non-Dean progressives - talk to me.

[ulysses]

This is not an invitation to a flamewar, and I'm not particularly wavering on Dean. I do keep in the back of my mind, though, the fact that several progressive folks here that I consider friends and allies (nsma, Lydia, others...) don't support Dean, and it occurs to me that, given the somewhat overheated nature of GD04 discussions, I haven't seen anything from them as to why.

If it's a matter of supporting DK or of distrusting Dean's DLC history, I fully understand, and, at any rate, I'm not interested in trying to change anyone's mind - I trust progressives to make their own judgments. I'm just curious.

Note that, although I of course can't keep anyone who wants to reply from doing so, I'm not interested in being told why I should support someone else, and particularly not from a a Dem centrist point of view.

[TheMiddleRoad]

1. Kucinich

I support Kucinich over Dean simply because he opposes NAFTA and WTO.

Though Kucinich is also for blanket amnesty so any candidate is a compromise.

If Clark would come out against NAFTA and Free Trade I would support him because he honestly has a much better chance to defeat Bush.

[ulysses]

3. fair enough.

Thank you.

[sangh0]

2. Here's why

Because in addition to not being a liberal, Dean has run an extremely dishonest campaign where he pretends that

1) He was against the Iraq invasion from the start. The truth is, at one point he advocated giving Saddam a 60 day deadline, followed by a unilateral invasion

2) None of the other Dems opposed the invasion from the start

4) Kerry voted the same way Bradley did on some flood protection bill

5) Misrepresented the other Dems positions on war

6) Misrepresents himself as coming from "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party", while calling other Dems "Bush-lite", amongst other names

7) I could go on and on but I don't have the time to catalog all of Dean's lies.

[adadem]

34. I agree with

all six statements by sangh0

and I will add:

Arrogant and egotistical to a point that scares me (like bush).

Makes innuendos and "hidden" threats if things don't go his way.

Hypocritical and twists his statements to suit his agenda.

The whole VietNam thing including how he tried to list his brother as MIA as if he were military.

For me it comes down to trust; I don't trust him. Also, integrity; I think he has none.

[DemBones DemBones]

71. I agree with you and with sanghO. I won't vote for someone

I can't trust. I can't trust Dean so I won't vote for him.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

77. me four.

I cannot trust Dean, I will not vote for him. And these are not Gore type media created lies. Gore didn't actually say any of the things the media accused him of. Dean's misleading statements and lies are direct quotes. I will add that another thing that turns me off, is Dean should know better.

TWL

[Egnever]

82. 2 +2 =3

And these are not Gore type media created lies

Wich one isnt?

Every single one of those is a gore type media lie.

The 60 day time limit coment came a day after powels presentation to the un and was an agreement with a proposal put forward by germany and france at the time had we accepted that agreement when dean made that statement we would not have gone into that war alone. But of course paying atention to when that was actually said and what it was in response to would not help them to gore him now would it?

None of the other Dems opposed the invasion from the start

He never said that so right from the get go its a gore type media created lie. He did say he was the only candidate that oposed the war and it was dismisive of Kucinich Braun and Sharpton but they arent exactly credible candidates. Much as I like both kucinich and Braun they have no shot of geting the nomination and never have. He has since that add aired gone out of his way to make sure to mention denis braun and sharpton also being against the war.

Kerry voted the same way Bradley did on some flood protection bill

This one I am unaware of so I cant realy coment on it.

Misrepresented the other Dems positions on war

There seems to be no problem with people using thee snipet from the first suposed lie to distort Deans record concerning the war yet thier is outrage over this? People in glass houses.

Feel free to suply any evidence of him misrepresenting someones position. I bet you cant unless of course its edwards position early on and he wrote an apology for that and apologized again during the debate the other night baring that mistake i dont think you will find another example.


Misrepresents himself as coming from "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party", while calling other Dems "Bush-lite", amongst other names

This is a claim of what him not being a democrat? Hate to break it to people but there is no one certain type of democrat. hes as much from the democratic wing of the democrastic party as anyone in this race and more so than some. Other dems are bush lite Zell miller is a perfect example. Lieberman is another that comes to mind.

I could go on and on

And that part my friend is the only thing in The whole original post that isnt " Gore type media created lies"

[sangh0]

85. Yes, Dean should know better

and the obviousness of his lies calls his intelligence into question. (Please note that for all my criticisms of Dean, I have not, until now, suggested that Dean is not intelligent)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. I'm not ANTI- Dean just simply not comfortable with a few things

He really DID undermine environmentalists in his state by pulling a fast one on them with regard to development.
I do appreciate his stance on civil unions, but I don't vote on single issues.
I have a very big problem with his NRA rating and his "leave it to the states" position since guns don't know state lines.

That said, I have issues with every single ONE of the Dem candidates and my vote will be for the one whose faults I can reconcile with my own values most easily.

I may, however, simply vote for CMB since she is easily as qualified as the rest of the candidates and is not taken seriously.

[Cheswick2.0]

10. I sent her a few dollars today

Her campaign is in debt. It is important to keep her in the race IMO if we are to ever see a female in the presidency. I also e-mailed some women at Women for Dean. I don't know what good it will do. But I would to see her be the first to drop out.

[spooky3]

51. were the words "not want" left out of your last sentence?

I also sent her money earlier but I'm afraid this will not be her year.

[Cheswick2.0]

70. picking nits huh?

just kidding, I wasn't looking while I was typing I guess.
Thanks for sending her money

[ulysses]

20. thanks, Teena

:hi:

[blm]

25. Because his record/core values are to the right of Lieberman.

Dean's record shows a disregard for civil liberty issues, and sounds eerily like George Bush in his comments addressing them.

