The Dean Deception (part 2)

[cryofan]

Here are some excerpts from a long, footnoted article printed by a scholarly, left-wing journal. I think the quotes below show what Dean is really all about. I found some of the Dean quotes below quite disturbing, and I feel that Dean supporters need to take a good look at these quotes and decide whether this man is really a Democrat. His quotes below indicate that he is not interested in furthering the Democratic agenda. They also show a side of Dean that I can only characterize as meanspirited and distinctly contrary to the spirit of the Democratic Party. This thread is a partial reposting from another thread, which has grown cumbersome with many posts, and is therefore difficult to load on a dialup connection.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Throughout the 1990s, Dean’s cuts in state aid to education ($6 million), retirement funds for teachers and state employees ($7 million), health care ($4 million), welfare programs earmarked for the aged, blind and disabled ($2 million), Medicaid benefits ($1.2 million) and more, amounted to roughly $30 million. Dean claimed that the cuts were necessary because the state had no money and was burdened by a $60 million deficit.9
....
Most of the Democrats in the legislature rebelled against Dean over the budget cuts, and he ended up depending on Republican votes to pass most of his proposals. At the time, a local Vermont newspaper wrote, "The biggest items on Dean’s agenda for next year are likely to provoke more opposition from the Democrats than the Republicans. Nevertheless, Dean said he feels no particular pressure to deliver the goods to his party or to promote the Democratic agenda."15

In the mid-1990s, Dean even aligned himself with the likes of Republican Newt Gingrich on his stance on cutting Medicare. He opined at the time, "The way to balance the budget is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut everything else."16
....
The Rutland Herald described how one protestor, Henrietta Jordan of the Vermont Center for Independent Living, "said it would be much fairer to raise taxes on people with expensive homes and cars, children in private school and a housekeeper at home than to cut programs that helped the 66,000 Vermonters living with disabilities."17 Dean responded callously, brushing off the pleas of Vermont’s most vulnerable by saying, "This seems like sort of the last gasp of the left here."18"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



my comment: I really find the Dean quotes above quite disturbing. The quotes and the article's detailed, footnoted enumeration of his tightfisted reign in Vermont should be engendering serious doubt in the minds of Democrats about his true political leanings.

The rest of this article is here:
http://www.isreview.org/issues/32/dean.shtml

[slinkerwink]

1. Rebuttal part one

# The richest Vermont taxpayers—with average incomes of $686,000—pay 9.7% of their income in Vermont state and local taxes before accounting for the tax savings from federal itemized deductions. After the federal offset, they pay only 7.1%.

# Middle-income taxpayers in Vermont—those earning between $27,000 and
$44,000—pay 9.8% of their income in Vermont state and local taxes before the federal deduction offset and 9.5% after the offset—much more than what the rich pay.

# Vermont families earning less than $16,000—the poorest fifth of Vermont non-elderly taxpayers—pay 10% of their income in Vermont state and local taxes, one and half times the share the wealthiest Vermonters pay.

The above are the claims made by the report. Their actual numbers come from a chart on page 3.

In that chart it is claimed that 2% of the lowest quintiles income is spent on general sales taxes. It is agreed that the general sales tax is 5% which means that a family would have to spend 40% of its total income on items that are taxed by the general sales tax. The following link provides a list of exempted items.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=101371&mesg_id=101421&page=

It can be summed up as shelter, clothing (items up to $110), food (consumed at home), medical care and other services, utilities, and drugs. To be blunt I find it utterly impossible to believe that people with incomes below $16,000 spend 40% of their income on items not covered on that list. That would be $6,400 of disposable income for those at $16,000. This is fully one fifth of the 10% figure they use. If we assume 30% then we are at 1.5% and they now pay the least not the most.

They also have an item labeled "sales and excise taxes on businesses" which accounts for another 1.2% of income. This is offered with no explanation. I would like to see some explanation of the reasoning or at least a list of businesses they mean. This is a pretty hefty amount of their total and offered with no discernable explanation. Even a minor error here would be quite substantial.

Finally, the credit no federal offset if given. If the person involved is single and makes over $10,500 then he or she does pay federal income taxes and does get an offset. I am not claiming it was huge but it is existent. To leave it out is more error.

All of these errors and possible errors work against the progressivity of Vermont's tax code. Given the very small margins that we are talking about 10% vs over 9.5% these add up.

Finally on page 4 of this same study lists "Trends in Vermont Taxes" and on that chart only one regressive item is listed. An increase in cigarette taxes. Now that is regressive, anyone would admit that. But it also discourages child smoking and was used for health care for children. I don't have a problem with that. I can understand some people might.

[bearfartinthewoods]

85. i'm really confused here...you think this is something to be proud of?????

# Vermont families earning less than $16,000—the poorest fifth of Vermont non-elderly taxpayers—pay 10% of their income in Vermont state and local taxes, one and half times the share the wealthiest Vermonters pay.

[flpoljunkie]

88. Dr. "Eat Your Spinach" Dean is clearly out of touch with the working poor.

His has shown himself to be a fiscal tightwad in Vermont, putting balanced budgets before the needs of his constituents. Perhaps Dr. Dean ought to run as a libertarian; I understand the Cato Institute has praised the way he governed in Vermont.

A real liberal would not put the onus on those making the least to fill the state's coffers with an increased sales tax, the most regressive of taxes.

[slinkerwink]

2. rebuttal part two

I post this thread to let people look for themselves at Vermont's taxes before and after Dean's tenure. Here are two links which combined provide that picture.

www.state.vt.us/tax/majorvttaxes.htm
www.leg.state.vt.us/reports/tax/vol1-03.htm

The first link provides the current tax stucture of Vermont and goes back to 1998.

The second is a study commissioned in 1996 which looks at taxes from 75 to 95. Combined they give a reasonable look at before, during, and after Dean's governor ship.

I won't quote anything from either link due to the fact that there is no fair way to quote this in 3 to 4 paragraphs. I will give a synopsis of what is in them on income and sales taxes which are the bones of contention.

First on income taxes. Until 2001, Vermont based its tax rate on the taxes you paid the feds. Vermont charged a percentage of what the feds charged its citizens. When Dean took over he inherited a 28% tax rate which was scheduled to fall to 25% which was its usual rate. The 28% rate was the result of a special temporary tax hike to eliminate a deficit. That rate expired in 1993. In 1999, the tax rate was cut to 24% of federal taxes. In 2001 the tax code was decoupled from the federal one and the top rate was 9.5%. Obviously until 2001 Vermont was very dependent on US tax policy for setting its rates. Also, and equally obviously, Vermonts actions have to be taken in the context of those decisions. The effective marginal rate of that 28% tax was 9.9%. When it fell to 25% that rate only dropped to 9.75% due to the interviening Clinton tax increase (federal marginal rates went from 35% to 39%). When it was cut again in 99 it fell to 9.711%. Then Dean set it at 9.5% in 2001 which was an effective increase due to Bush's tax cut. Under Bush the marginal rate would have been 8.217%. So if you look at the 28% rate as what Dean inherited he cut rates very modestly (9.9% to 9.5%). But if you use the 25% figure and discount the Clinton tax increase it would have been an increase from (8.75% to 9.5%). No matter how it is sliced it is not Bush's tax policy.

