Why standards matter

[dsc]

From www.dailyhowler.com comes the following description of Gennifer Flowers one of Clinton's chief accusers.

"CONASON/LYONS (page 25): Musicians and club owners who had worked with Flowers described her as manipulative and dishonest. Her resume falsely proclaimed her a graduate of a fashionable Dallas prep school she’d never attended. It also listed a University of Arkansas nursing degree she’d never earned and membership in a sorority that had never heard of her. Her agent told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that contrary to her claims, Flowers had never opened for comedian Rich Little. A brief gig on the Hee Haw television program had come to a bad end, the agent would later confirm, when Flowers simply vanished for a couple of weeks with a man she’d met in a Las Vegas casino—and then concocted a tale about having been kidnapped. She had never been Miss Teenage America. Even her “twin sister Genevieve” turned out to be purely a figment of Flowers’ imagination."

end of quote

So why did this woman who is either disturbed or a congenital liar get TV time? Because she had interesting theories that could neither be proven or disproven. And she told stories which the press found were possible and had happened before. BTW those are standards recently enunciated by Dean bashers on this board. I won't site the posts since I don't what this locked. We are allowing DU to degenarate into a bad version of hardball when we post nonsense understandards like that. Worse we are both emulating our enemies morals and doing their jobs. There are lots of interesting theories about Kerry which can be neither proven or disproven. There are lots of things that have been said about Kerry which are possible and have happened before. I choose not to repeat them here due to having standards.

Standards matter because our party deserves better than a circular firing squad. Standards matter because our country can't survive four more years of Bush. Standards matter because on the 5th anniversary of Matthew Shephard's death our nation has no hate crime laws. Standards matter because as we approach the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights law we have an adminstration who won't enforse it. Standards matter because as we approach the 30th anniversary of the end of Vietnam I don't want Bush 8 months into his second term and us still in Iraq. Standards matter because as we just had our 25th Earth Day we have the biggest polluters on earth writing our enviromental law. Standards matter because as we approach Stonewall's 25th anniversary gays and lesbians are under attack from the radical right. Standards matter because as Krugman says we have a Revolutionary Power in the WH and we need to get it out. Standards matter.

By posting interesting negative theories which can be neither proven or disproven and possible stories which have happened before about our candidates you are handing the keys to the White House to Bush. You are polluting our discourse. And you are imperialing what our country stands for. It isn't Dean who deserves better or for that matter DU. It is our society.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[dsc]

2. And notice what happened it got locked

evidently it is OK to have no standards but taboo to say people have no standards. Go figure.

[DrFunkenstein]

6. You Repeat BS GOP Talking Points Regularly

How many times did you post that Boston Herald article that Kerry broke the self-imposed spending cap after William Weld had? I shot it down several times, and you kept right on posting it.

You have my utmost respect.

[blm]

3. What benefit to society were Dean's accusations of "Bushlite"

and that the others did not represent that Democratic wing of the Democratic party, when their actual records represented careers filled with fights for Democratic platform issues, and Dean's own record was one that often compromised those issues, sometimes ignoring them completely?

Is Dean benefitting society by adding to the coarsening of political discourse with his use of the word "cockroaches" or "weepy and liberal" to glorify himself with those who applaud that rhetoric?

Please don't act like reciprocating against Dean's attacks and those of his supporters are wrong while applauding their attacks on others.

A Dean supporter said Kerry was an "oozing shit polyp" was that charge based on his record? Did you ask for a cite?

Standards. Glass houses.

[dsc]

4. No after you brought it to my attention

I told her that she shouldn't have done it. It was in a thread posted on a day where I spent 20 of 24 hours out of my house either at work or picking my dad up at the airport, or attending an AA meeting (AS I SAID WHEN YOU FIRST BROUGHT THIS UP).

[AP]

5. Right on.

Speaking for myself, all my questions about Dean revolve around the question, is this guy liberal enough to be the democratic nominee, and is this guy running a campaign which can win the general election? Those are the standards I'm applying.

