A troubling assertion- "Everybody lies"

[diamondsoul]

**note to friendly Dean supporters-this started out as a reasonable post. It's evolved into a major rant, and while I hate that I might offend some good people here, I really just needed to get it out of my head somehow. I'm angry, and I think I'm so used to being diplomatic that I've just tried to ignore the things that infuriated me. I can't do that anymore. It wears me out and I just want to pack as much as I can carry and flee as far away as I can get. I can't do that either. So I hope you'll all understand where I'm coming from and forgive me if I've insulted you via your candidate. You all are not him and you don't make him do the things he does that anger me. Please remember that.

This may seem like a strange thing to be disturbed by to some people. Here's the problem with this statement, it's not true. Now another reason it disturbs me so is that it's the very reason I came to be at DU at all. I got tired of lying politicians. I got tired of Bush's lies.

I got so tired of it I can barely stand to listen to him anymore. And I got angry when I started looking into Congressman Dennis John Kucinich. Why? Because I hunted for a lie he may have told. I can't find one. "Everybody lies.", yes indeed, that's what I kept saying to myself. "Nobody is this genuinely good. Not even me and I work hard at it!" So I looked, BOY did I look. I looked everywhere, and I have yet to find a single falsehood told by this man.

I'm tired of lies. I'm tired of "I never said...", "I did not...", fairy tales about "WMDs" and terrorists lurking around every corner and behind every e-mail or locked door. I'm tired of "Bush-lite", "He said, she said...", "Used to be a Republican", and on and on and on. I'm sick to death of all of that garbage.

So, I want someone to show me a lie ever spoken by Dennis John Kucinich that wasn't retracted or corrected as soon as the opportunity arose.(the part about retraction and correction added because I'm not interested in hearing about simple mistakes like the Detroit murder stat.) Show me a falsehood this man has ever propagated. Show me where he's ever said something purely for personal gain. Show me how he's just like all the rest of the lying politicians.

Why? Because frankly I'm tired. I'm really, really tired of fighting this fight. I'm tired of pointing out that we have a honest man running for President for the first time in who knows how long. I'm tired of showing everyone why he's a great man and a great leader so they can tell me how ugly or short or kooky he is. I'm tired of everyone, I'm really, REALLY tired of everyone in my own G-damned party beating down my hopes and my hard work!

I'm tired of insipid one-liners in response to honorable things Dennis John Kucinich has done. I'm tired of the scrabbling for reasons to dismiss a good, caring, decent and honorable man as a loser and "unelectable. I'm just feckin' tired of the absolute refusal to give a flying fig about WHO we replace this lying sack of slime pResident with. ANYone will do....

Anyone at all want to tell me how the favored smart-assed answer "Ham sandwich" is going to save my daughters from a lifetime of financial devastation? How the "Ham sandwich" is going to give them a decent education or see to it that I can keep a roof over their heads? And can anyone show me a single other candidate who will fight for me, my kids, and everyone like me all over the world? I don't mean compromise, G-dammit, I want someone who goes face to face with the "incremental", pink-tutu Dems and the FRW lunatics running the show right now! I'm sick of compromise, I'm sick of lying, sick of distortion and sick to effing death of increments that we end up losing anyway!

You want angry and fired up by a candidate? Try ME for size! Howard Dean has been distorting, and outright lying, not for any other reason than his own gain- for HIS chance to sit in the Big Cushy Chair. Galvanized anger, folks, that's what you're looking at. I am G-damned LIVID! I'm fed up with seeing good people ruined by greed, class-warfare, and absolute BULLSHIT that keeps getting tossed around as "pragmatism"!

So let's go now. Somebody show me a single LIE ever spoken by Dennis John Kucinich so I can roll the hell over and play dead too.

[blm]

1. Dennis doesn't lie. He may get a detail wrong

or make a mistake, but it wouldn't be a deliberate lie.

I've followed his career for over 30 years. He doesn't lie.

[La_Serpiente]

2. I don't think Kucinich has lied at all

And I don't think he lied when he made the homicide statement last night either. He just misspoke.

[E_Zapata]

3. Amen Brother!!!! (or sista!?!)

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

I think you are the kind soul who got through to me last week -- in terms of voting for the BEST person for president: Kucinich instead of kowtowing to my FEARS!

[JohnKleeb]

4. sista she is

Thanks diamondsoul.

[genius]

5. I know. Dennis is so honest. That's a lot of the reason everyone

loves him.

I remember back to when I was working on the Dean campaign, we had to do a lot of damage control becuse Dean messed on a lot of stuff as governor of Vermont. We had to figure out a way to sell him to the environmentalists by putting a positive spin on his anti-environmental actions.

The nice thing about Dennis is we don't need to figure out how to spin anything. Everything he does comes from integrity.

[genius]

6. This reminds me of that poem Natasha wrote about Dennis.

She has given everyone permission to circulate it widely as long as they include the copyright notice.

The part that seemed really applicable to the discussion here was
"We need a man who is honest and true,
One who will work hard for me and for you,"
in the seventh stanza.

A Hero For America

By Natasha H. (age 12)

Out of Ohio a long shot has come.
Voters greet him with a hearty welcome.
Fearful candidates hope he’ll go away.
“Unelectable” they lyingly say.

Suddenly there’s hope for health care for all.
America soon again can stand tall.
Total equality, he can secure.
For America’s ills, he is the cure.

College for all will be affordable
If we believe our dreams are possible.
Jobs for Americans soon will come back.
Goodbye to W.T.O.’s job attack.

No more arsenic or nuclear waste
Nor cyanide in the water to taste.
Our environment now needs a hero
Who won’t sell us out as his profits grow.

He will help us to restore our liberty.
No more Homeland spying on you and me.
He will save our civil rights from attacks.
He will stop the outrageous fascist acts.

Each of us needs to stand up for what’s right,
Pulling America out of its plight.
We are the ones who determine who wins -
Not some conservative whose lies are sins.

We need a man who is honest and true,
One who will work hard for me and for you,
One who puts people above his campaign,
Who won’t skip out on work for his own gain.

Dennis will make this a great place for all.
He’s the right man. Are you up to the call?
Together we can make this country rich.
By choosing the best leader: Kucinich.


Copyright ©2003 by Natasha H. All rights reserved.

[KaraokeKarlton]

7. He did lie once that I saw

It was during one of the debates when he implied that Dean supports something he doesn't. Kucinich was using a decade old quote that Dean had just discussed on Meet The Press. Dean has clearly stated his actual position on that interview, which everyone was talking about and Kucinich knew about. I believe Kucinich knew what he was doing was dishonest and that he did it with the intentions of political gain. This is the only instance that I'm aware of when he has been dishonest.

I also am tired of Dean being accused of lying. He has made a few mistakes that he promptly apologized for, but he's not a liar. He's unscripted and sometimes could use a better choice of words, but the man is honest and always has been. I think he should have used "most" in the ads, but at the same time, everyone who knows Kucinich is running at all already knows he has never supported the war and the ads weren't directed at him. Dean is certainly guilty of not viewing Kucinich as a threat, but so is Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, Lieberman and Clark. None of them pay attention to Kucinich or bother criticize him at all. Kucinich is justified in feeling insulted for not being viewed as a threat, but he isn't justified in feeling like Dean or anyone else have to view him as a threat.

I don't like Kucinich as a presidential candidate. I like him right where he is. We NEED people like him there because if he leaves it will be easier for the ones who make lousy votes to do so without anyone pointing out what they're up to. Kucinich's voice (and other voices like his) are very important and necessary in DC as lawmakers, but he is much too left to be a good president for ALL of the country because most of America doesn't share his views. That's why presidents tend to be more middle of the road...so it's closest to all Americans, not just a few of them.

[genius]

8. Sorry. Dean lied and got caught. The New York Times nailed

him the next day on the lie about the Social Security Retirement age. Dean lied about comments he had recently made there.

[SahaleArm]

9. What?

Dean has never waffled!

[KaraokeKarlton]

11. Nope, he had already told Russert he didn't remember saying that

His current position is very clear...don't raise the age of Social Security, tweak the payroll tax and that's that. Considering the possibility of raising the age a decade ago is a far cry from what Kucinich implied. He talked like Dean intends to raise the retirement age to 70 if elected, and that is a lie. The question is not whether or not Dean forgot exactly what he said or not. We all know that he did, and it was not an intentional deception. I don't remember exactly what I said 10 years ago, either. The question was whether or not Kucinich has ever lied, and he did when he implied that Dean currently wants to raise the retirement age to 70, which he doesn't support at all. Since he mentioned the "Meet The Press" episode, he also knew what Dean's actual position is, and Kucinich DID misrepresent it for political gain. End of story. Actually, Lieberman has been about the most honest about where he stands on things, as much as I dislike him. Edwards has been pretty good too. Kerry and Gephardt have lied repeatedly. Kucinich...only this one time that I am aware of. I even give him some room for doing what Dean often does in just making a bad choice of words that he knew what he meant but implied something different. It happens. Either way, what he actually said was, indeed, a lie.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. This is about the most blatant, well documented lie imaginable.

"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://stacks.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp

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.


Go ahead KK, explain to us how saying that -- 13 days after he acknowledged on national TV it wasn't true -- explain to us how Dean was actually telling the truth.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

26. Come'on KK, explain again how Dean was telling the truth and DK was lying

I don't quite get it.

DK said: "(M)y good friend, Mr. Dean, has said that he'd move the retirement age to 68. One time he talked about moving it to 70."

And Dean replied: "I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68." http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804

Even though he had acknowledged 13 days before that he had previously held that position. http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp


So we have Dean saying something that he admitted was not true 13 days before -- and somehow, he's not lying, and DK saying what Dean acknowledged was true 13 days before -- and somehow, he is lying.

Could you please explain it again?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

120. No response = KUCINICH TOLD THE TRUTH - DEAN LIED

[peaceandjustice]

127. Dean may have lied unintentionally when Kucnich dishonestly baited him

Kucinich may have told the "truth" when in the debate he brought up Dean's mid-nineties comment on raising the social security age, but he dishonestly misrepresented the comment as both Dean's current position and as a position that Dean intended to enact rapidly. Even when Dean first made the remark he was speaking of raising the retirement age in 2011.

[redqueen]

132. Excuse me?

You seem to be putting a lot of words in Kucinich's mouth, there.

All he did was point out that Dean had previously held this position. He probably did it to illustrate some point -- we'd need the entire context to judge that... 'intended to enact rapidly'... did he really say that?

[peaceandjustice]

141. did Kucinich...

acknowledge that Dean held that postion seven years ago and had since retracted it?

Did he acknowledge that the original position Dean took applied to 2011, eight years from now?

Then I'm not putting words in Kucinich's mouth, only questioning why his misleading statements didn't account for words that came from Dean's mouth.

[redqueen]

146. No, that would be the definition of a straight answer from Dean.

Kucinich volunteered this information:

"(M)y good friend, Mr. Dean, has said that he'd move the retirement age to 68. One time he talked about moving it to 70."

This is something he thinks that Democratic voters need to know about Dean. I agree. I see nothing wrong with informing voters that he said that he'd do such a thing, and has talked about doing worse.

Dean had every right to counter that statement with what you seem to expect Kucinich to say, that being that he held that postion seven years ago and had since retracted it, and that the original position he took applied to 2011, eight years from now?

But Dean didnt' do that, did he?



Now here we are on a thread about Kucinich, and somehow, you come out with this:

"...he dishonestly misrepresented the comment as both Dean's current position and as a position that Dean intended to enact rapidly."

Kucinich said neither that this was Dean's current position, nor that Dean intended to enacti it rapidly. From what I've seen, that's all coming from you.

Now, would you please either tell me what Kucinich said that led you to make that statement, or otherwise admit that you're just twisting his words to fit your agenda.

[peaceandjustice]

149. Kucinich didn't say otherwise...he wasn't forthright

Kucinich didn't say when Dean held the position or when Dean thought the suggested amendment should take place. He left it for the audience to assume he was speaking about the present.

If Kucinich doesn't forthrightly say what the time constraints of Dean's alleged position were, how is the audience to know? How would the audience possibly conclude that Kucinich was speaking about raising the age at any other time than recently?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

133. Lied unintentionally?

What is that supposed to mean? Were voices telling him to do it or something?

Why not just say that used to be his position, but he's changed his mind? That would be the truth. What Dean said:

"I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68." http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804

Is clearly not the truth, since he had publicly acknowledged 13 day before that it was not the truth.

So could you explain what you mean by an unintentional lie?

Is that like when you get caught, and you try to lie your way out of it?

[diamondsoul]

140. Get this- from the mouths of babes-

I showed my 12 yr old the "he may have lied unintentionally" comment. She hates politics, as most young girls do, but she looked at me and frowned, then said "Mom, there's a diSEASE for it!"

I can't help it, THAT is hysterical! She's admonishing me as if I've insulted someone with the mental illness of pathological lying!

[peaceandjustice]

143. Is your 12-year old aware that Kucinich took a...

policy Dean suggested might have been appropriate seven years (2003-02-01-00-99-98-97-96) ago to take effect eight years from now (2003+04+05+06+07+08+09+10+11) as being a policy Dean suggested now to take effect now? Kucinich's games with numbers are astoundingly dishonest. As is his (pro-choice but againt abortion) policy on reproductive rights) flip-flop on a woman's right to choose.

[redqueen]

147. There you go again...

... would you please post the quote where Kucinich says that Dean's plan was to be implemented rapidly, as you put it in another post?

[peaceandjustice]

164. Kucinich omitted part of the truth...he doesn't tell "the whole truth"

Kucinich omitted the fact that Packwood's plan-which was never Dean's plan, Dean didn't concoct it, he didn't vote for it, he didn't stump for it, he just said something nice about it one time- would take effect in 2015. This omission left it to the audience to assume the plan would be enacted soon or during a Dean presidency. They had no evidence to base a belief the increase wouldn't happen until 2015 because Kucinich wasn't being forthright.

[peaceandjustice]

142. and if Kucinich was being honest

and telling the whole truth he would've included that Dean's oringinal position rested on circumstance that failed to bear out. And was relevent to those circumstances being true seven years from now, in 2011, when they've been discounted since then.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

145. I guess since you aren't mentioning Dean you are agreeing he lied?

Intentionally lied about his former position in order to deceive the voters. That is what he did right?