On sales taxes Dean inherited a 5% rate which applied to all sales but food. It may have been cut to 4% in 97. Then increased to 5% in 98 with an exemption for clothes. It may not have been cut at all. But bottom line the net effect of Dean was to take a 5% sales tax, keep it 5% but not apply it to clothes. By any definition that isn't regressive. It also isn't increasing sales taxes as one poster likes to say it is.

[HFishbine]

33. You go girl!

The semester must be over.

[genius]

3. THanks for posting ths.

THis is part of why I can't vote for Dean.

[slinkerwink]

5. read my rebuttals.

goodnight.

[ClintonTyree]

7. Do you think they'll take the time?

their minds are already made up, they just reply to posts like this as a Pavlovian reaction. These are posted over and over and somehow they expect different results. That you take the time to rebut these constantly is a testimony to your patience. :toast: I've long ago lost mine.

[Mairead]

11. Your 'rebuttals' more or less completely missed the point

Sorry.

[dsc]

30. No they don't

Their chart is flat out inaccurate. That matters. There is no way, no way at all, that people making 10k are able to spend 4k on things other than housing, food, utilities, clothing, medical care, and services such as insurance. It is just impossible. Especially when another 8% also goes to taxes. But %5200 a year, the amount they would have left, isn't enough to go around. I know, I live about as cheaply as possible, and it can't be done. And if that 2% is overstated, which it is, then the rest of the analysis is bogus.

[TLM]

38. It is amazing to me how the folks who do not live in Vermont...

will tell Dean supporters in Vermont how badly Dean screwed them... then ignore the explanations on how he did not from the people who LIVED THERE!

Dean did cut some programs... and Dean haters love to point to that, but they ignore the fact that in addition to cutting some programs, he expanded other programs to cover those people who were cut off. He cut programs for the elderly... yeah he cut nursing homes and instead put more money into in-home care. Not only want it way way more cost effective, it also let those folks live with dignity instead of living in a hospital.

However the Dean bashers never mention that second part. They just scream that Dean cut this or Dean cut that.

Yet ask them why a cut happy conservative got reelected 5 times in a row in the most liberal state in the nation... and all you can hear is crickets.

[dsc]

39. I don't claim to be a Vermonter

merely a careful reader.

[cryofan]

67. The quotes belie your the benevolent Dean you describe

BTW, the writer of the article quoted at top is from Vermont.

[Scott Lee]

43. We must be reading different rebuttals.

Sorry. Try the ones on THIS thread.

[Mairead]

55. Nope, sorry. If you can't see why they miss the mark, you'll have to work

on it some more.

[Scott Lee]

75. You mean, anyone who disagrees with *you* needs to work on it?

Oh yes, seen this one before.

[slinkerwink]

4. rebuttal part three

It is my intent to discuss Dean's policy on taxes in four different areas in this thread. Federal payroll taxes, federal and state income taxes, state sales taxes, and state property taxes. All of these have been the objects of tales from Dean's bashers and need to have some of the light of truth shed upon them.

First federal payroll taxes. Dean has proposed eliminating the cap on them which is currently at $85,000. He wishes to use those funds to shore up social security for future generations (like ours). He has not, as two or three posters like to pretend, that he is going to institute a new payroll tax or raise the current one on income currently covered. This tax would overwhelmingly fall upon upper middle class and rich people. None of it would fall on anyone who could reasonably be called poor or lower middle class. It is the definition of a progressive tax.

"Governor Dean, about those high earners: The non-partisan Center On Budget And Policy Priorities has suggested using revenue from the estate tax as a progressive way to help bolster Social Security. Should wealthy Americans be contributing more to Social Security?

DEAN: What wealthy Americans should be doing is paying their fair share of the payroll tax. The Social Security cannot survive on its present track.

(APPLAUSE)

And the solution to that is simply to make wage earners above $85,000 subject to the payroll tax. And that will cure the Social Security ills if we can change presidents."


Here is the link:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22205-2003Aug6.html


Here are the relevant links for the rest of my post. None of the text below is their's but the facts and figures come from them. One exception to that is the summary of Bush's tax cut which is public record. I also derived the bracket figures.

www.state.vt.us/tax/majorvttaxes.htm
www.leg.state.vt.us/reports/tax/vol1-03.htm



Second, On federal income tax policy. Dean wishes to return to Clinton's tax policy. That would reinstate the estate tax which expires in 09 to return in 10 at the level it was in 00. That was 50%. That would restore the taxation of dividend income as regular income. That would restore the rates Clinton had (15, 27, and 39). That would eliminate the increase in the child deduction (expires in 05). He would use the money to fund health care and to balance the budget.

Of all of those cuts only two can sanely be thought of as helping the poor and middle class. The rate cut from 15 to 10 and the child deduction which expires anyway. Everything else is a give away to the wealthy. But most poor also get the EIC which means that they pay no income taxes and get no child deduction. That is why no poor people got checks this time and so few did the first time. Restoring this back to Clinton's rate would raise the taxes of a miniscule number of poor people and most of those are living off investment income so it is hard to figure how poor they really are.
The middle class benefited only slightly more. The problem with exempting them from the resoration of tax rates is two fold. They both have to do with honesty. One is that we can't afford both the tax cut and health care. If we want our budget to be balanced again and for our economy to boom again then we have to pay our bills. Two is that we can't do now what Clinton did in 92. He promised a tax cut and couldn't deliver. That is one of the largest reasons we lost Congress in 94. If we don't level with people now then we will at best get a temporary victory. Bailing out the states and fixing our economy is both the best way to prosperity and the best way to fairer taxes.

Now to state income taxes. Dean inherited a tax structure that was 28% of the federal taxes of any citizen of Vermont. Using Clinton's tax numbers that would be a three tiered system of 4.2%, 7.56%, and 9.9% of federal taxable income. He changed that to a five tier system of 3.6%, 7.2%, 8.5%, 9.0%, and 9.5% of federal taxable income. My link provides charts to show when each rate kicks in. That is actually a progressive tax cut. Poor people percent taxation was lowered by a greater amount than that of rich people. The rich got 0.4% while the poor got 0.6%. That is the reverse of what Bush did. The poor got 5% while the rich got 6%. I was wrong on one thing in previous threads. State taxes are still deductable. Also if Bush had not been elected Dean would have probably left taxes at 24% of the federal tax (where his 99 tax cut left them) that would be 3.6%, 6.48%, 9.36%. That would be a flat tax cut. This is not the Bush supply side economics that Dean haters pretend it is.

Third state sales taxes. Here Dean inherited a 5% rate. It was scheduled to fall to 4% but he kept the tax as is. He later exempted clothing under $100 from it. Now make no mistake about this. If one argues Dean cut income taxes buy not preventing them from falling then one can't also argue that Dean increased the sales tax by preventing them from falling. Both can't be true. You have to take your pick. The net effect of Dean was to make the 5% sales tax slightly more progressive.

Fourth state property taxes. Dean made two adjustments to state property taxes in his tenure. Both were part of act 60 which was intended to equalize funding in schools across Vermont. One was to levy a state property tax to fully fund the minimum grant to each student in Vermont schools. Thus the state is now paying the full bill of educating students to a minimum standard. The second thing was to create an exemption allowing people with incomes at or below 75k to pay 2% of income instead of that property tax. Combined these changes a) funded poor districts better. b) decreased property taxes in poor districts. c) increased them in rich ones. d) cut poor people's property taxes. That is the definion of progressive taxation.