[dsc]

7. again she disembles

when she claims I didn't respond to that poster. I was gone 20 hours that day and commented immediately when it was brought to my attention. YOu are saying right on to someone who is outright telling a falsehood.

[AP]

8. That addresses about 1/300th of the argument blm is making.

And, as far as I know, nobody is making ad hominem attacks on Dean like the one blm cites. No one is even calling Dean a cockroach. They're asking if he's liberal and if he's running a sensible campaign (at least that's what I'm doing).

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[AP]

16. I can see how calling people cockroaches might be off-limits, but I don't

see how asking if a politician told a lie is off limits.

We have 100 threads sincerely asking if Bush is lying about this or that, and most of those are inspired by sincere questions that can be answered factually.

[dsc]

20. two things

One the poster didn't ask he stated. Look at the thread or if you did stop disembling about the thread. Two Dean said they would scurry like cochroaches you have heard of similies have you not?

[AP]

25. What's up with you and the word 'disemble' today?

I didn't read that thread. But, I'm telling you, just from a rhetorical perspective, if you're going to cite examples of ad hominem attack, or whatever, citing a post asking if Dean is a liar doesn't really cut it. Lying about your politics is a relevant issue in politics. Was the thread about Dean lying about a the size of a fish he caught? That wouldn't be relevant.

If there was something in that thread that was objectionable, cite that. But, as a person who didn't read that thread, I'm telling you that your post citing it has no rhetorical weight at all.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. Yes, Dean is a dishonest, lying politician

The truth sometimes hurts. Especially when we wait too long to wake up to it.

[AP]

32. Read post 9.

So, dissemble means the same as lie to you. So you're mad that somebody called Dean a liar, and you're counter argument involves rampaging through this thread calling everyone a liar, although they're citing facts and stating legitimate concerns.

Just because you have latched on to the idea of "Dean" doesn't mean everyone has, and it's perfectly fine for people to still have questions.

If you want to complain about ad hominem attack, and ACTUAL lies, that's great. I'm with you there. But you cannot censor arguments which are supported with facts, and you can't censor informed, substatiated opininion and honest doubts and concerns.

[dsc]

33. You haven't read the thread

remember. So you have, or so you claim, no idea if the charge is true or not. So which is it? Were you telling a falsehood when you claimed not to have read the thread? Or are you telling one now when you claim it has been backed up?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. Why are you so focused on what DUers say, while ignoring Dean's lies?

[dsc]

35. Because I am tired of disemblers

and I am tired of content free bashes, and I am tired of the circular firing squad people like you have turned this place into. People who did unto Gore what you are doing unto Dean gave us Bush. The may as well have voted for him and so it goes with you. You claim Dean lied on Israel so is it your position that if Israel wishes to negotiate that should have no bearing? Well is that your position? Is it? You are handing the WH to Bush. And BTW you sure aren't helping Kerry. He is not my next to last choice and dropping fast largley thanks to people like you.

[AP]

40. I'm starting to get tired of CENSORS

why do you want to censor legitimate criticism?

You know, I totally agree with the sentiment that Democrats have a problem with falling in line. The Republicans do it all the time, and it makes it hard to beat them.

I have two concerns today though. I love that Democrats are inclined not to fall in line. That's a good thing. But I also can't believe that there are some (many) demcrats who are so intent on making people fall in line behind a candidate like Dean and want to censor criticism of a candidate like Dean.

Yikes.

Also, it's probably the height of egotism to think that something you do at DU is going to protect Dean from defeat or cause his defeat. I'd be more worried about, say, The Nation tearing apart the left, or the Progressive, or the editorial board of the NYTimes, or the Clintons. I would want those sources to shut up next fall even if the had doubts more than I'd want DU'ers to shut up 13 months BEFORE the election.

[dsc]

52. If I am a censor I sure suck at it

here we are with all of these anti Dean posts out and and able to be read. But if you think the likes of who you just named won't use the same standards you are nuts.