Dean:"I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70" http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804

[peaceandjustice]

150. I don't think it was intentional.

His original remark, again made seven years ago, a fact Kucinich misleadingly omits, appears to me to have been off-the-cuff. I don't expect Dean to remember every kind thing he's said about the opposition in seven-year-old interviews. I suspect when he said he "never" favored raising the age he honestly didn't recall saying it and also was never committed to the proposal. I think he was reaching out and trying to be concilitory towards the new majority.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

153. He didn't remember from 13 days ago? does he have Alzheimers?

It's not a matter of him remembering something from 7 years before; it's a matter of remembering something from 13 days before.

"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://stacks.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp

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.

Clearly intentional. I just don't believe Dean is so stupid he can't remember what happened 13 days ago.

[peaceandjustice]

156. uh, actually, he said to Russert he didn't recall saying that

"I don't recall saying that" But of course you'll want to focus in on the "but I'm sure I did"...I'll come back to that in a moment.

First, thanks for a couple things. Thanks for pointing out Kucinich's dishonesty. You've just shown an interview with Russert where Dean says we don't have to cut social security, and yet 13 days later Kucinich stands in front of an audience and says Dean wants to cut social security. That's dishonest. Thanks for correcting me, intentionally or otherwise, about Dean's original position. I thought Bob Packwood suggested raising the age in 2011. I see here I was wrong. So Kucinich didn't misleadingly neglect to mention that Dean's alleged support for an increase wouldn't take effect for eight years, He misleadingly neglected to mention Dean's alleged support for an increase wouldn't take effect for 12 years.

Now about "But I'm sure I did"...If I'm going to believe Dean lied at any point this is where I'd believe he lied...Dean reassured Russert when he said he didn't recall making the remark that he wasn't calling Russert's honesty or integrity into question. He prevented the interview from completely disintegrating. Dean was playing ball. He was showing a skill Kucinich has shown himself to be deficient in...cooperating with an inquisitive media...one thing I'm definitely sick of is reading posters moan about how the media ignores Kucinich...well, Kucinich has been invited on Hardball with Matthews in the past and refuses according to Kucinich supporters here to do the show any more, because Matthews won't ask him easy questions. Kucinich, according to The Nation, expressed annoyance when The Daily Show's Rob Cordry(sp) asked him a question with a mouthful of peanut butter to illustrate a point about the hairsplitting and spin of politics (And go ahead. Accuse me of hairsplitting and spin here. The role of spin and hairsplitting in politics is their gripe, not mine).

Dean isn't perfect. I'm not certain I'll vote for him. I could still change my mind and vote for Clark or Kerry, depending on how the race shapes up. But I'm not going to believe Dean was intentionally lying when he emotionally snapped back at Kucinich after Kucinich baited him.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

157. DEAN LIED AT THE DEBATE not in the MTP interview.

That was 13 days after Dean had been reminded by Russert that he had held that position.

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://stacks.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp

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


Then, not 7 years later, but 13 days later, Dean says:

"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/

This is the lie: "I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70".

Are you trying to say Dean can't remember what happened on Meet the Press, 13 days after the interview?

And we aren't talking about who did what to who in whose office here. This is a serious, relevant policy issue, and Dean lied about it to get votes. Saying he doesn't hold that position now is no defense; because the lie was in saying he never had held that position.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

158. Come on, P&J, respond

[peaceandjustice]

159. what Dean said on MTP, a fault of Dean's and other stuff.

I'm saying, first, that thirteen days before he couldn't recall ever saying he supported raising the minimum age for social security.

I'm also saying that his initial comments seven years before look less and less to me like an endorsement of raising the age. Bob Packwood proposed raising the age, not Howard Dean. Dean was instead receptive of one possibility, a possibility that under the Contract-with-America majority looked like the most plausible way to balance the budget. And Dean has shown a consistant committment to balanced budgets. It is one of the reasons I've supported him and may continue to do so.

And yes, I'm saying he probably didn't remember his words thirteen days before, even though they really don't indicate he ever endorsed raising the age. He was probably pissed off and responding out of emotion and not thinking clearly. Unfortunately he seems to have a problem with that. It's one of his faults.

Even if Dean did lie though, isn't this a thread about Kucinich's honesty? Kucinich is still dishonest for bringing up the issue when he knows it isn't a position Howard Dean holds now, and if he ever held it held it seven years ago, and wouldn't take effect for thirteen years anyways. But maybe Kucinich is allowed to forget something that had been said thirteen days before (Russert: We have a $500 billion deficit. Dean: But you don't have to cut Social Security to do that.) And Dean isn't.

[peaceandjustice]

160. correction:

not thirteen years, ten.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

161. Well

"And yes, I'm saying he probably didn't remember his words thirteen days before, even though they really don't indicate he ever endorsed raising the age. "

I guess if someone wants to believe something bad enough, they can convince themselves of anything.

[peaceandjustice]

166. questions about Dean's statements and the statement I wish he had made

How does "I don't recall saying that" indicate he ever endorsed raising the age?

Isn't "we fortunately don't have to do that now" and
"you don't have to cut Social Security" clearly demonstrating Dean no longer wants to cut social security entitlements or impede reception of those entitlements?

Hasn't one of the constant themes of Dean-bashers here been that he's too quick to shoot off his mouth? Wouldn't that give creedence to the possibility that he made the remark in the debate without thinking about the MTP interview?

Now, even if he did think of the interview, he still said in the interview he didn't recall saying he wanted to raise the age. He didn't say he wanted to in the original remark seven years ago. He said it was a possibility.

Still, I really wish Howard Dean said in the debate, "That was a position I considered seven years ago. Sometimes peoples positions shift...like when they decide about a year, if even that, before running for the Democratic presidential nomination that they support a woman's right to choose after a congressional career of steadfast opposition to reproductive rights, Mr. Kucinich"

[no name no slogan]

168. Except it wasn't "steadfast"

His votes were against abortion, but in favor of family planning and birth control-- a position that's quite different from the "pro-life" majority, who are either anti-family planning or who refuse to address the issue.

Also, I doubt DK changed his position just to run for president. You see, like Clark, Kucinich was drafted to run for president after his Prayer for America speech to the SoCal ADA in February of 1992. Kucinich was encouraged to run for president by people who heard and/or read his speach, and wanted somebody with his knowledge and integrity to represent them.

DK started his campaign in early 2003 with NO corporate contributions, and still does not take them (unlike Dean, who "seeded" his campaign in late 2001/early 2002 with money from Vermont's utilities).

Hasn't one of the constant themes of Dean-bashers here been that he's too quick to shoot off his mouth?

Yes it is, because it's true. He says one thing, then backpedals ("waffles" if you will) and insists he never said such a thing. When it's later revealed that he did indeed say such a thing, he doesn't bother to explain why he said it or what his reasoning was, he just triangulates away and tries to change the subject.

In his own words: "I was a triangulator before Bill Clinton". We DON'T NEED another triangulating politician who says one thing but does another-- we've already had four disastrous years of that. We NEED somebody who's willing to stand up for what's right and be forthright and HONEST with the people of this country.

[redqueen]

170. That's an important distinction.

Despite his history of opposition to abortion, he was never in the nutcase camp that thinks that using birth control pills can cause an abortion and therefore oppose these kinds of birth control methods.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

169. Yeah, I wish Dean would make statements like that too.

If he changes his mind, he should say so. He should say why he held that previous positions and what changed to make him hold his current position. HE SHOULD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS OWN WORDS AND RECORD.

[bearfartinthewoods]

162. wow........

i must be getting sick or old but i just can't take spinning the way i used to. my head hurts....

[Feanorcurufinwe]

163. Incredible, isn't it?

[peaceandjustice]

165. I hope you mean

How Kucinich supporters have spun one nice thing Dean said seven years ago about a Packwood proposal to increase the retirement age in 2015 as Dean's goal to raise the retirement age.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

167. LOL

:eyes:

[diamondsoul]

12. I appreciate your civil reply, KK.

I'm not really sure what exactly set me off so bad tonight. All I know was once I started typing, it all came out!

I think I'm just really disgusted with some of the things Dean has said in recent weeks, not just about Kucinich, but several of the other candidates. That and this niggling feeling that there is something going on there I'm not seeing have just finally gotten to me, I suppose.

It seems like when Gep started his smear job, Dean threw the gloves away altogether, but that may just be my perception since I've never been completely comfortable with Dean.

[KaraokeKarlton]

19. You're welcome, diamondsoul

I appreciate that you didn't take my post as an attack on Kucinich, because it wasn't intended that way. I'm not sure what you mean by something going on that you are not seeing. You kinda lost me there.

If you stop for a second and try to take an objective look at what's been going on, you might see things a little different.

In an interview Dean talked about what made him decide to run. He made the comment that he was getting really mad when he was reading the paper every day and seeing what was going on. He wasn't seeing enough people in his own party standing up and fighting for the party and the values of the party. He said that he decided that rather than just complain about it, he was going to get out there and change it. Yes, he made the "Bush Lite" comment and expressed his frustration with his own party. Those who voted badly deserved to be called out on those votes. And look at how suddenly it led to some behavior modification on the part of those who needed to remember who they are? That was a good thing. Now look at all the ridiculous personal attacks that other candidates have made on Dean. Lieberman has toned it down now, but Kerry and Gephardt have been far, far nastier than Dean has been.

No, Dean hasn't taken the gloves off. If you see him respond to an attack very harshly it's because the attack isn't true at all and he feels it's way out of line. If you see him respond with an explanation and he's not clearly miffed, then he thinks it's a valid question. If he disagrees with what someone says, he's going to say so. The stronger he disagrees, the harsher his criticism will be. That's his style...he's very direct and blunt. That's the doctor in him and it's not going to change. It does make people take a step back from how candid he is, but what he says that sticks only sticks because people find merit in what he's said.

I don't think Dean will go really negative, but he most certainly will defend himself and his record...and rightly so. If that means he has to be harsh, he won't shy away from doing so. We need someone willing to do this against Bush. We need a fighter who isn't afraid to stand up and say what needs to be said and mean it. With all the lies and secrets from Bush, people really just want someone who will give it to them straight.

I do think it's possible that Dean is inviting these attacks onto himself because it always works for him. I've never seen anyone who actually gains steam and does better the more they are attacked and the tougher things get for them. It's kind of bizarre, frankly. So, ironically, Kerry and Gephardt are just helping Dean with their attacks.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

14. He has not apoligized for the campaign ad deception, has he?

Tired of Dean getting accused or do you mean CAUGHT?
Hey I like Dean, well I used to like him alot more, but the campaign ad is a LIE/DECEPTION.

"I think he should have used "most" in the ads, but at the same time, everyone who knows Kucinich is running at all already knows he has never supported the war and the ads weren't directed at him."

That is pure BS. What about the less informed and the UNDECIDED voters?!
They are looking at a field of 9 candidates(more if you include less represented candidates). When Dean says "my opponents", he means ALL of them.

No matter what way you look at it, its deceptive. During the debates, he did not own up to it, or say he would pull the ad. He defended it.

I am sorry you are tired of it, but as diamondsoul feels frustrated so do alot of DK supporters. We are getting tired of lies and misrepresentations.

DK is not being viewed as a threat? Oh really, why do you think everyone is doing their damnedest to make us think that? Why do you think Dean runs that deceptive ad? Why do you think Kucinich gets 5 minutes to Dean's ~15 in a debate? Why do you think Dean's website has a Iraq strategy page with only the views of himself, Kerry and Lieberman. Because Dean and the others know they need to shun and exclude the BETTER candidate. If Kucinich had the FREE exposure that the media gives to the others, the people would LOVE what he has to say to them.



Thanks for your time,
Thanks diamondsoul,

TWL

[KaraokeKarlton]

20. Listen for a minute

Dean is guilty of not taking Kucinich seriously as an opponent and not viewing him as a threat, but he's not guilty of deception in those ads. The ad was talking about those who voted for the war. Kucinich didn't vote for it so the ad isn't criticizing him. The ad was to tell voters about Dean, so he's not going to add "Oh, and by the way, Dennis Kucinich opposed the war too!" Does Kucinich praise Howard Dean while he's out campaigning or does he talk about why people should support him?

You have every right to feel insulted that Kucinich gets discounted as not being a serious threat, but feeling slighted because a Dean ad didn't mention Kucinich really is kind of silly. If Dennis wants to be mentioned in an ad he needs to run one about himself.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

21. still..

That is not the point. The point is that Dennis may not praise Dean, but he does not SAY "MY OPPONENTS... SUPPORTED THE WAR" in a TV ad that will be viewed by those less informed.

There will be those that will se the ad and come away thinking, wow Dean was the only one...

Disingenuous to say the least.

TWL

[KaraokeKarlton]

22. What's the actual words in the ad?

Doesn't the ad say that his opponents should have asked questions before voting for (or supporting) the war? If that's what Dean said then he's obviously talking only about those who supported the war. Kucinich didn't support it and didn't vote for it so the ad isn't directed at him. It's that simple. The only reason you can justifiably cite for being angry over the ad would be that Kucinich is essentially being ignored by his opponents. That doesn't mean they don't respect him or view him as an important politician. It just means that the primaries start pretty soon and they need to focus on the opponents who are the biggest threats. If you look at it in that respect it makes all the sense in the world.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

24. actual text...

Let me see if I can remember, I had them copied and pasted. I have watched the ad a few times.

"The best my opponents could do is ask questions now that they should have asked before they supported the war."

I am pretty sure thats word for word.

You and I may understand the 'meaning'. Although I am turned off by the underhandedness.(is that a word? :P) The point I am making is that this ad is seen by less informed voters than us. That sentence Dean used implies ALL opponents. Now maybe you and Dean don't consider Dennis an opponent, but how does a undecided voter know that?

TWL

ON EDIT.. sorry for getting in such an uproar over this. I think it refelcts what diamondsoul said. DK and his supporters have been dealing with lack of exposure and misrepresentation all along the way. It's piling up. :)

[KaraokeKarlton]

30. Okay, so I think we agree on why Kucinich supporters are mad

You know, Dean is trying to win the nomination, just like your guy is. He wasn't even thinking about Kucinich when he did that ad because he's thinking about those right behind him. It's not Dean's fault that Kucinich doesn't get much attention unless you're basing your feelings solely on envy that Dean has gotten a lot of attention.