Finally, the one and only point that the Dean bashers have in regards to progressive taxation and Dean, is on the excise taxes. He did increase taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, and gasoline. All of these taxes are used for dedicated purposes and are hardly unique to him. Kerry increased gas taxes in 93 when he voted for Clinton's economic plan for instance. I think the social value of these taxes outweigh their regressivity. Many liberals would agree. Many wouldn't. That is a fair debate.

[ibegurpard]

6. Thanks Slink

where DO you find the time?

[silverweb]

8. Slinkerwink, you're amazing!

:toast:

Thank you for your thorough rebuttals to misinformation!

[democratreformed]

59. My experience with estate taxes

I didn't read all of your post, but I had to reply to your assumption that eliminating estate taxes has nothing to do with helping poor or middle class people. Here is my experience:

My father started a small construction company in 1972. Over the years, it has grown into a business with $3 - $3.5 million in annual revenues. Several years ago, my dad's financial advisor started harping to him about how estate taxes were going to cause the end of his business unless he took steps to prevent it. According to an estate lawyer, the business would most likely be valued at around $3 million, causing my dad's three children to have to pay $1.5 million in estate taxes.

The three chilren:
Myself (oldest) - I married young and spent several years in abject poverty. (Examples - my husband was once unemployed for six months, I worked and attended college at the same time. When I quit my job, we applied for food stamps to feed our daughter. When I became pregnant with my daughter, we had no health insurance. I was turned down by several doctors because I had no money. Finally, my husband went back to work and we were able to pay the nearly $200 a month for prenatal care. We paid $15 per month on the hospital bill for years).
After graduating from college, my first teaching position paid $16000 per year annual salary. My husband was making about that much as well. After six years of teaching, I went to work for my dad where I finally began to make some real money (about $32,000 per year). Again, my husband was making more as well. At the beginning of this estate tax story, my husband and I were making a little over $100,000 per year together with bonuses and salaries all together. Now, as a result of some of the events I am about to tell you, we make about $60,000 per year together.
My sister - She has spent her life mostly as a stay at home mom. There have been short periods of time when she has worked, but for the most part, she has tried to be at home with her children. She has paid for that decision by several methods. Her children were on state health insurance for a time. She regularly buys their clothing at yard sales and off of e-bay.
My brother - the baby and the heir apparent. He has worked for dad's company from the time he was old enough to work (maybe even before). Still, he never made a lot of money. Today, as a result of some of the events I will tell you, he is probably making about $60,000 per year. I'm not sure b/c I am out of it now.
*I just wanted to tell you about us so that you can see that we are NOT rich people. We would never be able to come up with $1.5 million without selling assets - and those assets, the only ones we would have to come up with that much money, would be, of course, my dad's company.*

My dad's financial advisor and the estate lawyer told my dad of the importance of estate planning. Seems that setting up a trust would allow my mom and dad EACH to leave behind $600,000 (at that time) in assets that would not be subject to estate taxes. Otherwise, they could only leave that much together. That doubled the percentage of his company that he could leave us without Uncle Sam wanting half of it.

So, they did it. They split their assets down the middle and set up the trust. Also, they began "gifting" one percent each year to each child. Lo and behold, three years later, my mother died suddenly and without any warning whatsoever. As tragic as that was, it does not stop there.

Suddenly, my dad was faced with "having" to give up half of his company to his three children while he was still alive and actively working there. On top of that, he chose to marry a cerified "gold digger" one week before the first anniversary of my mother's death.

What ensued during the first year after my mother's death and before his new marriage was one of the ugliest and most heartbreaking family splits anyone could ever imagine. There were power struggles between each and every child and my dad. My dad constantly threatened to "sell the #%$ place and be done with it" because we could not accept his new girlfriend and wife. We were constantly told that we HAD to accept and like this person who would just as soon we drop off the face of the earth because we "owed" him something. He "gave" us money (he conveniently forgot that we had to work for it). My husband chose to leave the situation (after working there 19 years). I was the next to go. They (my dad and my brother) ganged up on my sister after that (dad had begged her to come work there right after mom died). She left too.

About a year ago, I guess, I finally told my dad that I had figured out why he hated us. I told him that he never really intended to give us his business - at least not while he was living. Then, when my mother died, he was forced to. Of course, he still owns his part, but it is not the majority. He said that he didn't hate us, but after that day, his attitude changed. I am working for him again but I claim absolutely no ownership. I am a paid employee just like every other one here and I have no authority to do anything other than what I am told. My husband's small company, which he and I started after leaving here, performs subcontracting work for my dad's company on a regular basis. My dad is getting a divorce and just finished handing over a large portion of his life's earnings to his soon-to-be ex. Still, he begrudginly comes to work every day even though his mind is on other things. My brother is still the heir apparent but has his own problems to deal with - namely being a single parent and working on his third divorce. My sister threatens to sell her part of the company occasionally to an outsider so that she can get some money.

Maybe, if the estate does get reinstated, the amount on the 35% of this company that dad still owns will not be enough to cause it's demise. My fear is that it will not matter b/c there has been too much irreperable damage done already and that it will not survive that long anyway. Every day that I work here, I see it going down hill. Dad doesn't want to be the leader. He is old and tired and has put in his time. Besides, it's not really his anymore. I don't want to be the leader b/c I have been there and left it b/c of all the power struggles. My sister certainly doesn't have any interest in it. My brother is a spoiled brat as far as this is concerned and thinks that he can pay other people to care enough to do it. And, all of this was caused b/c my dad tried to save it from the estate tax.

So, there's the story. I have heard others about people having to sell family heirlooms to pay estate taxes. So, yes, they do sometimes hurt lower and middle class families. They hurt ours a great deal.

[KaraokeKarlton]

9. Isn't that a Socialist site?

So why can't you just say it's a "Socialist view" instead of implying it's just a "left-wing" view? Clearly they are two entirely different things.

[deminflorida]

10. Nobody says it better than you...Middle Class Taxes will be

raised by Dean....

"The middle class benefited only slightly more. The problem with exempting them from the resoration of tax rates is two fold. They both have to do with honesty. One is that we can't afford both the tax cut and health care. If we want our budget to be balanced again and for our economy to boom again then we have to pay our bills. Two is that we can't do now what Clinton did in 92. He promised a tax cut and couldn't deliver. That is one of the largest reasons we lost Congress in 94. If we don't level with people now then we will at best get a temporary victory. Bailing out the states and fixing our economy is both the best way to prosperity and the best way to fairer taxes."

You just used a few more words to say it, and you offer a reason why Dean is going to raise them, i.e. as a trade for universal health care, but spin it anyway you want and it's a tax increase on the middle class.

Thanks for your honesty anyway slinkerwink.

I'll stick with Clark, Dean's Plan is suicide for the Democratic Party.

[BootinUp]

12. And just to add

He apparently admits that one of the reasons we lost congress was the republicans beat us up on tax policy, and yet he is stepping right into that trap. I am not in favor of Republican tax policy, but there is a way to play this game and Dean hasn't figured it out. We will be slaughtered in 2004 with Dean's current position. Of course I also think he will change it becuase he will have no choice. But I'd rather go with a candidate thats got this right already.

[dsc]

28. Actually the words are mine

not his or hers. And I used the word resoration not increase. If we call those increases then the restoration of the taxes on the rich are as well. And thus, Clark will be known as the largest tax increaser in history and he will be known as that by your own words.

