Dean is a dishonest, lying politician

[Feanorcurufinwe]

He says anything neccesary to get elected, then WATCH OUT! once he is in power. Check his record for yourself.

http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html
http://www.vtce.org/deancrisisagvt.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs08292003.html
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html
http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1907-2003Jul2
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/930194.asp?0si=-&cp1=1#BODY

[diplomats]

1. I'm not a Dean supporter at this time

but this is an inflammatory thread if I've ever seen one.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Yes the subject line is inflammatory

but it is also backed up by facts and references, unlike some of the other inflammatorily-titled threads in here.


The truth hurts.

[KoKo]

6. Why do you post a subject line like that? Why are you so angry?

If your articles prove what you say then let them speak for themselves. It's a personal attack against a candidate.:shrug:
And instead of reading your links people will only attack you in return.

[ErasureAcer]

47. he doesn't want to see a liar(Dean) go up against Bush

for it would mean political doom for the Democrats.

We need a candidate who is honest and has a vision...that man is Dennis Kucinich.

[LuminousX]

48. Do people really believe

a liar will get through the nomination process?

If Dean is a weak candidate, that will become quite apparent to the voters.

[renie408]

54. Excuse me?

Have you noticed who the PRESIDENT is right now?

[LuminousX]

58. He didn't get vetted throught he Democractic process

Instead Bush was selected by the cabal elite and I am one of the few people who make the clear distinction that he didn't win.

[Larkspur]

72. Bush did undergo the Democratic process. He lost!!

SCOTUS had to steal the White House for him.

[a_lil_wall_fly]

185. NOT SELECTED BUT ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE WITH THE PEOPLE

renie408 good point

[Feanorcurufinwe]

186. I can't believe somebody kicked this.

Ugh I'm tired of this discussion.

[Skwmom]

95. I use to think that truth would prevail

but it's become apparent that no matter how many threads are posted which show that Dean is indeed untruthful (and will say anything to get elected), many of his followers refuse to accept that fact.

It's the same way with many Bush followers. No matter what the guy does his followers zealously support him. I just don't get it. Does it have to do with pride? Are people that unwilling to say they were wrong?

[stickdog]

107. Yes, it does.

[Booberdawg]

3. *yawn*

oh good, another candidate bashing flamebait thread :boring:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

177. Dean on invading Iraq

"On January 31, Dean told Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without U.N. authorization."

And then on Feb. 20, Dean told Salon.com that "if the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

But a day later, he told the Associated Press that he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approves the move and backs it with action of its own. "They have to send troops," he said."

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-geraghty032803.asp

[Hawkeye-X]

188. So you choose National Review

which is a well-known right-wing think tank?

Hawkeye-X

[Feanorcurufinwe]

195. They are quoting Dean.

Why don't you go donate some money to Dean or something. What a pointless argument. Anyone who reads this thread who is not already a Dean supporter is going to see he is a liar. Why don't you let the damn thing sink. I'm so sick of pointing out the obvious.

[seventhson]

4. I see Kerry's fingerprints showing: HE AUTHORIZED THIS DIDN'T HE?

Getting desperate I suspect.

Most of these links are pretty innocuous critiques. None of them show him to be a liar or dishonest: they show he has opinions some of us may disagree with (or not).

This really reaching.

Kerryesque...
Bonesy even!!!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. Yes all these independent links and news stories about Dean's record

are actually a grand plot hatched by the Kerry campaign years before Dean even announced his candidacy.

Nothing shows him to be dishonest?

How about paying lip-service to campaign reform but then actually fighting to gut it?
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html

How about paying lip-service to family farms and then when in office saying "This isn’t my problem"
http://www.vtce.org/deancrisisagvt.html

[Mass_Liberal]

84. speaking of paranoid conspiracy theories

listen, when Bush speaks, you can tell he's lying. Anyone who has ever heard Dean speak knows he is not a liar. He's ambitious but so is any political candidate in the race. Dean is not the crazy, slimy man you paint him to be.

[pasadenaboy]

5. I think that topic

is already being discussed on Free Republic.

You might get more interest there.

[no name no slogan]

7. Waitaminute

A "lying, dishonest politician"?

I thought they all were :)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Run for your lives!

[Tim The Enchanter]

10. Okay. So we don't vote for anyone.

By that logic, they are all "dishonest, lying politicians". Even Kucinich, probably the most admirable candidate (although I am a Dean supporter) made a sketchy turn from anti-choice. It comes with the territory. The only difference between Dean and the rest is that he doen't know how to keep himself in a zone where everything he says can be spun. Give them all time, and let's keep the discussion positive so we can work together when the nominee emerges.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. You say don't vote for anyone, I say, look at their records

and make an informed choice.

[Tim The Enchanter]

17. I agree

I agree, but I would be more receptive to the discussion if it were presented in the spirit of Dem solidarity. We need to look at their records and everything they say, but look at GW- he's now not the former governor of Texas that won the GOP nom. It's the administration that these candidates will build that counts. So we need to watch not only who they are but also who they are surrounding themselves with and who they are consulting. We need to keep the discussion going so we all can make informed choices, and I am very open to criticism of Dean (I am supporter/critic), but I would like discussions presented in a more positive manner. Thank you.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

20. Welcome, Tim!

And nice to have another voice of reason on this board. It can get pretty shrill sometimes, as you've no doubt already seen.

:hi:

[stickdog]

108. OK

[JohnKleeb]

14. actually he didnt become pro choice in a day

He for sure envolved and even if he was pro life, he was consitent in this respect, he opposed the death penalty and the war.

[no name no slogan]

19. ...and favored birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies

can't forget that one either. He was in favor of readily-available birth control as a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and therefore abortions. This position is miles away from your typical "operation rescue" one, which eschews all forms of birth control.

[JohnKleeb]

21. It is the Catholic one I assume

I am Catholic myself, although I did not share the Congressman's past view I respected it, just as I respect my grandparents who oppose the death penalty and this war. The pope holds the same view so I respect him and others who are consitent. I respect him for his past view.

[Tim The Enchanter]

23. Don't get me wrong

I would like to see Kucinich's campaign gain the necessary momentum. I was just illustrating that even Dennis could be torn apart in a thread based on that change (which seemed to be convenient in its timing), but we all know that he is essentially a man of principle. Dean has a lot to learn in a short time, but I am looking to see if he can pull it off. He did spark my interest early on, and that is important to me, so I am giving him a chance. I condemn none of these candidates (although I have my reservations about Lieberman- but that could change too).

[JohnKleeb]

29. Thats good Tim

but as I am telling you his change wasnt presto I am pro choice. I think both could win but Dennis has my support because he is a big time fighter, we see eye to eye on the issues, and his life story among other things makes me believe in him, he knows what its like that is poverty.

[sandnsea]

30. He has been torn apart

Every candidate has been torn apart. Inflammatory posts on all of them. You have to put on a flame retardent suit when you come to this board these days. But hang around anyway, I'm sure it'll calm down as we start shaking out candidates.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. Changing your opinion is different from misrepresenting yourself

[stickdog]

109. Exactly.

[genius]

12. Thank you. Dean's followers should love Dean's positions.

It's amazing how people who are supporting this guy are very upset about hearing their own leaders positions. Thinking people support leaders they like.

[madrchsod]

13. yes he is....

i think he should resign for the good of the country. oh, i`m sorry, i thought you said bush..

[clar]

16. It's easy enough

to post links to negative articles about all the candidates, or for that matter, to post glowing ones. In order to make a judgement people need to look at a large body of information, not just stuff cherry picked by supporters or detractors.

I do think that by posting a thread such as this one, you do more damage to yourself and your candidate than you do to anyone else. I don't understand why you don't comprehend that.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. I think people should know about Dean's record

and I don't care if some find it uncomfortable to have this information posted. If someone reads this information about Dean's tenure as Vermont governor, or the interviews where he reveals his views on due process and the right to a fair trial, and then decides it reflects negatively on some other candidate, or on me, so be it.

[LuminousX]

22. I know the record

I still support him.

I will go as far as to say, there is nothing you can dig up, there isn't any negative story or attack piece you can post that will alter my opinion and choice.

I know Dean sucks. So does Kerry and the rest. We have a basket of losers to choose from. But one of them will be chosen and one of them will become President.

[opstachuck]

85. it's your condescending approach and lack of new information...

that makes me realize i'm wasting my time finishing this sentence.

[Cha]

113. Welcome to Du, opstachuck!

:yourock:

[stickdog]

110. Thank God for concerned activist Democrats like you

and Kerry.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

116. I appreciate your support.

[Name removed]

189. Deleted message

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

[readmylips]

24. kkkarl rover propaganda people....