In reality, the ad isn't the issue at all. The real issue is that Kucinich supporters are frustrated and hurt that their guy isn't getting the exposure they think he deserves. So organize and write some letters to the media and pressure them to do stories on your guy. But don't be Dean haters just because of envy. Look at all the attention Dean has gotten for the Iraq issue. Before he got the press the media wouldn't cover any criticism of Bush. That's changed now and considerably. If it weren't for that, Dennis might not be doing even as well as he is.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

31. Agreed and disagreed...

Kucinich supporters are mad..yes.


"So organize and write some letters to the media and pressure them to do stories on your guy."

:), come on, you think that's how it works?

and onto Disagreed. Yes Kucinich supporters are mad, but I still cannot understand that Dean supporters see nothing wrong in a lie, or at the least a misrepresentation.

oh well, lets agree to agree and disagree.

TWL

[KaraokeKarlton]

32. But it wasn't a lie

It would have been a misrepresentation if Dean hadn't of made specific reference to those who supported/voted for the war.

It was definitely failure to include Kucinich, but why would he include him in an ad criticizing those who supported the war when Kucinich didn't support it? If Dean had of said "some of my opponents" it would have been misleading and confusing and would have just ticked someone else off.

Writing letters doesn't fix everything, but it would be a start. And it would be a lot more productive than being mad over Dean's ad.

[Mairead]

33. " The ad was talking about those who voted for the war."

Karlton, how much do you know about Indo-European, specifically English, grammar?

I'll give you a quick refresher course. What a sentence is 'talking about' is identified by the subject of the sentence. The subject of the sentence 'The best MY opponents could do is ask questions today, that they should have asked before they supported the war.' is the phrase 'the best my opponents could do'. The 'is' is the verb, which identifies the action, which in this case is equation. And 'ask questions today....' is the predicate, or what is being asserted about the subject.

Under the rules of formal logic, 'some' is implied when number is unspecified. But under the rules of ordinary discourse, 'all' is implied. If I say 'Dean supporters are immature, fairly stupid people' you'd get quite upset with me, wouldn't you, because you'd follow that social rule and presume my failure to include number meant 'all'. So the 'my opponents' phrase in the subject means 'all my opponents'. And that was a lie as Dean had every reason to know.

[KaraokeKarlton]

40. Great, the grammar police

n/t

[Mairead]

41. No, the meaning police

Grammar encodes meaning.

[KaraokeKarlton]

99. The meaning is quite clear

Dean was criticizing those who supported and voted for the war. Kucinich did neither so the criticism doesn't apply to him. You really sound as if you're looking for a reason to be mad at Dean for anything at all. This isn't a just reason to be mad at him. Be mad that he's doing better than your candidate. Be mad the press doesn't give your candidate the coverage you like. Even be mad that your candidate isn't being taken seriously, but don't be mad over an ad that didn't even criticize your candidate.

[Mairead]

105. Check your facts.

[KaraokeKarlton]

117. I saw the ad on my tv a bunch of times

I get both NH and VT television stations where I live. I have SEEN the ad and it was obvious who it was directed at...Kerry and Gephardt.

[Mairead]

122. Check your facts

[genius]

88. It is a minimum of intentionally misleading

In legal terms, it would be fraud if he were a used car salesman. He certainly comes off as one.

[Egnever]

10. Wow!

Love the passion!

I doubt you will find any instances of Denis lying. Or maybe you will I have no idea.

I personally take denis at his word and honestly I just dont agree with his word. I apreciate his forthrightness but I dont agree with a lot of his agenda.

I am guessing you are still upset by Howards add. I can understand your frustration with the add as it was dismisive of kucinich. But as much as it was dismisive of him it was because it was not about him. I think you are taking this add way too seriously personally.

The add wasnt meant to trick people into thinking Dennis is for the war but to contrast dean with kerry edwards lieberman and ghep. To deny that and take it as a personal attack on kucinich is a huge strech of the imagination IMHO.

Braun and sharpton both ignored it as they should because it wasnt about them. Kucinich should do the same.

Denis's aparent thin skin on this is one of the many reasons I personally have no interest in voting for him. He lessens himself by responding to this add the way he has in my view. He appears to be crying "no fair!" and then waiting for people to come to his rescue or something. Its unatractive and un nessecary.

It would have been a simple matter for him to slap dean about it in the debates. By saying something along the lines of "despite what Dr. Deans adds in new hampshire say I was asking those questions before this war started and I am his competitor!" His point would have taken
Dean would have been rebuked and denis would have come out looking like the bigger man. Instead he came accross as whiney about it ending with....

I'm talking about the people who supported the war, with whom I disagree.

IFILL: OK, that is the end...

KUCINICH: That ad is a misrepresentation.

IFILL: OK, Congressman.

KUCINICH: And anyone who reads it would understand that's a fair characterization.

IFILL: You have made your point.

We got it denis it was news all day the day before we all heard about you demanding the stations stop running it. You made your point. Dean said its not about you. Let it go man the adds arent about you!

Sorry Diamond I hate to see you so upset by this cause I think your a great person with a lot of passion for your candidate. I just Dont think this of all things is worth getting so worked up about.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

16. I disagree..

Just because Dean said it's not about Dennis doesn't mean anything to the undecided voters that will see the ad, but did not see the debate response. Which is a copout anyway.

This is the excuse that Dean supporters here have been giving all day.

IT IS STILL DECEPTIVE.

It's not a paitning, its not a sculpture... voters aren't supposed to all understand the deeper meaning. Dean says straight out that "my oppponents...supported the war". There is no other way to look at it. Yes here on DU we can rationailze it all we want, but to the undecided voters it is deception. No bones about it.

TWL

[Egnever]

18. Works for me

You clealry see it one way I see it another. I knew when i saw it the first time denis would make a fuss about it. I also knew it had nothing to do with denis. I would venture to say if denis hadnt made such a brewha about it no one would have seen it except dean suporters and people in NH instead Denis blew it up into an issue and spread Deans deciet as you would call it nationwide.

How much more is denis going to shoot himself in the foot over this one?

I am certain dean isnt going to stop runing it. Is denis going to continue promoting it?

Do you think its helping denis to get the add splashed on the news from coast to coast?

[ThirdWheelLegend]

23. You see it as ?

You say you see it another way.

"I would venture to say if denis hadnt made such a brewha about it no one would have seen it except dean suporters and people in NH instead Denis blew it up into an issue and spread Deans deciet as you would call it nationwide."

Oh just the people in NH would have seen it... Do you mean the UNDECIDED primary voters in NH? The ones maybe not as well informed as you and I?? The ones that would hear Dean say.." My opponents.." and think, "Wow Dean is the only one that opposed the war."

I totally understand what you are saying, it's just wrong in this case. Dean could be polling 99% and all the others at 0%, but there would still be 1% undecided who are looking at all 9 candidates. To those voters Dean would be lying with the ad.

Hey, I am not saying Dean is the devil. Far from it, he is in the top 5 of my choices, but the ad is dishonest. And as dimaondsould has said, we have already had enough dishonesty from *.

cheers,

TWL


***ON EDIT: Egnever, as I said to KK, sorry that I am making such an uproar. I just think it's important. Also as I said in the other subthread. It is as diamondsoul said, DK and his supporters have been dealing with 'stuff' for a while, it's getting hard to keep it inside. :)

[Egnever]

27. So Denis's job

Is to get out and get his positions known It is not deans job to get them known for him. Braun and sharpton are both polling higher than Denis in NH and they both oposed the war also yet not one peep from them. Why? Because it wasnt about them!

And if 99% were all for dean and the one % got different information and voted for denis we still have the same result dean wins 99% to 1$

I think Dean is more than happy to have denis have all the suport he can lay his hands on. Its not Denis he is worried about. Its not about Denis in NH for dean. Denis comes up last on the list of things to worry about there.

I know thats not what you want to hear but its the reality. Dean is going against the people that do threaten him in NH when denis becomes one of those people I am sure that Dean will make an add all about denis!

Till then denis is an afterthought plain and simple. Its just not smart politics to even think about denis in NH time spent on bringing down Denis is time wasted that could be better spent worrying about kerry clark ghep or edwards.

The best my oponents can do is ask questions now that they should have asked before they supported the war

Not denis

[ThirdWheelLegend]

28. they=my opponents.

disturbing,
You miss the point...

So 99% poll for Dean and he wins 99% to 1, BUT HE STILL LIED TO THE 1% who were DEMS. His 'own' people. That I cannot accept easily, and will not.

Maybe to you this means nothing, you are already in Dean's camp, this only pushes him further down my list.

sorry

Anyway, CMB and Sharpton are anti-war, but Dennis Kucinich was anti-iraq-war in his February 2002 speed, "Prayer for America". He mobilized a large number of US Reps to vote against it. If anyone is to be associated with anti-war, it's Dennis K. first.

A lie to 1% is the same as a lie to 100%.

TWL

[Egnever]

29. Well acording to sharpton today

He was the first to vome out against the war.

And again its not a lie. Missleading is the worst you can ascribe to it and even then you are stretching it.

The best my oponents can do is ask questions now that they should have asked before they supported the war

Not denis

Hold it against dean if you choose to I cant stop you. But I think your letting you love for your candidate overcome your sense of reality.

If he had said the vest thay can do is ask questions now that they should have asked before the war started I would buy right into the whole he lied argument but since he added the support part I think it clearly targets the people that voted for the IWR

If people dont know that denis has been against the war from the start thats denis's fault not Deans.

[Mairead]

36. Your understanding of grammar is apparently faulty

The subject of Dean's statement was 'the best my opponents could do'. That's what he was talking about, and 'my opponents' is to be understood as 'all my opponents' under the rules of ordinary discourse. 'Before they supported the war' is what he said about them, and is what made his statement a lie, since he had every reason to know that it was an untrue statement.

For it to work as you're trying to spin it, he would have to have said something like

'the best those opponents of mine who supported the war could do is ask questions today that they should have asked before they made their commitment.

or, more simply, supply a number word:

'the best some of my opponents could do....'

[Egnever]

59. and your understanding of what constitutes an oponent

Seems to be lacking as well. Denis is not his oponent when it comes to the Iraq war they are on the same side. but thats nitpicking like you are trying to do.

But lets nitpick sopme more someone with 0 -1 % support in the polls is no oponent hes an afterthought.

I am not trying to spin it at all.

It was dismisive of Denis. It doesnt acknowledge him as a credible oponent. I hapen to agree with that.

Sue me

Its what denis would do.

[redqueen]

61. You know what these arguments remind me of?

"But bush never actually said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11"

Yeah, it may be 'technically accurate', but it's misleading as hell -- which is the POINT, by the way, when you're talking about ads that reach a largely UNDECIDED audience who AREN'T all that politically aware.

[Egnever]

65. well i can certainly agree with that

Once again in my view Dean completely dissmissed denis. He wasnt even a thought in his head when these adds were made. The fact that denis takes it personally still doesnt make it about him.

Yes you can take it to mean denis suported the war and wasnt doing anything about it.


Its up to denis to make his message heard not dean. Call it what you will but explain to me why denis is the only anti war candidate that thinks its about him?

If you are not bright enough to look at all the candidates and make your decision on one tv add that you see without checking out the candidates for yourself your a fool and probably shouldnt be voting in the first place.

I agree the add could have been worded differently to make exceptionms for denis sharpton and braun. But then it would just dilute the message that was intended against the people that are really in the fight over NH.

Swear off dean forever if you must behind it. But I think its silly.

The add wasnt about denis.

[redqueen]

66. To be honest I don't give a whit about Dean.

He may win, he may not. I'm not psychic so I don't pretend to be.

What does chap my a** is that his blindly loyal followers will go to the grave to say what he did was A-OK, but they'll chafe when Bush's blind followers say that since he never actually said Saddam and 9/11 were connected that he's not a liar.

People pushing that line of 'reasoning' either agree with (and share tactics with) Bush's defenders; or they don't, and they think Dean is equally liable for 'lying' as Bush is on the subject of a link between Saddam and 9/11.

You can't have it both ways. If you think it was wrong for Bush to mislead the public this way (yes, even though they're ignorant, uninformed, whatever -- what are you gonna do?), then unless you embrace hypocrisy then you must hold Dean to that same standard.

AFAIC, Dennis being asked to name a name on a TV show is not anything LIKE misleading ignorant people... he was put on the spot and he apparently tried to answer to the best of his ability. Wrong decision, he should have stood up to the bully, but whatever, it's a NON ISSUE with me.

But campaign ads in NH during an election as important as this?

And he's misleading (yeah, ignorant) people into thinking he was the only anti-war candidate? Those 'ignorant' people, as you said, probably shouldn't vote, but they DO. And HE'S 'lying' them into supporting HIM during the primary.

I could get very rude here but I won't. :)

[Egnever]

71. Hey call em how you see em

If you choose to see it that way its your buisness. Run with it.

I dont have a clue what your talking about with Denis naming some name. I missed that whatever it is. I miss a lot of what denis says, does. I dont pay attention to him anymore. He lost me long ago and i took a serious look at him early on because he looks pretty good on paper. He just doesnt make the same conection in person.

Again the add wasnt about denis. Denis and a lot of you are trying to make it about him by jumping on Deans dismissal of him as an oponent. But the TRUTH is it wasnt directed at Denis.

Feel free to be rude all you want I dont allert on people I believe in free speach especially pasionate speach. Dish up all the personal attacks on me or whatever you want I wont hold it against you.

Even if all of the undecideds in NH right now all of a sudden bucked the trend so far and went exclusivly to denis he would only be tied with dean Acording to this poll

http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/dem/

So the poor undecided voters argument is a touching one but totaly unrealistic.

New hapshire is pretty clear in what it has decided and thats that it doesnt want denis. &0% of nh says denis is not the one. And this was before deans add was run so what was it that Dean did to keep Denis down up till now?

Hes not lying hes addressing the people that actually have support in NH Denis isnt one of them.

[Mairead]

34. "sorry that I am making such an uproar. I just think it's important"

I wouldn't apologise, TWL, because you're right, it is important. On at least 2 levels.

1. It has the potential, and was intended, to deceive the undecided in a way that benefits Dean.

2. Someone who cannot be trusted with small things should never be trusted with large ones.

[Egnever]

60. man you guys are just amazing !

you visions of grandure continue to amaze me. Denis has absolutely no shot. Everyome dismisses him isnt that what you are always crying about?
the media doesnt pay attention to him the other candidates dont pay attention to him blah blah blah poor denis if only people would listen to him blah blah blah.