[AP]

56. The urge to Censor isn't anything to be proud of.

And you can't forgive yourself just becaue it isn't working.

I couldn't believe all the anit-Gray, pro-Arnold posts at DU within the last month of the campaing. It was shocking.

Although you have made up your mind, there are thousands of good reasons to, at the primary stage, hear a full and frank discussion of the candidates position.

Your goal is obviouls to see Dean nominated. Most sensible people here still have the goal of seeing someone who can win the general election nominated. Discussion like these are legitimate ways to achieve that goal.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

41. Perhaps you should pick a different candidate then.

How can this be called a 'content free bash'?

"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/






"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/




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




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…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




GEPHARDT: Howard and I just have a basic disagreement. He said in, I think, 1993 that Medicare was the worst federal program ever. He said that it was the worst thing that ever happened.

He also supported, at our darkest hour--when I was leading the fight against Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America, he was shutting the government down--Howard, you were agreeing with the very plan that Newt Gingrich wanted to pass, which was a $270 billion cut in Medicare.

Now, you've been saying for many months that you're the head of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. I think you're just winging it.

This is not the view of Democrats, in my view.

This program has been under attack from the Republicans since the beginning. And we need a candidate against George Bush that can take the fight to him on it, not someone who agreed with the Gingrich Republicans.

WILLIAMS: Governor Dean?

DEAN: That is flat-out false
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A433-2003Sep25.html

Content free? Or irrefutable evidence of Dean's duplicity?

[AP]

37. Why are you calling everyone in a liar in a thread in which you're central

omplainint is that people calll Dean a liar. At least the people calling Dean a liar seem to be backing it up with solid evidence (post 9).

You're evidence generally seems to be founded on analysis built on the foundation of a third-grade level of reading comprehension.

Anything I'd telly you in reply to this post to reply to your quesions would merely be a restatement of arguments I made above which I didn't think were so nuanced that anyone old enough to be able to drive a car to the airport to pick up his father shouldn't be able to undertstand them.

[dsc]

39. You asked for people calling Dean names

I provided it. Then you claimed it was asking a question. You had stated twice that you hadn't seen the thread. I then said this is the exact title. Then you claimed it (the thread) was well backed up (even though you supposedly hadn't seen the thread). Now just why oh why would I say you are disembling.

[AP]

42. What NAMES did people call Dean? "liar" might sound like a name you call

someone in the schoolyard (and my god, you sound llike you're out on the playground today, throwing around that word). But things like post 9 below are not schoolyard taunts. They're legitimate arguments.

[dsc]

45. I answered post 9 twice

and again the thread was entitled Dean is a dishonest, lying politician. When I said posters were lying I got deleted for calling them liars. That is exactly what you asked for.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. Do you not understand the rules here?

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.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/attacks.html

[dsc]

47. I am not saying the thread should have been removed under DU rules

I using DU rules as one example of a place where saying person z is lying is the same as saying person z is a liar. Because you keep saying that thread didn't call Dean a name and yes it did.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

44. FDR was a statesman. Martin Luther King was a visionary. Dean is a liar.

Is that name-calling? Perhaps, but also true. As shown in post 9

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.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/attacks.html

[blm]

11. Not intentional.

Why do you say it's intentional?

And I mean "you" in the collective Dean supporter "you" just as you label anyone who questions Dean's record as a Democrat a "Deanbasher"

[dsc]

14. Please point out the word intentional

in my post. Again you disemble.

[blm]

24. You said "outright telling a falsehood."

I said it wasn't intentional. I am dissembling? Are you just nitpicking words to distract from the actual post?

[dsc]

28. It is outright false

I have no idea what is in your mind but I damn well know what I did when you told me and I know what I told you as to why I hadn't commented before. Nowhere do I use the word intentional and yes you did claim I had.

[blm]

36. You implied it was intentional.

Why are you nitpicking every word of anyone BUT Dean and his supporters?