I love Dr. Dean even more. If Kerry put this out, don't forget, Kerry is a best long time friend of the bushes. He owes them.

[JohnKleeb]

25. would you not like Dean

if I were to tell you that Shrub's grandmother was a bridemaid at Dean's grandmother's wedding. It doesnt concern me one bit but eh if you are gonna call Kerry a friend of the bushes which imho is absurd because he grew up with the Kennedies and Dean grew up republican. Not that matters but I just find it ironic that you find Kerry to be like that to the Bushes. While that wedding was going on I bet the Kucinich's were in Croatia :).

[Mass_Liberal]

102. I really don't care a whit about Dean's granny

nor do i give a flying ^@%# about shrub's grandma

[JohnKleeb]

124. I dont care honest!

[Rose Siding]

26. Remember the Arkansas project?

The good old days

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. Typical example of a mendacious attack post with no reference.

Why are you telling us to "don't forget" something that is a lie? Is it to distract from the actual references and news stories about Dean that I posted?

http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html
http://www.vtce.org/deancrisisagvt.html
http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1907-2003Jul2
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/930194.asp?0si=-&cp1=1#BODY
http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs08292003.html

[DrFunkenstein]

27. Uh...

There are probably better ways of making your case. I can't imagine this doing much more than pissing people off. Even if you have the ability to back this up, you're not doing Kerry any favors by starting threads called "Dean is a dishonest, lying politician."

[AWD]

28. Yawn

My ignore list grows by one.

By the way, since you're all into "making informed decisions by looking atthe candidates' records", will you be publishing an account of all the positives of Dean.

then, will you be posting negative and positive accounts of every other candidate??

Or are you only interested n the negatives of one candidate....gee, doesn't sound like you're that interested in "informed decisions" after all.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. What positives?

Let's hear 'em. Other than the facts that he is not Bush, puts a D next to his name, and is an effective campaigner I don't see anything positive about Dean. When you don't trust someone it makes everything about them that can be spun as positive seem suspect. Those three things would be enough for me to support him if he becomes the nominee, however.

How do you think I arrived at my opinion about Dean? Do you think I was born with it or something? No, when I got active on DU I didn't know anything about Dean and I was intrigued because of the excitement he was generating. It was only after I learned more about how he governed and what he thought that I formed an opinion about him.

[indigo32]

69. I know you are active at DU

and as that is the case I know that you know there are more positives to Dean than "Other than the facts that he is not Bush, puts a D next to his name, and is an effective campaigner " FAR MORE.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

77. If they exist, please state them.

I don't trust Dean. So telling me that 'Dean said this' or 'Dean said that' would not be a positive. I would need to hear 'Dean did this' or 'Dean did that' for it to mean anything to me. Everything I've heard about his record as governor puts him greatly at odds with the liberal viewpoints I hold, but, hey, he may end up as the nominee, I may have to support him in the end. So if you have some positive aspects as his record as governor to tout, I'd like to hear them.

[indigo32]

81. Oh please

I know you and I went round about this a month ago or so. Seriously, do you even care?

Do you even care that he signed the civil union bill and had to wear a bullit proof vest while he went out and explained it?

Do you even care that he protected Over 470,000 acres of land, nearly 8% of Vermont.

Do you even care about his record on health care, domestic and child abuse?

Do you even care that DSC debunked your articles?

I wonder.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

90. What has been debunked?

If that is so, let's hear it.

[indigo32]

97. try post 67

DSC does a damn good job of stating the facts.
BTW care to answer my question? Does ANYTHING positive Dean did while Governor matter to you? Or are you just gonna kick this thread up every 2 weeks or so on some mission to educate the ignorant natives.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

99. post 67

rightly points out that ONE QUOTE in the counterpunch article has not been verified. Does that debunk everything else in that article and in all the others? I don't think so.

And, by the way, I took the trouble email Peter Freyne and confirm one of the other quotes in that article for myself. I'm not going to give out somebody else's email address, but you can find it on the web just like I did. Check it out.

Yes, whatever good Dean did as governor matters, and if he gets the nomination I'll be shouting it from the rooftops. But that is not a reason to ignore all the troubling issues I've raised.

[stickdog]

111. What are the issues differences between Dean & Kerry

that concern you so?

Because I don't see any that particularly concern me.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

114. The issue difference here is honesty and consistency.

Looking back over the years, does the record show someone we can trust? When we hear them speak about the issues, are they telling us what they think, or what we want to hear? When I do disagree with them on an issue, did they take the stand I disagree with to pander to some interest group, or to the audience in front of them, or because they believe it's right (i.e. is it an 'honest' disagreement?)

I have no doubt that Dean as President would be 1000 times better than Bush. But is he the best candidate we can put forward? I have my suspicions about his trustworthiness -- as I've spelled out here. I'd love for my suspicions to be allayed so I could feel as positive about all our candidates as I was before I read all this stuff.

[stickdog]

187. Kerry is rich, patrician elitist who married the richer wife of

a Republican Senator.

He went to Vietnam and then toosed away somebody else's medals to make some political points.

He sold out on Iraq and got burned.

He continually talks out of both sides of his mouth, and uses "gotcha" Rovian "sound bites" to attack Dean.

He doesn't exactly exuded trust.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

196. Dean is a rich, patrician elitist who fooled a bunch of kids int thinking

he's different from every other politician who ever existed.


He's not.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[LightTheMatch]

34. Ah, it's time again.

Break out the Circular Firing Squad... :)

[Kolesar]

35. Why don't you compose something instead of lobbing bomb-links, sweetie?

Do you really think I am going to go read seven URLs on your recommendation? I have been watching this forum, I have come to judge how poorly-contrived many of these threads are. I think I have found another.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

37. Are you saying you would rather hear my characterizations

of these articles than read them for yourself? Nevertheless, I would encourage you to read about all the candidates for yourself and make up your own mind rather than having your opinion spoon-fed to you by others.

[xJlM]

53. What do you want?

Someone goes to the trouble of posting links to make the point he wants others to see, but that's not good enough for you. But if he'd just written what he feels, I bet you'd be one of the first citing "No links to back up your diatribe!"

I think it is important to look at all sides of a story, not just the slick, glossy-image photo someone wants to show the world. Lord knows we have to do enough hunting to learn the truth about the repugs, can't we look fully at the actions of our own party?

[Nazgul35]

36. No this is simply the usual strategy...

of bringing up old topics that have been discussed ad nausium....

They wait a few weeks, recycle the same old crap and use up valuable time of democrats who should be out digging up dirt on Bush, writing letters to editors, getting dems registered to vote...

Hey, here's an idea....why not push away from the key board and go out and get the 2/3rds of dems who cant name one candidate informed about yours.....or is that just too much work?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

38. Ad nausem?

You may not like to hear Dean's record repeated, I guess the manufactured images and talking points coming out of the campaign are more comfortable. Or perhaps you do know about Dean's mixed record on agriculture, campaign finance, the environment and due process and you've made peace with it somehow.

However, there are new people joining DU all the time, and it is perfectly valid to provide them with the references needed to learn about Dean for themselves.

[LuminousX]

39. Then create one info dump

and link to it whenever that topic comes up.

Otherwise you are only contributing to factionalization.

[deutsey]

40. Pathetic post

:thumbsdown:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

41. Which was it that you found most pathetic? Dean's record on

campaign finance?

http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html


On agriculture?
http://www.vtce.org/deancrisisagvt.html

On civil liberties and due process?
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html
http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1907-2003Jul2
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/930194.asp?0si=-&cp1=1#BODY

Or just his overall record?
http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs08292003.html

[Nicholas_J]

52. There are other issues that I find him shakey on.

Such as his record on creating an imbalanced criminal justice system in Vermont, cutting funding to public defenders, increasing the budgets of both police departments and prosecutors offices, and then when the head of the public defenders departments found ways of running the department more efficiently, and also getting grant funding to replace some of the money the governor cut to the public defenders office, not reappointing the person who found a way to assist those who could not afford lawyers.