We have listened to him. We dont agree with him or dont think he has whats it takes to get the job. We looked at him and dismissed him.

He is the guy that speaks for you i understand that and you are hurt that dean doesnt take him sharpton or mosely braun seriously enough to mention in an add directed at a state that denis polls at 1% or less in.

Sory you feel marginalized

The add had nothing to do with denis! no matter how much he thinks its all about him.

[redqueen]

64. And we're amazed by you as well...

Amazed how so many can throw money at such an 'illusory' candidate. Compare his record to his rhetoric...

Thanks for all the insults and playground characterizations... they just reinforce to us Kucitizens that there's no THERE there. The only reason people who say they love his ideals don't support Kucinich is because of people like you. Pat yourself on the back for helping keep power out of the hands of workers and the poor!

I don't feel marginalized, I feel energized.

Sorry to dash your attempt at approaching this logically, because if you look at the fundraising totals for the three candidates you choose to label as 'also rans', there is one who's increased his coffers for 3 quarters running -- something most of the candidates haven't done.

Keep making snide jokes, we'll deal with failure when we have to, but no amount of insults or cajoling is going to make us give up until then.

[Egnever]

67. WEEE!

yes denis is the pure candidate. I have heard it before. Pure lunatic.

Knock yourself out fight all you want for denis I am not trying to convert you. Fight for anyone you want I dont care one whit.

Take your suport for kucinich all the way to the end enjoy the ride and try not to be too disheartnened when it doesnt pan out. I will do the same.

I will be one happy camper when the primaries are over and we can get behind all this petty nitpicking of candidates and get back to the real prize that is getting shrub out of office.

This forum has turned to garbage since the primaries began. I look forward to it returning to some semblance of sanity.

I have done my part to wade in the slimne that this forum has become and I am not partuicularly proud of it but I am sick to death of listening to one pure bullshit attack after another and I am not being nice about it any more. I am sure you feel exactly the same way.

Maybe kucinich should take all those funds in his increased coffers and run his own add! Take it to the man! give em hell!

I would have a lot more respect for that than the sueing and whining i hear from your camp right now.

But its not fair!

[redqueen]

70. Have you even considered not using sarcasm and insults?

"Pure lunatic"?!

Sorry once again to dash your hopes of seeming logical, but this is FAR from 'petty nitpicking'.

You and every other vitriolic anti-Kucinich person seem not to have noticed the damage done to this country during the rule of the 'centrist' 'incramentalists'. Their pragmatism has cost the poor dearly. It has cost the environment dearly. It has cost world peace dearly.

While the past few decades have spun out, we have seen slight change for the weakest in the world. We have seen the growth of the MIC, the continuation of the war on the poor, the continuation of the decimation of the environment, etc. etc. etc...

Do centrists just never get enough of too little?

Do you REALLY think that all this is just 'nitpicking'?!?!?!?!

[Egnever]

76. nothing sarcastic about that at all

Thats the way kucinich comes off to me. As a loon!

I am quite clear of what kind of damage has bveen done to this country and I am doing everything in my power to stop the flow of madness coming out of the white house at this time.

Go back look at vermoont look at where thier schools stand look at where their environmental protections stand look at thier child abuse rates loook at thier level of unisured, look at thier balanced budget and then come back and tell me what part of that you dont think would be good for this country.

Then ill take your corporate shill BS seriously.

[redqueen]

78. Look at their population.

And you didn't say Kucinich is a loon, you said you'd heard the drivel, pure lunatic. That is not sarcastic, that is an insult to anyone who believes that Kucinich presents the best solution to America's problems.

Dean has dealt in the minor leagues a while, and did OK. I think he did good things wrt child care. However I don't think he's any kind of savior the way some people make him out to be.

As Kucinich said, balancing the budget is easy without the Pentagon hoovering up funds. It's also easy in a small, rural state with a relatively homogenous electorate.

IF Dean gets into the WH, he's going to be playing with the big boys, in the big leagues.

Looking at his record of standing up to the big boys? I really hope he doesn't get in there.

It's not that I think he wouldn't be good for the country based on the good things he did.

It's that I see how he handled liberal issues in the past (energy deregulation -- and please spare us, we know he's changed his mind since then; civil liberties -- his stance on public defenders office; environment -- I don't think he was good I think he was bad for the environment -- seemed to make it harder for citizens to fight against huge corporations) and I don't want the nation run that way -- the way it pretty much is NOW!

[Egnever]

83. ok Ill clarify

I think denis is a lunatic!

Clear to the point can only be taken one way.

Yea I'll just listen to what kucinich says and that all of a sudden throwing another department changes the aproach to balancing the budget as if somehow adding defense somehow makes a dollar not equal a dollar.

It is exactly the record of dean standing up to the big boys in vermont that attracts me to him balancing buisness needs against environmental needs and coming out at the end with the best environmental protections in the country and some of the lowest unemployment tells me he has what it takes.

I know the kucinich camp goes with the scorched earth policy of buisness bad environment good and in a perfect world he would be right but the truth is that we need buisness and legislating them out of buisness to protect the environment singly wont do anyone any good.

If you think denis will win going going into this election with troops comited on the ground with a platform of gutting the defense department your as looney as he is.

Fart as energy regulation or deregulation is concerned I really dont know enough about it one way or another to comment on it. So consioder yourself spared.

Whats wrong with his stand on civill liberties? Ohh I know you think he should be kucinich and suport gay marriage? Another loosing proposition. We can get civil unions through but make gay mariage your platfrorm and you lose. Ill take the civil unions and the rights that come with them thanks very much instead of 4 more years of bush.

No clue what your problem with him and the public defenders office is. but if any of your other stances are consistant ill assume it has something to do with being tough on criminals.

You have got to be kiding me when you try to equate the way bush is runing the nation with the way Dean ran vermont. You take a huge step from reality when you go there and loose any shot of credibility you ever had in my head.

none of our candidates resembles bush even remotely. None of them. not even lieberman. though he does come close in a few places.

Really your just pissed cause dean dissmissed yourr guy,. So you are attacking him. I dont have a problem with you being angry I understand it. I would probalby be angry isf I was a kucinich suporter. Trying so hard to get noticed and dissmissed time after time would make me quite upset.

I wish you the best of luck with your candidate. Hes an honerable guy IMHO a very strange man but honerable for the most part. Doesnt make me want him any where near the white house.

[redqueen]

134. You shouldn't have gone to the trouble. Really.

I think denis is a lunatic!

You've made that clear. You really don't think anything is lost in dialogue by being insulting, do you? I honestly don't know what to think of this.


Yea I'll just listen to what kucinich says and that all of a sudden throwing another department changes the aproach to balancing the budget as if somehow adding defense somehow makes a dollar not equal a dollar.

I'm going to guess that you're referring to the Peace Department. The fact is Kucinich's ideas about the Peace Deparment are not really directly connected to his plans for the budget overall.

Reudcing pentagon spending (v-22 osprey lost over a trillion dollars) is just one way of increasing revenues. Increasing taxes on huge incomes is another. So is implementing full employment through WPA type programs.

Regarding the comment re: Dean's inexperience in balancing the federal budget - he honestly has not had to fight that fight before. He has governed a small state with a small budget, and won re-election by smaller and smaller margins with every incumbent campaign. He has never competed and won to unseat anyone. That also worries me.


It is exactly the record of dean standing up to the big boys in vermont that attracts me to him balancing buisness needs against environmental needs and coming out at the end with the best environmental protections in the country and some of the lowest unemployment tells me he has what it takes.

Which company? Which fight? Please, I'd really like to know... I looked at his record and it seemed to me that he was very amenable to appeasing big business. I don't know that he's personally responsible for Vermont having the best environmental protections in the country. Maybe you thought they were too stringent, and he made them more balanced. Do you have evidence he led the fight to improve them in some way?

Same with lowest unemployment. I don't know why that's the case, so I can't credit Dean for it. If you have something showing that it was as a result of his efforts that Vermont has lower unemployment, then by all means do share it.


I know the kucinich camp goes with the scorched earth policy of buisness bad environment good and in a perfect world he would be right but the truth is that we need buisness and legislating them out of buisness to protect the environment singly wont do anyone any good.

This is pure hyperbole. We need regulations -- implementing regulations to restrain business (Enron, Halliburton, Citigroup, etc.) does not equate to 'legislating them out of business'. If you mean small business, I'm all with you. But Kucinich focuses on Tyco, WorldCom, etc... why are you responding with charges that he'd legislate companies out of business? Especially regarding the environment... what did Kucinich say or do that led you to say this? I'm very curious to know.


If you think denis will win going going into this election with troops comited on the ground with a platform of gutting the defense department your as looney as he is.

And yet more insults. This is not the way to make your arguments.


Fart as energy regulation or deregulation is concerned I really dont know enough about it one way or another to comment on it. So consioder yourself spared.

:wow:
California's taxpayers have been soaked for nearly $10 Billion dollars because of energy deregulation. The power grid went down in the northeast because of energy deregulation. Those are just TWO examples of the problems with rampant deregulation. I'm beyond shocked you haven't heard of the problems with it before now.


Whats wrong with his stand on civill liberties?...
No clue what your problem with him and the public defenders office is. but if any of your other stances are consistant ill assume it has something to do with being tough on criminals.

Another jaw-dropper! Dean thinks that yes, we should be tough on criminals, and part of that 'toughness' would seem to include, in Dean's state, working against the public defenders office.

Note that this isn't exactly the same thing as being tough on crime. Crime is crime whether you're rich or poor... but only poor people are stuck with the public defender's office.


You have got to be kiding me when you try to equate the way bush is runing the nation with the way Dean ran vermont. You take a huge step from reality when you go there and loose any shot of credibility you ever had in my head.

I know, it was undeserved... but seriously... it's just two levels of the same kind of thing. That's my opinion of the situation. We have running toward the edge of a cliff and jogging there.

I know Dean sounds good, but I just don't trust him. For example, he speaks about fair trade, but he is pro NAFTA and FTAA. Knowing about those agreements, that does not equate to anything even close to fair trade. These agreements are horribly slanted toward favoring big business (again, we're not talking about putting companies out of business, but making huge, multinational companies play fair). There's even a chapter of NAFTA that allows companies to sue GOVERNMENTS that have regulations which prevent the company from earning profits in those states, nations, etc. How is that legal? How is that defended?


Really your just pissed cause dean dissmissed yourr guy,. So you are attacking him. I dont have a problem with you being angry I understand it. I would probalby be angry isf I was a kucinich suporter. Trying so hard to get noticed and dissmissed time after time would make me quite upset.

No, you're wrong. I'm not 'pissed' in the least. Frustrated, yes.

And how am I attacking Dean? The statement as 'same as the country is run now'? Well listen to what he says! He's ready to launch wars on Syria, Iran, etc... but this time the warmongers will be more careful and make sure we all agree it's necessary, so Dean's a** will be covered, but for anti-war people like me, who think that most wars are engineered for profit, he just seems too ready to speak up on behalf of attacking. Maybe you're right, and that sells, so it's better to be that way. I just disagree.


I wish you the best of luck with your candidate. Hes an honerable guy IMHO a very strange man but honerable for the most part. Doesnt make me want him any where near the white house.

Thanks for the good wishes. No thanks for your repeated opinions of his appearance, mental state, etc.

[diamondsoul]

68. Dean quote from the last debate-

that disturbs me much more than his dismissal and disrespect of Congressman Kucinich-

*editing note- Eg, this wasn't meant to be addressed to you, I just forgot to hit the original post first, sorry about that. Just an observation from my perspective tossed out for everyone's reflection.

"I started out this campaign saying I was from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, which Paul Wellstone said. And I didn't meant that I was a big liberal, I was a big conservative, I was a big moderate. What I meant was, just like Paul Wellstone, I say what I think, and I don't care if 70 percent of the people in this country disagree with me, as long as I believe it's the right thing to do."

Now folks, Howard Dean also chose to toss out his "Bush-lite" jab in that debate. Looking at the above quote, I have to say HE's the one coming across as most like Bush to me. That effectively says "To hell with the majority of the people who elect me I'm doing it my way!". Sounds awfully familiar to me.

[Egnever]

75. I agree!

I was also disturbed by the wording he used there. But i know what he was trying to say. That he stands up for what he thinks is right even when its unpopular. Same as denis does.

Your not sugesting that you think that wen 70% of the country was for this war that denis should have been unlike bush and should have suported the war are you?

Sure bush is a problem and he refuses to change even when faced with lots of evidence to the contrary however as soon as bushes numbers started to dip he went into damage control and went to the UN so Bush may talk the talk but he doesnt walk the walk.

The only thing that makes me see denis favorably at all at this point is his willingness to fight for what he believes in.

We are trying to elect a leader here. leaders lead they dont listen to the wind for thiewr opinion. Dean made his point badly in that debate and i cringed when i heard it but as i have heard his point a hundred times i knew what he was trying to get at so i gave him a pass on it.

I am sure there are many out there like you who took it the same way you did and he hurt himself with that comment with them.

I said before I dont think this was his best debate performance. This particular comment wqas one that made me feel that way.

However I do understand what he was trying to say and so it doesnt bother me other than the effect it might have had on others. But then thats howard. He speaks off the cuff and sticks his foot in his mouth sometimes. I accept that in him because I have listened to him speak enough that I feel secure in his reasoning and suport his Ideas.

I agree with you 100% thoughn the comment came out badly.

[diamondsoul]

80. "That he stands up for what he thinks is right even when its unpopular."

Ok, I can accept that explanation.

I think what it brought to my mind was the thought "Holy sh*t, and they say Kucinich is *uncompromising*!", and honestly I was kind of suprised nobody brought out the quote (at least that I saw).

I have this really funny image in my head after reading through this thread again- split views of campaign HQ's with Strategists, Press Coordinators, and Press Secretaries all tugging out fistfulls of their hair. :evilgrin: Yes, I am a truly twisted person at times. LOL

[Egnever]

85. Rofl!

I dont even want to think about what some of these guys are going through. Worrying about every single word thier man utters must be stressfull beyond belief.

I am actually picking up a dean campaign person from the airpotrt today. Someone that is very involved mentioned that they needed a ride from the airport so i voluntered as fast as i could.

