grassroots (People Powered Howard)
Final 2nd Quarter People-Powered Howard Report: $7.6 Million Raised
Howard Dean today announced that 73,226 Americans joined together to raise over $7.6 million for the Dean for America campaign in the second filing quarter which ended on June 30. A total of 83,041 individuals have contributed to the campaign overall.
"This campaign is about bringing people back into a political process that for too long has been dominated by Washington insiders out of touch with real Americans,? said Dean. ?Behind each of these contributions are the stories of Americans who want to take their country back, and they are making a huge difference."
Fundraising Facts:
Of the 83,041 donors overall, only 891 have maxed out, enabling over 82,000 of them to continue to contribute funds to the campaign in the future.
The average donation to the campaign was $88.11, demonstrating that Americans are participating directly in their democracy, giving what they can to reclaim their government.
Over 62,000 donors gave for the first time to Dean for America this quarter, demonstrating the momentum and growth of the campaign.
?
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000691.htmlDean Raises $7.5 Million in Second Quarter (rough report)
In the second quarter ending yesterday, 59,000 Americans donated an average of $112 to help boost Governor Howard Dean to the top of the second quarter fundraisers with a total of $7.5 million raised.
Unlike the small, exclusive multi-million dollar fundraisers held in major cities by President Bush over the last week, the Dean campaign saw its numbers surge based on small donations over the Internet?with nearly $3 million raised online in the last week alone. In the second quarter, 45,030 people donated online a total of 51,474 times. The average donation online was $74.14.
?When we said last week during the governor?s announcement that ?You have the power,? we had no idea just how much power our supporters had,? said Campaign Manager Joe Trippi. ?They are people participating directly in their democracy, and doing whatever they can to help us take our country back?giving $20, $30, or $50. This is People-Powered Howard.?
Second quarter fundraising by the numbers:
Total raised in second quarter: $7,500,000 Total donors (2003 to date): 70,000
Average contribution: $112
First time donors in second quarter: 48,000
Levels of Internet Giving:
Less than $50: 18,422
$50 -- 99: 11,579
$100 -- $249: 11,436
$250 -- $499: 2,379
$500 -- $1,000: 368
$1,000 and up: 129
?
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000584.htmlHoward Dean's trick by Mark Shields
WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- The reaction of the Democratic Party establishment to former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's raising more money during the second quarter of the year than any of his eight rivals for the party's presidential nomination reminds me of the legendary Theodore White's memorable report of the scene in the Boston Garden during John F. Kennedy's last campaign rally on the eve of the 1960 presidential election.
JFK, according to White, was surrounded on the stage by a " covey of the puffy, pink-faced, predatory-lipped politicians who had so dominated Massachusetts politics before he had taken over." Noting their "envious faces" as the candidate spoke, Richard Donahue, a Kennedy aide observed: "You know they can't understand this. They think he has a trick. They're listening to him because they think if they learn the trick, they can be president, too."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/07/column.shields.opinion.dean/http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000634.html4,000 Get Local Events, 112,000 Meetup Volunteers, 3500 Dean Wireless Members
We passed three milestones in the past twenty four hours -- over 3,500 people are now signed up for Dean Wireless, over 112,000 people have now joined Dean Meetups, and over 4,000 events have been planned on the Get Local webpages in the 14 weeks since we launched the ability to plan your own events.
A few months ago, this level of grassroots driven political activity was implausible to most people. You're incredible.
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/001463.htmlDeanLink 10,000 Strong
The grassroots just love DeanLink. Already more than 10,000 of you have joined and started finding other Dean supporters near you.
DeanLink is our new tool to help the grassroots organize. You can instantly connect with other supporters. Features include: a profile for your interests and skills, sending and receiving messages, and integration with the Get Local! tools and your Team Leader fundraising efforts.
Your Blog for America regulars are all there: Mathew Gross is on DeanLink. Zephyr is on DeanLink. Webmaster Nicco is on DeanLink. Are you?
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/001431.htmlDean Scene (Photo: Falls Church, VA rally)
http://www.fcnp.com/325/story4.htmGeorge Bush's lack of credibility
Dean Says Those Who Misled Nation Should Resign
Click here to add your name to a petition demanding that those responsible for misleading the American people resign. Let others know about the petition by telling them about this link:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/truthManchester, NH -- Governor Howard Dean issued the following statement today:
"Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's statement yesterday -- that he only found out that the Niger documents were forgeries -- ?within recent days? was stunning.
"What is now clear is that there are those in this administration that misled the President, misled the nation, and misled the world in making the case for the war in Iraq.
"They know who they are. And they should resign today.
"There will be investigations, and the truth will come out - the American people must know the truth - and those in this administration must be held accountable for their failure to give us the truth before we went to war.