Support Your
Colleagues Under Siege
•
After fighting the “good fight”
as head of the Vermont defender
system for eight years, Defender
General Robert Appel has just
been notified that the Governor will
not reappoint him. Vermont news-
papers report that Robert’s zealous
advocacy to obtain resources and
other initiatives to support and im-
prove Vermont’s indigent defense
system had many times put him at
odds with the states chief executive

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:OpvVyQ9UsIkJ:www.nlada.org/DMS/Documents/1007060084.73/ACCD%2520Executive%2520Summary,%2520Vol%25201%2520No%25203.PDF+%22Robert+Appel%22+%22Federal+Grant%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&client=REAL-tb

or

http://www.nlada.org/DMS/Documents/1007060084.73/ACCD%20Executive%20Summary,%20Vol%201%20No%203.PDF


Vermont Defender General Robert Appel Not Re-Appointed to Post: Underscores the Value of Indigent Defense Commission Model and Need for Independence of the Defense Function

August 17, 2001 - In August, Vermont Governor Howard Dean appointed Matthew Valerio as Defender General ending the tenure of Robert Appel, who held the post for over eight years. In Vermont, the Defender General serves at the will of the Governor. The appointment of a new Defender General had been rumored for many months, because of public disagreements Mr. Appel and Governor Dean had over the funding of the state's indigent defense system. (Further details to be published in the next issue of The Spangenberg Report).


http://www.spangenberggroup.com/pr_081701.html



For the defense
August 16, 2001
(from the Editorials section)
Dean chose not to reappoint Appel for a third four-year term as defender general, the state official who heads the state’s public defender program. In appointing Valerio, of Proctor, the new defender general, Dean had kind words for Appel. But Appel had clashed with Dean on numerous occasions in his efforts to secure for his office the resources necessary to fulfill his duties conscientiously.

Just two years ago Dean tried to prevent Appel from accepting a $150,000 federal grant aimed at assisting defendants with mental disabilities. For Dean to block a government agency from receiving federal money was unusual in itself.

But Dean’s openly expressed bias against criminal defendants provided a partial explanation. Dean has made no secret of his belief that the justice system gives all the breaks to defendants. Consequently, during the 1990s, state’s attorneys, police, and corrections all received budget increases vastly exceeding increases enjoyed by the defender general’s office.

That meant the state’s attorneys were able to round up ever increasing numbers of criminal defendants, but the public defenders were not given comparable resources to respond.

The problem with giving a disproportionate share of state resources to prosecution and enforcement is that it throws the justice system out of kilter. A just result occurs in court only when the prosecution and defense both are ably represented.

http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/31792




Similar situations occured with the Vermont Environmental protection board when members opposed the way Dean did not actively enforce regulations on businesses who had shaky environmental records. When the Environmental Board gave a ruling that the business, and the Republican legislature didnt like, the board members that issued the C&S ruling were simply not reappointed when re-ap



And nowhere will the tales of glory be more off the mark than when the Dean team gushes about his environmental record. "EP under Governor Dean means Expedite Permits, not Environmental Protection," proclaims Annette Smith, the director of the Danby-based Vermonters for a Clean Environment.

Smith is no stranger to Dean's record, having tangled with the Dean administration on everything from mining in Danby to pesticide usage on Vermont's mega-farms. When Smith learned that Dean was holding a press conference at the Burlington Community Boathouse recently to celebrate his eco-legacy, she fired off e-mails to Vermont environmentalists calling for a protest of the event and asking if they were "going to let Governor Dean ride out on his white horse of environmental leadership?"

It was Smith who stumbled onto Dean's official gubernatorial Web site a couple of years ago and found a bucolic photo of her home town of Danby featured with this caption: "Time stands still here -- you might even forget when it's time to go home." Ironically, the location depicted in the photo was the same spot Dean was pushing to host a massive gas pipeline, a plan that would have required timber clear-cuts and other dramatic topographical changes. The Dean team removed the photo within a couple of weeks, but not before Smith made hay with his apparent hypocrisy.

"Dean's attempt to run for president as an environmentalist is nothing but a fraud," Smith told Seven Days. "He's destroyed the Agency of Natural Resources, he's refused to meet with environmentalists while constantly meeting with the development community, and he's made the permitting process one big, dysfunctional joke."

http://www.vce.org/deanenvironmentomya.html

Stephanie Kaplan, a leading environmental lawyer and the former executive officer of Vermont's Environmental Board, has seen the regulatory process under Dean become so slanted against environmentalists and concerned citizens that she hardly thinks its worth putting up a fight anymore.

"Under Dean the Act 250 process (Vermont's primary development review law) and the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) have lost their way," contends Kaplan. "Dean created the myth that environmental laws hurt the economy and set the tone to allow Act 250 and the ANR to simply be permit mills for developers."

Kaplan points to the "Environmental Board purge" in the mid-90s that allowed Dean to set the pro-development tone. In 1993, the Board issued an Act 250 permit to C&S Grocers in Brattleboro with conditions that restricted the diesel emissions from its heavy truck traffic. After C&S execs cried foul and threatened to move to New Hampshire, Dean broke gubernatorial precedent by publicly criticizing the Environmental Board for issuing what he called a "non-permit."

A year after receiving their public rebuke from Dean, four of the Environmental Board members ­ including the chair ­ were up for reappointment. With the not-so-subtle clues from Dean that he didn't approve of the Board's political direction, the Republican majority in the state senate shot down each and every one of their appointments, thus dramatically changing both the structure and climate of the Board.

"After the post-C&S purge," says Kaplan, "the burden of proof for Act 250 permits switched from being on the applicants -- where it's supposed to be -- to being on the environmentalists. That's why 98% of the permit requests are approved and only 20% ever have hearings."


http://www.counterpunch.org/colby02222003.html

And so the issue that Howard Dean and I became embroiled in didn't surface until '93. The election was in '92... His first appointment of me was January of '93. And it was January of '93 with that appointment that the Senate said, we don't know if we will ratify that appointment; we don't know if we'll confirm that appointment; we'll wait until next January to decide. And I knew I was being watched because I was essentially put on notice by the Senate.

So we conducted our hearings. We had very heavy docket. One of the cases that we heard that year was C & S Wholesale Grocers in Brattleboro, and it was a very controversial project. And the Board made a decision to issue a permit that was heavily conditioned to reduce air pollution from the tractor trailer truck trips that were coming in and out of that facility. So the issue was air pollution. We had received evidence, credible evidence, that there would be some real air quality concern because of the nature of this traffic that was going in and out of this facility off the interstate, making stops and starts and refers were on site--a refer is a refrigerated truck that runs all the time; they don't turn them off and they produce a lot of particulate matter from the diesel. So we conditioned it thinking gee maybe we can make this work with conditions. The applicant was very disappointed in the permit.

The governor for the first time in the history of Act 250, we found the governor opining on the opinion of the Board, publicly, openly criticizing it. We were, we simply watched that public criticism translate to a fortified Senate majority that was basically going to say, okay here you are criticizing your appointee. Implicitly, we'll help you make that decision you haven't been able to make yourself. Well, the Board, several of the members and myself met with the governor and let him know that we were disappointed to see that his opinion of our decision was what it was and that he made it public.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean0702/courtint.html

Stephanie Kaplan, attorney for the Friends, had a similar opinion. She said she had already made statements to the effect that Gov. Howard Dean appears to be putting pro-business people on Act 250 panels as part of a pro-growth strategy, and this case has only reinforced her belief.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/RutlandCounty/Story/38834.html

[Upfront]

42. Yawn

[LuminousX]

43. Call me ignorant

How do any of these links PROVE Dean is dishonest or lying?

I see a lot of subjectivity and standard poltical maneuvering. Nothing wrong with that. All politicians have to do it which is why they all seem so distasteful.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

65. It would be against DU rules for me to call you ignorant.

so don't tempt me ;)

[DemBones DemBones]

44. I understand that it's difficult to respond to multiple links but what

I've seen over and over at DU is that Dean supporters don't post links to refute negative stories about Dean. Nor do they say, "Well, I disagree with this thing he said (or did) but overall I like him because yadda, yadda. "

Instead, they cry foul, call people "bashers," post snide little remarks or "yawn."

Is it impossible to defend Dean against any of these stories?

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[LuminousX]

46. I looked through the stories

and not sure what there is to defend against.

I also strongly believe it isn't my place to defend Dean. I only have to explain why I support him. If someone has specific issues against Dean, it is up to the Dean campaign to address and defend against it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

62. No one is saying it is your place to defend Dean.

I am not trying to convince any Dean supporters that they are supporting the wrong candidate. Rather, I am providing information for those who wish to learn more about Dean and wish to decide for themselves what they think of him.

As to whether there is anything troubling in these links -- the misgivings I have about Dean stem from my perception, as I stated so graphically in the original post, that Dean is the type of politician who will say anything to get elected, who very much tailors what he as to say to his audience, and whose real record as governor does not match the rhetoric of the campaign trail.

