Why are you afraid of Dean? Kerry is the voters's most "safest" choice

[Hawkeye-X]

My opinion: Take it or leave it.

Yes, many seem to think by hitting Bush daily with attacks from Dean is what could "befall" Dean - but do you realize that is far from the truth?

Why do you think Republicans are touting Clark or Kerry as the choice of voters? It is because Kerry and Clark are extremely vulnerable to the Rove machine and to ensure another 4 more years of *. Clark with limited funds, Kerry with questionable past, including his poor choice of votes.

Think about it -- it's not who's popular or who's pragmatic. It's all about who can really cure America's ails. Kerry has been flop-flopping FAR often and trying to "tailor" the message what the Americans want to hear -- but can Kerry deliver? The answer is simple. No. Why?

Kerry has a record of being beholden to lobbyists for many big businesses -- don't believe me -- look up how much contribution Kerry has received in the past few cycles, not just the 2004 cycle. How can WE trust Kerry to keep his word? Remember what Dean warned us -- don't vote for a candidate that promises you the moon -- that's what Kerry is doing.

Dean has delivered on what he has promised, and has an outstanding record as a governor of Vermont. I keep hearing high praise from Vermonters and endorsed by both VT senators. An independent and a Democrat. That shows that both of them have every confidence that Dean can do the job. When Vermont Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage must be enacted, Dean chose a compromise that worked from both sides of the aisle which was civil unions law. Dean signed it before publically announcing that the law was signed in front of staffers because he didn't want GOP to take advantage of any photo-ops, and that, to me, is quick thinking and the best decision Dean can make. He has delivered and maintained Snelling's dream of universal health care for most of Vermonters.

I think Dean is ready for the job, because he's got a proven record and also works with both sides of the aisle to come up with a solution. Dean is also carrying a larger coattails and could even help elect Democratic candidates for Representative and Senate and make sure that both of them are Democratic and help fulfill Dean's status quo and elevate him as one of the best President in US history.

Kerry can't offer any of those. Plus, he has very little energy and doesn't really inspire me to vote for him. That's why I've stuck with Dean through and through.

You are welcome to attack Dean, but my vote is non-transferrable and has been since I chose Dean for my candidate. Simply put, I will not vote for anyone who resembles Bush or enables Bush.

Hawkeye-X

[On the Road]

1. Please Don't Withhold Your Vote

if it's Kerry.

Kerry's record has some problems but shows strengths, also. As blm pointed out, he led the charge on Reagan and Bush over support for the Contras.

I'm a passionate Dean supporter, and my enthusiasm will die if anyone else gets the nomination, but no matter what I'll vote Democratic in November.

[lancdem]

2. I appreciate your loyalty!

:)

[blm]

3. Then look at this and recalibrate.

Kerry was ostracized by most of Washington for his dogged investigations.

>>>>>
Kerry and the Iran-Contra Fight
Before the conventional wisdom sets in on Kerry as some kind of careful pol with no bite, folks should reach back and remember his role back in the 1980s in challenging the whole Reagan administration ties to money laundering, drug running and the Contras down in Central America. Kerry was willing for years to face down the CIA, the Justice Department and narco-terrorists in pursuing the dirty dealings of the Reagan-North network of rightwing drug-linked paramilitaries.

http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/000945.shtml

[ibegurpard]

12. This is funny.

"Kerry was ostracized by most of Washington for his dogged investigations."

Is that so? Didn't stop him from mingling in the DC social circles and marrying the widow of a super-wealthy Republican senator.

Oh, and about his stellar work on Iran-Contra? Bush I is nicely retired in Houston while Oliver North is a hero to the right and runs in senate races. He certainly went after them with every fiber of his being, didn't he?

[blm]

17. He exposed the BFEE. IranContra had an Independent Counsel.

Would you prefer Kerry did NOT expose more government corruption than any other lawmaker in modern history?

Because of what came out about IranContra and Bush, bringing the poll numbers down, Clinton was better able to win in 92.

[George_Bonanza]

27. Kerry was taken of Iran-Contra b/c fellow Dems were afraid of his fire

Now you're going to blame Kerry for not stopping Reagan's South American interventions? I didn't know Kerry had to be superman for you.