"But we do not need to wait for the investigations to rid these people from our government - they can resign on their own today.
"I am now convinced more than ever that it was a mistake to have given this administration a blank check to engage in this war - as too many in Congress did when they supported the Iraqi war resolution."
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000651.html26,376 People have Signed the Truth Petition
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000660.htmlDean Criticizes Bush for Reckless Rhetoric
IOWA CITY, IA??Today, President Bush provoked Iraqi militants targeting our soldiers in Iraq, saying ?Bring them on.? This was incredibly reckless rhetoric.
?These men and women are risking their lives every day, and the President who sent them on this mission showed tremendous insensitivity to the dangers they face. This is the wrong message to send to our troops in the field and their families who wish them a safe return. President Bush should focus on encouraging the keeping of the peace, since that is now our mission.?
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000595.htmleconomics
Rebuilding America's Economy
The economic policies of the Bush Administration are misguided, unfair, and unsuccessful.
They fail to meet the basic standard of economic justice: decent, well-paying jobs for all who want them. They are policies that have created a legacy of debt for future generations. Huge tax cuts that benefit the wealthy are starving essential government services like education and homeland security and forcing states and local governments to increase sales, income, and property taxes. While America?s wealthiest individuals -- those in the top 2 percent of income brackets -- receive the bulk of the tax cuts, America?s middle class is left behind.
Since this Administration took office, nearly three million Americans have seen their jobs disappear. The unemployment rate has risen to over 6%. Nine million people are unemployed, and countless more have joined the ranks of discouraged workers and dropped out of the labor market entirely. Millions of Americans, from young people just out of school, to others who are the victims of massive layoffs, are underemployed in jobs that fail to take advantage of their talents or reward their reasonable expectations. Too many of our fellow citizens are laboring at subsistence-pay levels without benefits or prospects of advancement.
Month after month, for nearly three years, manufacturers have fired more workers than they hired, and the world-class manufacturing sector that has been the heart of America?s strength continues to shrink.
Meanwhile, the federal budget deficit now estimated to be more than $450 billion this year soars out of control, with no relief in sight. The Bush Administration philosophy has become ?borrow and spend? and let our children and grandchildren pick up the pieces.
But the truth is that this Administration?s economic agenda is about far more than budgets and deficits. The ideologues gathered around the President have a more ambitious goal -- to repeal the progressive legacy of the twentieth century. They want to return to a time when private wealth was insulated from the graduated income tax, and the many labored for the benefit of the few. They would ignore the widening gap between rich and poor, shred the safety nets that provide at least some protection for the unfortunate, and dismantle the safeguards that protect consumers and workers alike.
I believe we must take drastic actions to repair the damage that this President is inflicting on our economy.
As Governor for more than 10 years, I guided the Vermont economy through two Bush recessions. Despite economic uncertainty, I was able to reduce taxes, maintain a balanced budget, expand health care, and increase funding for education.
My economic policies for America are based on four fundamentals:
Repeal the Bush tax cuts, and use those funds to pay for universal health care, homeland security, and investments in job creation that benefit all Americans.
Set the nation on the path to a balanced budget, recognizing that we cannot have social or economic justice without a sound fiscal foundation.
Create a fairer and simpler system of taxation.
Assure that Social Security and Medicare are adequately funded to meet the needs of the next generation of retirees.
I know what it takes to generate economic growth. As President, I will work tirelessly to put the American economy back on the road to prosperity not just for the favored few, but for all.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_economytrade (pro-fair trade)
?
While U.S. unemployment improved in June, Dean said it?s still at a nine-year high and ignores the underemployed, which he pegged at 6 percent.
?These are people who had $50,000 good jobs and now they are making $25,000 or $30,000, and they have two of them, in some cases,? Dean said. ?I am tired of having an economy where our best jobs are shifted elsewhere in the world.??
Dean fans made up a thick portion of the crowd, often turning Dean?s 25-minute stump speech into a rally of revival proportions with interrupted calls of ?amen?? and ?yes, yes.??
?
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/Main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=377&ArticleID=85948http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=11856&mesg_id=11856http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=124665&mesg_id=124665?
HOWARD DEAN: No. What I said-- Well, I'll tell you what I said in a minute. But I'll follow my train of thought here, most briefly. Free trade has benefited Vermont a great deal. Here's the problem with free trade, and here's why I support fair trade, and why I want to change all our trade agreements to include human rights with trade, as Jimmy Carter included human rights with foreign policy. I still think NAFTA was a good thing. I think the president did the right thing. But the problem now is that, 10 years into NAFTA, here's what we've done. We have shipped a lot of our industrial capacity to other countries. And the ownership pattern, and the ratio of reward between capital and labor in those other countries is what it was 100 years ago in this country.