Say what you will about Lieberman, but his record shows he's better on civil liberties and the environment. Dean, otoh, would often bypass environmental laws for his favored corporations. And is deregulation for energy a Dem value? That's a GOP value favored by Libertarians.

http://www.talkleft.com/archives/003739.html
……He once addressed a meeting of defense attorneys by stating that "my job is to make your job as difficult as possible." He is a man of his word, at least on this campaign promise. He did not want to fund public defense.
……Dean has made no secret of his belief that the justice system gives all the breaks to defendants. Consequently, during the 1990s, state’s attorneys, police, and corrections all received budget increases vastly exceeding increases enjoyed by the defender general’s office. That meant the state’s attorneys were able to round up ever increasing numbers of criminal defendants, but the public defenders were not given comparable resources to respond.

http://rogueimc.org/2003/11/1757.shtml
Dean, in 1999, wanted to refuse a $150,000 federal grant to the public defender's office for aiding mentally disabled defendants. "That was unusual, to say the least," says Appel. The state legislature overrode Dean's opposition. Dean spokesman Carson responded that Dean didn't want to create a program that the state couldn't afford to fund if federal money disappeared in the future. But he did not disavow Dean's anti-defendant bent. "This is a governor who was tough on crime and is a big believer in victims' rights," Carson says.

(Note:The state legislature overrode Dean's opposition and forced him to take it.)

Source: http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1
Dean: “I got life without parole through our legislature. The problems with life without parole is that it’s not life without parole. There are always people who get out.”

http://richmond.indymedia.org/newswire/display/4371/index.php
.. “I’m looking to make it easier to convict guilty people and not have as many technicalities interfere with justice, and I’ll appoint someone to fit that bill”.
Asked if that reflected a “get-tough-on-crime” approach, Dean responded: “I’m looking for someone who is for justice. My beef about the judicial system is that it does not emphasize truth and justice over lawyering. It emphasizes legal technicalities and rights of the defendants and all that.” Such comments may play well with the general public, but they have sent a chill through the collective spine of lawyers – particularly defense lawyers – around the state.

http://rogueimc.org/2003/11/1757.shtml
He attempted an explanation of his support for capital punishment, even while agreeing that in some cases "the wrong guy" might be executed…. ...he thought the death penalty was preferable in some instances to a sentence of life without parole, Dean noted that in some instances criminals who are locked up for life might be freed on a legal "technicality" only to commit more horrible crimes. "That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1907-2003Jul2?language=printer
William Cohen: …..In all my years writing about the death penalty, I have never heard any politician admit that he would countenance the death of an innocent person in order to ensure that the guilty die. Dean is maybe the first to acknowledge the unacknowledgeable. For that, I suppose, he ought to be congratulated. But by equating the murder of one individual by another with the murder of an innocent person by the government -- the unpreventable with the preventable -- he has casually trashed several hundred years of legal safeguards.

http://www.vpr.net/vt_news/stories/sharedlegacy/shared3.shtml
Vermont Public Radio, Bob Kinzel: "It's likely that Howard Dean's tenure in office will also have a long term effect on the state's criminal justice system. In his first years as Governor, Dean was often critical of judges who Dean thought did not hand down tough enough sentences. Over the last 10 years, Dean has appointed more judges than any previous governor and Dean describes his appointees as "law and order" judges. Dean's judicial philosophy appears to be having a significant impact - during his tenure as governor the average sentence handed down in Vermont has doubled - a situation that has led to an overcrowding of the state's prison system."

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/Bister-Estrin-Jacobs_Dean.htm
His governorship was a campaign against reasonable approaches to substance abuse. ….. the only other option in his bag of tricks is tougher penalties. He has endorsed fully the National Governors Association's policy, which calls for increased involvement of law enforcement and disavows any form of legalization not only as a policy but also as a philosophy. In short, Dean not only believes in the war on drug users, but also would like to see it intensified.

…..While Dean vocalized his opposition to methadone treatment clinics and decried any efforts to reduce the penalties on marijuana use -- even labeling the latter as a gateway drug (a statistically questionable claim at best) -- the population of Vermont's prisons increased to potentially dangerous levels.

There is a correlation between these two phenomena. The more police go after individuals who use drugs, and the more judges are instructed to put them in jail, the more prisoners there are. ……. according to the DEA, the number of drug arrests in Vermont increased under Dean's watch, peaking in the year 2001, with the imprisonment of women increasing by over 140%
.
http://rogueimc.org/2003/11/1757.shtml
Robert Appel, former head of the state's public defender system, said he had constant clashes with Dean over funding for the service. According to Appel, Dean said on at least one public occasion that the state should spend less money providing the accused with legal representation, saying that "95% of criminal defendants are guilty anyway." He later claimed that he was kidding.

http://www.loper.org/~george/archives/2003/Aug/946.html
(He appointed) state judges who were willing to undermine the Bill of Rights. In a 1997 interview with the Vermont News Bureau, Howard Dean admitted his desire to expedite the judicial process by using such justices to 'quickly convict guilty criminals.' He wanted individuals that would deem 'common sense more important than legal technicalities.' Constitutional protections (legal technicalities) apparently undermine Dean's yearning for speedy trials. 
 
Dean, the darling of deregulating CATO Institute:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp?pg=1
The Appeal of Howard Dean
From the September 15, 2003 issue: Why he could be Bush's more dangerous opponent.
by Stephen Moore
09/15/2003, Volume 009, Issue 01

SEVERAL YEARS AGO an obscure Democratic governor from the politically inconsequential state of Vermont was the guest speaker at a Cato Institute lunch. His name was Howard Dean. He had been awarded one of the highest grades among all Democrats (and a better grade than at least half of the Republicans) in the annual Cato Fiscal Report Card on the Governors. We were curious about his views because we had heard that he harbored political ambitions beyond the governorship.

Dean charmed nearly everyone in the boardroom. He came across as erudite, policy savvy, and, believe it or not, a friend of free markets--at least by the standards of the Tom Daschle-Dick Gephardt axis of the Democratic party. Even when challenged on issues like environmentalism, where he favored a large centralized mass of intrusive regulations, Dean remained affable.

"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.

He left--and I will never forget the nearly hypnotic reaction. The charismatic doctor had made believers of several hardened cynics. Nearly everyone agreed that we had finally found a Democrat we could work with. Since then, I've watched Dean's career with more than a little interest and we chat from time to time on the phone.
>>>>>>

[blm]

50. sorry...the post above was for ulysses.

.