For one specific example, take campaign finance. When I first read the "Dean backing off spending limit promise" story, for example, although it seemed like Dean had made an error in originally claiming the moral high ground, "Dean commits to public financing for campaign", it also didn't seem like such a big deal. But then I read about Dean's record on campaign finance in Vermont. It turns out this is not the first time Dean has committed to public financing and then backed out (Dean scraps public campaign financing). But it gets worse. Not only has Dean previously made the same flip-flop on public financing, but he also fought to have funding permanently removed from Vermont's public financing system:

Governor Dean's Plan to Remove Funding

Early on in the 2002 legislative session, Democratic Governor Howard Dean targeted the public financing provision of the law for elimination. VPIRG led the effort to preserve funding for public financing of qualifying candidates. The Governor claimed that the law was not working and therefore should not be funded until a final court decision has been reached. Working with Republicans, Progressives and Democrats, VPIRG was able to keep public financing alive (although hundreds of thousands of dollars were taken for other unrelated uses). Read more on this issue.
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html

The pattern that I see emerging from this is a politician who is not really committed to campaign finance reform, but who will use the issue when it appears to be to his advantage. The issue to me is not whether or not Dean uses public financing - it is the hypocrisy. These things do not tend to make me trust Dean.



Or for another example, family farms. The article Crisis in Agriculture in Vermont A Special Report about Governor Howard Dean s Agriculture Department From Vermonters for a Clean Environment, quotes Dean's response to a constituent's concerns: "This isn’t my problem. I can’t fix this". Now I can't say for sure that when the governor was campaigning that he said he was concerned about family farms and their problems. Maybe he said straight out that he was biased towards large factory farms, as the evidence seems to indicate. But I doubt it.


Do I expect Dean supporters to attempt to defend this? No doubt some will try to explain these facts away. But I post this info not for the hardcore Dean supporters, but for those who still have an open mind.

[dsc]

56. that is flat out false

and you damn well know it. Do you remember around 3 days ago when you posted your Cato piece on Dean? Do you recall what I did (hint I posted a link about vouchers). Yet again dishonest. Yet again.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

57. Dean supporters constantly and clearly defend him

The anti-Dean people post dozens and dozens of negative articles (on the same issues), and if we don't counter every one, we are accused of ducking it. This is getting old. Why should we have to respond to multiple attacks on the same subject?

What's the point anyway? I'd rather spend my time working for my candidate out in the real world.

This is such a tired attack, that we don't ever defend him. dsc, in particular, has done an exceptional job responding to the attacks.

[dsc]

49. Do you really wish me to post

every negative Kerry piece in the Boston Globe, Common Dreams, and MSNBC? I could literally find dozens of them if you really, really, really want that.

[LuminousX]

50. Not only post them, but demand they be defended against

over
and over
and over
and over.

No matter how baseless or pointless the attack is...

[indigo32]

71. LOL

exactly

[dsc]

51. I read the entire common dreams piece

and aside from medical marijuana and two rare cases in which Dean supports the death penalty (killers of cops and children) I would like to state in clear, concise, no bs english, exactly where Kerry agrees with these people while Dean doesn't.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

63. The issue is whether Dean is misrepresenting himself

and whether the current public perception of who Dean is and what he stands for is for real. Is he consistent in his speech and action, does he consider his word his bond, or is his speech just designed to get him elected?

I didn't link to any 'common dreams piece' - did you mean the counterpunch article? Here is an excerpt from that:

Dean's approach to criminal justice is regressive and draconian. Dean the governor was no friend of the public's right to legal defense. According to various attorneys in public defender's offices around the state, Dean underfunded public defense, pouring monies into state's attorneys, police, and corrections instead. According to the Rutland, Vermont daily, The Rutland Herald, this meant that state's attorneys were able to round up ever-increasing numbers of criminal defendants, but public defenders were not given comparable resources to respond. This, too, helped to fill the prisons. Its not that crime increased, but that police had more laws that they could arrest people for (and more resources with which to do so). As an illustration of his opposition to a fair defense for all, Dean once stated at a meeting of criminal defense lawyers that he believed his job as governor was to make the defense attorneys' job as tough as possible. He also tried to block a $150,000 federal grant aimed at assisting defendants with mental disabilities.

Why would someone want to do that unless he had doubts about the validity of the 6th amendment to the US constitution? Is he motivated by a need to appear tough on crime? As Governor he claimed the legal system unfairly benefited criminals over prosecutors. According to his own words, he wanted to "quickly convict guilty criminals,"(so much for the presumption of innocence), and opined that the US needs a "re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties." John Ashcroft, perhaps there'd be a job for you in a Dean administration.
Howard Dean: the Progressive Anti-War Candidate? Some Vermonters Give Their Views

Now perhaps you agree with Dean's record in this area. Personally I find his attitudes scary and indefensible. But when Dean talks about civil liberties on the campaign trail, it doesn't sound like the same person who governed Vermont - and that I also find scary.

[dsc]

67. Of course no source is cited by them for any of it

and I could post some serious crap from them on Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Gephardt, and any other Democrat except maybe Kucinich (even he I bet has been a target). Was the quote here a joke? People have been known to make those at events such as meetings of lawyers. We don't know. Why don't we know? Because the author is lazy and did no homework. He was so lazy he supplied no dates, places, names, or any other thing that we could reasonably use to track this down.

I will say his record here isn't so great. Yet the inflamatory quotes that he supposedly has said never turn out to exist. Remember the commons sense judges quote and the quickly convict guilty people quote. After arduous research I found out all of the following.

a) the Vermont News Bureau has no contact info and probably doesn't exist (this is who he supposedly said this to)

b) Of the two sources who had that quote (Thom Mann and Scott Humaninski (sp)) the first disavows it and the second is a pure Dean hater.

c) These breath taking quotes have been mentioned no where. Not by any journalist anywhere that I can find on the net. No reference to them in articles where they would be relevant. Nothing.

Maybe this quote is valid. But given the track record of counter punch, the track record of these quotes in the past, and the utter lack of any identifying detail that could be used to track it down I choose to not believe it. I saw what this magazine did to Gore and to Kerry. It is run by lying leftists. Liars lie that is what they do.

[gottaB]

98. Vermont News Bureau

AKA Vermont Press Bureau

Vermont Press Bureau
112 Main Street
Montpelier, VT 05602
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

So far I can't find any other source for the quotes attributed to Dean ("common sense more important than legal technicalities," "quickly convict guilty criminals").

However, that seems to be consistent with what he has said regarding the death penalty on mtp and in other interviews (like this one). And on other issues he seems hesitant about that whole due process thing.

The Hartmann piece was scrubbed but you can find it via the http://www.thomhartmann.com/government.shtml">internet archive. When Hartmann says Montpelier newspaper, that could be the Times Argus. According to this article Dean gave some them kind of interview on the topic in 1997. The Dean campaign put out a rebuttal of that article btw--not that Dean hadn't said what was attributed to him in that article: they claimed the reporter was making false assertions.

I'm hoping some enterprising Vermonter will clarify. Did Howard Dean say these things? Because as much as I have my suspicions, I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions and judge a man on the basis of faulty evidence.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

100. The Freyne quote

Reporter Peter Freyne, now one of Dean's great supporters, asked his readers at the time to "Remember the guy who once said 95 percent of people charged with crimes are guilty anyway so why should the state spend money on providing them with lawyers?"
Howard Dean: the Progressive Anti-War Candidate? Some Vermonters Give Their Views

I personally contacted Peter Freyne about this and he said that Dean said this at a news conference. Since it seems so similar to the "common sense more important than legal technicalities," "quickly convict guilty criminals" quotes I asked him about them as well and he said he didn't recall that. It could be a case of someone paraphrasing the other and then mistakenly adding quotation marks, which were then included by everyone else referencing it. Whatever the case on those quotes the Freyne quote seems to reveal much the same attitude. Maybe one of these days I'll get motivated enough to call 802-223-3931 and ask the Vermont Press Bureau about it...

[dsc]

106. I emailed Mr. Mann myself

and he disavowes the quote. He says he has nothing at all to back it up. He emailed me directly and that is why he removed the article. Don't believe me email the man yourself.

I will not post his email here due to his not wanting autoreaders to have it. I will supply it via pm.

[gottaB]

115. Oh, I believe you about Hartmann's disavowal

But maybe I should email him too and request that he post a retraction or explanation of some sort.

It does us no good, supporters or critics of Dean, to be sitting here arguing about things the man may or may not have said. These statements are spreading all over the net. We need to get to the bottom of this.

And on a sidenote, since you wanted to discredit Counterpunch, I'm curious as to whether they really did run a story with phony attributions. They're one of my favorite bookmarks, and you're one of my favorite Dean supporters here at DU. The cognitive dissonance is killing me. I'll do what I can to resolve it.

On Edit: Adding a link to Thom's contact info from his website.

[gottaB]

141. Hartmann told me

that he heard it on Vermont Public Radio but didn't have a recording to back it up so he pulled it.