So the reason for NAFTA is not just trade. It's defense and foreign policy. That is, a middle class country where women fully participate in the economic and political decision making of that country is a country that doesn't harbor groups like Al-Qaeda, and it's a country that does not go to war. So that's in our intersect. That's why trade is really in our long term interest. What we've done so far in NAFTA is we've transferred industrial capacity, but we haven't transferred any of the elements that are needed to make a middle class. The truth is, the trade union movement in this country built America, not literally-- Well, they did do it literally with the Brooklyn Bridge and the Empire State Building, and things like that. But they built America because they allowed people who worked in factories and mines to become middle class people. And America was the strongest country on earth, and still is, because we have the largest middle class on earth, with democratic ideals. That is, working people in this country, by and large, feel that this is their country, and they have a piece of the pie, and it matters what they think.
Now, if you want trade to succeed, ultimately, we're going to have to create a climate in other countries that are beneficiaries of NAFTA where they can create a middle class with democratic ideals. That means we should not have any free trade agreements, and we should go back and tell the WTO that "you need also to include environmental standards and labor standards." Here's why. Today, if you run a factory in Iowa-- Let's suppose you spend a million dollars a year disposing of all the waste products that come out that are toxic. You can go to another country and dump all that stuff in the river and on the ground. So America, because we have environmental standards, and we're willing to trade, straight out, free trade, with countries that it's cheaper by a million dollars, before you even get to wages, to do business there, I think that's a big problem. We're essentially saying, "Our environmental laws are strict. It's cheaper for you to go into business someplace lese. Go ahead." That's the wrong thing to do.
The same with labor standards. I don't know why we should be shipping our jobs offshore when kids can work 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for a small amount of wages. And isn't that what America fought against 100 years go? Wasn't that the victory of the trade union movement? So it seems to me that my position makes sense. We've gone through 10 years of free trade. We've gotten to a position where we now need to change our trade agreements.
?
HOWARD DEAN: What I would say is, we've gone the first mile. The first decade has worked, for exactly the reasons you say. I don't disagree with the premise of the free traders. I had this discussion with Bob Rubin, and I said, "Here's the problem. We need an emerging middle class in these countries, and we're not getting one. So now is the time to have labor and environmental standards attached to trade agreements." He said, "You're totally wrong. I can't disagree with you more." I said, "How would you address the problem?" I haven't heard back. You have to deal with this problem. It's a serious problem.
JOE KLEIN: What if they say no?
HOWARD DEAN: Then I'd say, "Fine, that's the end of free trade."
JOE KLEIN: What do you mean, that's the end of free trade? Then we slap tariffs on these countries?
HOWARD DEAN: Yes.
JOE KLEIN: So you'd be in favor of tariffs at that point.
HOWARD DEAN: If necessary. Look, Jimmy Carter did this in foreign policy. If you can't get people to observe human rights, and say that we're going to accept products from countries that have kids working no overtime, no time and a half, no reasonable safety precautions-- I don't think we ought to be buying those kinds of products in this country. We're enabling that to happen. I'm serious.
?
http://www.jfklibrary.org/forum_dean.htmlhttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=46131&mesg_id=46131&page=health care
?
For a year now, I have been traveling this country advocating a repeal of Bush's tax cuts so that we can provide universal healthcare and restore fiscal discipline. Many have questioned the political wisdom of challenging the president on politically popular tax cuts.
I believe, however, that given a choice between having health insurance or keeping all of the Bush's tax cuts in place, most Americans will choose health insurance. My plan will cost $88.3 billion -- less than half of the president's tax cut -- with money left over to pay down the deficits run up by this administration.
My plan consists of four major components.
First, and most important, in order to extend health coverage to every uninsured child and young adult up to age 25, we'll redefine and expand two essential federal and state programs -- Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Right now, they only offer coverage to children from lower-income families. Under my plan, we cover all kids and young adults up to age 25 -- middle income as well as lower income. This aspect of my plan will give 11.5 million more kids and young adults access to the healthcare they need.
Second, we'll give a leg up to working families struggling to afford health insurance. Adults earning up to 185% of the poverty level -- $16,613 -- will be eligible for coverage through the already existing Children Health Insurance Program. By doing this, an additional 11.8 million people will have access to the care they need.
Many working families have incomes that put them beyond the help offered by government programs. But this doesn't mean they have viable options for healthcare. We'll establish an affordable health insurance plan people can buy into, providing coverage nearly identical to what members of Congress and federal employees receive.
To cushion the costs, we'll also offer a significant tax credit to those with high premium costs. By offering this help, another 5.5 million adults will have access to care.
