A few little problems I have with Howard Dean.

[wyldwolf]

To be honest, I have tried to mute my criticisms lately of Dean (or any of the candidates) because I know they all have their faults.

But, after all, this is a discussion forum and since it has become open season on Wesley Clark again, I see no problems in mentioning the issues I have with Dean.

Now, anyone can post whatever they want about Wesley Clark. I've seen it all.

After this, I will cease to criticize unless I see blatant hypocrisy from other candidate's supporters, or, pot calling kettle black syndrome

Howard Dean's Republican leanings

Former governor Philip H. Hoff served three terms in the 1960s, and is regarded as the grand old man of liberal Democratic politics here. His support for Dean comes leavened with skepticism... "As governor, he fell under the sway of business interests." Hoff said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15326-2003Aug2?language=printer

For Vermonters who have seen Howard Dean up close and personal for the last eleven years as our governor, there's something darkly comical about watching the national media refer to him as the "liberal" in the race for the Democratic nomination for president. With few exceptions in the 11-plus years he held the state's top job, Dean was a conservative Democrat at best. And many in Vermont, particularly environmentalists, see Dean as just another Republican in Democrat's clothing.

Dean became Vermont's accidental governor in 1991 after Governor Richard Snelling died of a heart attack while swimming in his pool. Dean, the lieutenant governor at the time, took the state's political reins and immediately followed through with his promise not to offend the Snelling Republicans who occupied the executive branch. And Dean carried on with his right-leaning centrism for the next eleven, long years.

http://www.counterpunch.org/colby02222003.html

Howard Dean and State's Rights

Howard Dean refuses to make his positions known on several key issues and instead prefers to leave these decisions to the states.

1. Medical Malpractice

Just hours after U.S. Senate Democrats defeated legislation that would limit damage awards in medical malpractice cases Wednesday, the American Association of Health Plans called for candidates to take a stand on the issue.

Democrats who voted down the reform in Congress said the bill would punish individuals to protect groups like the American Medical Association, HMOs, drug companies and manufacturers of medical devices.

Howard Dean, a doctor, ... said the issue is best handled by state courts and legislators, not at the national level.

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/politics2003/0713_malpractice_2003.shtml

2. Civil unions and gay marriage

In December 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that Vermont was "constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law." The court instructed the legislature to grant gays "inclusion within the marriage laws themselves or a parallel 'domestic partnership' or some equivalent statutory alternative."

Given that choice, Dean took the more conservative option. According to the Associated Press, Vermont's lieutenant governor and House speaker supported gay marriage, but Dean didn't. Gay marriage "makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else," Dean said at the time. He did encourage the legislature to pass a civil unions bill. But the alternative he averted was legalizing gay marriage, not preventing gay domestic partnerships.

Many supporters of the bill criticized Dean for signing it "in the closet," in private and without a ceremony.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086952

That action has prompted a few reporters to ask Dean about his support for such a law at the national level. His answer has been virtually the same in all cases -- he is opposed. Why would he oppose a national law that he felt justified in endorsing for his state? Because he apparently believes that the federal government has no right to intervene in state decision-making.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8387

3. Gun Control

"Let's keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have, close the gun show loophole using Insta-check, and then let the states decide for themselves what if any gun control laws they want. - Howard Dean, A-rating from the NRA.

DeanForAmerica.com, "On the Issues" Nov 30, 2002

Howard Dean on justice, public defense, and civil rights

Dean chose not to reappoint Appel for a third four-year term as defender general, the state official who heads the state’s public defender program. In appointing Valerio, of Proctor, the new defender general, Dean had kind words for Appel. But Appel had clashed with Dean on numerous occasions in his efforts to secure for his office the resources necessary to fulfill his duties conscientiously.

Just two years ago Dean tried to prevent Appel from accepting a $150,000 federal grant aimed at assisting defendants with mental disabilities. For Dean to block a government agency from receiving federal money was unusual in itself. But Dean’s openly expressed bias against criminal defendants provided a partial explanation.

Dean has made no secret of his belief that the justice system gives all the breaks to defendants. Consequently, during the 1990s, state’s attorneys, police, and corrections all received budget increases vastly exceeding increases enjoyed by the defender general’s office. That meant the state’s attorneys were able to round up ever increasing numbers of criminal defendants, but the public defenders were not given comparable resources to respond.

http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/31792

I was a public defender in Vermont during part of Dean's tenure. He was openly hostile to the defense function. He once addressed a meeting of defense attorneys by stating that "my job is to make your job as difficult as possible." He is a man of his word, at least on this campaign promise. He did not want to fund public defense.