It should be possible to ascertain whether or not Dean made these statements.

[clar]

103. Yep

Vermont under Howard Dean; a truly scary place. Not. I live here. I'm a liberal. I voted for Dean 5 times, as did most liberals in the state. Are we all simply under some strange spell? I don't think so. Dean may not be as liberal as I am, but Vermont is still a bastion of liberal policy. If Dean were who you claimed he is, Vermont as it is today, wouldn't exist.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

104. If this were some attack on or smear of Vermont you would be on-topic

No one is saying Dean turned Vermont into Nazi Germany.

[clar]

105. You could

have fooled me.

[burr]

55. I thought it was a deluded fool you were showing me...

all politicians lie! :wow:

Welcome to America.

[genius]

59. That's an accurate assessment

Can you imagine how stupid his supporters will feel when they wake up and realize Dean's as bad as Bush.

[burr]

60. That will be pretty bad...

but not as stupid as the Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, Braun, Graham, or Gephardt supporters would feel! :puke:

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

64. Dean an enemy of reform

January 20, 2002
(from the Letters to the Editor section)
People have lost faith in the electoral system because they don’t believe that the old saying: One person one vote, has held true. They see the influx of corporate money into politics and the distortion it creates. Politicians are no longer beholden to the voters and their consciences alone. They owe their positions and their loyalty to various corporations and big money interests.

There has been much talk about campaign financing reform in recent years, and in Vermont we were lucky enough to have a comprehensive law written and passed on the issue. We have a system of public financing in place that allowed candidates to run without bowing down to corporate interests. Vermonters can have campaigns about issues, not about raising money.

But we are losing this resource. The Dean administration has long been opposed to public financing, if not always in words then in actions. In the 2000 elections, Dean had promised to run a clean campaign, but as soon as the spending caps were struck down by the courts, Dean reverted to his old ways. He raised the most money in Vermont gubernatorial history, by promising the health industry, among others, his support. Now he is attacking the existence of public financing for any candidate. He has threatened to raid the public financing fund and hand this state over to corporations who have no allegiance to it.

Tell Dean that you want citizens of Vermont controlling our elections, not his corporate buddies.
http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/41007

(Emphasis added.)

If you are going to disagree with someone, please stick to the message rather than the messenger.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

[Feanorcurufinwe]

66. Which does he believe?

"We have to stop terrorism before peace negotiations"
http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.11.22/news3.html

said he didn't "believe stopping the terror has to be a prerequisite for talking."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/elec04.prez.dean.mideast/



It is possible to change your mind. I'll admit that. But a candidate for president who changes his mind on important, fundamental policy issues should be able to explain how that change occured. Why did he hold the original view and why does he no longer think those reasons are valid?

If he can't give that explanation he starts to look less like a political leader and more like a political weather vane.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

68. Interesting

Not sure why he would say he thinks we have to stop terrorism before peace negotiations...that's clearly not his position today, and not a logical position for anyone to have. How do you "stop" terrorism in I/P, anyway?

Maybe he was just pandering to the Jewish audience at that event. :evilgrin:

But then I can't speak for Gov. Dean, he would have to explain this one himself.

[killbotfactory]

74. I would assume he believes the most recent statement

It's a good change and I'm guessing it's because of he's been getting heavy advice on foreign policy.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

79. I'm guessing it's because of the polling his campaign is doing.

[dsc]

86. Thanks for posting that

Remember the infamous Hamas quote? Here is the full quote:

Asked if he would oppose the Israeli policy of selectively killing leaders of Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups, Dean said, "I think no one likes to see violence of any kind."

But he also said that "there is a war going on in the Middle East, and members of Hamas are soldiers in that war, and, therefore, it seems to me that they are going to be casualties if they are going to make war."

Remember when people claimed I was in denial fo stating that he was distinguishing between legitmate targets and illegitimate ones. Well, folks, some of you all owe me an apology.

As to your question, didn't Israel change its position in the time between Dean's first statement and now? I don't know but I think it did.

[ProfessorPlum]

70. Well, this thread sucks

and I say that having read a lot of sucky threads.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

78. Yeah, the truth hurts doesn't it.

[ProfessorPlum]

80. yeah, let me know if you find any

.

[killbotfactory]

73. This article is particularly damaging!

File not found

Our Web servers cannot find the page or file you asked for:

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/930194.asp

The link you followed may be broken or expired.
Return to MSNBC News
Return to MSNBC Sports
Go back to the previous page.

Damn that Dean! Damn him all to hell!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

75. You'll have to get it off the Google cache

http://216.239.33.104/search?q=cache:MTUmAoWoSesJ:stacks.msnbc.com/news/930194.asp%3F0si%3D-%26cp1%3D1+site:stacks.msnbc.com+%22Democratic+Leadership+Council%22&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8

[indigo32]

82. LOL

that is very tired... "closet centrist" LOL. He's a centrist and he says so. Always has... but then you know that.

[DrFunkenstein]

83. More Closet Than Centrist

I don't know what that means, but it sounds sneaky. And I don't like sneaky. Much.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

94. Looks like it's gone for good now.

[acerbic]

76. DEAN IS HIDING HIS RECORD!!! HE'S AFRAID OF SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!

FLAP YOUR ARMS, RUN AROUND AND SCREEEEAAAAAAMMMMMMM!!!!!!!

:dunce: :silly: :crazy: :hurts:

[w4rma]

87. Massive information dump on Gov. Howard Dean

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=43435&mesg_id=43435&page=

[Feanorcurufinwe]

88. Another lie from Dean

Dean also took issue with a characterization by a TV interviewer that he had been a "strong supporter" of NAFTA, the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement. Dean acknowledged that he had supported NAFTA, but took exception to the "strong" part. "I never did anything about it," he said. "I didn't vote on it. I didn't march down in the street demanding NAFTA. I simply wrote a letter (to President Clinton) supporting NAFTA."

The Gephardt campaign subsequently called attention to a transcript of a Jan. 29, 1995 "This Week" show in which Dean told a different interviewer that "I was a very strong supporter of NAFTA."
http://www.n-jcenter.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Politics/NationWorld/03LegislaturePOL03091503.htm

Why can't Dean just state his positions, and if he's changed his mind from his past positions, just say so? Is it really neccesary for him to continually re-invent himself and his history? How are we supposed to believe anything he says?

[LuminousX]

89. You don't have to, you aren't going to vote for him anyway.

You already made up your mind.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

91. I care about our party. I care about who becomes President.

And I'll be voting for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is, so I consider it vitally important that that person is trustworthy.

So I still wonder why can't Dean just state his positions, and if he's changed his mind from his past positions, just say so? Is it really neccesary for him to continually re-invent himself and his history?

Why the dishonesty?

[deaniebopper]

172. It wasn't a lie because he's not a strong supporter anymore.

[genius]

92. True, True

I hope enough people learn the truth before the primaries. That would be a lot better than their regretting their votes when they wake up.

[catforclark2004]

93. Wow! I thought was the from the Democratic wing of the party???

I like my candidate Clark for my own reasons....Didn't know enough about Dean's position to be for him or against him....He Just didn't quite do it for me. When I analized the American People's general perception on the War on Terror, I just never felt like they would be willing to pass the "war" baton over to Howard Dean. Without that transition issue answered, I just thought there had to be a better candidate out there. That's why I did the letter to Clark and joined the Draft Clark movement. However, now it appears to be even more complicated than that.

However, now, I realize that he's not necessarily from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party......More like, it depends...

[molly]

96. The pugs are salivating - hoping Dean will be the nominee

because they know he can't beat the shrub.

My first choice is Kerry for very obvious reasons - he has the experience. My second choice had been Edwards, but now it is Clark then Edwards.

[stickdog]

112. Be careful what you wish for.

[Hawkeye-X]

190. OK. The pugs are salivating

because Kerry is the leader. They know he's in the S&B with Bush and can pull strings to Kerry to roll over and play dead.

Yeah. That's it.

That's why Kerry voted AYE on the friggin' IWR.

He's already dead to me. I posted an editorial earlier from a NEW HAMPSHIRE paper saying the same thing. He's already crashing.

Hawkeye-X

[quinnox]

101. Agreed

No question about it.

[batman]

117. WHERE ARE THE LIES???

:shrug:

Perhaps you can outline them for us.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

118. Here's another:

Flip: On Feb. 28, 1995, Dean said on CNN's Crossfire that Social Security "absolutely" needed to "increase the retirement age." According to a March 3, 1995 Newhouse News Service report on a subsequent Dean breakfast with reporters, "The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else." In June 2003, Dean said on Meet the Press, "I also would entertain taking the retirement age to 68."