Third, we need to recognize that one key to a healthy America is making healthcare affordable to small businesses.We shouldn't turn our back on the employer-based system we have now, but neither should we simply throw money at it. We need to modernize the system so employers will have an option beyond passing rising costs on to workers or bailing out of the system entirely. Fortunately, we have a model of efficient, affordable and user-friendly healthcare coverage: the federal employee health system.
With the plan I've put forth to the American people, we'll organize a system nearly identical to the one federal workers and members of Congress enjoy. And we'll enable all employers with less than 50 workers to join it at rates lower than are currently available to these companies -- provided they insure their work force. I'll also offer employers a deal: The federal government will pick up 70% of COBRA premiums for employees transitioning out of their jobs, but we'll expect employers to pay the cost of extending coverage for an additional two months. These two months are often the difference between workers finding the health coverage they need, or joining the ranks of the uninsured.
Finally, to ensure that the maximum number of American men, women and children have access to healthcare, we must address corporate responsibility. There are many corporations that could provide healthcare to their employees but choose not to. The final element of this plan is a clear, strong message to corporate America that providing health coverage is fundamental to being a good corporate citizen. I look at business tax deductions as part of a compact between American taxpayers and corporate America. We give businesses certain benefits, and expect them to live up to certain responsibilities.
?
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_healthThe plan will cost an estimated, "$88.3 billion". This is paid for from some of the money saved by repealing Bush's tax cuts.
The Dean proposal expands Medicaid and CHIP to ages 25 and under. CHIP is expanded to adults earning up to "185% of the poverty level" (currently, $16,613).
For the "capitalist" half of the Dean plan: Folks with high health premium costs recived "a significant tax credit" to cushion the costs. The current "employer-based system" in use now will be modernized by upgrading it to the same healthcare coverage that "federal workers and members of Congress" have available to them.
Small buisnesses of less than 50 workers get lower rates than their larger competitors. Employers pick up the tab for 2 months in between jobs, but the costs of the COBRA premiums for those 2 months are subsidized, at 70%, by the federal government for employers. Corporations will receive "business tax deductions" as an incentive for supplying health care to their employees.
social security
?
The actions of this President and this administration are threatening the soundness of our Social Security system and of our private pension systems as well. By creating the largest deficits in history and adding irresponsibly to the federal debt, he has given Americans worried about their retirement even more cause for concern.
As President, I will be committed to preserving the integrity and long-term stability of the Social Security Trust Fund. I will oppose privatizing the Social Security System. And I will pursue a responsible economic agenda, and under my plan we will never have to consider raising the retirement age.
The long-term future of Social Security and financial security for all of us in our retirement years depends on ensuring a healthy rate of economic growth over the next several decades. Even a modest increase in long-term growth rates will ease the burden on the Social Security Trust Fund. If we do need to bring more money into Social Security, then I'm prepared to look at reasonable options for expanding the ceiling on payroll taxes.
The best guarantee for our Social Security, therefore, is an economic plan with three basic principles:
First, we must create economic growth and jobs new jobs, more jobs, and better jobs for Americans;
Second, we must return to fiscal sanity, for the sake of future generations, yes but also for the sake of our very national security. We cannot be a world-class country if we are the world's largest debtor;
Finally, we must reform our tax system. When I am President, I will work to repeal the top heavy Bush tax cuts, and replace them with a system that is fairer, and simpler, and places less of a burden on working Americans who live off their paychecks.
?
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7343education
Action for Day 4: Sign the Petition Against "No School Board Left Standing"
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/001348.htmlTeacher Salary: Ranked #24 Vermont $36,053
Ranked #2 Vermont with 13.7 students per teacher
http://homeplans.hsh.com/articles/education/edu-rank.aspIraq invasion
LiberalOasis: What do you think were the motivations for the Bush Administration to go to war with Iraq?
Howard Dean: I can't speak to his motives, because I can't read his mind.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, though, and presume that he believes Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to our security.
I happen to disagree with that; I think we had Saddam pretty well contained. My problem with the war in Iraq isn't with motivation; it's with justification.
I don't believe the President was able to show that Iraq was an imminent threat to our security; his whole rationale for using force was based on the idea that they might be a danger to the United States at some point in the future.
Frankly, I've never understood why he was concentrating on Iraq, which had been successfully contained for twelve years, while every day a country like North Korea develops its nuclear capability.
?
Liberal Oasis: You've taken some flak for saying, following the downfall of Saddam Hussein, "I suppose that's a good thing.?
USA Today's Walter Shapiro said it was an "off-key note" and "even Democrats who doubt the strategic wisdom of the war have to agree that Saddam's ouster was unquestionably a good thing."
Senator Evan Bayh said in response, "equivocating about whether Saddam's departure is a good thing or not doesn't help the Democratic Party." What's your response?