To his credit he appointed Robert Appel to the post of Defender General (Public Defender in charge of the state system.) Then he refused to reappoint Appel apparently because Robert was most effective on the shoestring budget he was given.

http://www.talkleft.com/archives/003739.html

Dean said Wednesday he believed that the attacks (9/11) and their aftermath would “require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street.”

Dean said he had not taken a position on these questions. Asked whether he meant that specific rights described in the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution — would have to be trimmed, the governor said:

“I haven't gotten that far yet. I think that's unlikely, but I frankly haven't gotten that far. Again, I think that's a debate that we will have.”

(Vermont Law School Professor Michael Mello) said Thursday, “the civil liberties Dean seems to be talking about so blithely, that's exactly what makes us different from the murderers who committed these acts."

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html

See Also the disturbing accounts of Dean's relationship with Vermont's Attorney General William Sorrel:

Dean's Corruption in the Green Mountain State
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/Frank_Dean-Sorrell-Corruption.htm

Dean's manuever on medical marajuana

Republican Gov. James Douglas opposes the measure, and the bill’s prospects in the House are uncertain. It’s a reversal from 2002, when majority Republicans in the House joined Democrats and Progressives to pass the bill, only to see it blocked in the Democratic Senate.

At the time the move was viewed as a political favor for then-Gov. Howard Dean, who was courting gay groups in the early stages of his presidential run. Dean opposed legalizing medical marijuana, but AIDS activists — a key constituency in the gay community — were critical of his stance. Being forced to veto such a bill would have made Dean unpopular with them.

[gWbush is Mabus]

1. he is a CENTRIST

he is not a liberal, and not a republican

[wyldwolf]

2. I agree, he isn't a republican. Neither is Clark.

but someone keeps insisting Clark is.

[CWebster]

5. We have questions...

Here is a list for you:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

[wyldwolf]

7. Already seen it. Over and over. And since you're into Dissidentvoice...

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/Frank_Dean-Sorrell-Corruption.htm

Doesn't surprise me, though, that you'd ignore the issues I've raised and pile in Clark again.

Diversionary tactic.

[CWebster]

9. tit for tat

Here's another:

http://www.prorev.com/politics.htm#clark

[wyldwolf]

10. tit for tat... exactly... I could go on all day...

..but won't. I think I provided enough unaddressed points in the original post.

[gully]

11. You have gone on all day, on several occasions...

However, these issues have been addressed repeatedly on DU. And the articles you post are not current, which is a violation of the new user rules.

When you post within the rules, I'll be glad to respond. I prefer not to encourage these types of threads otherwise.

Also, you raise the same questions you have before, and you don't listen to the explanations given.

Therefor, I shant try to show you the truth 'again'...

[wyldwolf]

14. as have you...

However, these issues have been addressed repeatedly on DU. And the articles you post are not current, which is a violation of the new user rules.

I must have missed that rule. What is it again? I mean, I checked and didn't see any such rule. :shrug:


you raise the same questions you have before, and you don't listen to the explanations given. Therefor, I shant try to show you the truth 'again'...

Suit yourself! :)

[janekat]

72. Since when has all this been posted? It's 15 different articles

Are you scared to read it?

[bushclipper]

74. I haven't been here long, but I've seen this piece posted several times...

[wyldwolf]

76. yeah, so have I... more than several times...

And yes, janekat, I've even READ it!

[janekat]

81. LOL! Must've been on my day off or before I joined here....

n/t

[Guaranteed]

17. All I give a

shit about is the candidate's position on the war. That is my personal litmus test. If someone is against the war, and was ALWAYS (and CLEARLY) against the war, more importantly, they have my vote.

[bearfartinthewoods]

26. save us from one issue voters.....eom

[Guaranteed]

36. That one issue says it all.

If a candidate doesn't have the ethics, integrity, and, above all, the BALLS to stand up the Republicans, I'm not voting for him. I'm not voting for anyone who's scared of being called unpatriotic, and I'm not voting for anyone who sees polls and changes their mind about something. And I'm not voting for someone when it's not clear in my mind what their opinion even is on such an important issue.
This one issue is all I need. It clears out all the candidates except for Dean, Kucinich, Braun, and Sharpton. Of those, I pick Dean, because he has the best chance of winning.
Of course, if you want to vote based on issues that don't really matter, go right ahead.

[Julien Sorel]

54. We must see different Howard Deans.

I'm not voting for anyone who sees polls and changes their mind about something.