[cryofan]

5. read this

www.mylinuxisp.com/~cryofan/dean.html

[ozone_man]

68. Dean balanced the budgets

and brought the Vermont bond rating from the lowest in NE to the highest. This allowed investment in our state and lower taxes. Dean lowerd taxes twice. When he assumed the governorship upon the death of Richard Snelling, we were still in a deep recession and were trying to deal with excess government spending of the 80's. Tough choices have to be made when you're a governor and he's earned my repeated vote, except for one "vote of conscience" for the progressive candidate. Dean consistently won 60% of the vote.

Dean is not a progressive, but when you look at the initiatives that he has enacted while in office like "Success by Six", civil unions, energy efficiency, etc., you see that a lot of them are progressive. One thing to keep in mind is that Vermont is a very liberal state and Dean may not have been a progressive in Vermont, but nationally, I would say he is in the Democratic party center, socially left of center, fiscally right of center. Do you think that we might be approaching a fiscal disaster in the near future? I do, and I feel a lot safer with Dean at the helm. This Paul O'Neill sounds like he knew what Bush did not, that deficits do matter, and so Bush got rid of him. We are approaching a disaster, but I digress.

Sure, if Kucinich were more electable and certainly more progressive, I would consider him as number one, not number two, but you will have to convince me that he is electable, and I'm sure that you are tired of hearing that argument as I am tired of hearing the same argument that Dean is not electable. But Dean is the leader and that goes a long way to showing electability.

[DemBones DemBones]

72. Ulysses asked progressives who are not supporting Dean to

explain why they don't support Dean. Your post is off topic.

[ulysses]

74. I also said

that I wasn't interested in hearing why I should vote for anyone else, which I suppose makes your post #73 off-topic.

You don't do Dennis any big favors with your rhetoric there.

[plurality]

6. I used to support him, but now Kucinich

Because I agreed with Kucinich on just about every issue, so when he jumped in the race it was a natural fit.

Dean remained a close second for a while, but then as time went on I began noticing his record wasn't matching his mouth, and lately he's just done some things that don't make me trust him at all. I kind of think he's an opportunist. Don't know if this'll be much help to you. Take it for what it's worth.

[ulysses]

21. thank you.

[GainesT1958]

7. First of all...

I'm attracted to the guy I'm backing (Gen. Clark) because I'm FOR him and a good many of his stated positions, and outlooks on, issues and large questions facing us in the years ahead. Not because any one thing makes me "dislike" Howard Dean. Wanted to start off by clearing that one up, pronto!

I happen to think he'd make the most intelligent, most understanding, most reasonable, and, yes, toughest when it counted, president we could elect this year. He has something clearly no Bush family memeber has, the "Vision Thing", and has it in spades. He is a true progressive--on the environment, on social issues, on labor issues, and, yes, an internationalist of the post-WWII school on foreign affairs. If we're going to be successful in not just making the U.S. secure, but in making the world a safer, somewhat more reasonable place in which everyone can live, we've GOT to have that kind of leadership. I think Gen. Clark can provide that as readily as can Michael Finley of the Dallas Maverics hit a three-point jumper from 25 feet out.

I also feel that someone who earns the respect of the "Average American"--of several different stripes--is who can best articulate that Progressive position I personally hold dear, by way of being best able to BE ELECTED president, and so carry out that vision. Clearly, especially in this "divided" nation, we're not going to get there by retaining the suport of only Progressives; we need some help. And GETTING THERE has to be the #1 goal; suffering under four years of Dub with a "popular mandate" he'll cram down our throat at every available instance is clearly NOT an acceptable alternative to victory. Don't believe it? Ask Michael Moore; he's clearly a Progressive and he feels that way as well.

So that's why I'm supporting a candidate other than Howard Dean...because I've found someone I feel will indeed BE a better candidate, and president; not out of any particular "dislike" of Dean, or of anyone else running under our Party's banner.

B-)

[Wetzelbill]

17. Clark is one impressive man I will give him that

Lots of things I like about General Clark. Clearly he's an academic and intellectual man, for one thing. I would love to sit down and talk with him about anything and everything. I plan on reading his books at some point.

[Wetzelbill]

8. Kucinich has a closer vision of what I want our country and world to be

I like Dean. He is a little too conservative for my tastes, but he'd make an excellent president. I would prefer DK, John Kerry or John Edwards, but Dean - and Clark they are pretty close on my list - is certainly a great candidate.

I appreciate Dean's candor. He seems like he puts his foot in his mouth sometimes, but he doesn't care because he is so confident and full of passion. When I heard him speak at an event, I walked out of that place charged up! The guy makes me want to go out and capture the world and I love that. I like how he shows flexibility. I don't take any of his waffling type statements as a character problem or anything. He's a politician and politicians are bombarded about everything they have ever said or done. He's the frontrunner so he is scrutinized and bashed for it. Dean is adept, smart, confident and slick. I'm willing to bet he would be pretty good to have bargaining for us at a negotiating table and he damn well would drive summit meetings as opposed to being the weak link like Bush is. Dean would be well-respected by other world leaders, because he fits that Clinton-like "Third Way" mold and he appreciates true debate on an issue. Dean isn't perfect, just like none of the others are.

I support Kucinich because of our similar vision, but Dean - and the others - have plenty of great things to offer, as well, in my view.

[jadesfire]

9. Three main reasons

1. For the last few years I have worked for an environmental non-profit on federal forest legislation and having spent the last term with a (totally) anti-environmental administration has been, well, hell. Dean is not nearly as bad as Bush on the environment, he is however, bad. Very bad. He expidited permits for IBM (major campaign contributor) and allowed them to dump tons of pollutants into the river. He fired people from the enviro board who spoke out against the Ski Industry and took many anti-environmental stances that were pro-business. I can go on but i've posted this before so i won't go on.

2. He's arrogant. Whenever he gets a tough question he attacks. We've seen it on stage in the debates, we've seen it on Inside Politics, we've seen it on Chris Matthews, we've seen it in almost every interview he's done. I am tired of having a "shoot-from-the-hip cowboy" in the White House. That is not the attitude or demeanor that will allow us to rebuild relationships in the international arena.