Howard Dean: It is undeniable that Saddam Hussein is a despicable tyrant. In my opposition to the war, I have never suggested anything to the contrary.
Of course, in and of itself, Saddam?s departure is a good thing.
But the costs of the war - some known, some unknown - and what I considered to be an insufficient justification for unilateral action led me to conclude that this was the wrong war at the wrong time, and my view has not changed.
The jury is still out on whether or not the operation will be seen as successful one; we?re not quite sure what we have created in the Arab world. The reconstruction effort has gotten off to a very rocky start.
What we have created in Washington, though, is a dangerous new doctrine of preventive war that could cause serious problems for us down the line.
?
http://www.liberaloasis.com/dean.htmIraq occupation
?
RAY SUAREZ: And I'll begin tonight's questioning with Governor Dean. The United States is now trying to get help from the United Nations in the form of a resolution to internationalize the mission in Iraq. How much decision-making power can the United States share, while at the same time urging other countries to share the cost and share the risk of being there?
HOWARD DEAN: Well, as you know, I believed from the beginning that we should not go into Iraq without the United Nations as our partner. And in this situation, fortunately the president is finally beginning to see the light. We cannot do this by ourselves, we cannot have an American occupation and reconstruction. We have to have a reconstruction of Iraq with the United Nations, with NATO, and preferably with Muslim troops, particularly Arabic-speaking troops from our allies such as Egypt and Morocco.
We cannot have American troops serving under United Nations command. We have never done that before. But we can have American troops serving under American command, and it's very clear to me that in order to get the United Nations and NATO into Iraq, this president is going to have to go back to the very people he humiliated, our allies, on the way into Iraq, and hope that they will now agree with us that we were wrong to go--excuse me--that they will now agree with us that we need their help there. We were wrong to go in without the United Nations, now we need their help, and that's not a surprise.
?
Governor Dean?
(Speaking in Spanish)
We are spending more than $4 billion a month in Iraq. Do we send more troops?
HOWARD DEAN: Look, I think the most important aspect and the most important quality for any chief executive when they're executing foreign policy is judgment.
I supported the first war in Iraq because one of our allies was invaded, and I thought we had a responsibility to defend them. I supported the war in Afghanistan; 3,000 of our people were murdered. They would have murdered more if they could have. I thought we had a right to defend the United States of America. But in the case of Iraq, the president told us that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were about to make a deal or were making a deal. The truth is, there are more likely to be people from Al Qaeda bombing Iraqis and Americans today than there were before Saddam Hussein was kicked out.
Secondly, the president told us that Iraq was buying uranium from Africa. That wasn't true. The vice president told us that the Iraqis were about to get atomic weapons. That turned out not to be true. The secretary of defense told us he knew exactly where the weapons of mass destruction were, right around Tikrit and Baghdad. That turned out to be false as well.
As commander in chief of the United States military, I will never hesitate to send troops anywhere in the world to defend the United States of America. But as commander in chief of the United States military I will never send our sons and daughters and our brothers and sisters to a foreign country in harm's way without telling the truth to the American people about why they're going there. And that judgment needs to be made first, not afterwards.
We need more troops. They're going to be foreign troops, as they should have been in the first place, not American troops. Ours need to come home.
?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debate03/part2.htmlIraq Truth Center
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign_iraqenvironment
?
One of these times occurs toward the end of April, in the brown-tweed-and-blond-wood conference room of an affluent Westside law firm that is hosting Dean at a sandwich lunch for the benefit of the California League of Conservation Voters. About 50 people are sitting around a horseshoe formation of long tables, and Dean stands in the central opening, shirtsleeves rolled up and arms crossed, a halogen spotlight making his forehead shiny, while he holds forth, answering questions cogently and effortlessly for close to an hour. He discusses emissions standards and ethanol and wind farms, and he offers up something that?s absolute catnip to anyone with an interest in how politics are actually done ? the forthright, ligament-by-ligament anatomy of a deal, this one involving the recent preservation of Vermont?s Champion lands, an area of 133,000 acres; a ?huge? piece, he says proudly, the largest land deal east of the Mississippi.
He and his team used the NRA, he says, to neutralize the most ardent property-rights Republicans in the legislature. They then went to the snowmobilers and explained that although there would be a wilderness area off-limits to them, there would be other areas they could utilize. They used that concession, he goes on, to get the snowmobilers? help in supporting the exclusion of ATVs: ?You can?t compromise with ATVers under any circumstances, they just do too much damage to the land . . .? In other words, Dean says, you assemble the broadest coalition possible and then parcel out something for everybody. ?Now, it can?t be everybody, because there?s always those on the extreme edge of the right who want to clear-cut everything, that?s their idea of sustainable timbering . . .? But in general, he says, you work with all the stakeholders, and then if one element of the coalition starts to defect, if the snowmobilers, say, try to link up with the ATVers, which they sometimes threaten to do, ?you put the leverage on. You say, ?If it?s a choice between letting the ATVs in or keeping the snowmobile people out ? sorry, we?ll see you later.? And that brings the snowmobilers back to the table . . .?