Flop: At a presidential candidate forum on Aug. 5, 2003, Dean said, "I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68."

Context: Dean's denial that he flip-flopped rests on a highly technical interpretation of the word "favor." He described what was necessary to balance the budget in 1995—and what he would "entertain" in 2005—but never said he would "favor" such measures. He also says that his 1995 remarks were about balancing the budget and that he can achieve this goal by repealing Bush's tax cuts, raising the income ceiling on the payroll tax, and restraining increases in Medicaid and defense spending—thereby avoiding the need to raise the retirement age.
The Flip-Flops of Howard Dean What he said then. What he says now. What happened.

Follow the link for more.

[batman]

119. Utterly laughable!

Dean said he 'felt this way' at one time. But, examined this belief and has since decided against.

It beats voting for the IRAQ WAR and REAGAN anyday.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

120. You have an odd sense of humor.

"Howard Dean: hen we first looked to the rules for this debate, we were told if anybody mentioned our name, that automatically gave us a minute.

"I'm not going to go back and ask you to change the rules, but I think I'll take 20 seconds just to tell everybody that I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68."
—AFL-CIO Democratic presidential candidate forum, Aug. 5, 2003



"Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.): I've said many times that I think we should raise the retirement age about the year 2015—raise it by that time to about age 70.
…
"Howard Dean: I am very pleased to hear Bob Packwood because I absolutely agree we need to reduce the—I mean, to increase the retirement age. There will be cuts and losses of some benefits, but I believe that Sen. Packwood is on exactly the right track."
—CNN's Crossfire, Feb. 28, 1995



"The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. 'It would be tough but we could do it,' he said."
—News story on a breakfast meeting Dean held with reporters by Miles Benson, Newhouse News Service, March 3, 1995


Whopper of the Week: Howard Dean "Oh, that statement about raising the retirement age …"

The statement: "I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70" is not a lie?


The problem isn't that Dean changed his mind. The problem is he lied about it.

[batman]

121. You have an odd sense of 'scandal'

Did he recall considering an increase? That is the question. Do you recall every opinion-statement you made 8 years ago?

Laughable at best.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

123. The question I am asking is "Is Dean honest?"

When I change my mind about an issue, I can tell you why. I don't lie and say I always felt this way. If Dean changed his mind, why didn't he just say so? Why did he lie?

You seem to be saying that Dean, a candidate for President of the United States, can't remember how he arrived at his own position on whether to raise the social security retirement age. He can't remember his position from 8 years ago? The Alzheimer's Defense may have worked for Reagan, but I ain't buying it in Dean's case.

[batman]

125. He said in an interview he thought raising the retirement

age might be a solution to the then deficit. It's not as though he championed the issue.

I know I personally have 'evolved' in the last 8 years, and couldn't possibly recall every thought I've had on various issues. That does not make me a liar, nor does it make Howard Dean a liar.

[incapsulated]

126. If Dean gets the nomination...

There are a lot of hardcore liberal Democrats here that would never vote for my man Clark because he voted for/spoke well of any Republicans. That may well cost him the nomination, I don't think it will, but it might. However, if he got the nod, I know damn well it would help him greatly in a national election. That's why the rethugs fear him.

Dean flipfloping on issues, especially on video when it exists, is going to be plastered all over our tv's by Rove & Co. if he gets the nomination. They will have a field day with this. By the time they are done with him, he will seem slightly less trustworthy than Saddam. As a Democrat who will vote for whoever is nominated, this worries me greatly.

[batman]

127. It's nothing compared to what they'll do to Clark

Do a bit o research.

http://www.zpub.com/un/wanted1.html

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20030828-084944-9821r.htm

http://www.realnews247.com/wesley_clark_war_criminal.htm

Clark is considered Clinton's man, the RW will crucify him.

I'm undecided, but I think Dean is far more prepared to 'deal'.

[incapsulated]

133. Clintons Man

See, that's my point. Try to paint him that way and his people can point out the fact that he voted for papa Bush and Reagan. And point them to the nice things he's said about them. It's going to be hard to join him at the hip with either side, in my opinion.

I don't know how Dean is going to answer these flips on so many issues. People are certainly not going to accept the "he's willing to evolve"-type of excuses that Deans supporters answer with here.

[batman]

135. Your point is my point...

Clark has been inconsistant ... He voted for Reagan and Bush Sr. The left does not 'dig' that frankly. In addition, Clark will be painted as 'Clintons buddy' and a War criminal by the Right.

Clark has no political history to examine. But, do check the links I posted earlier. The RW has plenty-o dish on Wes Clark.

[batman]

122. duplicate post

*

[JaneQPublic]

128. Yeah, so what's you're point?

You provide seven links to articles, one being a broken link, three I've read before, and the rest addressing topics I've read about in other articles.

Nothing here changes my support of Howard Dean.

Before I decided to back him, I read everything I could get my hands on, pro and con. I am not blind to the fact that he's not everybody's idea of a perfect candidate. Hell, he's not even my idea of a perfect candidate. But then no such person exists.

Nevertheless, I found him to be the best candidate of the bunch, and I still do.

But feel free to fritter away your time posting these Anti-Dean threads in hopes of shocking and horrifying us Dean supporters. I figure the more time you waste doing this BS, the less time you're spending productively helping your candidate.

Keep up the good work!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

129. We have one of the biggest liars ever in the White House now,

and we don't need another one.

It really is a pattern with Dean of not wanting to own up to his own past, I guess in an attempt to be all things to all people. Take the much discussed interview where Stephanopoulus forces him to admit he's in favor of cutting Medicare:

STEPHANOPOULOS: (Gephardt) also says that in 1995, you specifically supported the 270 billion dollars or so in tax cuts that were called for by Newt Gingrich --

DEAN: I think that's very unlikely.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here's the document…

Busted!

STEPHANOPOULOS: And it's pretty clear that you said you would accept a seven- to ten-percent cut in the rate of growth of Medicare, which is --

DEAN: Oh, a cutting the rate of growth is much different --

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, except that the cut in growth rate in 1995 came to 270 billion dollars.

DEAN: I've got to find out…but I fully subscribe to the notion which is to reduce the Medicare growth rate to ten percent or less, I'm sure I said that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's what Newt Gingrich was calling for in 1995.

http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/091403.htm#091603

Until Stephanopoulos produced the document, Dean was ready to deny it.

[JaneQPublic]

131. You've convinced me. Instead of Dean, I'll be voting for Bush in 2004.

Seriously, I saw that interview. Sure, Dean needs to work on his knee-jerk response of refuting/denying/attacking any charge made against him.

But my question continues to be, why does everyone seem to be so concerned about what Dean said in 1995? Everyone seems to be more concerned about what he said in 1995 than what he said today.

As Dean readily admits, his positions have changed since then, for a good reason: That was before Clinton managed to create a budget surplus without the Draconian moves Dean suggested back then. As a result of Clinton's successes, Dean has since changed his positions on such issues as Medicare cuts.

As Dean said recently in a CNN interview, "Look, I'm not ashamed to change positions that I have if the facts dictate that they ought to be changed. The hallmark of this administration is, if you have a fact that contradicts your theory, you throw the fact out. I'm a doctor. I don't throw out facts, I throw out theories."

If I wanted to, I could put Kerry or any other candidate under the same microscope you're putting Dean under and find just as many flaws and inconcistencies in their records. And if you doubt that's true, you're lying to yourself. (Just think Kerry and his rationale for supporting the Iraq War Resolution.)

But since I don't want to do Rove's job for him, I'm trying to limit my posts to positive messages about my guy and avoid retaliatory attacks on the other guy's guy.

But you just keep doing what you're doing. I'm sure you're changing minds left and right -- not.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

132. Luckily, that's not the only choice we have.

You don't think it important that Dean be consistent, and you accept his explanations for the various questionable statements he's made. Fine, you've made your choice. But I'd prefer Dean not be the nominee because I don't want to have to settle for the same rationalizations.

As far as Kerry, by all means, he should be examined under the same microscope. But you won't find the same pattern of dissembling. I don't neccesarily agree with Kerry on every single matter (most notably the IWR vote) but I have paid close attention to him for 10 years, since he inspired me with a speech on the Senate floor, and you won't see him continually changing positions, denying his previous positions and playing fast and loose with the truth. So start all the attack threads on Kerry you want.

[JohnKleeb]

134. Thats a good point

Its not like Dean has won the nomination yet, there hasnt been one primary yet.

[batman]

136. well, I just did one search for shitz and gigglez and came up with this...

About John Kerry.