3. Regardless of what ever rational I have heard here, a 100% rating by the NRA scares me. You do not get a 100% rating without taking pro-active steps for the NRA's agenda. Please don't bring up the idea that it is a state-by-state issue because driving from NY to Vermont is not that long of a drive and if you can get an Uzi to sell on the streets for an impressive profit; people will do it.


Basically, his record does not say Progressive to me and his attitude does not make me believe he can rebuild our relationship with the international community.

I have more, but I think that's all I will post now. I am sure there will be plenty of chances for me to comment again when people start picking apart my arguement.

[Killarney]

11. I'm not anti any of the candidates

But I am very strongly anti-Bush. For that reason, I am supporting the candidate that I believe has the strongest chance to beat Bush in the general election. Right now, I think that is Wesley Clark.

If the election looked different than it does right now or if the opponent wasn't as bad as Bush is (say McCain), then maybe I would risk it and support who I thought was the most progressive, etc. but the risk is too high and right now I need to support who has the best chance to beat Bush in the GE because beating Bush is the bigger, greater cause for me right now.

That's why all the little threads about who said what and whose campaign is doing what doesn't affect my opinion. The only thing that will affect my opinion this election year is facts about who can beat Bush in the general election. Sad, maybe, but that's how bad Bush is.

[Ficus]

12. I like Dennis

really I do.

[sandnsea]

13. Dean's not progressive

I'm supporting Kerry because I think his views are closest to Dennis' and he has a real chance of being elected. I think he would take us in a direction that we could all be proud of, environmentalists, families, women, minorities, gays, everybody. I don't have to listen to election year promises that he's changed. His entire record is right there to see, it's consistent and clear. I can't see why any progressive would support Dean or trust him. His record isn't remotely what he's saying now and not only that, he bashes other candidates for supporting the exact same ideas and policies he supported. In most cases, he was further to the right than what Clinton was even. I'll never understand the obsessive need to place every ounce of trust in Howard Dean and Howard Dean alone.

[info being]

18. I agree that Kerry is much more progressive than Dean

But I'm supporting the real thing - DK.

[sandnsea]

28. I'm really glad

I support Dennis as much as possible and will very likely vote for him in my primary, which isn't until May or June. I always forget which. But I am so concerned about the Democratic Party in general that I have to get visibly behind Kerry because I don't think Dean or Clark make sense as true Democratic candidates. Clark may have really changed, I don't know, but I don't understand why we have to take that as gospel anymore than Dean's election year enlightenment. I want the tried and true. DK, JK, even Gephardt, have the strong Democratic records I'm looking for.

[windansea]

14. what I do not understand

Is how anti war progressives can support Dean...Dean will continue US occupation of Iraq for "several years"...DK wants to get out quickly

DK is a true liberal progressive...Dean is practically sitting in Chimpy's lap....Look at their records and positions...or just take a look at this:



http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

86. Here's one from a sight that lists the issues (and isn't British):

Howard Dean




Chimp

[Bombtrack]

15. His pandering to progressives with simpistic red-meat tactics

and buzzwords is in stark contrast to his corporate cozy tenure in Vermont. And there's no ideological bent to the fact that he wouldn't be a strong general election candidate, not nearly as strong as other candidates would.

[info being]

16. non-Dean progressives is redundant

Dean is NOT progressive. He's a moderate.

[flpoljunkie]

19. This non-Dean progressive supports John Kerry.

Simply put, John Kerry's record matches his rhetoric. He has spent a lifetime fighting for the public interest against the special interests.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. Why Kucinich?

Before I heard Kucinich speak, I was leaning toward Howard Dean. I liked the idea of someone claiming, as Paul Wellstone did, to be from "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party." However, I was not satisfied with his positions on the issues, because they seemed too cautious, particularly in the economic realm, which is where the Dems' greatest chance of recapturing the working class vote lies. But I was "realistic," having given up on the possibility of any Democrat being as bold as the Republicans are.

When I first moved to Minneapolis, I knew that eventually all the candidates would show up, so I decided that I would go hear all of them. As luck would have it, Kucinich came through town two weeks after I arrived.

By the time he was ten minutes into his speech, I was in tears. I had never thought that I would live long enough to hear a candidate who didn't just react to the Republican or provide bandaids for the worst injuries they have inflicted--he had a fully-developed alternative vision of a nation that really was kinder and gentler. Every one of his proposals is for the common people, not for the corporations, and he doesn't waste time on the hot button issues. (I'm convinced that if working class people were more economically secure, they wouldn't obsess about guns, gays, and abortion.)

Reading the campaign materials, I also found his life story inspiring. A candidate who rose out of poverty into careers in politics, broadcasting, and business, and who can quote Aristotle without losing the common touch is something you don't find very often.

The following week, I showed up at my first volunteers for Kucinich meeting, and the week after that, I leafletted at the Minnesota State Fair.

Like all Kucinich supporters, I find it immensely frustrating when progressives look at the candidate who was first against the Iraq War, first to suggest cutting the Pentagon budget, first to suggest single-payer healthcare, and first to mention BBV, and say, "I love Dennis, but he can't win."

Here's my frustration with Dean: if he's a progressive, why does he have all those centrist positions? If he's a centrist, why does he play a populist on TV? I find that approach fundamentally dishonest, as if he's trying to remake himself for each audience instead of saying, "Here I am, take it or leave it."

Even if Kucinich doesn't make it through the primary season, I feel that he will have played a valuable role in setting forth a vision of what could be. In that, he reminds me of Robert Kennedy. Howard Dean reminds me of Bill Clinton's negative aspects.

[ulysses]

32. thanks, Lydia!

Much agreed here: (I'm convinced that if working class people were more economically secure, they wouldn't obsess about guns, gays, and abortion.)

and here: Even if Kucinich doesn't make it through the primary season, I feel that he will have played a valuable role in setting forth a vision of what could be.

Thank you.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

61. Kucinich: I'm the only Dem candidate who wants to end the war immediately

Did anybody hear him say that last night after the debate? It was great! Giving Dean a taste of his own medicine...