Then, somewhere in the middle of this entirely pragmatic discussion, Dean pauses, and he puts his finger on a kind of abstract longing involving a belief that there exist two strands in American politics, the one preoccupied with self-interest and the other a genuine concern for fellow citizens, and a desire for these strands to combine. He says slowly and thoughtfully, ?The biggest damage we?ve suffered in the last two years hasn?t been economic, and it hasn?t even been our loss of respect in the eyes of the world. The biggest loss we?ve sustained in this country has been our loss of community . . . It?s not enough for me just to have good schools for my kid, or good health care for my kid. It?s really important for us to provide these things for everybody. That?s been the premise of America. That?s what we have to get back again.?
?
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/41/features-wolf.phpgun regulation
?
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to an issue that you seem to break away from liberal Democratic orthodoxy and that?s gun control. This is a brochure in your gubernatorial campaign from the NRA.
?In November we should return a truly pro-gun Governor to office by re-electing Governor Howard Dean.? And again, David Broder?s coverage of your campaign. ?Dean bragged that he has ?an A rating? from the National Rifle Association? he argued that ?as Democrats, we ought to say keep the federal laws we have, enforce them, but no new laws.? Get the gun issue off the table. It cost Al Gore three states?and the presidency.?
Which states did Gore lose because of guns?
GOV. DEAN: I think Montana, Tennessee and West Virginia. There may be more, but those are the ones I would guess, given their patterns with previous elections.
MR. RUSSERT: Democrats in Congress right now are saying that at gun shows, you can buy a gun on Saturday or Sunday and there is no background check, because many law enforcement agencies are closed. They want to extend that deadline. Would you support that kind of gun control?
GOV. DEAN: What I would support?I do support closing the gun show loophole, but I would like to see InstaCheck, which is the same system that we have elsewhere, and I think if it takes keeping somebody on duty in law enforcement agencies, that would be fine. Look, let me explain to you why I take the position I do on gun control. In Vermont, in the last 11 years, we?ve had between a high of 25 and a low of five homicides per year. Most of them, the majority, are domestic related, not many of them have firearms and not one of them would be changed if we had gun control. We essentially have no gun control in Vermont. All we have is you can?t bring guns to school.
Now, I don?t believe for a moment that that?s appropriate for New York or Los Angeles or Washington, D.C. But the point I?m trying to make here is why does gun control have to be a national issue? We have some good federal laws. I support keeping them. We should close the gun show loophole with Instacheck and after that why can?t each state make its own laws? Why can?t each state address what they want to do about gun control as a state? Because what we need in Vermont is not the same thing as what you may need in Washington, D.C.
A guy in Tennessee told me, ?Look, when you say gun control to me in Tennessee, it sounds like you want to take away the squirrel rifle that my father gave to me. When you say gun control in New York, it sounds like you want to get the Uzis and the illegal handguns off the street.? It?s two different problems. We have national laws. I?m not in favor of repealing them, but I think additional gun control ought be to be done on a state-by-state basis if the state wants it and we ought not to have a one-size-fits-all federal government approach.
MR. RUSSERT: But keep people traveling from state to state very easily.
GOV. DEAN: That?s right. And Virginia is a perfect example of this. New York claimed that a lot of their guns were coming from Virginia, so they had lax laws, so they signed a bill that said you can only buy one gun a month. That?s a Virginia law. It doesn?t apply to other states. It seems to me it addressed the problem in Virginia successfully. Why can?t we do that?
Democrats are getting killed on gun control. Democratic activists who basically are in favor of gun control are glad to see me coming in the West and the South, because they do not want to lose any more national elections on the gun issue.
?
http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2002_08_25_dean2004_archive.htmlhttp://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35583media consolidation
It?s been a busy day, but it?s great to blog here on Larry Lessig?s blog.
I?ll be writing all week, but if there?s a day I can?t make it, Joe Trippi, my campaign manager, will fill in for me. Thank you Professor Lessig for inviting me.
The Internet might soon be the last place where open dialogue occurs. One of the most dangerous things that has happened in the past few years is the deregulation of media ownership rules that began in 1996. Michael Powell and the Bush FCC are continuing that assault today (see the June 2nd ruling).