Maybe I will ask her what kind of effect deans off the cuff style of speaking has on them in the offic and see what she says.

Glad that we can be pretty vitrolic on these threads and remain cordial to each other. You come across as a great person to me and I certainly dont mean to let my defense of my candidate make you feel any lessened in your support of yours. Although i have gotten pretty nasty on this thread when it comes to your guy. I have nothing but respect for you, you seem to me to be a class act!

[DemDogs]

110. He was disrepectful because that's the way he feels

Just like his comment about Graham. I agree with you.

[no name no slogan]

118. This just reinforces my perception

Howard Dean == Jesse Ventura. Cardboard populists tapping into this vast yuppie anger that's out there.

They both appeal to that same "middle-class rage" that's looking for a place to go. It's all about the anger-- "TAKE BACK AMERICA!" (just like Gephardt in 1988, btw)-- with no program for real change to be found, just more of the same that we've always had, except for a new captain steering the boat.

Dean was originally my first choice. I liked the message. But then I examined the messenger, and the details of his message. It was certainly NOT like anything that a true populist Democrat would support.

And he sure as hell does NOT come from the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party".

[w4rma]

119. Extremely massive information dump on Gov. Howard Dean, M.D. (v2.0)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=41214

[no name no slogan]

125. Good link, but I'm still not convinced

He still reminds me of Jesse Ventura-- his positions on questionable issues are not very clear. He has the "rage" that a lot of suburban white people can identify with. He's a fiscal conservative, and a social liberal, just like Jesse Ventura.

His (non-DU) supporters still project their liberal beliefs on to him. As long as they keep sending him checks, Dean doesn't seem to mind.

His record as governor is mixed. He has had successively lower re-election numbers during all his bids for governor. He was in charge of the Democrats bid to get more Democratic governors elected in 2002-- a task at which he failed. This leads me to believe he will have little (if any) "coattail effect" and will continue to lead this party down the same DLC/corporate path of mediocrity-- the only difference will be that Dean will be the captain.

He has also taken money from AOL/Time-Warner, one of the biggest media oligarchs on the planet. What are the chances a repeal or reform of the 1996 Telecom Act under a Dean presidency?

He wants to continue to sink our tax money down the rathole of a for-profit healthcare system that STILL won't cover 100% of Americans.

He wants to balance the budget-- he's even "to the right of Bush" on this issue, but he says the bloated Pentagon budget is "hands-off". The same Pentagon that somehow cannot account for $1 TRILLION it has received. That doesn't leave much else that can be cut. Social programs and entitlements, watch out...

He rails against the power of the DLC, but states that "I was a triangulator before Clinton", and was one of their poster boys during the 1990s. It was only when he refused to stand in line behind the annointed DLC choice that he became their "feared enemy".

He received over $100k for big utitlities to start his "exploratory" campaign for president. He still takes corporate money, and isn't sure whether or not he'll abide by matching funds laws now that he's able to raise money.

He claims that he's not for "politics as usual", yet he has a political hack like Joe Trippi spinning his message for him and the faithful.

He claims to be different from the rest, but his policies are nearly identical to those of the other "politicians" like Liebermann, Gephardt, Kerry and the others.

I respect that you find Dean supportable, and that he is the candidate who best reflects your beliefs and desires.

I've read the positions, I've heard him speak. I have examined his policies and proposals, and I have found them lacking.

I made the mistake of backing the "electable" Democrat in 1988. I worked for Dukakis, although Simon or Jackson best represented my beliefs. I didn't like the uneasiness I felt backing somebody who I thought could win, versus backing the candidate who shares my beliefs and best represents my views.

And that is why I support Dennis Kucinich for President

[diamondsoul]

17. Heh! My Longer, meaner version-

of Senator Kerry's infamous "Dean, Dean, Dean!" quote!;)

Actually I think this was a culmination of a few things, that have come up through the past week or so, that I haven't really discussed honestly. Not all of it had to do with Dean, but he's the Golden Boy at the moment, so who else can I pick on?*LOL*

The ad bothers me because it along with several other things he's said and done show a distinct and complete lack of respect for Congressman Kucinich. That's the most offensive part of it for me, not the dismissal. They can be confident he isn't a threat, and I can deal with that, but when people act as if he's done nothing to deserve respect for I have a lot of trouble with it. Does that make sense?

The other things bothering I can't really discuss here, but let's just say they leave me scratching my head and wondering about people's sanity, and no, I don't mean Kucinich, either!*LOL* Weird stuff being brought out to try to cause trouble and I'm sitting back thinking "WTF does that have to do with his campaign?!". In any case, you've witnessed my explosion and I'm feeling much better now.

[Egnever]

25. Ack!

Well I dopnt think there is any love lost between the two. Thats for sure. Denis went after dean in an earlier debate over the social security thing. I think that set the tone for them.

I am sory to hear you have other stuff giving you the creeps. I hope that you get through them quickly and painlessly as possible.

I think denis should quit worying about other people definig him and define himself. He has a lefitimate beef with that add but again it really wasnt directed at him at all. Worry less about dean and worry more about bush.

[Mairead]

35. "They might feel confident Dennis isn't a threat"

Actually, DS, if Dean's people really thought Dennis isn't a real opponent, they'd have no need to resort to lies like that one. Dennis is not only a real, viable opponent but a serious threat, too. We can tell that by their behavior toward him.

Lovely rant, btw, just great!

[Egnever]

62. LOL

If you are gonna dream dream big!

OK i will be the first to come out and say this add was all about denis he made this add to destroy the amazing amount of support Denis is gaining in NH. He was threatened so much by denis in fact that he decided to not even mention him so denis didnt realize it was actually an attack on him, thinking he would sneak right by denis and claim the antiwar portion of the vote that denis is holding onto and use the whole 1% of it to uterly destroy john kerry in NH!

You guys are right on top of it! Thank god you saw through the subterfuge and are taking the fight to dean to save that 1%

Denis is going to have to get a better message and get it out on his own. He wont win by trying to attack Dean. He needs a message of his own that people want to hear. So far he isnt doing it.

[diamondsoul]

138. Oh I'm aware of what's happening-

What I was saying was that I could deal with Kucinich being underestimated as a viable opponent. I'm a strong proponent of the element of surprise, and I honestly am certain we have that in spades. (For reference check the volunteer board and my remarks about guns and self/home protection.):evilgrin:

I look like this little wimp of a thing who coudn't hurt a flea. A lot of people think I'm easily bullied, pushed around or otherwise victimized. That's an illusion and one I'm perfectly happy to let them keep until it suits me.

Jeez, I have so much in common with Dennis it's downright scary at times! LOL You know the article in Cleveland Magazine that goes in depth about some of his childhood experiences? The part where it talks about one of the humongo ancient rotary floor scrubbers- I was in tears laughing over that because I had the same experience, except I was 22 years old instead of 12!

That to me is just a prime example of WHY he's the best choice to follow Bush. He's not someone who has to ask people about being poor, and what we worry about, he doesn't need to wonder about what concerns we have, or what's on our minds day in and day out. Even more than that he knows first-hand what it's like to care for children under some of the worst conditions imaginable.

Now listening to him, it seems pretty obvious to me he values his life experiences and wouldn't change much if anything about it. Even so, he wouldn't wish the most painful parts of it on anyone. There's an acknowlegdment that we're all individuals, and what may drive someone like him to draw on the best of himself can just as easily drive another person to desperation and despair.

I'm getting a little esoteric here, but how did we manage to become so completely out of touch with that reality? I hear it all the time wrt crime- "Well I had a terrible childhood, and I never killed anyone!" Great! That's wonderful that you overcame yur obstacles. Other people fall to them instead, and you're not any better just because you happened to handle something horrid differently.

Now that I've gone completely off track, my point was that people underestimate what sort of threat I am constantly, and much of the time it works to my advantage.

[leftbend]

15. My lips are moving

when I read your post because you are speaking for me too. Dennis Kucinich is the first politician I have been motivated to work for since I was young and it seems as though supporters of other canidates want to minimize his campaign. If being honest and wanting to empower the position of the ordinary citizens of the country is kooky and makes one unelectable in this country, what has our country become? We do have ideals and that is what has always made this country great. Dennis Kucinich has ideas and ideals, inspiration and leadership for this country that would make us proud to be Americans in the world. I keep thinking people will take an honest look at records and platforms and see the potential Dennis Kucinich has to help make this country great again.....but I'm not sure anymore, people seem blinded by their choices. BTW I started as a Dean supporter.

[DemDogs]

37. Agreed with an addition - Edwards

Kuninich doesn't lie, I agree. I don't always agree with what he says but he always says what he believes to be true I hated that he got nailed for that number mistake in the Detroit debate because I believed he was sincerely sorry for the mistake.

I also believe Edwards doesn't lie. He knows from being an attorney that if you get caught in a lie, you can lose an entire case, so I think it is just not what he does.

Dean is the worst of the other candidates I know much about. And unlikely Kucinich, when he says something untrue, he doesn't say what Kucinch said, that he misspoke, that he was wrong. When the press starts talking about the series of misstatements and the refusals to back off or apologize, it will be like what they did to Gore. We better hope it is before the nomination, so we can save ourselves months of pain while Rove and company take him apart. (For those of you who support Dean, please just think about this possibility. It is a serious flaw. If you have any sway with Dean himself, make him change, admit some misstatements, correct them. If it doesn't happen, this alone will sink the party if he is the nominee. They will clobber him and all of us on values and integrity.)

[Mairead]

38. "this alone will sink the party if he is the nominee"

For some alleged Dean supporters, I think that's the intended result.

What better way to get the GOP candidate elected than to put up an opponent who can't keep his story straight? That captures the people who focus on things like was it the 25th or 27th of the month that so-and-so said such-and-such. And those of us who focus on issues are already completely turned off by the fact that Dean is a cosmetic-changes-only guy, devoted to steering a steady course for The Pit on all the survival issues.

And even if they don't succeed in sinking him, what have they really lost? He's not going to make any significant changes, so their wealth and privilege are not only completely safe, but will be increased by his policies.

We're being scammed.

[diamondsoul]

43. Now that you mention it, I don't think

Edwards has told a lie either. (and dang it all, I left him out of my list of possible alternative candidates, I knew I missed someone!)

That has become the defining factor for me now, to be perfectly truthful. I am sick and tired of cover-ups lies of omission, lies from quotes out of context, white lies, black ones, sick of lies!!

That's John Kerry's one negative for me right now. I don't have a problem with his Iraq vote, mostly because I get military thinking and because I had that niggling doubt in the back of my mind. You know, the "Well....maybe he DOES have something particularly nasty that I don't know about."? Kerry would have had the same thought.

This business of falling into dirty politics as if it's natural or necessary just infuriates me, and I don't see anything Edwards or Kucinich have done fitting the dirty politics label. I don't know that Kerry has either, but now, when I see anything that could be questionable I have to step back and watch closer, if that makes sense?

What you said about mis-statements and Dean in a GE against Bush is one of my biggest sources of fear. That and the BBV issues have me petrified, while my outrage and fury over the desecration of our country and its founding principles will not allow me to be ruled by that fear.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. I'm going to risk being flamed here, but

I just don't like the vibes that I get off Dean--and I have always had a "sixth sense" that tells me whom to trust. It has kept me out of trouble more than once. It may be airy-fairy, but frequently I have gotten bad vibes off seemingly okay people, only to find out later that indeed, they were not above board. I call it my "creep detector."

"Creep" is too strong in Dean's case, but his whole manner reminds me of the used car salesman who pretends to be my best friend while he's trying desperately to make his monthly quota.

That's just my personal impression, and admittedly, Dean does not set off the "creep detector" to the extent that Bush does (all lights flashing, all alarms blaring), but I cannot support him in the primaries.

[diamondsoul]

49. I'll take a few of those flames myself then.

Seriously, I've said repeatedly every blessed time I see Howard Dean smiling at me all I can think of is Bill Clinton.

There's that feeling that something just isn't right, and it's instinctive. My mother always told me to trust that, and I do. Would you believe it has never failed me once in 35+ years?

I had the same feeling about Bill Clinton, and reading over some of the things he did in office, now I understand why. Dean said something recently about "If we just say whatever it takes to get elected..." and I thought, "That's EXACTLY what you're doing, Howard!". It was insulting to my intelligence.

Something else he recently said that just made me livid- "...and I don't care if 1.08 million people disagree with me as long as I think it's the right thing to do."

Uh, people? Am I the only one who sees a striking resemblance to the attitude of George W. Bush in that statement?? It was enough to make my jaw hit the ground and my eyes pop out.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

52. It really is an apt comparison.

I never trusted Clinton, although I voted for him twice in the general elections. 'Slick Willie' is a moniker he didn't get by chance. A good President overall - yes. An effective player for 'our side' - yes. A paragon of virtue -- LOL.

I just hope if Dean does get in there, things work out no worse than they did with Clinton.

[Desertrose]

50. No flames from me Lydia

I am very much on the same page with you...there is something about Dean that just...well...it's just "off"....

I have tried & tried not to speak this cause many Dean supporters are my friends...but there is a definite..."smarmy" kinda feel about him (I don't like that word but it best describes what I get from him vibe-wise)....yeah kinda like someone who is not being truthful and watches you to see if you are buying it...if not he'll spin it another way....and a bit too much arrogance & sense of entitlement that really puts me off....yeah...a bit like *..isn't that creepy???


I just get a sense that if Dean gets the nom...yeah, things won't change fundamentally ..... we need major surgery...not little decorative bandaids.....

Dennis is just this clear ray of light .....thats how I've seen it since the beginning....

Peace
DR

awesome rant DS

[Mairead]

69. I'll take a portion of the flames, too, then

Because I get the same bad vibes.

I didn't really know anything about him to begin with except that he'd signed the civil unions bill, which I'd cheered him for at the time and thought him really gutsy. So I definitely was predisposed to approve and think well of him.

But then he came out with that sad, political lie about science and mj and all the alarms went off. What struck me most was that it was such a naked, pathetic, obvious lie, like a little kid standing there beside the ruined cake with choco smears all over his face and still swearing that it wasn't him. And my first thought was 'whoa, this guy is a conservative, conventional thinker trying to pass as a progressive'. And sure enough, the more I've seen of him, the less reason he's given me to trust anything he says.