[ThirdWheelLegend]

78. not exactly like Dean's medicine, Kucinich was telling the truth

:)

TWL

[isbister]

23. I'll try to be brief

I'll try to be brief and only hit upon the bigger issues (for me)

-- I do not like how he misleads the American public for his own political gain. I have watched America swallow bush's misleading ways for years and am astounded that so many Democrats are making the same mistake with Dean. It is one thing to make a mistake or two out on the campaign trail but what he is doing is different.

A) He groups all of the candidates that voted for the IWR together as people that supported the war or voted for war. The candidates have/had different opinions about the war and never had a vote for war yet Dean keeps making these misleading statements.

B) The "No middle class tax cuts" mislead #1. Dean uses facts and figures to support this claim but these are based upon the whole of the bush tax cuts, this is not honest. If the cuts for the wealthy were discontinued, the money could have gone to help those states that faced the worse problems. Bush and the republicans decided not to send money to those states (and to spend it elsewhere).

C) The "No middle class tax cuts" mislead #2. It is also dishonest to spout the facts and figures and then mention

-- I believe he has a record of favoring business over environmental concerns and do not feel he has a "vision" for this country's environmental future. This is not to say that I do not feel he will do a good job on the environment as a whole but I believe it is time for America to do more.

-- He has minimal foreign policy experience. He touts that he called the Iraq war right so he's good at foreign policy. Well, he has basically held the same positions as the other candidates, mine in particular. He believed that there could have been WMD in Iraq, supported getting inspectors in there, and did not agree with the way bush handled it.

-- He's not of Washington DC. In my opinion the next President needs to understand Washington and I do not think we can afford the many gaffes that almost always come when an outsider gets into office. I believe the bush administration has done so much damage to this country, here and abroad, we cannot wait while someone gets their feet wet, the nation does not need to be distracted by travel-gate type of scandals because that sort of thing takes away from the job at hand. Now, just because a candidate has Washington experience doesn't mean that he won't make a mistake but... the liklihood is diminished. As is the case with foreign policy, our next President will need to hit the ground running and there is no time for training and/or feeling one's way around.

-- He's short. Unfortunately, in America today appearance matters and he will not look good standing next to bush who is a taller man. Remember, the talking heads will be pushing the "anti-war" candidate against the pro-war one. More shallow Americans will see the taller, pro-war man as being stronger and the anti-war, shorter man as being weaker. This will lose votes...how many, I don't know but I do know the last election was decided by 537 or so votes.

There's more but I'll leave it at that. Can we do Clark next?

[ulysses]

48. thanks.

I'll let a Clark supporter do Clark.

[bearfartinthewoods]

24. i'm not a friend and maybe not even progressive by your

standard but, today, i removed the sig i had that said 'do you want to be right or do you want the whitehouse back?" because of some of the shit i read in the AA thread from dean people.

AA is a deal breaker for me. i can swallow a lot of centrist stuff but giving up AA is too much.

[Cheswick2.0]

27. Hey, I've heard that before

B-)

[Ficus]

30. i've seen that before

are Dean people just trying to get thier post #s up?

[Cheswick2.0]

31. I'm sure

check my post count. No need for astroturf tricks on my part. :*

[bearfartinthewoods]

42. no, it's them stuffing their fingers in their ears and chanting

neenie noonie na na.

[ulysses]

40. interesting evolution

We really do all have our breaking points, no? Thanks for your candor.

[Cheswick2.0]

47. What changed your mind on AA?

just curious

[Mairead]

26. I reject Dean for the reasons I've repeatedly posted:

his policies --his actual, stated policies, not his speeches or any other handwaving-- can be fairly summed up as 'Bush Lite'. He has NO PLANS to do anything FOR US. Plenty plans to keep the money flowing into the pockets of the wealthy elites and the blood flowing into the sands of Iraq, but no plans to clearly, strongly benefit us.

When he signed the civil-unions law, that was the first I'd ever heard of him and all I really knew at that point was what was in the news. And I thought 'WOW! This guy is gutsy!' I was totally disposed to favor him. But then I heard more, and more, and more. And with each new increment, my positive feelings about him deflated.

Kucinich, on the other hand, first came to my attention when someone forwarded a copy of his 'Prayer' speech to a list for technical women. I read the speech and went mad--he was speaking FOR MEEEEEE! I bee-lined for his congressional website and found...ISSUES! None of the fluff-and-nonsense of most congresscritter sites (Kerry's and Kennedy's are egregious examples), but solid ISSUES! It was wonderful. Only his anti-Choice position curdled my milk, and I told him that in clear and unmistakable language when I mailed him begging him to stand for election (as it happens, he was already in the process of rethinking, but I didn't know that).

A year later, he declared. And now it's yet another 11 months later and -try as I will- I can find no reason to support Dean (or even take a neutral position wrt him) and no reason not to go on strongly supporting Kucinich.

So that's where I'm at, and why.

[ulysses]

35. again, fair enough

Thanks, Mairead.

[rdfi-defi]

29. thank you for asking this ?, i will offer my $.02

the first issue i looked into was healthcare. while dean's plan will cover more people, comendable but it won't change the fundemental problems that need to be addressed (insurance/for-profit). the idea of setting up a federal fund to augment overpriced health insurance is a disaster waiting to happen. the fund is still tax payer money causing most people to pay for insurance twice. i want health care not insurance.

the prominent issue in the US is the war. i don't want to flame but dean is not against the war in iraq. he wanted to wait, i assume to give the un inspectors more time. but we know now (and then) that they were not going to find anything to justify the war. what would dean do with no proof and a whole lot of pressure from special interests to invade anyway? our current forien policy is going to make regular americans targets for terrorists, i don't want americans, or people of other states, to be targets for fundamentalists and facist terrorists.

civil liberties is an issue that does not get enough attention or debate. dean's inabillity/unwillingness to say he would repeal the patriot act leaves me wondering how vigorously he would protect our rights.

nafta/wto is bad news for the working class in the US. all the candidates say they want to protect US jobs, but the only real way to begin that process is to can these "free" trade agreements. this will also help the illegal imigration problem in the south west.

i support the reinstitution of human rights in all areas. if you say you are for "civil unions" but not "gay marrige" i consider it a cop out.

i hope this short statement satisfies your curiosity

[ulysses]

37. you're welcome, and thanks in return.