"Chatterbox's bottom line is that a political candidate and officeholder is responsible for whatever goes out under his name. So the Senate statement alone qualifies this as a Whopper. As to the larger question of whether Kerry habitually tells opportunistic lies about his background, or anything else, the jury's still out. But you can bet the Globe, and everyone else, will be watching."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2079783#ContinueArticle


More here...

http://forums.greenbaynewschron.com/read.php?f=2&i=17238&t=17238

http://www.punditreview.com/john_kerry_tells_a_whopper.htm

WE can sling dirt about anyone if we choose. Unfortunately many are choosing to sling dirt against a man who spoke out against the Bush administration for the past year, has run an amazing grass roots campaign, and was one helluva governor in Vermont.

As I said, I'm undecided, but Dean is an ally in the battle against the BFEE, PNAC and others. He's also a proven Democrat.

Dean Press Releases here.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=press_releases

[Feanorcurufinwe]

139. What exactly is the charge you are leveling?

You keep threatening to reveal some devestating charge against Kerry.

What is it?

Just what are you saying Kerry did?

I'm not going to respond to something someone else said somewhere else -- you have to at least quote them. And your quote left out the actual wrongdoing that is being alleged -- what is it? What is it that Kerry did that you are trying to equate with saying in a debate "I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68." when that is a proven falsehood. What did Kerry do that is equivalent to Dean lying on national TV about his position on a topic as important a Social Security?

"Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.): I've said many times that I think we should raise the retirement age about the year 2015—raise it by that time to about age 70.

"Howard Dean: I am very pleased to hear Bob Packwood because I absolutely agree we need to reduce the—I mean, to increase the retirement age. There will be cuts and losses of some benefits, but I believe that Sen. Packwood is on exactly the right track."
—CNN's Crossfire, Feb. 28, 1995


"I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68."
—AFL-CIO Democratic presidential candidate forum, Aug. 5, 2003
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804/

That is a direct lie coming out of Howard Dean's mouth to win votes.

[JaneQPublic]

140. "you have to at least quote them": Ironic, considering your original post

It's nothing but a list of links.

Now you have the gall to say: "I'm not going to respond to something someone else said somewhere else -- you have to at least quote them."

I must say, I'm beginning to lose respect for you, Feanorcurufinwe -- or may I call you Frederic?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

143. Hey I have no problem with people reading about Kerry

and I have no problem with you posting those links. I guess you realize there really is no serious charge being levelled at Kerry which is why you are not willing to make yourself look foolish by repeating those arguments. Is Kerry some kind of saint who shits gold? lol Of course not but Kerry has nothing to fear from people learning who the 'real' John Kerry is.

But a lot of people really seem to object me posting information about Dean.

[gully]

151. Dean doesn't shit gold either. Your using 8 year old statements

which he admits to making and changing his mind about to call him a liar.

Sorry bud, nice try.

Batman, hope you wont mind my interuption... ;)

[gully]

150. Read the links. The charge is....

that Kerry said he was an Irish Asthmatic and he is neither.

[JaneQPublic]

137. Sure, plenty of choices, but Howard Dean is the best choice.

Thanks for the offer, but I don't want to attack Kerry -- I just don't want him for president. Apparently, I don't enjoy bashing Democrats as much as you do.

I examined Kerry as closely as I did Dean. In fact, after Gore announced he wasn't running in 2004, I assumed Kerry would be my favorite. But after researching all candidates thoroughly, Howard Dean proved to have the best message, momentum, money-raising skills, and machine to organize against Bush.

Is he flawless? Hell no. But neither are the other candidates. And here's a clue: ALL politicians dissemble and flipflop and sidestep the issues. Even St. John.

You guys who make a career out of candidate bashing apparently think you're the only ones privy to this supposedly damining information about your guy's opponents. You post these links to articles as though we're supposed gasp and moan in shock and disbelief.

Newsflash: We all have TV, newspapers, and the Internet, just like you do. But, bummer, we didn't choose the same candidate you did. So deal.

As far as Kleeb's point that Dean hasn't won the primary yet: Ya think?

Kerry's a good man. For the most part, he's a class act. Too bad more of his supporters don't follow his example.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

138. Your faith would be inspiring -- if this were about faith.

'All politicians do that.' -- is just a feeble defense.

[JaneQPublic]

142. Tell me again how this isn't about faith

"I have paid close attention to him (Kerry) for 10 years, since he inspired me with a speech on the Senate floor, and you won't see him continually changing positions, denying his previous positions and playing fast and loose with the truth."
-- FeanorCurufinwe

That sounds to me like Faith on 10 and critical reasoning on 1.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

144. It is about informed choice. Or it should be.

I say "I have paid close attention to him for 10 years" and you equate that with blind faith. I didn't pay attention for 10 years because I had blind faith, but because I heard a politician say something worthy of respect and I wanted to know who this man really was. Ten years of considering something is about as far from faith as you can get lol

[JaneQPublic]

145. Being a political groupie for 10 years is not "considering"

It's blind loyalty.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

146. Mindlessly characterizing someone you don't know as a 'groupie'

is nothing but namecalling.


Despite your efforts to turn this into an exchange of insults, I'm going to put the focus back on Dean:

"We have to stop terrorism before peace negotiations"
http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.11.22/news3.html

said he didn't "believe stopping the terror has to be a prerequisite for talking."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/elec04.prez.dean.mideast/

What's Dean really believe? Is he lying, or just pandering?

[JaneQPublic]

147. Call Dean "a dishonest, lying politician" then cry foul for namecalling?

Are you trying to be ironic?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

148. I am not running for President. Dean is.

TYPES OF PERSONAL ATTACKS

There are two types of personal attacks.

1. Saying bad things about another member of this message board. For example: "You are an idiot."
2. Hurling insults at another member of this message board. For example: "Screw you."


WHAT PERSONAL ATTACKS GET REMOVED BY THE MODERATORS?

A personal attack is removed by the moderator if it has the following characteristics:

1. The attack is against a member of this message board, rather than a non-member. If you attack another member of this message board, your post will be removed. We do not remove attacks against public figures, such as presidential candidates, prominent Democrats, or other prominent individuals. If a public figure is also a member of Democratic Underground, then attacks against that person are allowed if they are narrowly focused on that person's public activity, but they are not allowed if they are unrelated to that person's public activity.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/attacks.html

No, I haven't asked the moderators to remove your attack on me. Why bother? It's so weak anyway.


So, again I say, despite your attempt to turn this into an exchange of insults, I'm going to put the focus back on Dean:

"We have to stop terrorism before peace negotiations"
http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.11.22/news3.html

said he didn't "believe stopping the terror has to be a prerequisite for talking."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/elec04.prez.dean.mideast/

What's Dean really believe? Is he lying, or just pandering?

[gully]

152. your are funny...

What a weak slam. I don't think the Republicans would even try this. LOL

Deans so called conflicting statements...

1. The controversy began last week when Dean, speaking about the Middle East, said he didn't "believe stopping the terror has to be a prerequisite for talking. You always talk."

2. "At one time the Peace Now view was important but now Israel is under enormous pressure," he continued. "We have to stop terrorism before peace negotiations...


I don't see the smoking gun sorry...

Dialogue does not = "formal" peace negotiation(s).

[Feanorcurufinwe]

154. Talk, but don't negotiate towards peace?

Is that what you say Dean is proposing? What should the Israelis and Palestinians talk about? Or are you saying Dean supports talk -- as long as it is not called 'negotiations'? Weak.

[gully]

155. Im saying to talk about a truce, then lasting peace...

simple really.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

156. Creative parsing.

Maybe you have a future in politics.

[gully]

157. No, but Dean does...

And, it's not creative, it's logical. ;)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

158. And it's just a coincidence

that this statement:

"We have to stop terrorism before peace negotiations"
http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.11.22/news3.html

was made during an interview with a periodical geared to a Jewish audience, and this statement:

said he didn't "believe stopping the terror has to be a prerequisite for talking."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/elec04.prez.dean.mideast/

was made to a general audience.

No pandering going on here.
Just the result of the hair-splitting distinction you believe Dean has made between 'talking' and 'negotiating'.
OK.

[gully]

159. you got it, a distinct difference.

Unlike the I'm Irish and Asthmatic pandering that Kerry has done I might add.

You have yet to come up with a credible reason for his statements.

Do I need to insert quotes?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

160. Yes, if you are talking about something, you'll have to spell it out.

What are you talking about?

[gully]

161. well...

John Kerry said this...

"As some of you may know, I am part-English and part-Irish. And when my Kerry ancestors first came over to Massachusetts from the old country to find work in the New World, it was my English ancestors who refused to hire them."