On edit, used with permission should be noted and I understand you didn't know. I stated ownership so I could be trusted to say what the words mean.

[markus]

13. Hmmm, sounds like, uh, Bill Clinton

Cuttting traditional Democratic programs because he felt is was politically and economically necessary, and used triangulation with the Republicans to get it.

I have no illusions that Dean is Kucinich. If I thought he was, I would agree that he was unelectable.

[deutsey]

14. This is the second time you've posted

OK, we get the point. You find the quotes you highlight quite disturbing.

Here is my post on your previous thread from a couple days ago (with a few minor edits). It offers why I support Dean's candidacy even though I'm a lefty.

I'm no revolutionary Marxist but I do lean very much toward the form of activism that is espoused by some Marxists and is reflected here:

"Real change in America has always come when masses of people take to the streets on their own initiative–the civil rights movement, the women’s liberation movement, the labor movement, the Vietnam antiwar movement. The problem so far is that these kinds of movements have never coalesced into a lasting political party that could offer an alternative to the twin parties of American capitalism. Rather than argue for a vote for someone who is sure to repay our support by cutting our living standards and promoting American power abroad, progressives and socialists would do better to argue for a break from the Democrats, focus on building the struggles that make all real progress possible–and create the political alternative that can embody them."

Contrary to the larger point of the article you cite, however, this quote speakes to one of the reasons I support Dean, or the approach his campaign is taking. Let me explain.

I think anyone on the left should know quite clearly that Dean is not a leftist. I am always surprised to hear people claim that we on the left who support Dean are being deceived. Two of our most popular liberal presidents, JFK and FDR, were not leftists either, as leftist historians like Howard Zinn point out (see People's History of the United State). You can also check out the World Socialist Web Site's analysis of the meaning of JFK's presidency and assassination: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/jfk-n22_prn.shtml

Both FDR and JFK, as liberal as they were, still sought to preserve American capitalism. As WSWS points out:

"American liberalism, both politically and intellectually, was founded on a lie. It had survived the social tumult of the 1930s and 1940s by striking a Faustian bargain with political reaction. Anti-communism became the prevailing ideology of the US establishment, embraced by Democratic and Repubican politicians alike."

James Weinstein, long-time editor of the leftwing In These Times, says the same thing in his book The Long Detour: The History and Future of the American Left. In it he says that genuine socialism, the kind that inspires working people to form their own political alliances against the ruling classes like the kind that was developing in America in the late 19th century and early 20th, was derailed by the 1917 revolution in Russia. What the Soviets did was not real socialism, according to Weinstein, because it stifled this grassroots element of working people coming together to form their own power blocks. Instead, it took on Tsarist authoritarianism as its political framework and even adapted corporatist models of organizing production. http://www.thelongdetour.com/

However, whatever criticisms one can have of FDR, JFK and American liberalism in general, an argument can be made that they still drew a lot of their political strength from the American socialist activist agenda of the early part of the century, the agenda that sought to make America a more fair and equitable place for workers and other groups traditionally excluded from the economic and political power structures of the United States. (Even Clinton, in '92, made this a part of his campaign, and held conferences with "real" American citizens as advisors that he said he'd continue to do as president...I believe he soon abandoned the idea not long after his inauguration). And both FDR and especially JFK, helped to inspire a grassroots activism that probably would have baffled or unsettled JFK had he lived.

However, there has always been a very real tension between Democratic officialdom and grassroots activists. If you know anything about the 1964 Democratic Convention, for example, you probably know how the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party was a grassroots movement seeking to replace Dixiecratic delegates at the convention with popularly elected civil rights delegates. The Democratic power structure, afraid of alienating white Southerners, supported the Dixiecrats over the activists.

Even when liberal Democrats embrace grassroots activism, it is often used as an excuse to create a government program or structure that, very nobly and despite its flaws, tries to serve and protect the interests of workers, minorities, women, etc. This "victory" of activism, however, diminishes the need for grassroots activism because power has shifted away from the grassroots to officialdom. William Raspberry, I recall, once wrote a column saying that the victories of the civil rights movement to transform American society and government ended up ironically defanging the grassroots activism that had fueled the movement, and created a dependence on government to do everything for us.

I think for too long the Democratic establishment has operated this way, usually not out of malice but still displaying a kind of paternalistic "We know what's best for you" attitude toward the rank and file, and we, in our complacency, have gone along with it. Just make your contributions, show up at rallies and the polls, and, if you're really movitated, here, take these enevlopes and stuff them with campaign literature for us, will you? We'll select the candidates for you to vote for and tell you when to write letters in support of our projects.

We can't expect to defeat an anti-democratic (small "d") gang like the Bush regime with that stale old approach.

Whether Dean truly understands what he's doing in terms of re-igniting grassroots involvment in politics, his campaign is planting the seeds that, I believe, can not only take back the White House, but set into a motion renewed people's movement with which to fight a renewed fight against the corporatists and oligarchs. Or, to put in the terms of the article you cite, Dean's campaign (probably without even realizing the magnitude of what he's unleashing, just as JFK, a cold warrior who dragged his feet on civil rights, helped to inspire a generation of anti-war and civil rights activism) is helping to ignite "real change in America" by motivating the "masses of people (to) take to the streets on their own initiative".

No other candidate that I see is doing that. Kucinich would probably like to do that, but, unfortunately, his campaign is not as successfully as Dean's is in attracting a large grassroots participation. In my heart of hearts, I agree with the WSWS in its conclusion that

"In the end, the many millions of people opposed to the Bush administration’s policies of militarism abroad and social reaction at home will find no real alternative in Dean or in any other Democratic candidate. Such an alternative is possible only through a break with the two-party system and the emergence of an independent, mass political party of the working class." http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/dean-d20.shtml

Unfortunately, that is not going to happen between now and November 2004. Until we can rally together to create such an alternative, Dean has shown me that he is the only candidate planting the grassroots seeds that could bloom into the kind of real change in this country that I yearn for.

[Mairead]

15. Your argument is a good one, but flawed on one major way

I'll deliberately overstate (I hope) the case to posterise it: Hitler, too, rose via a grassroots movement.

Demagogues see their chance and attach themselves, riding to power on movements with which they are often ideologically at odds. My perception is that that's what's going on with Dean: he saw his chance and took it.

[deutsey]

17. And I think calling Dean a demagogue is a deeply flawed premise.

I mean first he's McGovern, then he's Newt, then he's Dukakis, now he's a Hitlerian demagogue?

As I point out, I see him more in the tradition of American centrism that draws its political strength more from the center-left than the center-right.

[Mairead]

22. Perhaps. But it still looks like that to me.

And I don't think you help your argument by pretending that you think the comparisons are all of a piece.

Dean wasn't being compared to McGovern on the grounds of politics (at least not by anyone with any feeling for politics), the comparison was to their similarly fast rises and the prediction that if Dean's machine captures the nomination he, like McGovern, will crash spectacularly because his support is only a small group of (for want of a better term) shock troops.

I didn't see the comparison to Gingrich, but the comparison to Dukakis, iirc, was to the similarity of their blurred stances in favor of the status quo.

As to Dean being 'center-left', I see no reason to believe that's true, unless I'm willing to agree--which I'm not--that the center is well to the right of Nixon. As far as I'm concerned, the center is FDR and nobody has made a case that it's moved.