I guess Dean's growing reputation for flip-flopping, or 'evolving' as his fans put it, has nothing to do with changing his mind. Come to think of it, it just might not: his mind never changes, but his position does.

[Guaranteed]

78. You talking about the Israel thing?

He didn't change his position. He clarified.
Or was it the Cuba thing? Who cares? It's not an important issue, certainly not a defining one.
We're dealing with a war here. And while I like what they've got on meetclark, I just remember seeing Clark doing play-by-play on TV during the war. I remember hoping the guy would get some cajones and take a stand, but he never did, and while I didn't think he was ACTUALLY going to run for president at that point, I took note that I didn't see leadership from him at a very important time.
And it was a VERY important time to me. It was one of the most trying things I've ever been through. I was called "unAmerican" by angry, yelling people more than once. But I knew what was right, and I knew I was right. I had faith in myself, and I wasn't going to give into social pressure when I felt so strongly about the issue.
It defined real strength for me.
I'm sorry, but when it comes to the war, I'm voting for someone who was always clearly against it. That kind of integrity (a kind of mixture of faith, courage, honesty and real values), when it comes to something as serious as war, is the most important thing to me right now. And it's what I'm voting for when I vote for Dean.

[wyldwolf]

80. Courtesy of Janekat: Dean's war flip-flop

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=532105&mesg_id=532982&page=

[Guaranteed]

86. That's hilarious.

I'm not sure where those Kerry folks got those quotes. But, look at this:
http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/20559923.html

Enjoy!

On edit: And here's another one four days before the above article, and two days before yours: http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/20519414.html

Just to "sandwich" ya...;)

[Julien Sorel]

82. Like some other Deanies, your words are self-parodies:

He didn't change his position. He clarified.
Or was it the Cuba thing? Who cares? It's not an important issue, certainly not a defining one.
We're dealing with a war here. And while I like what they've got on meetclark, I just remember seeing Clark doing play-by-play on TV during the war. I remember hoping the guy would get some cajones and take a stand, but he never did, and while I didn't think he was ACTUALLY going to run for president at that point, I took note that I didn't see leadership from him at a very important time.

Read that stuff. I actually thought you were someone else poking fun at Dean until I looked at your name and realized you were the same person I'd responded to. You say flip-flopping is bad, but when confronted with flip-flopping, say 'it's only about a war,' when previously, the war was your 'litmus test.' It's simply insane.

As for Clark, it isn't the job of a TV analyst to 'show leadership' on the topic they are covering. Their job is to give their expert analysis -- anything more than that, and they are not doing their jobs, but becoming partisans. Had Clark 'shown leadership' while working as an analyst, he would have destroyed his credibility -- permanently. It is grossly unprofessional.

[Guaranteed]

90. It's not insane.

I still maintain that the war is my "litmus test." I've been making that quite clear.
I wasn't just talking about his play-by-play, though, he was also on Sunday morning talk shows. Him and Madeleine Albright. Both of them let me down.

[Julien Sorel]

100. In actual fact, I owe you an apology.

I mis-read your post, thinking when you said 'There's a war going on,' you were referring to the Israel war, not the American war. I now think that you meant that, compared to the Iraq war, Dean's flip-flops on Israel and Cuba are unimportant. If my second interpretation is incorrect, the 'insane' comment stands; otherwise, I simply disagree: a flip-flop is a flip-flop, a war's a war, and you said you wanted someone who doesn't change their opinion in the face of opinion polls, which would exclude Dean.

Again though, I should have read a little more deeply into your post than I did.

[Guaranteed]

105. I care about what's important.

"I'm sorry, but when it comes to the war, I'm voting for someone who was always clearly against it. That kind of integrity (a kind of mixture of faith, courage, honesty and real values), when it comes to something as serious as war, is the most important thing to me right now."
What's important is important. What's not important, isn't.
Besides, Dean did NOT flip-flop on the Israel issue. You knew exactly what he meant when he said we should stop being so pro-Israel. And he later clarified, saying we should be "neutral," which is the correct position, and what he meant in the first place.
The Cuba thing is totally unimportant. He can take a mulligan on that one. It's not like it was an issue that had been constantly publicly debated for the last year. I don't know what the hell he was thinking.
Is that all?

[Julien Sorel]

117. No, I don't know 'exactly what he meant.'

His original statement was that we should be 'even-handed' with Israel; when the dogpack was loosed on him, he backpedaled by defining 'evenhanded' in such a way that it was no longer evenhanded.

He started by calling Hamas operatives 'soldiers' and backed down by calling them terrorists, and expressing his support for Israel's policy of 'targeted assassination.'