And then...various statements and attempts at damage control when his non-Irish ancestry came to light:

" Kerry acknowledged that some voters in Massachusetts, the nation's most Irish-American state, may have had the impression that he had Irish roots. He said that he knew of no Irish ancestry and that he had always tried to correct misstatements whenever he learned about them."

"I'm sure some people see the name and say, "Hey, I think it's this or that," but I've been clear as a bell,' Kerry said. 'I've always been absolutely straight up front about it."


"Kerry 'has never indicated to anyone that he was Irish and corrected people over the years who assumed he was,' Benander said."

Full story here.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2079783#ContinueArticle

I like John Kerry, and don't want to 'trash' him. But as Batman said, we can dig the dish on anyone.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

162. You have made a false statement.

Where you say

"John Kerry said this..."

you quote something that is described in the Slate article as

"—Draft remarks prepared for Kerry in 1984, quoted by Phillips and Mooney in the March 6 Globe."

I guess that's what's known as putting words in someone's mouth.


Now it's possible that you did not have the intention to deceive, so I will refrain from calling your statement a lie.

But it is false.

[gully]

163. You better write the author at Slate because...

he contends Kerry made the following statement on the Senate floor:

"For those of us who are fortunate to share an Irish ancestry, we take great pride in the contributions that Irish-Americans"

—Senate floor statement by John Kerry, March 18, 1986, as quoted in Frank Phillips' and Brian C. Mooney's "1986 Statement Counters Kerry's Stand on Heritage."

You will need to check the link(s) that batman provided for more information.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

164. I guess you just 'missed' the other part of the article

where it is revealed that Kerry didn't actually say that.

[gully]

165. That's questionable.

"Neither Kerry nor Benander nor Jonathan Winer, the Kerry aide who wrote the draft remarks prepared for Kerry when he was lieutenant governor, recall the speech being used. (But they don't seem specifically to recall it not being used, either.) As for the Irish-themed Kerry campaign paraphernalia, Benander said it was meant to attract Irish-American voters, not to con people into thinking Kerry was Irish." hmmmmmm?

And, what about this?

"Still, it's striking that the Globe was able to find two separate instances where Kerry's own staff thought he was Irish and a third where Kerry's campaign invited the public to believe he was Irish."

And this?

"And it is striking that Kerry has never attempted to correct various references to his Irish ancestry that have appeared in the Globe, which is the most important newspaper in his state."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

168. I guess the distinction between that and blatantly lying in the debate

is lost on you:

"Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.): I've said many times that I think we should raise the retirement age about the year 2015—raise it by that time to about age 70.

"Howard Dean: I am very pleased to hear Bob Packwood because I absolutely agree we need to reduce the—I mean, to increase the retirement age. There will be cuts and losses of some benefits, but I believe that Sen. Packwood is on exactly the right track."
—CNN's Crossfire, Feb. 28, 1995


"I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68."
—AFL-CIO Democratic presidential candidate forum, Aug. 5, 2003
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804/

[gully]

169. Comical. Do you recall every position you had 8 years ago?

I would imagine one would recall they are not Irish for a life time however.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

170. Yes. I can remember what I thought 8 years ago. And so can Dean.

And what you are repeating about Kerry, you just admitted wasn't true.

[gully]

171. I admitted no such thing...

And, I don't personally recall every position I had 8 years ago. If you do, so be it.

[DemBones DemBones]

176. In JUNE 2003, Dean said he would "entertain" or "look at"

raising Social Security retirement age to 68, after being reminded by Tim Russert that he had supported raising it to 70 back in 1995. I believe it was less than six weeks later when he faltly denied that he'd ever supported raising the retirement age.

It's NOT about something said eight years ago. . . It's about "forgetting" between late June and early August of this year what he previously said and favored.

Google Meet the Press to see the transcript. The date of the interview was June 22, IIRC. He says in two separate parts of the interview that he would "entertain" or "look at" raising the retirement age, plus you'll read the part where Russert brings up his 1995 statements and Dean doesn't remember ever saying that.

[catforclark2004]

149. Best Choice does not mean winner! Dean will be mince meat.

It will all come back to haunt us. Me, I'm moving to Canada.

Wes Clark is the only that can beat pResident Toy flight Suit Bunny Pants.

[gully]

153. Bullshit.

Dean could beat Bush soundly.

[catforclark2004]

166. I think that Dean is problematic

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031013&s=lizza101303

[gully]

167. I think Clark is 'problematic'

"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there." -

*Clark in remarks delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001

http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html

We are entitled to disagree I presume?

Clark called the Bushies a 'great team' Dean called them Un-American. Thus, I'll stand by the later candidate thank you very much.

[Hawkeye-X]

193. I've since long rejected The New Republic

as any form of liberal press.

They are right-wing, if they are going to be called any form of partisan politics.

Hawkeye-X

[Hawkeye-X]

192. Right. I had considered Kerry after Gore dropped out

of the 2004 elections. I looked at his voting records closely. One thing that extremely disturbed me was Kerry's S&B connection, and we all know the BFEE is also S&B, which is not a good connection to have ESPECIALLY when running against BFEE.

Then what REALLY locked up my ultimate rejection for Kerry was his IWR vote and the resulting votes of the anti-civil PATRIOT Act and Homeland Gestapo Act - WITH the pork that still hasn't YET been removed.

It shows how much of leadership that Kerry has -- zero.

Hawkeye-X

[Feanorcurufinwe]

194. Dean lies blatantly and his followers don't care. It's pathetic.

"Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.): I've said many times that I think we should raise the retirement age about the year 2015--raise it by that time to about age 70.

"Howard Dean: I am very pleased to hear Bob Packwood because I absolutely agree we need to reduce the--I mean, to increase the retirement age. There will be cuts and losses of some benefits, but I believe that Sen. Packwood is on exactly the right track."
--CNN's Crossfire, Feb. 28, 1995
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804/

Here we have Dean on the record as supporting raising the retirement age.

Russert: ...calling for that, and this is what Howard Dean said. "The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. 'It would be tough but we could do it,' he said."
Dean: Well, we fortunately don't have to do that now.
Russert: We have a $500 billion deficit.
Dean: But you don't have to cut Social Security to do that.
Russert: But why did you have to do it back then?
Dean: Well, because that was the middle of--I mean, I don't recall saying that, but I'm sure I did
--Meet the Press, June 22, 2003
http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/001560.php

Here we have Dean being reminded, and acknowledging, on national TV on June 22 that he did hold this position.

"I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68."
--AFL-CIO Democratic presidential candidate forum, Aug. 5, 2003
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804/

Here we have Dean denying on national TV on August 5 that he ever held that position.

[Hawkeye-X]

191. psst

Donate! http://www.trollsfordean.com

Every time there's a troll post about Dean, donate! They're doing quite well, actually.

Hawkeye-X

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

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

[TheDonkey]

173. Dean should release his records

[JoAnnSimon]

174. anti-Dean Flaming

So who do you support? And why?

[weepy_and_liberal]

175. I'll cry if Dean gets the nomination

but I guess I'd have to vote for him anyway.

[genius]

178. Dean wants to give Halliburton $87 billion. How is that different from

Bush? If anyone isn't aware of this, watch a video of the Phoenix debate.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

179. Headlines don't matter as much as the substance of the charges.

Compare and contrast for yourself.

[MrPeepers]

180. Can we try to avoid this kind of thing?

I'd rather we just criticize Dean on the issues (an area where I feel he is sorely lacking) than start flaming candidates like this.

Peepers

[ProfessorPlum]

181. Gee thanks for the kick

Mr Peepers.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

182. Although the subject line is inflammatory, the subject matter is real.

I admit, I was angry when I posted this thread, and I used the inflammatory subject line as retaliation for a different thread that threw about the word 'dishonest' with a lot less to back it up. Last night after a thread was started to personally attack me (which was subsequently locked), I got a bit pissy and bumped this up.

But none of that nullifies the statements of Howard Dean that are quoted in this thread, or the positions he has taken in the past that are examined in this thread, or the his mixed record in Vermont that is discussed in this thread.

There no attacks here based on his behavior in his personal life, or anything like that. It is all about public statements, his governance of Vermont and his performance during the campaign. Fair game.

[MrPeepers]

183. Yes, it's fair game.

I just think we'd all be better off if we put them forward in a less aggressive manner and asked for an explination. Everyone slips now and again, Dean's slipped several times and that's one of the several reasons I strongly dislike him. I'm just saying, I think we'd be better off focusing on Dean's foreign policy (or lack thereof), his domestic policy, his "support" of gay rights, his conservative economic policy, etc.

Peepers

[FluxRostrum]

184. Yes

We should focus on those things too. BUT, we really don't want to elect another LIAR, do we?