:)

[Iverson]

33. You know what I think.

I strongly prefer to vote for a representative that somewhat represents my interests, or at least isn't hostile to them. I want to know who the Green nominee will be before I decide who to support, and I also find Kucinich very respectable. Other Democratic candidates have some good qualities too, but my enthusiasm for them diminishes rapidly after Kucinich.

[ulysses]

38. LOL - yeah, I suspect that I do.

:D Thanks, Iverson.

[Red_Storm]

36. Kucinich.........the best choice...........

[Gretchen]

39. working class issues

I think Kucinich is more committed to solving problems facing the working people of this country. I am very much in support of a single payer plan on health care. I like that Dennis is against the WTO and NAFTA and is very pro-labor. I like that Dennis is in support of a national pre-school plan. I feel Kucinich will be opposed to future wars not just Iraq. Dean is no Dove. I like that DK has a plan to get us out of Iraq.

Dean often comes off to me as a privileged smug Park Avenue guy.

With working class issues in mind, my second choices would be Gephardt and then Edwards.

[ulysses]

43. good points regarding DK

:thumbsup:

[ulysses]

41. sorry for the preponderance of "fairenoughthankyou" replies

My point in the thread was my own selfish edification, and besides, it would take more time than I have to reply in-depth to everything.

And, again, thank you - even to sangh0 and blm (and Bombtrack) for their consistency. :D

[xultar]

44. I'm not Ant-Dean I will admit that

most of my feelings of dislike for Dean were due to conversations I've had with some Dean supporters.

Though Dean has been running for over a year now I didn't know about him until after I'd found out about Clark.

I no nothing about the DLC/DNC crap. From my perspective and many of the folks in my family and the Black folks I hang out with...that's something for the White people to fight about.

The DNC nor the DLC seem to have it together where African Americans are concerned.

I'm a progressive, I'm 3X years old I have a 2yr old 4br home, I'm single, I have a car, and a good Job. I have 4 cats and a chihuahua. I'd love to get married and have children. I've been to college, I've had my fun. Now I am looking @ things differently. I care for the environment, I am anti-war but I swear if someone attacks the US again I'm personally gonna go bust the purportrators heads (not some insignificant arab country with a nutty president)

I've dated Black, White, Italian, American Indian, Moroccan, Jewish, and a guy from Thailand. Not to mention the Gay men that were in the closet. (That is a different post)

I'm angry with how things are. But I've learned that anger isn't always the best way to solve problems. Dean scares me because he's too overtly angry. I don't want to be the party of foaming @ the mouth liberals. I want a party that people can embrace and that embrases people.

Sometimes when I talk to the Dean supporters I get the feeling that I'm back in my college days talking to some of my friends. That's fine but I'm not in college. My friends have grown up as well. I have more wisdom under my belt now.

I like the spirit, I just wish they would understand like I have had to learn. You need to learn to Finesse the Passion. That is where success is won or lost. How you handle your passion.

[ulysses]

46. can't help myself.

I *really* don't want this to become an argument thread, but I have to say that trying to finesse things like passion is, imho, largely what's led us to our current pass.

[xultar]

59. I didn't say finesse the passion into a coma nt

[ulysses]

64. yet that's what's happened.

With focus groups, polling, the fixation on money, that's exactly what's happened. An excess of passion isn't exactly our problem these days. An excess of wonkery and tea-leaf-reading, at the expense of real issues, is.

Dean may not be the overall cure, but we damned well need to work toward what is.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

45. Dean will hurt the progressive cause

If Dean loses, it will be blamed on the progressives, liberals and activists - even though Dean is none of those.

If Dean is nominated, his inevitable "swing to the right" - where he's always been - is going to disilluion a whole new generation of activists - some of whom honestly have no idea how right-wing Dean is on many issues (especially economics and corporations).

IMO: Either we vote for a true progressive - Kucinich - come what may, OR we suck it up and vote for a Bush-Lite with a decent chance of winning - that could be Dean maybe, if he wasn't pretending to be liberal.

[Tatiana]

53. You raise some good points WCTV.

Never really thought about it that way before.

But you're right. If Dean is the nominee and he loses against Bush, the headlines will read "Liberals Out of Touch With America," even though Dean really isn't a liberal or progressive.

[blm]

58. And why waste progressive energy and mock our own values

by leaping off a cliff with the furthest right of all the candidates?

WCTV, you should elaborate and post a thread on that point.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

65. You've got it - we are mocking our own values. We look like hypocrites.

What I've gotten from Republicans is "So you Democrats now think the Confederate Flag is ok huh?" among other things. Since I live in a very Republican area and I'm one of the few Dems here - I've gotten all kinds of flak about that.... It really pisses me off.

[DemBones DemBones]

73. You are so right -- and he'll hurt the Democratic Party as a whole,

as well. To me, the very worst thing that we can do is to nominate Dean.

Dean supporters need to be honest with themselves over this. I know it's hard to break up with someone you love. But it has to be done when you fall in love with the wrong person, when you fall in love with a person and then realize that he (or she) would make you feel good for a short time but would then betray you and make you miserable, possibly making it too late for you to find real love again.

Dean looked good for a time. I think we all thought so. I know I did, though not for long, and he was never my first choice because, just like Mairead, I was so impressed by DK's speech "A Prayer for America," that I checked out his Congressional website, concluding that THIS was a man I could really support if he'd run for president.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

80. "Dean looked good for a time." "I know I did, though not for long"

Almost exactly the way it happened for me.

I posted the full synopsis below

TWL

[Leftist78]

49. I've done some candidate hopping

trying to find someone who closely represented my progressive views, and who also had a chance of being the nominee, but the truth is, there isn't one. Dean is not progressive and no amount of rhetoric will make him progressive. His record is particularly bad on economic issues. I've supported him in the past, and I still will if he gets the nomination, but I've decided that I'm not going to compromise my views in the primary.

