median income stagnated. The poverty rate and income inequality in Vermont grew over the 1990s (see link below for table).

Median family income for four-person families
Middle-income families in Vermont have not fared particularly well during the current economic expansion. The incomes of families in the middle of the income distribution stagnated over the 1990s. Median family income for four-person families was $53,691 in 1998, compared to its 1989 level of $53,103 (in 1998 dollars).

Income inequality
Income inequality in Vermont grew over the 1990s. In the late 1990s, the income of the wealthiest 20% of families was 8.4 times that of the poorest 20% of families. By comparison, in the late 1980s, the wealthiest 20% of families had 7.4 times the income of the poorest 20%.

Poverty rate
The poverty rate in Vermont grew during the 1990s, from 8.1% in 1987-88 to 9.6% in 1997-98. However, the poverty rate in Vermont in the late 1990s remained below the national rate (13.0% in 1997-98).

Source: Mishel, et al. 2000. State of Working America 2000-01. Economic Policy Institute.



Copyright © 2003 by The Economic Policy Institute. All rights reserved.


Another case of a Dean supporter giving a personal opinion without providing any means of backing it up.

The fact that that like Dean does in his campaign, the only way to deal with the truth is to call it a lie, but not back up that accusation.


Dean LIED in front of millions of Americans when Kucinich stated that Dean said he would raise the Social Security Age to seventy and said HE never made that statement. Ir was DEAN who apologized for that lie. If he has lied about Edwards and had to apologize.

How many time will Dean have to lie, before it is recognized that he is a liar.