[dsc]

38. No I didn't

I was very careful in what I wrote. Both due to not wanting to be locked and not being totally sure of your motives. I think by now you know I have no problem saying what I mean in that regard.

[blm]

43. You said I outright telling a falsehood.

Please address the original post and what I wrote about Dean contributiong to the coarseness of the debate and how THAT benefits society.

[dsc]

48. No I won't

as I already have on several occasions. And I don't know what else to call what you did. You told us a statement which was an utter falsehood. I never said you knew it was one but it is one, I showed it is one, and you told it.

[blm]

49. YOU, as in Dean supporters, rarely address one of your own

who utters profane and despicable language against Kerry. Some of you do.

Now....if you are going to post about what benefits society, and lecture the board, then you can address how Dean and his supporters benefit society with the coarseness of THEIR language while speaking of opponents and the Democratic party.

[dsc]

50. I generally have and generally do

I don't do a perfect job nor do I demand one from others. But I don't think the case can be made that there is some Dean supporter wilding going on here which is running amok. I don't recall any posts saying Kerry is a racist (soft or otherwise) for supporting internet voting (which he did until July of this year). I do recall more than one saying that of Dean. I don't recall any threads calling John Kerry a lying politician using almost all anti Democratic sources (I can show you one calling Dean that and using those sources). And it is clear what standards many of Dean's critics have and what those types of standards will lead to if left unchecked.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. What standards should we hold our candidates to?

If they make a flip-flop like this:

"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/

Should we ask them to explain why?



If they make a false statement about their own record in a nationally televised Presidential debate:

"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/

Should that reflect on their integrity?


If they show outrage at being accurately quoted:

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

should we wonder how genuine that outrage is?



If they, again, make a different false statement about their past record, in another nationally televised debate,

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…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




GEPHARDT: Howard and I just have a basic disagreement. He said in, I think, 1993 that Medicare was the worst federal program ever. He said that it was the worst thing that ever happened.

He also supported, at our darkest hour--when I was leading the fight against Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America, he was shutting the government down--Howard, you were agreeing with the very plan that Newt Gingrich wanted to pass, which was a $270 billion cut in Medicare.

Now, you've been saying for many months that you're the head of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. I think you're just winging it.

This is not the view of Democrats, in my view.

This program has been under attack from the Republicans since the beginning. And we need a candidate against George Bush that can take the fight to him on it, not someone who agreed with the Gingrich Republicans.

WILLIAMS: Governor Dean?

DEAN: That is flat-out false
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A433-2003Sep25.html

Should that reflect on their integrity?

[dsc]

12. Several things

On the SS flap find one, just one, place on this forum where I don't admit that he shouldn't have said he didn't favor at one time raising the SS age. You are claiming by implication that I didn't. You need to look at those threads and then apologize.

I addressed the Israel thing many times. Israel changed its position on this (as I type they are negotiating with the new PA government). I think we should let Israel determine this policy especially when they favor negotiation.

I don't recall me offering any defense at all on the NAFTA thing. Again put up here or apologize. You imply I did now prove I did. And yes that means serch DU for things where I say what you are implying I did.

The Gephard stuff was heavily spun and Liberal Oasis said so at the time. Dean never specificly supported the exact same program Newt did. He did support some cuts which BTW Clinton did too.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. You miss the point. I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about Dean

Dean is the one who flip-floped on peace negotiations. Dean is the one who lied about whether he had ever supported raising the retirement age. Dean is the one who claimed he wasn't a strong supporter of NAFTA and then was proven to be lying. Dean is the one who lied about supporting Domenici's Medicare plan - which Gingrich also supported by the way.

It's not about you. It's not about which anonymous poster on a msg board said what. It's about choosing the best person to lead our party and our country.

[dsc]

19. Um no you were talking about me

When you ask, and assume the answer is no, whether those things should be covered then you are saying I don't think those things should be covered. So again, I ask you to prove what you implied. Go back to those threads and back up what you said. Or can't you?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. Dean is a liar, as has been proven repeatedly at DU

That's my point.