[Skwmom]

4. Republicans are touting Clark?

You must be kidding. It is either ignore or smear Clark. And the really sad thing is many Democrats seem only to happy to smear a good and decent man like General Clark. :(

[LuminousX]

5. Voting Dean is taking a risk

The way I've analyzed this is people want Dean, but they have been pumped full of FUD over his electability that they are defaulting to 'known factors.' This doesn't bode well for Edwards or Clark, either. Kerry and Lieberman are the 'known' factors. I think Lieberman having been part of the "losing" team in 2000 is not trusted to lead the party to victory. Kerry has the biography and experience that makes people feel comfortable. I don't think he will lose againt Bush, but he won't take the fight to the GOP's doorstep - and nothing will significantly change.

I don't trust Kerry. I admire and respect him enough for him to be my #2 choice, but he is like an actualized version of Clark: a carefully crafted Presidential candidate who has worried more about taking the right position and picking the right battles to get him a shot at the White House.

Dean to me is a maverick. He is the guy who is just doing what needs to be done and has lucked into a chance to go to the White House. He would be this century's Theodore Roosevelt or Harry Truman. He will reset the Democratic Party back on equal footing with the Republicans, bringing balance to the government once again.

[sangh0]

6. I am susceptible to fact-free arguments

so please go on.

While everyone has an opinion, most people form their opinions using some collection of facts. You are so certain of Kerry's weaknesses that you have started several threads today, and yet in none of those threads do you offer anything to support your opinions aside from innuendo and speculation, bolstered by more of your opinions.

If there was any meat there, you would posting it. Your inability to detail anything dishonest on Kerry's part shows how little basis in reality your accusations are.

[quaker bill]

26. Here is a fact or three

Kerry always supported the war the was advocating for it even before Bush* was selected. It sounds like he could have invented this war all by himself:

HEARING OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE;
10:37 A.M. EDT TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1999

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1999_h/990928-iraq-sfrc.htm

SEN. KERRY: ...

It seems to me that a Saddam Hussein who has the ability to develop potentially more threatening weapons of mass destruction -- and notwithstanding -- I mean, it was the show of force and the determination of the United States that really took away from him that option, previously. If the determination is not there, then the use that he put it to previously, in other circumstances, could become far more attractive again in the future, which I think is the bottom line of what you are saying.

So I think we're -- and I thank the chair for having this hearing. I mean, I think we're talking about a very significant, large strategic interest of the United States that for various reasons has been second-tiered to sometimes more emotional and certainly of-the-moment perceptions of other issues that don't rise to the same strategic, longer-term interests of our country. So I think it's important for us to be thinking about where we go, because I've said, and I think you and others have said, there's an ultimate time -- as long as he's there, and it may well be that the Iraqi people will settle that. But as long as he is there, I think most people understand that that threat remains and it's real. So -- and there's a time of confrontation. So I think we're better to do it sooner rather than later and to be real about our resolve.

<<>>>

Then there is this on Ballistic Missle Defense.

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JULY 24, 2001

Senator KERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
having this important hearing, or set of hearings, and thank you,
gentlemen, for being here.

I want to try to establish a little bit of baseline here, if I can in
this discussion, because I am deeply concerned about the level of
rhetoric that accompanied some of the discussion, and may raise
expectations, and certainly contributes to misunderstanding by
some people of what we are dealing with here.

I embrace and support, as do many of my colleagues, the concept
of a limited, transparent, hopefully mutually arrived-at or deployed
defense system. I think that makes sense, particularly for the low
grade potential threat, and I emphasize low grade threat, of a
rogue missile attack.


http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/sfr240701.pdf

<<<>>>

And some more for good measure

From the Congressional Record.