I'm sick of saying to myself, "well, I agree with candidate A about this, but I agree with candidate B about this so which position do I feel like compromising?" DK is right on basically every issue, and I'm sick of all the back and forth among the top tier guys. So next month I'll be voting for Kucinich.

After it's all over and we have a nominee, I'll get behind whoever that person is (unless by some terrible twist of fate that person is Lieberman), but I'm going with the person who most closely represents me in the primary.

[no name no slogan]

52. Dean's to "Clintonesque" for my tastes

Clinton resounded with voters in 1992 who were looking for a change from the Bush status quo. We knew he was a centrist, but he was saying the right things on the right issues (universal healthcare, gay rights, etc.) and we trusted that he'd stand up for these when he got elected.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen. After his half-hearted attempt at "healthcare reform" (which is VERY VERY similar to the plan Dean has-- and which would consolidate the coverage major insurance cos. have over our healthcare system), his "don't ask, don't tell" military policy and his militant pro-NAFTA stance, I began to have my doubts.

However, the nail in the coffin was his championing of "welfare reform", which has done more to hurt poor people in this country than almost anything else in the last quarter century. I voted third party for him in 1996 because of this, although it probably didn't matter much as I live in a solid blue state.

Dean is too much like Clinton in so many ways. He talks the talk well, but his actual record speaks otherwise. He seems like he's all too willing to accept compromise because it would be "unrealistic" to stand up and fight for what we really want.

And, if Dean won the GE, would our progressive agenda REALLY get passed?

* Dean has already said he's against universal single-payer health coverage, and would only sign it if it came across his desk.

* He has not said a word about the continuing "war on drugs"-- other than he'd call for "more studies" on medicinal marijuana.

* He would not get us out of NAFTA and the WTO; he'd only try to "fix them".

* He would not sign on to the Kyoto Protocols as they exist today-- although every other industrialized nation has signed them.

* He would not cut the bloated Pentagon budget. He would not stand up against the militarization of space. Nor would he not rule out the use of pre-emptive force overseas.

* He would not make GLBT rights a national human-rights issue. Instead, he'd leave that to the states-- just like we did with racial discrimination in the south after Reconstruction.

I guess it comes down to three simple words: DEEDS NOT WORDS. ANYBODY can say they oppose this, or support this, but it's their RECORD that really counts, IMHO.

Not that I'd rule out voting for Dean. If he gets the nomination, I'd still vote for him, and encourage others to do so. However, I don't think I'd send him money (he's got plenty, and he'll get more as the rich backers hop on board) or work on his campaign.

Please don't take this as a flame, because I sincerely appreciate your question. You obviously have put a lot of thought into it, and you definately value dialogue and differences of opinion.

I wish we had more threads like this on DU these days! :sigh:

[ulysses]

60. while Dean doesn't have the same Clintonesque ring for me

I understand and appreciate your points. As I've said before, it's a crapshoot all round - Dean, if he wins, won't be anything like a progressive magic bullet. I understand that.

And he may turn out to be another Clinton. Most of them may.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

54. I'm for Clark or Kerry. They can beat Bush, Dean's too conservative.

There are 3 things that Dean is weak on that are very important to me:

The Environment (he's not for the Kyoto Treaty) and has a record of being pro-development and anit-envirnment, the Death Penalty, Mental Health, criminal justice and drug policy.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

55. Whay would a Progressive be for Dean? Just because of his demeanor?

Don't you look at someone's reocrd.

[curse10]

56. I think of myself as a far-left progressive

and I never would consider Dean.

Some of his stances- like states rights on many issues- scream of federalism.

His position on guns and the death penalty are deal breakers for me.

His economic and education plans are just not up to snuff in comparison with the 8 other candidates.

And, in my heart, I don't feel that he's liberal. It's a gut feeling, but sometimes that's what we have to go on.

[kerryistheanswer]

57. I'm a progressive and support John Kerry

[QC]

62. Which kind of prpgressives are you talking about?

The old-style working-class ones, or the newfangled "let's have an organic soymilk latté and talk about Mumia" types?

I'm one of the former, and I have doubts about Dean based on his own background coupled with his eagerness to cater to corporations. As my Bobby Kennedy avatar makes clear, I don't think that all rich people are necessarily bad for the rest of us, but for every Bobby Kennedy there are 1,000 George W. Bushes, and while I don't think Dean is a George W. Bush, neither do I think he is a Bobby Kennedy.

Maybe I'm a crank, but I get tired of being asked to choose between two aristocrats every time there's an election and I think it might be good to have a president who knows what it's like to lie awake wondering how he's going to pay the bills.

[ulysses]

67. I don't tend to make that distinction.

I don't think that Dean is Bobby Kennedy either.

Maybe I'm a crank, but I get tired of being asked to choose between two aristocrats every time there's an election and I think it might be good to have a president who knows what it's like to lie awake wondering how he's going to pay the bills.

Much agreed. We won't have that this time round. More for which to strive.

[DemBones DemBones]

75. I disagree. We could "have that" -- a president who knows

what it's like to lie awake wondering how he's going to pay the bills" -- and a real FDR-style progressive, if we go with Kucinich.

THE DARK HORSE COMETH KUCINICH 2004

[JohnKleeb]

63. Well ya see

You kinda sum it up for me, DK is more progressive than Dean and I do sorta distrust his DLC past. It will be hard for me to convince you to switch but I really think DK is a great candiate and has stellar views on the issues. BTW thanks for being civil through out the thread.

[ulysses]

66. I have no problem at all

with DK or with anyone's support for him, John. He's undeniably more progressive than Dean, and is my natural choice.

I'll leave the reasons I'm not supporting him in the primaries for other threads in light of my aim in this one. Thanks!

[JohnKleeb]

69. It'd be nice if we could have ya man

I tell you, I dont expect to win Iowa but I expect a pleasant suprise.

[LWolf]

76. Several reasons.

I don't think he is progressive. When I look at his record in VT, and his platform now, it screams centrist to me; if not even to the right of the center. Since I want a progressive candidate, he is automatically off the list.