[deutsey]

36. I don't think you served your point by bringing up Hitler

or the charge of demagoguery (sp?). My response, incidentally, was referring to the attempts by Dean critics to label him a loser (McGovern and Dukakis, or even Goldwater) or as someone who has more in common with rightwingers (and he was compared to Newt's opinions by a number of people here and, if memory serves, Gephradt...not entirely sure about that, though). Dean being a demogogue is in the same category of attack, in my opinion.

But, as you say, I'm seeing it from my point of view, and have my reasons for seeing it that way.

I also obviously don't agree with you on the finer points you're making here.

So let's just agree to disagree, shall we?

:-)

[helleborient]

21. But Hitler used party membership, uniforms, and cult-like rallies...

Your comparisons of Dean to Hitler really are beneath you...

[Mairead]

23. And Dean uses the same things

Please read the thesis of the post to which I responded, and then read my post in light of it being a response.

Shallow interpretations aren't helpful.

[helleborient]

32. Your shallow Hitler scare tactics aren't helpful either...

If you want to compete on it...I can show you the fascist Kucinich supporters right here on DU...the ones who say there is only one correct way to see the world, and others should get out of the way because we have no need for them...that's the definition of fascist.

I thought DK's campaign was about hope...apparently for his supporters its about scaring others into thinking Dean is Hitler.

I still love DK...but I can't love his campaign...no way at all when it's filled with those who wish for a dictatorship of the left.

[Mairead]

56. You continue to try to demonise my response. Sorry, but I'm not buying.

If you don't understand the point of the Hitler comparison, that's not my fault.

[TLM]

40. Wow I would not have though A kucinich supporter would invoke

Goodwin's law.

Into the ignore file...

[shivaji]

58. The man in uniform scares me...the x-general Clark

Life long republican, now wearing a democratic cape...
Shoots from the hip, then retracts...
Skips Iowa, hoping to run a stealth mudslinger campaign...
Has not received a single endorsement from fellow officers...
Big time lobbyist for the military vendors...
Zero experience outside of military...

[TorchTheWitch]

72. good grief

The man in uniform scares me...the x-general Clark

He's a retired general, not an ex general.

Life long republican, now wearing a democratic cape...

He was registered as an Independent and has only voted Republican for Nixon, Reagan and IIRC Bush I. Now, if you have some kind of problem with the one candidate backed by Clinton, whatever.

Shoots from the hip, then retracts...

Huh? The shoot from the hip then retracts problem is Dean's.

Skips Iowa, hoping to run a stealth mudslinger campaign...

Skips Iowa because he got into the race late, it isn't necessary for him to run there to be nominated, and running there when it isn't necessary would be a waste of valuable resources. As far as mudslinging goes, he and CMB so far have been the only ones that have consistently stayed above the fray. Edwards has for the most part as well with the exception of a couple of incidents.

Has not received a single endorsement from fellow officers...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I see you checked no facts on that one. And please note that he can't receive public endorsements from current officers as those people can't be publically partisan.

Big time lobbyist for the military vendors...

So? Someone's got to make sure that taxpayers aren't being grossly over-charged for military equipment or that too much is purchased from abroad or what is purchased is inferior product. Clark happens to be the only candidate that wants to overhaul the MIC and clean up the grossly wasteful spending and can actually get that accomplished... he's been there and knows where the bodies are buried. For some reason the MIC "losing" over three trillion dollars must not be a problem for you.

Zero experience outside of military...

So? The military happens to be damn good experience. Most other candidates can't hold a candle to his experience. There is no doubt that his resume is probably the most impressive. Personally, I believe Kerry's resume comes an extremely close second.

Amazing what people will believe because they're unreasonably frightened of the military. :eyes:

[oasis]

74. TorchtheWitch, your reply to that poster was quite instructive.

[oasis]

62. "he saw his chance and took it": That's clearly what happened. Whether

or not it was a good thing for Democrats remains to be seen.

[Armstead]

18. Interesting post deutsy

I'm probably what you'd call an ultra-liberal capitalist, or a progressive in the Bernie Sanders mold. That is I believe we need to engage the system on its own terms and try and push it towards a more humane form of capitalism, rather than either unrealizable utopianism or the corporate oligarchy we currently have.

To to that though we at least need to get back to an honest public dialogue on these issues, instead of a monologue between two heads of the corporate elite (centrist Democrats and the GOP).

I see Dean more as a moderate, but he also is raising the issues that need to be raised. And IMO that gives him the credibility to help break up the iceburg of the corporate agenda.

Therefore, I can feel that Dennis Kucinich reflects my views, but Dean represents a more realistic way to get there.

[deutsey]

19. Thank you

You sum up for me how I feel, only you do it with a lot less words!

[quaker bill]

16. distinctly contrary to the spirit of the Democratic Party??

"Here are some excerpts from a long, footnoted article printed by a scholarly, left-wing journal."

Here are just a few more:

WHAT ATTITUDE do Marxists take to elections and representative government? In the history of the socialist movement there have developed or coexisted two principal and, in the end, quite different and opposing views of the question. One, reformism, argues that modern representative government affords the working class the opportunity to achieve socialism by electing a socialist majority into office. This view emphasizes the peaceful, gradual transition to socialism, and sees campaigns around elections and the work of socialist elected officials as the most important aspect of socialists’ activity. The other trend, first outlined by Marx and Engels, and then elaborated by Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin, argues for a revolutionary overthrow of the state, based upon the mass struggle of the working class, and its replacement by new organs of workers’ power.

<snip>

As early as 1879, Marx and Engels wrote a circular letter to party leaders in which they asked if the party had not been "infected with the parliamentary diseases, believing that, with the popular vote, the Holy Ghost is poured upon those elected."9 The circular letter also attacked an article written by, among others, Eduard Bernstein. The article applauded the idea of a socialist movement led by "all men imbued with a true love of mankind," and attacked those who "trivialized" the movement into a "one-sided struggle of the industrial workers to promote their own interests." The article called upon the party to be "calm, sober and considered" in order not to scare "the bourgeoisie out of their wits by holding up the red spectre." It also called for "educated" men to represent the party in the Reichstag.10

Marx and Engels attacked the authors, arguing that they should leave the party if they intended to "use their official position to combat the party’s proletarian character."11

<snip>

As Clinton’s Democrats moved even closer to the Republicans, the liberals clinging to Clinton’s coattails swung to the right with them. The range of mainstream political opinion narrowed. The Democratic Party that had been identified with Medicare and Social Security became identified with "free trade" and "tough-on-crime" measures. With the Gingrichites waiting in the wings, the Democrats assumed their core constituents would support them no matter what. So Clinton and Gore didn’t worry as they produced one betrayal of workers after another. Such was the logic of "lesser evilism."

But in the Clinton-Gore administration’s final days, a growing number of activists realized that we don’t have to swallow whatever a Democratic White House dishes out. Labor and student organizing against Clinton-Gore’s globalization agenda and the swelling movement against the death penalty mark two important pressures on Democrats coming from the left. Rumblings of labor and environmentalist support for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader challenged the notion that these constituencies "have nowhere else to go" but the Democrats.