My only point.

[dsc]

27. That isn't all that you said

and you well know it. Also do you really want to call people liars when they may well be our nominee? There are many questionable statements Kerry made (one recent example is his false claim that Dean doesn't have a plan for Iraq). Go ahead and find where I called Kerry a liar I bet you can't.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. Dean is a liar.

"Go ahead and find where I called Kerry a liar I bet you can't."

You persist in thinking this is about you. It's not.

[DrFunkenstein]

13. Bad Truth Is Off Limits - Stick To Talking About The IWR

And how Kerry supporter everything Bush has ever done, including the crap he took yesterday.

[dsc]

15. I answered him

and I ask you what I asked him. Find one, even one, place on DU where I didn't find fault with Dean for saying he hadn't agreed to raise the SS age to 70 when he had and find one, even one, place where I don't find fault for him having said the stuff on NAFTA. Stop disembling about my record. Back it up do the search.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. It's about Dean's lies, it's not about you.

You exaggerate your own importance in the scheme of things.

[AP]

21. Yes. "overidentify much?" is a phrase which goes through my head

when I read DU.

[dsc]

22. see post 19

words have meaning even when you have typed them.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

26. See post 9

that's what matters here.

[dsc]

51. More on what those standards will lead to

MCMURTY: It may be that Clinton was less worried about the public’s response to this rather stutter-step dalliance than he was about the private and sure-to-be-stormy response of his formidable wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, currently senator from New York, a smart, able woman with the White House square in her sights. The formalities of presidential life may have worked to inhibit Bill Clinton but there’s no sign that they had any such effect on Hillary. The First Couple had scarcely moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue when there were rumors of a big fight. The First Lady had, according to the gossip, thrown a lamp at the President, while calling him a stupid motherfucker and perhaps a few other names besides. Well, moving is hell for everybody and many a wife has said worse. The fight, if it happened, was probably no big deal, of interest only because it suggests that when her temper is up Hillary Rodham Clinton is apt to make robust use of the F-word. Wasn’t there gossip that, on a black day in Little Rock, she had instructed an aide, or perhaps a state trooper, to inform her husband that she needed to be fucked oftener than twice a year?


end of quote

Stuff like the above is what happens when people use the stanards enunciated in my first post. We used to call interesting theories which can be neither proven or disproven and things which are possible and have happened before gossip and unfit for public consumption. Now we call them journalism or political debate. The above is what we get when we let people use this standard. Or, of more relevence here, we get the nonsense about Dean and Clark. It is a reasonable bet that one of Dean, Clark, or Kerry will be our nominee. If we don't find some standards and find them soon, we may as well give the Bush's the keys to the WH and the Treasury.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. a pol who respects no standards in his own conduct would lead us to?

"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 standards should the Israelis and Palestinians expect Dean to apply when he says he'll be an 'honest broker'?

"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/

What standards should those who are going to retire in 20 years expect Dean to apply when he tries to 'reform' Social Security?

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

What standards should displaced factory workers expect Dean to apply when he negotiates the next trade agreement?

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…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




GEPHARDT: Howard and I just have a basic disagreement. He said in, I think, 1993 that Medicare was the worst federal program ever. He said that it was the worst thing that ever happened.

He also supported, at our darkest hour--when I was leading the fight against Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America, he was shutting the government down--Howard, you were agreeing with the very plan that Newt Gingrich wanted to pass, which was a $270 billion cut in Medicare.

Now, you've been saying for many months that you're the head of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. I think you're just winging it.

This is not the view of Democrats, in my view.

This program has been under attack from the Republicans since the beginning. And we need a candidate against George Bush that can take the fight to him on it, not someone who agreed with the Gingrich Republicans.

WILLIAMS: Governor Dean?

DEAN: That is flat-out false
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A433-2003Sep25.html

What standards should seniors expect Dean to apply when he tries to 'reform' Medicare?

[dsc]

54. I have answered that several times

I won't again.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

55. LOL