As Jerry DellaFemina wrote about Arlen Spector years ago, the only real change Dean seems to stand for is being elected. I think we'll rue the day if he succeeds.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

77. "science and mj"?

The reference is lost on me...and I thought I was an expert on Dean's misstatements! Could you explain please?

[diamondsoul]

84. Dean opposes medical Marijuana.

That's what she's referring to. His claim is that science doesn't support medicinal use, and that's patently false. Unfortunately for Dean that's a make or break issue for me for personal reasons.

Those who oppose medical marijuana insist that oral medications derived from marijuana are just as effective. Studies don't bear this out, and I have my own theories as to why that is. Unfortunately since I'm not any sort of medical or scientific expert my theories, while perfectly logical, don't count for much.

[w4rma]

101. Dean supports medical marijuana decriminalization for some treatments

…
KING: Santa Cruz, California, hello.

CALLER: Hi Governor Dean. My question to you is, given your medical background and your view on states rights, in your opinion, what should the federal government do about medical marijuana?

DEAN: I don't think they should throw people in jail in California, but I think do think -- here's what I think. I think the process by which medical marijuana is being legalized is the wrong process. I don't like it when politicians interfere in medicine. It's why I am very pro-choice. Because I don't think that is the government's business. So what I will do as president is, I will acquire the FDA within first 12 months to evaluate marijuana and see if it is, in fact, a decent medicine or not. If it is, for what purposes -- for certain purposes, and I suspect it will be for cancer patients and HIV/AIDS patients. And it should be allowed for that. But I suspect it will not be allowed for things like glaucoma. But we have to do the FDA studies. I think marijuana should be treated like every other drug in the process and there shouldn't be a special process which is based on politics to legalize it.
…
http://www.cnn.tv/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/04/lkl.00.html

Anyway since there seems to be some confusion over Deans stance on medicinal marijuana I thought you folks might to see a post made by the Doc himself in answer to an 18 year olds query on the subject.

“Jeremy(from previous thread). I'm impressed that an 18 year old would spend time on a political blog site. Here is a short summary of my drug policy. 1) drug abuse ought to be treated as a public health problem not a judicial problem. I do not favor legalization because we already have enough problems with the two drugs that are legal, alcohol and tobacco. I also believe that if people are dealing heroin to kids or shooting people that jail is more than appropriate. But if your “crime”, is being a substance abuser you belong in rehab, not jail. 2)I will order the FDA to study marijuana to see what medicinal effects it may have. I do not think marijuana should have a process different than every other drug to evaluate whether or not it has medical value. Based on the studies I have read, my guess is that the FDA may find that is useful in patients with HIV/Aids, and various forms of cancer, but not for such things as treating glaucoma, where there are other drugs available, and where the risks outway the benefits. I';m on the way back from New York, so i got to read alot of the blogging that went on today. You folks are terrific!! Thank you for an incredible day, and an incredible quarter. Howard Dean

Posted by howard dean at July 1, 2003 12:42 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1784&mesg_id=1784&page=

[Mairead]

106. Yes, he doesn't favor legalisation -- a very paternalistic attitude

but not at all a scientific one.

[Mairead]

104. Yes, as DS says, it was his alleged reason for opposing medical mj

When put on the spot by a supporter who asked whether he would allow medical marijuana, he equivocated and said that there isn't enough science for him to take a position. And as DS says, that's total nonsense.

The German chemical firm Bayer AG patented 'aspirin' around 1901, I think, and doctors happily prescribed it ever since even though nobody understood how it worked until the '70s, but it *was* known that a person could OD and die from it. All they had was clinical evidence (i.e., people said their aches and pains went away after taking some), but that was enough. By the same token, nobody goes to prison for cultivating cassava, belladonna, or a number of other plants that can kill people dead.

So Dean's claim that 'there isn't enough science' pegged my bogometer. Marijuana is a naturally-occurring plant that was completely legal in the US for cultivation and use until 1937, has a history of cultivation and use stretching back to prehistoric times, lots of clinical support, no known toxic dose, and literally hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles. It should be treated the way St. John's Wort--another psychoactive natural plant--is treated: take it if you feel it does you some good; stop if you feel worse; be cautious.

[LWolf]

131. Well, then, Lydia

you've probably noticed than Dennis attracts more of the "airy fairy," to use your description, folks than the rest of the candidates. The more intuitive. And intuition, vibes, etc., can tell us one thing while surface appearances tell us another, can't they?

I look at the energy generated. Dean generates a tremendous amount of energy. Ufortunately, I perceive some of that energy to be negative: aggressive, in your face, we're gonna kick your ass kind of energy. Bully energy. Which I can't join. It is that energy, more than his platform, that hasn't earned my trust. The platform is way more centrist than I am; that in itself doesn't affect the trust, though. So is Kerry's, and I don't get that same "vibe" from him.

Meanwhile, I hear Dennis taking the actual philosophies I strive to live by to the nation, and I can't help but join in. Recognizing the connections; the "interdependence" and "interconnections" abounding in our systems. Recognizing that there is more than one way to solve problems/conflict, and that diplomacy should be choice 1. And so many other things that would make our nation a more positive, healthy, prosperous place to be.

[LWolf]

39. Good rant, diamondsoul.

I think you've clearly expressed why people choose Dennis over the pack.

And the anger is real. The anger against Bush, the anger directed towards democrats that have not stood up to Bush with sufficient voice or force, the anger that the man who does is completely marginalized by his own party and by the press.

I wish the rest of the party would get this part; there are so many democrats that feel that the party no longer represents them. Some have already drifted off to 3rd parties. Some are considering it now. Some just don't vote; a hopeless "why bother?" sort of thing. And Dennis is energizing this group of people. He's pulling back many former dems. He's pulling in some of the non-voting population. We're all invisible as far as the DLC and the media is concerned. It's not a good strategy to win endorsements and influence votes.

[Duder]

42. Roll the hell over and play dead...

I agree that Tweety was an ass but Dennis still shouldn't have named names if it wasn't true:

MATTHEWS: You didn’t say that. You said criminalize it. You said put a person in jail for having an abortion. Do you believe any member of Congress wants to do that?
KUCINICH: Well, I think there are members of Congress who want to do that. That’s absolutely right.
MATTHEWS: Name one.
KUCINICH: This isn’t about naming one.
MATTHEWS: Name one. Name one.
KUCINICH: I think Chris Smith would support it. I do...

The next day Chris Smith came on the show and denounced what Dennis had said about him. He told Matthews how the pro-life Congressmen do not want women thrown in jail for having abortions and how they look at the women as victims too. He also stated that Dennis knew this too since up until he decided to run for President and pulled his out of the blue 180 on abortion he was a member of their caucus. Matthews then asked Smith if Dennis tried to apologize to him. Chris said Dennis approached him on the floor and told him what happened on “Hardball” and what he had said about Chris. Smith said he told Dennis he thought it was very irresponsible of him to state something like that on national television especially when he knew it wasn’t true and it was not the way a statesman should act. He said Dennis then became very uncomfortable and walked away without apologizing.

Since I assume this rant regarding Dean has to do with the ad controversy, you'll be interested to know that the two candidates did discuss it the other day:
http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/2003/october/deankucinichmeettodiscussadflap.shtml

[diamondsoul]

45. That was not a lie, it was a guess.

Was it wrong, definitely, however I won't accept it as a lie when he did NOT KNOW for certain it wasn't true.

Bringing up the Hardball interview is a sure-fire way to set me off on another explosion, I'm sorry to admit. That sealed Chris Matthews in a concrete costume of non-existance as far as I'm concerned, and it appears as far as Congressman Kucinich is concerned as well since he refuses to appear at any event where Matthews is in a position of power.

ANY ONE of them couldn't have fallen prey to that little BULLSHIT stunt, except Kucinich was the only one he pulled it on. The answer was not a lie because the statement attributed to Kucinich in the first place was not HIS statement. I hold Matthews entirely responsbile both for friction between Chris Smith and Congressman Kucinich, and for being an irresponsible, overbearing lying little pig masquerading as a serious journalist. He's a joke, unworthy of validating by giving any credence to that smear job at all.

YES, when I heard him speak a name I wished he hadn't said it. YES it was wrong for him to do, but it was NOT a deliberate falsehood, and that's the definition of a lie I'm using.

[Mairead]

57. And you accept Smith's denial at face value?

Do you really believe none of these guys want to go back to the days of coathangers in a back room with one eye watching for the cops? The days when 'procuring an abortion' was an actual jail-time crime? Those were the days when even suicide was a crime, on the theory that we belong to the state rather than ourselves.

I agree that it was a serious political mistake for Dennis to have named a name when he couldn't prove it, but I'll bet he didn't name Smith gratuitously.

'We view the women as victims too' my arse.

[w4rma]

44. Neither Pat Buchanan nor Barry Goldwater lie, IMHO.

But, I definitely would never vote for either. They are ideologues and true believers in their conservative ideology.

Example:
Pat Buchanan allowed himself to be marginalized by the neo-cons in the GOP by admiting he wouldn't have helped defeat Hitler.

Barry Goldwater allowed himself to be marginalized and defeated in a landslide by LBJ, due to his inability to bend with public opinion.

Anyway, I don't think one has to lie to bend to public opinion. This is still, hopefully, a democratic-republic. I want politicians who *will* listen to us and act accordingly.

[diamondsoul]

48. Interesting but not a valid

criticism of Kucinich, as his strong Pro-choice position shows.

Sorry, but he solidified his conversion for me when one of the first pieces of legislation he voted PC on was about the "Partial Birth Abortion". He bends to the will of his constituents, and that's proof. Add to that, a good portion of his legislation comes from issues brought to him BY his constituents and the comparison simply doesn't fit.

As to the "I don't think one has to lie to bend public opinion." it would appear your candidate disagrees. He has lied, he does lie, and he will continue to lie as long as people keep falling for it. That's my objection. We took it from Bush and now Dean wants me to take it from him. My answer is a resounding and emphatic "HELL NO!".

[w4rma]

55. This is about that ad that Dean put up and didn't mention Kucinich in it?

Dennis jumped the gun on this in the October 9 debate:
…
KUCINICH: I would say bring our troops home, Governor.

DEAN: You can't do that. And I'll tell you why.

KUCINICH: We have to bring our troops home. They're targets right now.

DEAN: Can I tell why I disagree?

KUCINICH: Yes, finish.

DEAN: First of all, let me tell you what I agree with you about. And in all due respect to John and Joe and Wes and John Edwards and Dick Gephardt, maybe you thought the war was a good idea and maybe you thought it wasn't a bad idea. It wasn't a good idea.

The problem is that we empowered the president to run roughshod over us in the last election because nobody stood up to him on the October vote. If you all had voted no, we could have gone out and made our case to the American people. But instead you didn't vote no.

KUCINICH: You said no, and that's not true. I led the effort. Do you want to correct that statement?

DEAN: No, no, I didn't mention you. I didn't mention you.

Now if I can explain what my position on Iraq is, it's this. Now that we're there...
…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A5841-2003Oct9¬Found=true

New Hampshire Ad: DEAN: A hundred and thirty thousand troops in Iraq, with no end in sight and a price tag that goes up daily and the best my opponents can do is ask questions today that they should have asked before they supported the war. I opposed the war from the start because I want a foreign policy consistent with American values and I want to reclaim our rights and our liberties that were taken away in the name of patriotism. I'm Howard Dean and I approved this message because only you have the power to restore the dignity and respect that our country deserves. (10/22)
http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=883

It's pretty obvious that Dean was responding to the folks who did support the war and NOT to Kucinich, Sharpton nor Mosley-Braun (Graham is no longer running at this point). Does Kucinich give Sharpton, Mosley-Braun or Sen. Graham credit for opposing the war, also? I've never heard him do it. I have heard Dean give Kucinich and Graham credit:
…
KING: Kingston, Ontario, hello.

CALLER: Yes, hello. Many Democrats voted to go to war, why are they now seeming to back track and withdraw their support to President Bush. And do you agree -- do you not agree with the war any more and trying to win the 2004 elections because no weapons of mass destruction were found? I think...

KING: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut her, but I think we get the gist of the question -- governor. DEAN: I'm not sure the caller understood that I did not support the war and only one of the four or five candidates that you have spoken for tonight. All though, Bob Graham didn't support war and Dennis Kucinich didn't support the war either. But the candidates you have spoken about Lieberman, Senator Kerry, Representative Gephardt and Senator Edwards did all support the war. I didn't support the war because I don't think the president made the case. I supported the president, as I said before, in Afghanistan because I thought that was a matter of national security. I supported the first Gulf War. But you don't send troops to war without explaining clearly and frankly to the American people why they have to go. And what this president said was, mainly, gave -- made a number of assertions that were not factual.

The argument that I make and some people say as Senator Lieberman did if you didn't support the Gulf War you can't be elected president. I actually believe, that if you're a Democrat and did support the Gulf War, it calls into question your judgment in one of the most serious question or actions any president will have to take, which is sending American citizens to die on a foreign land. When you make that decision you ought know the facts. You ought to ask a lot of questions. If I can figure out that the facts weren't accurate, why couldn't they figure that out in Washington? So, I think not supporting the war is an advantage principally because it shows that I am willing to use very, very tough judgment and it stands against the grain of the president of the United States and many Americans and standing up for what I believe in. Just as John F. Kennedy did in during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.
…
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/04/lkl.00.html

Here is Lieberman giving Dean, Kucinich, Braun and Sharpton credit:
…
LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Judy.

(LAUGHTER)

Not always easy with this crowd. Thank you very much.

This is a very important discussion, because each of the nine of us want to be the commander in chief of the United States military and protect the security of this country. That requires a clarity of judgment and the courage to stick by the judgment you've made.

Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun -- they were clear and consistent against the war. I was for it clearly and consistently, but I respect them for that clarity.

I must say that I've been very disappointed since Wes Clark came into this race about the various positions he has taken on the war against Saddam Hussein.

Howard Dean is right, last fall, a few days before the voting in Congress, he said he would have recommended it and would have supported the resolution. After the war, he wrote a piece in the Times of London praising President Bush and Tony Blair for their resolve. When he became a candidate he said he probably would have voted for the resolution.

There was an uproar. Then he said: I never would have voted for the resolution.