The danger of relaxing media ownership rules became clear to me when I saw what happened with the Dixie Chicks. But there?s an even bigger danger in the future, on the Internet. The FCC recently ruled that cable and phone based broadband providers be classified as information rather than telecommunications services. This is the first step in a process that could allow Internet providers to arbitrarily limit the content that users can access. The phone and cable industries could have the power to discriminate against content that they don?t control or-- even worse-- simply don?t like.
The media conglomerates now dominate almost half of the markets around the country, meaning Americans get less independent and frequently less dependable news, views and information. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson spoke of the fear that economic power would one day try to seize political power. No consolidated economic power has more opportunity to do this than the consolidated power of media.
Posted by Howard Dean at 06:31 PM
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000683.htmlhttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=14068&mesg_id=14068&page=medical marijuana
?
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.htmlAnyway 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=civil rights
40,000 Americans Have Signed the Stop Ashcroft Petition
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/001115.htmlDean decries civil rights abuses for Arabs and Muslims
Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean issued the following statement on the forthcoming Inspector General?s report documenting abuse of Arabs and Muslims detained under the Patriot Act:
?For the second time in recent weeks, the Justice Department Inspector General will be reporting serious abuses of the civil rights of Arabs and Muslims in the war on terror. These abuses are wrong and must stop immediately.
?I am appalled by allegations ? which the Inspector General has deemed credible ? that Department of Justice employees have, among other things, beaten Muslim and Arab detainees.
?This should not happen in America.
?The Inspector General?s report confirms my fear that we have unnecessarily compromised constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism. The ongoing abuses alienate the community whose cooperation we need most and diminish our moral credibility in the eyes of the world. The rule of law and due process must continue to be the hallmarks of our judicial system.
?I urge Congress to reconsider aspects of the Patriot Act and other anti-terror tactics that lead to such abuses.
?The government must protect Americans against terrorism while protecting basic civil liberties every step of the way.?
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000737.htmlLet's Start Calling Racial Profiling What It Is
AUSTIN?Dean said today that he would take federal action, including withholding federal funding, against state and local law enforcement agencies that engage in racial profiling. As president, Dean would use the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to label racial profiling by law enforcement as a form of discrimination. ?Let?s start calling racial profiling what it is?discrimination based upon race,? Dean said.
In comments today to the annual meetings of the National Council of La Raza here and the NAACP in Miami, Dean took issue with the recent memorandum circulated by Attorney General John Ashcroft on the subject of profiling and with the Bush administration?s position that this is a state and local issue over which the federal government has little control. ?This is a civil rights issue, and that makes it a federal issue,? Dean said. ?Racial discrimination is illegal in hiring, housing, and voting. It should be illegal as a law enforcement technique too.?
?Condemning racial profiling is not enough,? said Dean. ?Racial profiling is a serious civil rights issue, and the administration should do more than circulate a memo saying ?don?t do it? to federal enforcement agencies he oversees, like the FBI and DEA.?
?As President, I will direct my Attorney General to use regulatory authority under existing anti-discrimination laws?the 1964 Civil Rights Act?to define racial profiling as discrimination, and to withhold federal funds from departments that violate those regulations.?
Governor Dean also made clear that if existing law does not provide sufficient authority, he would seek legislation providing the authority necessary to take stronger action to end profiling, saying ?Racial profiling is wrong, and it deserves more than a memo, Mr. Ashcroft.?
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000681.htmlcivil unions
?
On no issue is the contrast between Dean's national image as a liberal and his reputation at home more evident than gay rights.
As he campaigns for president, Dean has won broad support from gays and lesbians for signing a bill that made Vermont the only state to give gay couples the same legal rights as married people. Dean says he put principle ahead of polls and stood up for what he believed in
spite of the political risk. And he almost lost reelection in 2000 after the bill sparked a backlash.
But the matter of civil unions ? like the governorship itself ? was
foisted on him by external events.
In 1999, the state Supreme Court unanimously decreed that gay couples were due the same legal rights of marriage as heterosexuals. Dean left it to lawmakers to respond, saying only that he would not sign a bill permitting gay marriage.
After a prolonged and fractious debate, the Legislature reached its compromise, coining the "civil union" concept that allows gay partners such benefits as inheritance and hospital-visitation rights, but not the same recognition as heterosexual marriage.
When the bill reached his desk, Dean signed it in the confines of his office, away from the reporters and camera crews gathered for a news conference. Critics bitterly quipped that he signed it in the closet.
Dean says he avoided a showy ceremony to prevent further divisiveness.
To many in Vermont, the episode was pure Dean, a governor who focused on a few issues ? health care for children, a balanced budget, paying down debt ? and pursued them with few distractions.
?