I have other problems with him; negative campaign tactics, negatively energetic campaign, and questions of trust, but they are beside the point; he doesn't fit my perspective on the issues. I like both Edwards and Kerry better than Dean; I even like Clark better on many issues.

And Dennis Kucinich leaves them all in the dust, IMO. ;-)

[ThirdWheelLegend]

79. My story on Dean and Kucinich...(longish)

I have been on DU a while, I don't know how long, I lurked for a while and then I registered. I was around when candidates started to 'appear'.

Dean enamored me right off the bat!(pun intended :))

I though "Awesome a liberal doctor from Vermont, he should be great!" I loved his defiance against the status quo.(only later to find out it is mostly rhetoric)

Kucinich became my candidate as soon as I read the "Prayer for America" speech in mid February 2002. As DBDB said, I read that and the first thought I had was "OH MAN, I wish someone like Kucinich would run for President, he is saying exactly what WE believe in!" I was so excited but held it in because Dennis K. was not a candidate yet. When Kucinich was drafted to run I then had my new number one choice. Not because Dean had soured on me yet, but because Dennis K. was the ONE. Dean's rhetoric was good, but it did not come close to the pure passion and integrity that Kucinich displayed on the issues.

At that point if anyone is able to find them in the archives you will find my posts where I declared my dream ticket to be Dean/Kucinich or Kucinich/Dean.

Dean first started to sour on me after Kucinich called him on his SS age thoughts. It probably wouldn't have been so bad if Dean hadn't lied and said he never said it then quietly admitted it the next day. Of course there are other misleading statements that Dean has made, but I will not address them all. Add to that that Dean's policies, once I learned of them, are actually far to the right of what I believe is progressive. Dean's positions on NAFTA, the Patriot Act, continued illegal occupation of Iraq, death penalty, corporations, not full UHC, etc. are the reasons Dean began to drop from my choices.

To sum it up: I would definitely say that Dean's misleading statements on the other candidates' positions, which I believe were intended for personal political gain, are a part of why I do not support Dean. But as others have said on this thread, it is Dean's actual record and policies that I find nothing progressive about.


here is a link to the Prayer for America speech:
http://www.kucinich.us/speeches/speech1.htm


Thanks,
TWL

[foo_bar]

81. out of the frying pan, into the fire?

Dean's against all the right people: McAuliffe, Carville, New Labour, even Bush I assume. Twelve years ago, that would've been enough to make me a frothy "Dean supporter" instead of a Nader '92 campaigner (Nader ran as a Demo in my state's primary; I was ABB by the time Clinton rolled around).

Since it isn't twelve years ago, I'm less sanguine on "throw the bums out" as a raison d'etre, especially when it's our bums we're throwing out. It's not a question of centrism or lack thereof, it's the scorched earth campaign that leaves us a Hobson's choice between a minority party and two minority parties. You're supposed to clean house at the DNC after you're elected; by making it a campaign issue in the primary (a la "my supporters are non-transferable"), you sell everyone down the river for your 15 minutes of ignomy. In terms of the payoff matrix, a Dean victory wouldn't be terribly different from a Clark-Kerry-Edwards administration, whereas a Dean loss will take a generation of Congress with it. But I've always been a Chicken Little.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

83. As you said

"In terms of the payoff matrix, a Dean victory wouldn't be terribly different from a Clark-Kerry-Edwards administration, whereas a Dean loss will take a generation of Congress with it."

That's my nightmare scenario, too.

[John_H]

84. I hate to break the easy formula but I supported Dean because

My suspicion is that you'd like people to say that Dean is not progressive enough for them, a sellout, etc.

I agree, generally, but not for the simple black is white reasons you may suspect.

I thought, from his record as Governor, Dean saw the world as I did: A dyed in the wool progressive who also understood that in the real world you need to get elected to fight the bad guys. In Vermont Dean gave away enough to the special interests to make them beholden to him on his progressive agenda. He raised money from the NRA? So fucking what. He got the NRA to go along with him on making a bunch of land wildlife refuges.

And this horse trading, anyone with experience in politics knows, has a lentghy track record of success from TR to LBJ--LBJ gave Brown and Root (run, like recently, by a rabid racist) anything they wanted as far as oil went, but shut them up when he needed to pass the Voting Rights Act.)

If this is how Dean campaigned for the nomination, I'd probably still be a Dean supporter, although with grave doubts as to his electability in 2004 America. Until Clark got in I thought Dean was as electable as anyone else, that we'd probably lose, but at least I'd go down supporting a guy who's philosophy I supported.

The way he has obfuscated his record in this campaign and pandered to the groups Trippi thinks wil get him the nomination has not only convinced me of his unelectability in the general election, but has raised serious doubts about his progressiveness.

The Howard Dean I see every day on the news is obviously not the guy who governed Vermont. Was the howard Dean who governed Vermont the real Howard Dean? Or is the Real Howard Dean a guy who loves power and will change his convictions to meet the electoral needs of the moment.

The media was wrong when they said that about Gore (except on abortion) But I've NEVER--in 28 races I worked on, from state senator to president--seen a guy go out of his way to obfuscate his record as much as Howard Dean has.

[Eloriel]

87. Just one comment

Ulysses -- like you, I can't help myself from commenting.

Having read this whole thread, the one thing that occurs to me (as it always does whenever I see most of these "progressive" arguments against Dean) is that the candidate they think they're critiquing is basically a figment of their imaginations -- or SOMEone's imagination -- that they adopted. It gives me a bad case of cognitive dissonance. They've apparently read or heard distortions about Dean's record, apparently accpet them whole-cloth and pretty damn uncritically, and then go on to parrot them. Sufficeth it to say, the candidate they describe bears no resemblance to the one I support.

I could go on and on, but I'll leave it at that.

Eloriel

[John_H]

88. the candidate they describe bears no resemblance to the one I support

This is the understatement of the year.

Dean's "unspun" record is out there for all to see (much to his chagrin, apparently), for each to judge.

Does Governor Dean resemble the Candidate Dean?

I'm sure comfortable with everyone in America taking the effort to see for themselves. Are you?