THE OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS BILL (Senate - October 01, 1996)



Certainly one is not vulnerable to the charge of failing to prepare for a ballistic missile threat by supporting the Pentagon's and administration's request for $2.9 billion for their BMD effort. Indeed, I strongly support the vigorous research and development effort to enhance our technical capabilities to spot, track, intercept, and destroy intercontinental ballistic missiles and their warheads, and I have been a consistent supporter of programs to develop and field theater ballistic missiles.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1996/somnibil.htm

[MODemocrat]

7. Dean was railroaded because of republicans fearing him

I'm always suspicious when a candidate is being torn down as Dean has been. He has been treated so badly by the news media, and, all just frivolous garbage. That tells me that Dean is to be feared, and with good reason. In my opinion, he is the best candidate in the race, and I love the fact that he is not beholding to the corporations. It is also one of the reasons the corporate media go after him on a 24/7 basis. For crying out loud, here in Kansas City, they keep playing that tired old one liner taken from his speech instead of getting on with something that really matters. I'm not a Kerry fan, and he will have to work hard to get my vote after the way he has torn into Dean. Gephart had a hand in tearing him down too. No wonder he stayed in the race; it was strictly to help Kerry. With Gephardt now out of the way here in Missouri, it will make it easier for Kerry to win here too. I'm sorry I ever voted for "Gep."

:crazy: :argh: :dem:

[sangh0]

8. So the Dems in IA and NH listen to the Republicans?

The Dems in IA and NH, who said they wanted to beat Bush*, took the advise of Repukes who are afraid of losing?

That makes some kind of sense. Non-sense

[markus]

21. Sorry to hear you don't get cable

There are these networks, in particular CNN, MSNBC and worst of all Fox New Channel, which are heavily dominated by right-wing voices. They tend to impact the views of all voters, in very subtle ways (or not, in the case of Fox).

No one is suggesting that the GOP directly manipulated IA or NH voters. They didn't have to. They have too many friends in the media to do it for them.

If non-Dean supporters continue to suggest we're all fools, I have to wonder if they'd really like to see more non-transferable voter (or at least people who won't donate, work, etc. in the general).

I've gone out of my way to avoid saying nasty things about other candidates and their supporters, but it becomes increasingly difficult.

It's clear the GOP is licking their chops over Kerry as well, with his long voting record to mine, he's service as Dukkakis' Lt. Gov., flip flops on the war, etc. All of that material is out there, and if you think Kerry will survive unscathed the close scrutiny of an army of pseudo-journalists with malice aforethought, then I have to question which candidate has the delusional supporters.

[sangh0]

23. You've got it wrong

The media wasn't pushing the idea of Kerry's electability, the voters did. Before the caucuses, the media couldn't stop talking about Dean's strong campaign and how Kerry was losing.

And I know this precisely because I don't get cable. Having more media BS piling into my living room is NOT the way to gain an objective viewpoint, IMO.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[genius]

14. I agree on Dean. Kerry is one of my second choices and I've

enjoyed seeing him win. I believe Dennis's plans would work better.

[sandnsea]

22. Repost

Dean has no clue on foreign policy and makes mistakes and doesn't even understand he's making them. Evenhanded comes to mind. He doesn't know that making wild accusations against Bush undermines his credibility to make real charges when evidence emerges. He claims Saddam had bio/chem weapons but didn't have a plan to deal with him since he wasn't willing to back anything up with force. Now he says he knew Saddam had no weapons all along. He has shown a complete lack of mental clarity and ability to stay focused and express himself with consistency. His mind is like a wind tunnel, whatever blows in his ears blows out his mouth.

There are reasons people don't want this man as a candidate and it has absolutley nothing to do with Kerry being safe. Other threads are full of fear and panic because Kerry is too liberal. The truth is people choose Kerry because he offers more comprehensive solutions on every single issue facing us. His supporters know what he's delivered too, and it's a hell of alot more impressive than what Howard Dean has done.

Dean uses SCHIP to give Vermont children health care. Kerry writes a bill to give the people of the world AIDS treatment.

[cthrumatrix]

10. In the debate...Kerry tried to smear Dean when he was leading ..

96.4% of Vermonters are covered; deliver that to America
KERRY: Every American ought to have access to affordable health care through the same plan that the President & Congress give themselves. I will lay out how you can do that, how you can buy into Medicare 55, and also how we can cover children. But when Dean became governor, 90.5% of the citizens of Vermont were already covered. When he left as governor, 90.4% were covered. So you've got this problem of bringing people into the system and getting to the percentage that America ought to get to, which is covering more citizens.