The Democrats will no doubt play the "lesser evil" card in the 2000 presidential election. Many of those who today express disgust with the Gore-Bush choice may hold their noses and vote for Gore–if only from fear that a President George W. Bush will pack the Supreme Court with hard-right justices. If Gore manages to win the 2000 election, activists have no reason to breathe easy. As eight years of Clinton-Gore attacks have shown, the lesser evil is still an evil.

<snip>

The publication seems rather pro Marx, Engles, and Nader. I think your understanding of the 'spirit of the Democratic party' could use some adjustment. I am not aware of the portion of the Democratic Party that claims Marx, Engles, and Nader as members.

Your posts could also use a reference to a rather less biased and more mainstream publication.

[TeacherCreature]

20. they must believe the Rush spin

all democrats are liberals and therefor socialsists.
I can tell you, as a liberal democrat I am sick to death of being told by bullshit artists like Nader and his followers and the Marxists of the world what they believe the democratic party should be. It is every bit as dishonest as the people on the right who categorize everyone left of Hitler as a moderate or liberal.

So here come the Kucinich supporters who are really Nader supporters carrying water for the cause. They would love to have a Leiberman candidacy. That way they can justify helping Bush get elected again.

[no name no slogan]

35. not the tired old "Nader elected Bush" meme again....

For one thing, your equation of Kucinich supporters == Nader voters is superficial at best, and insulting to say the least-- especially coming from somebody who claims to be a "liberal democrat". Sure, some Kucinich supporters voted for Nader last time (like myself), primarily because we saw Nader as being the best Democrat in the race, who stood up for traditional Democratic values. However, there are a lot of former Gore supporters who now back Kucinich, and there's a lot of former Nader voters who back Dean, too. So what are we to make of that?

For another thing, you neglect the fact that although Nader got 57,000 votes in FL, Bush received the votes of 300,000 Democrats. Maybe you should blame the FL Democrats who voted for Bush in 2000, too, huh?

If you look at Kucinich's platform, you'll see that his positions are nothing out of the mainstream of the Democratic party as it was during the 20th century, when it stood for workers rights, good jobs, fair wages and a peaceful world. Kucinich is a traditional "New Deal" liberal who advocates more federal spending to fix the crumbling infrastructure of this country, saving Social Security, and expanding Medicare so that EVERYONE in this country gets medical care-- not just those who can afford it.

The problem is that the Democratic Party has been playing the Republicans' game for the last two decades, convinced that it can only win elections by trying to "out-Republican" the Republicans. Consequently, this party has moved very far to the right-- so far to the right that even Nixon's 1972 plan for universal health care is now seen as "extreme"-- by the "mainstream" elements of the Democratic Party, no less!

What has this gotten the Democrats? Loss of both houses of congress, loss of a majority of governorships, two presidential "victories" which would not have happened if not for some crazyass Texas billionaire named Perot, and record low voter turnouts.

Your trivialization of old-line New Deal liberals as water-carriers for the Green Party just goes to show how right-wing this party has become. If this trend continues, don't be suprised if the Democracts become the next Whigs by 2008.

[quaker bill]

53. Context my friend

read the post this person was responding to. Note that the source journal for the original post takes up the cause of Marx, Engles, and Nader with equal zeal.

While I have no problem with their expounding of this opinion, the original post claimed these to be the essential values at the core of the democratic party. That opinion is poorly informed and does not bear up to scrutiny.

The very fact that your post calls for this change in the democratic party suggests that you recognize that these values are not and have not been at the core of Democratic party values for a very long time if ever.

I will not argue that Kucinich = Nader. In fact niether does ISR, the source material for this thread. They trash Kucinich in another article in the same issue, while taking up the Nader cause elsewhere.

[cryofan]

24. My Counter-rebuttal--what about the disturbing quotes?

Not one rebuttal or Dean defender on this thread has said ONE word about the disquieting and disturbing Dean quotes. Once again, here they are:

Dean said he feels no particular pressure to deliver the goods to his party or to promote the Democratic agenda."15

He opined at the time, "The way to balance the budget is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut everything else."16

Dean responded callously, brushing off the pleas of Vermont’s most vulnerable by saying, "This seems like sort of the last gasp of the left here."18"


Now tell me about the character, personality, and spirit of this man Dean that you want to make the leader of the Democratic Party.

[dsc]

27. none of those are online and thus can't be looked up

in your other thread I showed that they were lying about prisions and colleges, and at least inaccurate about the extent to which income taxes were cut. Once you have two errors I get suspicious. Especially when those are the only two things I can check. Thus, without a different source I don't believe those quotes.

[cryofan]

73. I've emailed the author to ask about the quotes....

...hopefully we will have more information soon. I am sure you Dean supporters are all glad about that....

[JaneQPublic]

25. ISR = International Socialist Review--Journal of Revolutionary Marxism

So we're supposed to be shocked that Revolutionary Marxists don't think Dean is liberal enough?

And we're supposed to let these same Revolutionary Marxists tell us which of our candidates are "true" Democrats?

So when do we let the Anarchists and Kluxers tell us what to think about our candidates?

[cryofan]

26. Like I said, it's "Left Wing." But what about the Dean quotes?

Hmmmm?

[dsc]

29. as I just answered you

these can't be looked up. The were lying once, at best inaccurate a second time, that doesn't bode well of these quotes.

[quaker bill]

31. They are

Short soundbites taken completely out of context to illustrate and further promote the publication's editorial goal.

I surmise, based on just a short review of a dozen or so articles out of the archive, the editorial goal is to advocate for a socialist revolution in the US.

There is of course, nothing wrong with having this goal and advocating for it. It is a more or less free country. (Ashcroft hasn't gotten all of his wishes yet)

However, in a debate, it is always wise to take careful note of the ideological bent of your sources. A claim that views represented in ISR represent the 'spirit of the Democratic party' is misinformed and ill-considered.

What were the facts of the proposal Dean was commenting on? How do the comments read in actual context of the debate going on at the time that they were made? No accurate and detailed representation of this context is made or even seriously attempted. The article is nothing more than issue advocacy tripe made by a source that is well out of the mainstream.

[cryofan]

46. In what context do the Dean quotes make him look good?

PLease tell me in what plausible context do those Dean quotes from the original post above make Dean look good? How do they make him look anything other than a tightfisted Silver Spoon millionaire too miserly and selfish to think about anyone other than himself and his rich cohort? I really cannot imagine ANY context in which those quotes make me want Dean as a possible president.

[quaker bill]

49. Well

The first highlight is a paraphrase, not a quote. So no context will do as he actually never said these specific words.

The punctuation in the second highlight seems to suggest an actual quote. Since your question grants the specific liberty to take any contextual license I might choose, here goes:

Perhaps the question he was answering was:

"Govenor Dean, we understand that you propose to raise taxes on the wealthy to balance the budget and prevent cuts in essential services. How could you balance the budget if the socialists and republicans team up to prevent this tax increase?"

He might then respond: "If they act this irresponsibly, we will have no other choice than to cut..." to balance the budget. In context the statement then becomes a slam on those legislators irresponsible enough to fail to act in the puyblic interest and a negotiating position.

The third highlight is a bit more amusing. It seems like it could be a quote. However Dean's actual record in Vermont included raising taxes on the wealthy to support essential services for poorer areas. This record has been repeatedly discussed and complained about right here at DU. (the perennial Dean is unelectable, he will raise your taxes thread)

Again using the unlimited license granted by your question:

Perhaps in raising the taxes on the wealthy, he went just as far as the legislature would support, but not quite as far as some ardent socialists wanted. In this context, the few remaining protesters could be legitimately be seen as 'the last gasp of the left'.