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dean12jul12,1,6655901.story?coll=la-home-leftrailkillbotfactory says:
18. It's true, although the LA Times article is not?
Dean came out in favor of the ruling in a matter of hours, and pushed the issue when other democrats wanted to send it to be studied until after the election because it was the right thing to do.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=29412&mesg_id=29412&page=#29486Profile in Courage Essay Contest Prize Winning Essay
Stephanie Dziczek, Holmes High School, Covington, Kentucky
Subject of essay: Governor Howard Dean
http://www.jfklibrary.org/pica_essay_winner_2001_dziczek.htmlDean's supporters know where Dean stands on the issues
?
Of course last week's Dean hype managed to do both at once. It knocked him down by setting him up, in a way. No longer was the question "Is he too liberal to be electable?" Reporters belatedly scoured his record and discovered a fiscal conservative who put balanced budgets before social spending in Vermont, who opposes federal gun control legislation and backs the death penalty for certain crimes. Now the make-or-break question about Dean became: "Will liberals desert him when they figure out that he's actually a moderate?" Then came other pre-fab worries about the problems of sudden success: Had Dean peaked too soon? Could his fledgling campaign handle the attention? And OK, maybe he was moderate enough to be electable, but was he likable enough? Was his reputation for "straight talk" just a euphemism for brusque and arrogant?
Hanging out with the local Dean folks was my way of getting out of what his campaign dismisses as "the media echo chamber," and trying to figure out what's really going on. I've lived here almost 20 years. I know the San Francisco Dean phenomenon is not a microcosm of what it will take to get him elected; I saw the way the GOP smeared House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi -- and pushed her to the center some -- by calling her a "San Francisco Democrat" before she even took over the leadership post. I know we're DLC founder Al From's worst nightmare. But I also saw some intriguing things following Dean around San Francisco at the end of July, and talking to his supporters the week after he'd gone. The Bay Area Dean machine is attracting more than the usual suspects: It's neither the Greens nor the City Hall regulars; it's neither the moneyed elite nor the rabble; it's not just the young and the hip; it's not ponytailed '60s holdovers -- it's all of them, and then some. I met Republicans and Ross Perot voters who were supporting the antiwar candidate who promises to repeal Bush's tax cuts. And I met Dean himself, and watched two speeches. You can't get his charisma without seeing him in person.
?
The UFCW crowd seemed a lot like Donna Brazile: They were ready to love everybody. Only the leftier candidates -- Kucinich, Carol Moseley Braun, Gephardt and Dean -- showed up; Sharpton couldn't make it, but Kerry appeared by satellite, as befits his attempt to be a more centrist liberal. All of them got big cheers. These were the folks Al From tried to warn us about. But if Dean hadn't been red-baited by the DLC, you might well hear him as the moderate in the race. He criticized Kucinich and Moseley Braun's call for single-payer universal healthcare, the left's politically impossible dream, as well as Gephardt's expensive public-private hybrid. Kerry vied with Dean for the moderate mantle with his relatively modest healthcare plan, but overall Dean came off as the fiscal conservative in the bunch. Amazingly, he got the biggest hand from this union audience when he called George Bush a "borrow and spend, credit-card Republican" and promised to erase the deficit if he's elected.
?
One thing I don't worry about is that his lefty base doesn't know what he stands for, and will bolt when they realize he's a moderate. His base knows exactly how moderate he is. I interviewed dozens of his liberal devotees, and they all know the not-so-liberal aspects of his record. Someone at the Meetup lamented his staunch pro-Israel stance; several people I met said they differed with him on the death penalty. Brilliant says he has issues with Dean on all of his more conservative stands. "But he's not afraid to say what he thinks. Dean asks the fundamentally sound questions and does not have an ideological answer that trumps reason, as Bush does."
?
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/08/11/dean/More information here:
On the trail with Howard Dean (journal of MSNBC?s embedded journalist, Felix Schein)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/958689.aspOn Board the Dean Machine
"Give 'em hell, Howard" may be our best chance to throw Bush overboard.
http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/archives/article.asp?ArtID=5972biography
Feeling Dean?s Pain
His straight talk and blunt, suffer-no-fools style have helped make him the Democrat to watch in 2004. What makes Howard Dean tick?
By Howard Fineman
NEWSWEEK
July 21 issue ? Charlie Dean died 30 years ago in the jungles of Laos at the age of 23. But all these years later his older brother, Howard, remains angry and unsettled about the event?and the unanswered questions that surround it.
?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/937672.asp?0cv=KB10links
Campaign website:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/Official campaign blog:
http://www.blogforamerica.com/Unofficial Dean Blog
http://dean2004.blogspot.com/Dean Defense Forces (unofficial):
http://www.deandefense.org/Gov. Howard Dean, M.D. for President!
The Bush Tax: How Much Is It Costing You?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(660 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