DEAN: When I came into office, Vermont had a program that insured everybody up to the age of 6 to 225% of the poverty . I expanded that up to the age of 18 for 300% of the poverty . That means if you live in a family that makes $54,000 a year or less in our state, everybody under the age of 18 gets coverage. In fact, Senator, about 96.4% of all our people are covered today, something which I intend to deliver to America when you all make me president.

Source: Democratic Debate in Columbia SC May 3, 2003

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Health_Care.htm

[sandnsea]

15. Dean is lying

I've checked these statements numerous times. Vermont always had a high coverage rate. 96.4% of children in Vermont are covered, not people. In his most recent speeches he is now saying ALL children are covered. That's the problem with Dean, he just has no control over what comes out of his mouth and no regard for the facts. He'll say whatever sounds good whether it's true or not. And he'll never tell people his health plan has run deficits for years.

[blm]

19. Dean INHERITED a 91% rate of coverage.

He also benefitted from the CHIPS bill that extended coverage for children and was written and passed by Kennedy and Kerry.

[oldleftguy]

11. Please consider this:

In 1968 we had a war, much like this one. The anti-war candidate was Eugene McCarthy. We had police riots at the Chicago Democratic Convention. Blood was lost because of the emotion of the issues. The "establishment" candidate was the Vice President Hubert Humphrey.

Humphrey won the candidacy but lost the election. Many of the Democratic anti-war people withheld their support.

I feel strongly this prolonged the war and gave us 6 long years of Nixon and his "silent majority".

I was one of those who withheld active support. I will regret this till the day I die. Humphrey was by far the better person.

[George_Bonanza]

29. Yes, Kerry is the safest choice, in the way that...

Hannibal would be the safe choice in an Earth vs. aliens battle.

[genius]

13. Dean's policies in Vermont were conservative Republican all the way.

Now he wants us to trust what he says and forget about what he did. Does he think we are stupid? Well, maybe some people are.

[Hawkeye-X]

16. Again..

please provide proof of Dean's policies were being conservative Republican.

Civil union law - Certainly not conservative
Health care for Vermonters - Certainly not conservative
Balancing the budget - Yes, conservative, but it's called fiscally conservative - and that's what most Democrats are. Including myself.

[blm]

18. Deregulating electricity. Selling utility to BFEE loyalist Koch brothers.

Calling liberals "loony left" and other insulting terms.

[batman]

20. Got any proof of the "looney left" claim?

curious.

[blm]

25. I've seen it several times.

I'll try to locate it. Here for now is a sample of the way he treated the left while governor.


Mention Howard Dean to the folks who know him best, and they shake their heads in awe, marveling at how their very own "Ho-Ho" has muscled his way to the forefront of Democratic presidential politics.
They see him on TV, firing up the liberals, and they're dumbfounded, because they always knew him as a tightwad governor who spent 10 years excoriating liberals. They see him wowing the "flatlanders" (that's everyone outside of Vermont), whipping them into a frenzy, and they can't square that with the little guy who wore frayed shirts and goofy ties and delivered speeches that lulled listeners into a stupor.

<snip>
And whatever happened to the Howard Dean who, when asked to render an opinion about the governor of Texas back in 1999, always gave the same answer: "I like George Bush, he's a good guy."

<snip>
Instead he would often rant at his detractors, calling them "lunatics," or confronting them with "the finger in the face," as Nelson calls it. At times he would get so mad that the skin on his thick wrestler's neck would redden to the color of raw meat. No wonder some folks used to call him "Little Napoleon."

<snip>
Meanwhile, the Republicans liked him just fine, because they were simpatico. Dean was old money (a descendant of whaling captains), with roots on Park Avenue and in the Hamptons. They also liked that he wasn't a "bleeding heart" - as evidenced by the time he publicly berated a single mother on welfare, saying, "You don't think you ought to work for a living?"

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/7215420.htm

[cthrumatrix]

24. simple...Kerry is Bush-lite on some issues....what is going to be his

differentiator?

[Polemonium]

28. Well said

Dean's record is better, Dean's base is broader, and getting big money out of the White House would do more than any rhetoric.