That is the damn thing about context, without it, you can't understand anything.

[dsc]

51. that is assuming the quotes are true

since they are 0 for 2 on accuracy it seems they have a problem on that score. Bring me an accurate source and you'll get an answer.

[quaker bill]

54. Agreed

The piece is quite lame

[Maximus Darius]

52. The "Real' Dean...

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean said Tuesday that Southerners must stop basing their votes on "race, guns, God and gays" - from the Tallahassee Democrat Gazette (Nov. 4, 2003)

[TLM]

37. And you felt so strong about the source, you would not mention it by name

LOL! You have to go to a socialist source to find someone who shares your opinion that Dean is some conservative... however the fact is that source attacks all democrats.

They are no more respectable a source than the Rush's newsletter.

[helleborient]

34. It should be noted this is a magazine...not a scholarly journal...

If you show me proof there are refereed research articles in this "journal"...I'll think otherwise. All that I can find is that it's a leftist magazine.

[TLM]

41. THis is just crap... from a socialist democrat bashing magazine...

Why not just quote Limbaugh?


"In the mid-1990s, Dean even aligned himself with the likes of Republican Newt Gingrich on his stance on cutting Medicare. He opined at the time, "The way to balance the budget is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut everything else.""


Note they are careful not to admit that in fact Dean's statement was not aligned with Newt... rather he was asked a HYPOTHETICAL question about what might be needed to balance the budget in 95 if a balanced budget amendment passed. Dean was not stating policy and this was not something he tried to do as this dishonest screed tries to claim.

[mzmolly]

42. Your still quoting that source after what they said about Dennis Kucinich?

My last post here for a while but...what do you think about that source after reading what THEY said about DK?
(snip)

The Dennis Kucinich phenomenon~Candidate of the left?

Regarding Israel and Palestine, Kucinich argues against violence on both sides. He gained some Arab support inside the U.S. for declining to vote in favor of a bill proclaiming solidarity with Israel and for his support of a two-state solution. Yet Kucinich’s criticism’s of Israel are hardly radical. As he told Tikkun magazine, "I support the existence of the democratic state of Israel, for what it represents as a beacon of hope and as a bastion of democracy. I also support the creation of a Palestinian state."2 While his position is to the left of many other Democrats, Kucinich doesn’t deal with the fact that there is no way to achieve peace without complete justice for Palestine–which means withdrawing support for the state of Israel. A state founded on the expulsion of another people, in which the military occupies their land and the state excludes from equal status Palestinians living inside Israel, cannot be defined as a "bastion of democracy."

Kucinich has been a long-time opponent of abortion rights for women. His voting record on abortion has earned him a 95 percent score with the National Right to Life Committee. As Katha Pollitt points out,

In his two terms in Congress, he has quietly amassed an anti-choice voting record of Henry Hyde-like proportions. He supported Bush’s reinstatement of the gag rule for recipients of U.S. family planning funds abroad. He supported the Child Custody Protection Act, which prohibits anyone but a parent from taking a teenage girl across state lines for an abortion. He voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it a crime, distinct from assault on a pregnant woman, to cause the injury or death of a fetus. He voted against funding research on RU-486. He voted for a ban on dilation and extraction (so-called partial-birth) abortions without a maternal health exception. He even voted against contraception coverage in health insurance plans for federal workers–a huge work force of some 2.6 million people (and yes, for many of them, Viagra is covered)…. He voted specifically against allowing Washington, D.C. to fund abortions for poor women with nonfederal dollars and against permitting female soldiers and military dependents to have an abortion in overseas military facilities even if they paid for it themselves. Similarly, although Kucinich told me he was not in favor of "criminalizing" abortion, he voted for a partial-birth-abortion ban that included fines and up to two years in jail for doctors who performed them, except to save the woman’s life.3

Kucinich also supported banning funds for female prisoners seeking abortions.4

After a long "personal journey," which conveniently coincided with his run for president, Kucinich now claims that he opposes abortion but supports a woman’s right to choose. In an effort to show how much he means it, and to outflank his opponents–Dean has always been pro-choice, while Kerry and Edwards also took the personal journey to arrive at their pro-choice position–Kucinich boasts that he is the only candidate to support choice as a "litmus test" for Supreme Court nominees. Kucinich also acknowledges that his thinking will continue to "evolve" on the issue, which suggests that he could change his mind again at any time.

Kucinich also changed his mind on the issue of gay marriage. Whereas in his 1996 congressional campaign he opposed changing the law to allow for gay marriage, he currently supports gay civil unions.5 When asked about the turn-around, he simply replies that the issue wasn’t important in the 1996 race.

Kucinich’s record is also less than consistent regarding racism and criminal justice. While Kucinich was reprimanded for being one of the many Democrats to skip the NAACP convention this year, he is campaigning on support for affirmative action (including quotas for university admissions), opposition to the death penalty and to key elements of the racist criminal justice system.

Yet in 1997—98, he voted in favor of a juvenile justice bill (HR 3) that would allow children as young as 13 to be tried in adult courts and sent to jail in adult prisons.6 He also introduced an amendment to another juvenile justice bill in 1999 (he ultimately voted against the bill, which passed) that called for expanding record keeping and broad dissemination of information about juvenile offenders. The amendment–which was strongly opposed by the ACLU and other human rights and civil liberty groups but supported by the Fraternal Order of Police–instituted statewide computer systems for compiling and sharing youth offenders’ records. The new system helped spread youth offenders’ records to federal and state officials including the FBI, the National Crime Information Center, courts, police and schools around the country–including schools to which offenders sought admission.

Thoughts?

:shrug:

http://www.isreview.org/issues/32/kucinich.shtml

[cryofan]

45. You failed to quote the most damaging material on Kucinich

That article you quoted also mentioned that Kucinich was accused of race baiting while campaigning in Cleveland many years ago. So be it. Nothing like the truth, if that is what it is, and it may well be. BTW, I myself was the first one to post that link in the earlier Dean Deception.

You may notice that my avatar has been changed from Kucinich to Clark. I did that because I think Clark has the best chance to beat Dean (see my other thread named "I am switching from Kucinich to Clark").

I still think that Kucinich is easily the best candidate on the issues, and if he shows strong in the early primaries, I will be back on his bandwagon in a New York microsecond. But we need to stop Dean, and so Clark it is.....my research indicates that Clark has a good background, good enough to beat Bush, and to be a good President.

[mzmolly]

47. "But we need to stop Dean?"

Interesting that this has become the goal.

Regarding the most damaging info on Kucinich, it's you that needs to decide whether this is a credible source or not. Is it?

Additionally, Kucinich is no fan of Wesley Clark. He said "why would we want a General to be President?"

I guess you need to do a bit more research cryofan. As I said I'm out of here. I'll leave you and du to the 'stop dean' agenda. :hi:

Enjoy :donut:

[cryofan]

48. I hate to be negative. I would rather be positive...however...

....how can I let someone who said the things quoted in my top post become president?

All the other stuff, the quantitative stuff about taxes and healthcare and social services, sure, that stuff is open to debate.

But those quotes, those are the man's words, the true windows to his soul. And that is a soul I sincerely do not want as my president....

