Dean's Remarks Give Rivals Talking Points (Wash Post)

[chimpymustgo]

His Readiness to Lead Is Questioned

By Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 18, 2003; Page A01


BURLINGTON, Vt. -- Howard Dean's penchant for flippant and sometimes false statements is generating increased criticism from his Democratic presidential rivals and raising new questions about his ability to emerge as a nominee who can withstand intense, sustained scrutiny and defeat President Bush.


Dean, for instance, recently spoke of a "most interesting theory" that Saudi Arabia had "warned" Bush about the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Although Dean said he does not believe Bush was tipped off about the assaults that killed nearly 3,000, he has made no apologies for raising the rumor.

"How is what I did different from what Dick Cheney or George Bush . . . did during the time of the buildup of the invasion of Iraq?" the former Vermont governor said Tuesday night aboard his campaign plane. "There were all these theories that they mentioned. Many of them turned out not to be true. The difference is that I acknowledged that I did not believe the theory I was putting out."

Bush this week called the theory an "absurd insinuation."

Dean's remarks, his critics say, are in keeping with his history of making statements that are mean-spirited or misleading. He has distorted his past support for raising the retirement age for Social Security and slowing Medicare's growth. He has falsely said he was the only Democratic presidential candidate talking about race before white audiences. And he made allegations -- some during his years as governor -- that turned out to be untrue.

After saying at his last gubernatorial news conference that he was sealing his official records to avoid political embarrassment, Dean now says he was joking and is not sure what is in the files.



-snip-

Last week, after Dean denied providing a tax break as governor that benefited Enron Corp. -- which a published report showed he did -- Gephardt said: "Once again, Howard Dean refuses to admit the truth. You can't beat George W. Bush if you can't tell the truth about your own record."
-snip-

*********

Much much more at:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9661-2003Dec17.html

[papau]

1. Sample letter to send Washington Post re their lies about Dean

Sample letter to send Washington Post re their lies about Dean


Michael Getler is the ombudsman for The Washington Post
[e-mail]

Subject:Why let VandeHei/Fine/Dan Balz print "partial Truth Lies" about Dean? - Have you no shame after 3 yrs of proving you lied about Gore?

To the Ombudsman:

I note that a truth telling Washington Post may be as hard to find this election cycle as it was in 2000. One again you are into lies that imply a falsehood by only telling part of the story - partial truth lies.

Dean's "history of making statements that are mean-spirited or misleading" is the WP applying what most of say about the Post to Dean.

1. He has distorted his past support for raising the retirement age for Social Security and slowing Medicare's growth.

Nope - He agreed in 1995 with another speaker on the need to raise the retirement age to 70 (and I believe that will be the solution for new retirees after 2042 if Bush is prevented from destroying SS via private accounts meant to bankrupt the system), but said that he sees no need to do so now, Well 2042 is not "now", and the removing the wage cap alternative that was proposed by Clinton after 1995 is indeed a viable solution - albeit not passable without media support. Likewise slowing Medicare's growth to 7% was a budget guideline needed to get a budget passed - only someone not in DC would not realize that the Reagan pattern of underestimating entitlement payouts, followed by a request for a supplemental, was not now standard operating procedure for the GOP Congress. Also back then there really was hope that HMO procedures could be both more efficient in paper work (they turned out not to be) and be a fair limit on excessive demands for medical time (again they turned out not to be).

You got one correct -"He has falsely said he was the only Democratic presidential candidate talking about race before white audiences" - and he said he was sorry.

And I love "And he made allegations -- some during his years as governor -- that turned out to be untrue" - WOW - based on an environmental dispute with a farmer over 600 acres where Dean said he was wrong and said he was sorry.

What is incorrect about no health care being passed in 93-94 when Gephardt had the power, while health care was passed in Vermont under Dean? To belittle the Gepheart record is to say an untruth - which is what you imply - is itself a lie.

The deliberate inability of the Washington Post to note that "Iraq is an Immediate Threat" is what Bush sold, and which Dean rejected, is different from "Saddam is a danger" shows a desire in the WP to crank up the lie machine used so well against Gore ("Gore said he invented the internet and is a liar' - which Gore did not say - all over your pages, while the Gore 1986 and 1988 bills structuring and funding the movement from ARPANET to Internet did not make your pages).

Who is the liar when the Washington Post recasts a restructure of the Vermont tax code for scores of companies into a "Dean gave a tax break to Enron". Just more partial truth lies for which you are now famous.

And Dean explains the problem with parental notification without a Court bypass (which you do not note is the topic) by a true story - noting thathe spoke of the very real problem with an example where the father turned out much later to be innocent - noting that this does not change the problem. But the Wash. Post tries by quoting others to imply that the January anecdote was "misleading".

And you take the case where the "Vermont" Abenaki Indian were found, after a years research, to have never settled in Vermont - nomads if you will - and to therefore have no claim to land in Vermont, as a case of Dean not allowing a poor Tribe to have a casino, while saying he has no problem with casinos at the Native American conference in Albuquerque. Since the truth is out in the public domain, is Dean "misleading" - or is the Post?

And finally, and most interestingly, it appears that when Dean argues in favor of the 911 committee being given access to documents - something Bush is trying to limit and/or prevent - saying that no good will come by suppressing that kind of information it appears the Washington Post is advocating that the information be suppressed - so that that by telling folks the truth you might "mis-lead" them.

How in the world did this article get by the editors?

<signed>



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9661-2003Dec17.html

Dean's Remarks Give Rivals Talking Points
His Readiness to Lead Is Questioned
By Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 18, 2003; Page A01


BURLINGTON, Vt. -- Howard Dean's penchant for flippant and sometimes false statements is generating increased criticism from his Democratic presidential rivals and raising new questions about his ability to emerge as a nominee who can withstand intense, sustained scrutiny and defeat President Bush. <snip>

[maddezmom]

2. dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=936104&mesg_id=936104

[Moderator]

3. Locking,,,,,

Please continue the discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=936104&mesg_id=936104



DU Moderator