The American people have lost confidence in George Bush because he hasn't leveled with them. We need a candidate who will meet the test of reaching a conclusion and having the courage to stick with it. And I intend to be that candidate and that kind of president.
…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5841-2003Oct9.html

[diamondsoul]

63. No, it isn't about the ad alone.

That was the conclusion drawn by some in the thread, however I have never asserted that was my motivation. A small part of what I see as cumulative deception, yes.

You post the quotes here except you highlight the wrong portions.-

(your higlights and quotes)DEAN: First of all, let me tell you what I agree with you about. And in all due respect to John and Joe and Wes and John Edwards and Dick Gephardt, maybe you thought the war was a good idea and maybe you thought it wasn't a bad idea. It wasn't a good idea.

The problem is that we empowered the president to run roughshod over us in the last election because nobody stood up to him on the October vote. If you all had voted no, we could have gone out and made our case to the American people. But instead you didn't vote no.

KUCINICH: You said no, and that's not true. I led the effort. Do you want to correct that statement?

DEAN: No, no, I didn't mention you. I didn't mention you.

Now the portions that create deception in his statements-

The problem is that we empowered the president to run roughshod over us in the last election because nobody stood up to him on the October vote. If you all had voted no, we could have gone out and made our case to the American people. But instead you didn't vote no.

Most Dean supporters who defend this exchange on his behalf insist on ignoring the meaning of the word "nobody". It doesn't matter if you list 1 or 1 million names, when you follow that with the word "nobody" you've nullified any exception at all. He dismissed Dennis Kucinch's efforts as not worthy of acknowledging.

Now with the ad, you give me two options. Either Howard Dean is a complete idiot when it comes to phrasing his statements, or he is knowingly misleading in his NH ad. Take your pick, he's either not intelligent enough to utilize a simple one word qualifier such as "most", which calls into question his ability to handle delicate diplomatic situations since he can't be trusted to select his words with caution-

Or he KNOWINGLY chooses not to use a qualifier that accurately informs undecided voters that there are other candidates who opposed the Iraq War, thus he's deliberately misleading them. There's no in between here, either he can't speak or he's dishonest. You tell me which is the case, because at the moment I'm inclined to believe the latter.

[w4rma]

72. You are doing some serious word parsing and nit picking.

It sidetracks people and it detracts from the overall work that we are all trying to do, IMHO. Just like Kucinich, Dean misspeaks occasionally. In this case it is VERY obvious that Dean was refering to only the people he named and IMHO it is deceptive of you to try to convince folks otherwise.

[diamondsoul]

82. Well, let's see-

I gave up on politics years ago, have never lived in Vermont or anywhere near it while Dean was Governor, and had never heard of him until I started considering the 2004 election situation.

So I'm "parsing words" and "nit-picking" because I'm using the words that left Howrd Dean's mouth to evaluate his qualification as a potential President of my beloved and diseased country? Sorry, but I use the resources I have available. In this case that's the man himself.

As for mis-speaking, MOST of the reasonable Dean supporters on DU have admitted he's doing it too frequently for even their liking. I guess it's only "parsing" and "nit-picking" if you're not part of the Dean supporter in-crowd? Point out how many times in this race Kucinich has "mis-spoken" compared to how many times Howard Dean has done it and tell me how it isn't a valid source of concern. You tink the Bush Rove GOP machine isn't going to counter any accusations against Bush for lying with all of these incidents? You think Dean can defeat that just because some people won't accept the evidence that it's a lie? After Bushco's lies, I'm here to tell you it's going to kill him in the GE. People are tired of not being able to trust the President, and whether it's deliberate or not, that's how it looks, and I'm a freaking Democrat!

I have news for you, there are THOUSANDS of potential voters out there just like me, and we're all going to be looking damned hard at how often these people screw up. I do not buy that all of this is "mis-speaking", particularly when there is ample evidence in some cases it's outright knowing deception.

I don't trust him, plain and simple, and that by itself worries me for the election. Please don't be so presumptious as to dismiss my worries as groundless. I don't dismiss the worries of those who don't support Kucinich ias groundless with very few exceptions. If it were Kucinich doing these things, I'd be just as worried.

[w4rma]

86. Dean is the candidate who is under the intense media and opponent scrutiny

And therefore you will see Dean's mistakes much more often than you'll see the mistakes of other candidates (that, IMHO, happen much more often).

If you are paying attention to the Dean campaign you've seen the vast majority of errors that Dean has made. And there haven't been relatively many. When a candidate isn't running every single thing that he said past his campaign advisors, the candidate **will** misspeak. And that **will** happen often. Dean isn't God. Dean isn't perfect. Don't expect *any* candidate to be perfect or even come anywhere close.

Here is an example of one of Dennis's mistakes:
Duder says in post 42:
…
MATTHEWS: You didn’t say that. You said criminalize it. You said put a person in jail for having an abortion. Do you believe any member of Congress wants to do that?
KUCINICH: Well, I think there are members of Congress who want to do that. That’s absolutely right.
MATTHEWS: Name one.
KUCINICH: This isn’t about naming one.
MATTHEWS: Name one. Name one.
KUCINICH: I think Chris Smith would support it. I do...

The next day Chris Smith came on the show and denounced what Dennis had said about him. He told Matthews how the pro-life Congressmen do not want women thrown in jail for having abortions and how they look at the women as victims too. He also stated that Dennis knew this too since up until he decided to run for President and pulled his out of the blue 180 on abortion he was a member of their caucus. Matthews then asked Smith if Dennis tried to apologize to him. Chris said Dennis approached him on the floor and told him what happened on “Hardball” and what he had said about Chris. Smith said he told Dennis he thought it was very irresponsible of him to state something like that on national television especially when he knew it wasn’t true and it was not the way a statesman should act. He said Dennis then became very uncomfortable and walked away without apologizing.

Since I assume this rant regarding Dean has to do with the ad controversy, you'll be interested to know that the two candidates did discuss it the other day:
http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/2003/october/deankucinichmeettodiscussadflap.shtml

[diamondsoul]

92. Did you assume I hadn't read Duder's post?

You assume wrongly, even if you agree with the post you quoted (which incidentally was addressed to ME).

Just as I said in response to the orginal posting, bringing up Matthews' sleazy stunt as an example of Kucinich making a mistake is a surefire way to infuriate me.

Would you care to explain what you'd have done in the Congressman's position? Or perhaps you know what Dean would have done? Because I don't presume to know what I (or anyone else for that matter) will do in a situation until I've (or they have) faced it.

Kucinich gave the Jackass what he demanded in an effort to be allowed to speak. It didn't work, but that's beside the point. Mairead has pointed out, and rightly so, that we have no reason to believe Smith over Kucinich or vice versa- except our own experience. I've personally listened to people tell me women who abort are "victims", and then follow it with "baby-killers" who deserve to die. As a woman who has aborted, I resent both charges. I am NOT a victim, nor am I a criminal.

Kucinich made what he had reason to believe was a factual response to Matthews' demand. He did not deliberately say something he knew to be false and continue to repeat it after he was corrected. Dean on the other hand, has.

You claim the others "mis-speak" more frequently, so show me evidence of that from Kucinich. One (two if you count the murder stat from the debate) is most assuredly not more frequent than Dean's count to date. Also, I didn't ask for mistakes, I asked for blatant and known falsehoods. Lies. I can prove Dean has lied, and have done so repeatedly. I'm asking as good as I give. Show me the LIE from Kucinich.

[w4rma]

95. According to Chris Smith…

…Kucinich lied about him.

I don't have enough information to determine whether or not this is true though. And you haven't provided enough information to prove it's not true. And frankly I'm not interested in wasting my time on doing the research to tear down another Democratic candidate.

I do have faith that Kucinich mearly misspoke and wasn't lying, however. I don't currently feel that Kucinich's style is to lie. But, so far I've caught you, diamondsoul, in *two*, IMHO, lies about Dean. How about *you* quit trying to smear Dean with lies?

Duder says in post 42:
…
MATTHEWS: You didn’t say that. You said criminalize it. You said put a person in jail for having an abortion. Do you believe any member of Congress wants to do that?
KUCINICH: Well, I think there are members of Congress who want to do that. That’s absolutely right.
MATTHEWS: Name one.
KUCINICH: This isn’t about naming one.
MATTHEWS: Name one. Name one.
KUCINICH: I think Chris Smith would support it. I do...

The next day Chris Smith came on the show and denounced what Dennis had said about him. He told Matthews how the pro-life Congressmen do not want women thrown in jail for having abortions and how they look at the women as victims too. He also stated that Dennis knew this too since up until he decided to run for President and pulled his out of the blue 180 on abortion he was a member of their caucus. Matthews then asked Smith if Dennis tried to apologize to him. Chris said Dennis approached him on the floor and told him what happened on “Hardball” and what he had said about Chris. Smith said he told Dennis he thought it was very irresponsible of him to state something like that on national television especially when he knew it wasn’t true and it was not the way a statesman should act. He said Dennis then became very uncomfortable and walked away without apologizing.

Since I assume this rant regarding Dean has to do with the ad controversy, you'll be interested to know that the two candidates did discuss it the other day:
http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/2003/october/deankucinichmeettodiscussadflap.shtml

[diamondsoul]

103. Why are you spamming me?

And most especially spamming me with someone else's words?

You've "caught" me in ONE apparent error due to not having seen a more recent statement on Medical Marijuana. You have not "caught" me in ANY lies about Dean.

Your effort to convince me that your candidate's behavior is acceptable because of something I say or do fails.

[w4rma]

109. I see absolutely

nothing wrong with Dean's behavior. I've never seen Dean act in any manner short of honorable.

I repeat those words, because it contained the information of which I spoke of in my post.

[diamondsoul]

135. So far you've produced no proof of either-

your claim Kucinich lied- i.e. statements from Chris Smith prior to the Hardball interview decrying criminal punishments for women who abort

OR

your inference that he's mis-spoken more frequently than Dr. Dean. I specifically asked for EVIDENCE, not opinions. "SHOW ME THE MONEY", honey. Again, I've proven repeatedly Dean knowingly made statements that were either patently false or deliberately misleading. Back it up on your end now.

[DemDogs]

114. Not just parsing; this is serious

And Dean's campaign needs to address it. The criticism existed all along, but when no one paid attention to Dean, no one paid attention to the criticism. He is not being held to a different standard; there is no sliding scale for integrity.

[w4rma]

116. No, Kucinich didn't lie there.

And no Dean is not being held to a different standard, unless it's a higher standard, than the other candidates, IMHO.

Dean's campaign has already addressed it, many times.

[Mairead]

112. Another 'careful' Dean statement

'I opposed the war from the start' makes it sound as though he was never not against it, which is clearly not the case. But I'm sure he would spin his statement to mean he opposed it from its start, the beginning of the full-on invasion and massacre.

Dishonesty.

[no name no slogan]

56. What about Dean and the $87b to Iraq?

Remember the debate before this one, in NM, when DK asked Dean if he supported Bush's $87b request? When confronted, Dean said he "supported" it.

Now, at this debate, he's "against" it. Why the change of heart, in only a few weeks time? Does it have anything to do with the fact that most Americans are against the $87b?

I bought the hype before in 1988 and 1992. I REFUSE to buy the hype in 2004. "Politics as usual" doesn't work. Time for a REAL change.

[w4rma]

73. Dean qualified his support for the $87b in the October 9 debate

And Bush, quite obviously, did not meet his qualification:

…
DEAN: I believe if the president is serious about supporting our troops in Iraq that he has to say where he's going to get the money from, and that means he's got to get rid of $87 billion worth of the tax cuts that went to Ken Lay and his friends at Enron.

KUCINICH: Would you fund keep the troops in Iraq?

DEAN: Yes.

KUCINICH: You would?

DEAN: If the president was willing to pay for it.
…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A5841-2003Oct9

[diamondsoul]

87. Trouble is, the pResident IS willing to pay for it-

He just wants to get the money from our grandchildren to do it.

No offense to you personally, but I don't see much of a qualification there, if you can see what I mean?

[w4rma]

90. "…means he's got to get rid of $87 billion worth of the tax cuts that…"

"…he has to say where he's going to get the money from, and that means he's got to get rid of $87 billion worth of the tax cuts that went to Ken Lay and his friends at Enron."

Did Bush pay for it? No.

Again you twist Dean's words. Again you're being deceptive. I find that ironic considering the topic you chose for this thread.

[diamondsoul]

93. No, I responded to what was in your post.

There was no intent to decieve, just my assessment of the quote you provided. I have no problem with his proposal to repeal Bush's tax cuts, none at all. I have a problem believing the repeal will GET $87 Billion back from the wealthy.

Possibly Dean can convince me differently, but for now I have my own doubts about whether that's going to solve the dilemma.

[Egnever]

98. aww and you were doing so well!

Deans repeal of the tax cuts has nothing or very little to do with the 87B

when he said he would support the spending of 87b he said he would do so only if the president was willing to repeal 87b worth of tax cuts to pay for it.

In other words NO

Cause like you said yourself. Bush isnt about to try to get that money back.

Deans repealing of the tax cuts has nothing to do with his suport or non support of the 87b

[diamondsoul]

102. Hang on, Eg,

Dean insists that we can't leave Iraq, and he doesn't want to support the $87 Billion, so how does he propose to meet the needs of our soldiers who are there?

Something's not connecting somewhere for me, and that may be a signal for me to take a break.

[w4rma]

108. Dean is campaigning on repealing Bush's tax cuts.

A repeal of Bush's tax cuts would meet his qualification.

And more specifically, Dean supports getting the Iraq occupation internationalized and unlike Bush, Dean would work with the U.N. towards that end. Dean's primary goal would be to clean up the mess and get a working democratic-republic in Iraq, while Bush's primary goal is to get control of the Iraqi oil. This would help relations with Iraqis and other countries, making them all more likely to help us fix the mess Bush caused in Iraq.

Also, remember that the situation in Iraq will be much different in a year and a half, so everything in this previous paragraph will be obsolete by then. But, it does show that there is another way, other than the way that Bush is doing things. It also shows that because of Bush's anti-diplomacy tactics, Bush has the most problems implementing a working plan.

[Mairead]

124. Dean should oppose it *whether or not* Bush gets it from the tax cut

All that money will do is ensure that the profiteers get wealthier while more kids come home in coffins. (And I'm not even mentioning the Iraqi victims)

Dean should oppose that spending even if Smirk could and would pay it out of his own pocket.

To make it be all about money is not a recommendation.