Sorry to see you leave. I hope you take some time off and reconsider. We need as many intelligent, caring people in politics as we can get. And I know negativity can be a bummer. But some things just have to be done.

[batman]

61. the quotes above have been regurgitated on occasion and you cant stop

dean from becoming president. and if your talking about souls what did you think if kucinich's soul in that article msmolly posted?

[cryofan]

64. I don't expect candidates to be perfect, but some things are...

....unforgiveable.

[batman]

69. riiiiiiight. what about DK's right wing past

:eyes: I'd quit kicking this embarassing thread if I were you.

[cryofan]

70. If Kucinich does have a race baiting incident in his past, then...

....he will have to answer for it if he evers get close to the top of the polls. So be it!

Now, what say about the quotes of Howard Dean III, late of Park Avenue and the Hamptons?

[batman]

71. what about the quotes?

I'll take those parsed out of context quotes over race baiting anyday. now move on.

[RetroLounge]

44. Poop

marxist poop, but smells the same.

Only difference is we distribute the poop equally among everyone.

Here on DU, Poop is the opiate of the masses.

[Maximus Darius]

50. The 'Real' Dean...

"I want the vote of....

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

57. "This seems like sort of the last gasp of the left here."

What a con job. I told you so.

[bigtree]

60. "This seems like sort of the last gasp of the left here"

Man! What is that all about? Did anyone answer to that statement of his? I get the image of a budget-cutting Gov. Dean with his foot on some poor fellows throat. What specifically was he referring to?

Was it like TLM outlined?

"Dean did cut some programs... and Dean haters love to point to that, but they ignore the fact that in addition to cutting some programs, he expanded other programs to cover those people who were cut off. He cut programs for the elderly... yeah he cut nursing homes and instead put more money into in-home care. Not only want it way way more cost effective, it also let those folks live with dignity instead of living in a hospital."

It's one thing to cut services to the poor. It can be exasperating, however, to be a less well-off recipient of government aid that is discontinued and be told that the cut is not relevant.

cryofan, what was the full story behind that statement?

[cryofan]

63. All I know is what I read from ISR

I looked up the guy who wrote the story and he is a student in Vermont (UVM?). The article seems straight up and truthful to me. It had over 30 footnotes. And the quotes seem to fit with the quantitative analyis.

I really do not think the numerical analysis is something that we can adequately discuss. I mean, it would probably require a great deal of analysis. And of course you can slant it one way or another. However, the quotes are an entirely different matter. Unless something strange went on with the writing of the article, the quotes tell a story that I think DUers and Americans need to hear about Dr Dean.

And the quotes reveal a Dean who is very much against a welfare state. I mean....just look at the quotes! Social Darwinism, that is the path I am afraid Dean would take us down....based on his own words.

When I started researching the candidates this summer, I read a bit about Dean and found him described as a progressive. But he is far from that.

[cryofan]

65. kick

[cryofan]

66. Counter-Rebuttal II, or, How Article Names Reflect Their Contents

Well, we seem to have a very organized set of Dean Rebuttals here. Unfortunately, I cannot verify their rebuttals, as I have no access to the original docs, nor can I say, frankly, that I am impressed by their apparent earnestness or apparent integrity (just a feeling I get).

If I might summarize their rebuttals, I would say that they deny that Dean was a governor who wanted to cut taxes, and that he either raised taxes, or any cut in taxes was caused by factors out of his control.

As for the Dean quotes I gave in my top post, they say they were out of context. However, even though the footnotes for the article gives detailed information on what articles of what newspapers were used, I notice that they have not actually shown that the quotes were indeed out of context by, for example, quoting the article in larger part so that we could see the context.

It may be instructive to us to take a look at some of the footnotes used in Keith Rosenthal's article. The titles of the news stories are very interesting:



9 All figures come from a collection of articles in
the Rutland Herald: see Christopher Graff, "Governor
set to cut spending," July 11, 1995. Also see, Chris
Graff, "Dean balancing act enters tough phase,"
December 17, 1995 and Diane Derby, "Hundreds protest
governor's plan to cut Medicaid," November 2, 1993.

10 See Jack Hoffman, "Budget boosts housing; VIDA
funds," Rutland Herald, September 9, 1992; Frederick
Bever, "Dean wants larger cut in state tax," Rutland
Herald, December 23, 1998; Jack Hoffman, "Dean
outlines his case for cutting income tax," Rutland
Herald, January 9, 1999.


12 Elizabeth Mehran and Mark Barabak, "State residents
see a new Dean in presidential race," Los Angeles
Times, July 13, 2003.


19 Diane Derby, "Dean sorry for remarks on welfare,"
Rutland Herald, January 23, 1993.


21 "Who?s the real Howard Dean," BusinessWeek, August
11, 2003, p. 58.



35 Lisa Wangsness, "Dean green on trail but Vermont
knows better," Concord Monitor, August 22, 2003.

[dsc]

68. Did you even read the rebuttals

BTW the text in them is mine (if you wish proof I will link the origianl threads) but they were posted with full permission from a bank in which I keep them. But I didn't say Dean didn't cut taxes. I did say, and stand behind, that he didn't cut taxes to the extent they say he did. They claimed 8% and the real cut was 5.4%. Those are the facts. You can like them or not like them but the mathematic fact remains. Since I have no access to their orginal sources I have no idea if they accurately reported what was in that source or not. But I did give links and they were copied to all of the original sources for my data. It is false to say I didn't. In short, you can verify, if you choose to, that my figures are correct. To say that you can't is just plain wrong.

The second rebutal, about the prisions vs colleges, is their own source. I simply clicked on to the interview with Pollina and reported what was there. I didn't alter it at all. I didn't change a word. Again, both I and your article provide that link. Again, you can check my rebuttal and thus you are wrong when you say you can't.

BTW it is this statement I am claiming is flat out wrong.

Unfortunately, I cannot verify their rebuttals, as I have no access to the original docs,

Each and every one of those rebuttals have full links and can be looked up at least relative to Dean. I did recite Bush's cuts by memory but those have been reported all over the place.

[cryofan]

76. stop social darwinism kick!

[dsc]

77. You claimed by rebutal had no links to original documents

I stated, accurately that they did, and still now answer. Am I ever going get one.

[cryofan]

78. you had no links to original docs for the quotes

Why doesn't Dean just show us the newspaper articles in order to rebut these supposedly "out of context" quotes that make him look slightly to the right of Tom Delay?

[dsc]

79. Maybe because he has better things to do

But you stated not the rebuttals to the quotes but the organized rebuttals to the article. And those did have original sources and you falsely claimed they didn't. Oh, and I am still waiting for some response to those.

[cryofan]

80. I-emailed-the-author kick

....pretty soon I'll have those newspaper articles in my hot little hands...

[dsc]

81. Well good for you

but I still notice that you have not bothered to answer even one point raised in rebuttal (except to falsely claim that they didn't lead to original docs). Are you ever going to answer the points I raised in this thread and the other one?

[cryofan]

82. kick for exposing pseudo-liberalism!

[dsc]

83. and yet another request for an answer that isn't false

I provided rebuttals. You claimed they had no links. They do, so any answer to my rebuttals?

[cryofan]

84. a kick for wolves in sheeps' clothing.....

[cryofan]

86. a kick for Greeks bearnig gifts

[cryofan]

87. a kick for cryptoRepublicans