[genius]

89. I guess you want Richard Nixon

Who would have thought back in Nixon's day that someone just like him would be leading in the polls to win the Democratic nomination?

[w4rma]

91. genius is posting a lie (n/t)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

94. No, genius is posting an opinion.

[w4rma]

97. I find it hard to believe that someone can actually think that Nixon is

the equivalent of any of the Democratic presidential contenders.

But, you are correct, Feanorcurufinwe, it may be genius's opinion as well as your opinion, as someone who came to genius's defense over saying a Democratic contender is "someone just like" one of the Democratic candidates.

[Mairead]

107. "I find it hard to believe that someone would equate Nixon to Dean"

Yeah, me too. Nixon was arguably more liberal, being in favor of an income floor, throwing in the sponge in VN, etc.

[w4rma]

111. Don't insult liberals with that tripe. And don't

misquote me, I said,
"I find it hard to believe that someone can actually think that Nixon is the equivalent of any of the Democratic presidential contenders."

which includes Dean, but pretending to quote me by excluding everyone else detracts from the point I was making.

[DemDogs]

113. They just live in a land of altered reality

But can't we get integrity AND democratic principles in one package. I think we can, and we have a couple of choices in this race.

[w4rma]

115. I fully agree.

And I think we can and do have integrity and democratic principles in Gov. Dean. :toast:

[redqueen]

46. Love it!

diamondsoul, you've probably just spoken for a LOT of us Kucitizens!

Everyone is so jaded, so cynical... DK should never have gotten anywhere in politics... if conventional wisdom is to be paid any mind to!

Glad your moment of anger is past. :)

love & light,
redqueen

[no name no slogan]

51. captured my thoughts EXACTLY

after watching yet another sh!tty candidate "debate" on television and seeing how patronizing the panel and moderator were, I was at wits end.

You have put into words EXACTLY what I've been feeling for the last 48 hours.

Right now, it's like DK is the Jesse Jackson of the '88 race. He is marginalized by EVERYONE, not just the usual suspects (big media, corporations, etc.)

He's even being marginalized by fellow DEMOCRATS. That, to me, is despicable. We had that happen here in MN, where a sitting party official working at a labor event for the DFL was spreading the lie that DK was going to bolt the party and run as a Green. Thankfully, one of our fine folk caught him and contacted some of the party officials. They made him apologize for saying that while working for the party.

The media continues to ignore Dennis, relying on "polls" and how much money he's raised as some measure of his support. Shades of "Dewey Defeats Truman" if you ask me. If Dennis is doing so poorly, how do you explain his MeetUp numbers? How do you explain the crowds that meet him on the campaign trail?

Sure DK doesn't have as much money as his rivals-- he doesn't take any corporate cash, unlike the other "populist"-styled candidates. Nobody representing AOL-Time Warner has given him a check. NO energy companies are bankrolling his campaign.

Dennis is one of two candidates who was DRAFTED to run for President, and he's the ONLY one drafted because of his message and beliefs.

After Paul Wellstone's death and the SCLM "spin" of the memorial, I decided to get back into party politics after a 10+ year absence.

Paul Wellstone is the reason I became a Democrat in 1987. Dennis Kucinich is the reason I'm a Democrat in 2003. And I KNOW I'm not alone.

[diamondsoul]

54. "Dennis Kucinich is the reason I'm a Democrat in 2003."

BINGO! And if he loses the nomination, I think I will follow him in supporting the nominee for the GE. After that, I think perhaps I'll plead with him to leave the party with me and the thousands of others who are feeling dismissed and unrepresented. Maybe I won't, but right now it's what I feel like doing.

And that cursed elephant in a donkey suit, Evan Bayh, has GOT TO GO! Cripes I'd like to be a fly on his daddy's wall these days! I guess I'm just pissed about a whole lot of things and they're all bulding up. The Party is NOT helping a whit with that.

[Desertrose]

53. Diamondsoul- you have spoken for me too....here's my rant

I have felt the exact same way recently...working my heart & soul off for the campaign and then ....people acting like Dennis isn't there, doesn't count ...doesn't even have a right to be heard...hell, yes. I am fighting mad!!!

I am sick and tired of having the one honest truthful and truly compassionate candidate who actually has a plan and vision for healing- not just our country- but the world- being constantly and consistently marginalized!

It f'ing sucks.

I am amazed at how many people DON'T GET IT...it is not just about getting * out...it is about what kind of human being we get IN office....more of the same attitude & mindset ( basically I have mine & I'm gonna make sure I keep it-no matter what or how) will no longer cut it. I never thought I'd see the US fall so soon...200 years is a damn short run in the history of things....but people, we are falling apart...I am ashamed of my country and a lot of the attitudes and values of the people who live in it.

We have allowed ourselves to go down this road to where we are....materialistic and greedy- concerned only about our comforts and our security. Well, as we are learning- we can't be secure and safe at the cost of the rest of the world ...how safe can we be if families on the other side of the globe are starving, dying, being blown apart because Halliburton wants the really high quality oil??

I guess I shouldn't be surprised...if people don't want to see what is true , you sure can't make them see it...as proven above in this thread about Deans NH ad and how it is just more "spin"...

MAN, I really seriously am worried for my country and people...we have a chance to turn things around with this man. Sure, Dennis is not the big strong action hero type...but his heart is bigger than anyone's I 've seen in a long long time- maybe ever...and he chooses to go through all this denigrating BS from the press, even other candidates....to help his country & his people.....as the indigenous people say before they pray..."not for myself but so the people can live".......to me that sums up the candidacy of Dennis Kucinich...an honest & caring man-who has solutions.

OK...thank you for letting me ad my rant {blush}

Peace & truth
DR

[MuseRider]

81. To me DK IS

a big, strong action hero type. Because of his incredible mind and his heart he is bigger than all of the rest(not that the others so not care, it is just that they seem to care about themselves first, others later). If I want to gaze upon a beautiful specimen of manhood there are many out there but this guy beats them all by being a bigger and better human being that I can even try to be, and I do try. Respect, that is the name of the game. I want a leader that inspires me by accomplishing things and not needing to take others down to appear bigger. IF the nominee is not DK and he supports someone else I will probably vote for them, IF I have a modicum of respect for them. That does not include Dean, he lost my support long ago. If not I will consider leaving the party as well. It HURTS me to think of that but why stay when nothing is going to change?

[redqueen]

58. You know what?

I think I see something that strikes me as different between the more 'enthusiastic' Kucinich supporters and other candidates' 'enthusiastic' supporters...

Is it just me, or is it not less often that you see Kucinich supporters saying rude things / phrasing things rudely? I know I'm probably biased, hence the 'is it just me?' thing at the beghinning there... But seriously... does anyone else notice a disparity in civility?

I guess what made me think of it was the way a few posters were mincing words, trying to be polite, while giving voice to their concerns about Dean; and contrasting that with the responses you get from the anti-Kucinich people in other threads.

Is it just me? Maybe I missed the really vitriolic Kucinich people or somehow manage to forget about those posts...

Anyway...

[Mairead]

74. It's a maturity thing, I think, RQ

Quite a few of Dean's and Clark's supporters are very young, and I think their age shows in what attracts them. They like shiny things, and are impatient with anything that requires sustained thinking. We can see that in this thread in a few places.

It's not for nothing, I don't think, that the pre-adults on Dennis's side come across as the articulate, mature, creative ones.

[w4rma]

79. IMHO, your condensending attitude towards supporters of other candidates

is the type of attitude that is the basis for the "elitist" label that conservatives try to smear liberals with.

[blm]

96. Mairead is against Kerry and I have no problem

taking in her views. She has her reasons, and none of them are hypocritical. My problem with Dean supporters are those who get all sanctimonious about Iraq when the bottom line is that Kerry and Dean weren't far off enough in their positions to make one antiwar and one prowar. They were both closer to the middle ground. Dean capitalized on the PERCEPTION he was antiwar and did so at the expense of Kucinich's HONEST campaign.

[w4rma]

100. So?

You seem to have a similar (what some would call, "elitist") attitude about supporters of some other candidates, so why on Earth would you disagree, blm?

[blm]

121. You said other candidates. If you notice,

the problem is mainly with the hypocritical vociferousness of A candidate towards the other candidates. The supporters of those OTHER candidates seem to be fairly united at their disgust for the aforementioned hypocrite.

Though we may agree or disagree on which of the others would be the best candidate, many of us agree that one candidate has run an incredibly dishonest campaign. Blowback.

[Mairead]

123. I respect intelligence and good-heartedness, no matter where it resides

I don't respect children when they're being bratty. And I have anti-respect for physical adults who behave like bratty children.

If you want respect for your fellow Dean supporters, you'll have to replace some of the current ones with a better grade (or force them to reveal their true colors--I'm about 3/4 convinced that some are not real Dean supporters at all but merely disrupters playing dress-up)

[rdfi-defi]

126. from what i've read, and seen kucinich

is quite trustworthy. in the current atmosphere of our nations capitol, you would be hard pressed to find someone with his expearience, honesty, and vision. he focuses on the issues that are most paromount to working class and poor people (a.k.a. the majority of americans). but above all else, he actually has a plan to make the positive impact all of the canidates say their presidency will have. no whimperin and whinin here just love for DK and all who parisipate in this debate inteligently with economic and political democracy in mind

[peaceandjustice]

128. Kucinich's position on withdrawal from Iraq is misleading

Kucinich is calling to turn Iraq reconstruction over to the UN and withdraw U.S. troops. Yet when has the UN maintained a military presence in any country, in the past 20...30... hell, ever that didn't require a disproportionately greater number of U.S. troops than all other nations involved? Considering the U.S. outspends and outstaffs its military compared to the next largest 6 military forces combined by such an obscene margin (I can't remember the figure but it was in TNR a year or so ago...trying their search engine right now) How can this be both an honest and intelligent position? Since I don't doubt Kucinich is intelligent I have to conclude he knows the U.S. is mired in Iraq and not even he can do anything about that.

[Mairead]

129. No, it's not misleading

Yet when has the UN maintained a military presence in any country, in the past 20...30... hell, ever that didn't require a disproportionately greater number of U.S. troops than all other nations involved?

When has the US ever agreed to a UN mission where the US had no interests? When has the US ever not demanded control? Why is the US so upset about the idea of a European military alliance outside NATO?

You make the mistake of believing US propaganda.

[peaceandjustice]

130. Suez Canal crisis

To answer your first question, the Suez canal crisis of '56. And the Balkans. THe second question is a chicken-or-egg argument, if the U.S. have to commit the most troops why shouldn't they command them? What political pressure is on the French or British to minimize U.S. casualties? The U.S. being upset by non-NATO allaince has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Mairead]

137. It sounds as though you just answered your own objections

[diamondsoul]

139. I can't believe you came up with a reply to that!

ROTFL

I'm not kidding, I just sat here, first gaping, and then just shaking my head.

It never ceases to amaze me that people will complain about other nations not wanting to enter into military actions, and yet won't admit we never give them ANY sense of team-work as a UNITED effort from the start! Oh nooo, because everyone knows the entire planet would disintegrate without the United States holding it together, right?:eyes: Um, yeah, we're not self-absorbed or jingoistic at all.:puke:

[peaceandjustice]

144. except she didn't

I offered up two examples of U.S. involvement in foreign affairs during Presidencies which she obviously lambasts as "more of the same" (Eisenhower and Clinton) in which the U.S. didn't have a fundamental stake and she posts an unsubstansiated (sp) claim and Kucinich slogans. And she didn't address the chicken-or-egg nature of needing U.S. command of a disproportionate share of U.S. troops policing UN missions.

[Mairead]

148. I did, you know. Sorry if you failed to follow.

You tried to make the point that US majority involvement is dictated by the situation, not the self-interest of our ruling class; that other nations need our majority presence. I asked you to name a case where the US signed off on an action that wasn't in our self-interest, and you named Suez and the Balkans. Accepting for the sake of argument the idea that our interests weren't involved in Suez or the Balkans, in both cases other nations did fine without us (albeit for very inhumane values of 'fine' in the case of the Balkans, a fact which nearly caused the fall of the Dutch government). So in fact when majority US forces have been present, the choice is dictated by the interests of our ruling class, not the needs of the situation, and there is no reason why our forces could not be pulled out of Iraq or be reduced to a minority presence under a non-US commander.

[peaceandjustice]

151. no you didn't

you asked, "When has the US ever agreed to a UN mission where the US had no interests?" And I answered. And will answer again. The U.S. intervened to protect Nasser's effort to nationalize the Suez Canal from Israeli and British hostility. We protected the Suez Canal even though it was contrary to our business interests. You've had no response for that. And no, other nations didn't do "fine" without us in the Balkans because we. were. there. I guess you forget that Jesse Jackson had to go negotiate for the freedom of three U.S. POWs.

[Mairead]

152. " We protected the Suez Canal even though it was contrary to our business"

That's breathtaking ignorance.

[peaceandjustice]

154. explain

explain how a Suez Canal nationalized by the Egyptian government is preferable to U.S. business interests compared to a Suez Canal controlled by private British and European firms.

[redqueen]

136. Or it could be that he sees things differently.

IMO his plan very responsibly offers to fund the managment of the transition from US to UN to Iraqi control, and phases out the troops part of the picture.

I think something that gets lost in the shuffle is that Iraqis have a problem with America. They have a problem with England. We have been united against their country for a generation. These people have largely grown up hating our country for the sanctions. If the UN and member countries were to go in and train the police, soldiers, etc... they'd have a much easier time of it, you can bet on that.

We can aim high or low. I agree with Kucinich that we should aim high. Even if we can't get all the troops out, and it ends up that only some of them are replaced, isn't that still far, far better than any other option? (years of deployment & quarterly multi-billion dollar funding requests?)

I wonder how people can take other candidates seriously, when they say they're for more UN involvement. I have to wonder if it isn't all just lip service, since these candidates all know full well that the UN and the major countries involved balk at any commitment while the US is in charge.

Since we know they know this, what deduction can we make about their motives for saying they want the UN more involved, if they still insist on US control of oil contracts, troops, etc.?

[peaceandjustice]

155. even if control is handed to the UN

The U.S. will still have to be responsible for providing the troops. Our military is so much larger than any other member-nations that a reduction of U.S. troop commitment is not feasible. Historically the UN has never participated in a mission where U.S. troop commitment was not disproportionately greater.