I could go back and go over all the old stuff -- the NAFTA backpedaling, Cuba, and so on, or quote Dean himself on the subject of flip-flopping, but what's the point. If you think Dean was absolutist in his opposition to the war, and that is the only issue you care about, he's your guy, and I wish you luck with him. It still doesn't jibe with this statement of yours:

I'm not voting for anyone who sees polls and changes their mind about something.

[Guaranteed]

131. Well then he must have missed the

80% of Americans supporting the war.
THAT'S strength. Wouldn't you say?

[Guaranteed]

91. Whoops. n/t

[Guaranteed]

92. Whoops again. n/t

[JohnKleeb]

43. and your candiate is

I like Kucinich for other reasons as well myself.

[Guaranteed]

45. I, too, like Kucinich.

But he ain't gonna win, and I like Dean just as well. They both have that fire, and courage. Dean just has a much better shot.

[JohnKleeb]

47. We dont know that yet

Dean only has a bigger shot because more will give him a shot.

[janekat]

75. The only one who hasn't flip-flopped on the war is Kuchinich

Dean has also flip-flopped. I'll dig up a link for ya...

[JohnKleeb]

87. I dont care about that

The fact of the matter is that Kucinich is electable and I hate it when people choose to remain blind, what I admire and love about Kucinich is the fact that he spoke out very early against and YES before Dean, was constant as was Dean's I hope, but Ive never heard of Dean talking about the human concerns about the war like you know the soldiers etc the lives that would be lost, look thats not a litmus test I will support the guy if he gets the nod, but damnit Kucinich talked about what the war would do to people, "war doesnt discriminate" he has said, hes right, I think we need to give this man a chance because he has a terrific vision and I say one of the better men in my lifetime. I liked Kucinich's human concerns and legal concerns against the war. Hes not a pacifist but isnt that what made this war wrong, the innocents who suffer. I dont know if Dean has brought that up, it would be nice, you know. I am glad he did oppose the war but it would be nice dont you think to talk about what war does.

[Guaranteed]

94. You're right.

I don't like how it's become an economic issue.

[JohnKleeb]

97. about what exactly

I am glad Dean opposed the war believe me but I gotta give it to Kucinich for telling of the human reasons to oppose the war, he said once "war doesnt discriminate", I think its annoying as hell and I say this as a proud Kucinich supporter when people say well I like Kucinich but hes unelectable, not only does the man has without a doubt the finest message in the race, Dennis Kucinich is an inspiration to us all, he knows what poverty is like. BTW you will really like how he talks about the statue of liberty. He gives me hope. Hes what the party is all about.

[Guaranteed]

98. You know what...

...you're absolutely right. Believe me, I saw him in the debates, and he had me standing up and yelling "Right on!"
What I meant was that you're right that the issue with the war is that it's PEOPLE we're killing. Most of the Dems are getting down on it because it's balooning the deficit, as if that's all that matters. And I don't like that. The war's wrong because it's WRONG, it has nothing to do with money. If it truly was a just war (and actually I could imagine it being just if we had the right president) the money wouldn't matter.

[JohnKleeb]

102. Well that sucks about the money

Sadly proving my grandfather right, "its all about green", yep. I think we must give a chance, I tell you I have met him and he is one of hell of a guy. It is people like him that history will remember whether he is president or not, I hope it will because people like Dennis Kucinich keep my faith in the country.

[janekat]

104. No doubt about it Dennis has been royally scr*wed by a lot of

Progressives. Can't figure out why so many of them are inexplicably in the Dean camp.

[Guaranteed]

106. Alright then.

Dean is going to rescind all of the tax cuts. He wants universal health coverage, to save Medicare and Social Security. He wants to be neutral with respect to the Israel/Palestinian issue. He's going to get Iraq a government and get us out of there.
Is that where they differ? Does Kucinich want us to just leave ASAP?

[JohnKleeb]

108. Kucinich wants single payer universal

Kucinich is even more netural on I/P. Kucinich wants a government there but he doesnt want the troops dying over there.

[janekat]

112. He wants to save Medicare? The same medicare that he said was the

worst problem ever? The same Social Security that he tried to undermine by teaming with Newt Gingrich against the Democratic Party in Congress?


He wants to be neutral with respect to the Israel/Palestinian issue???

The same Howard Dean who said his views on Israel/Palestine were closer were closer to the conservative America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) than the liberal Americans for Peace Now (APN).


He's going to get Iraq a government and get us out of there???

The same Howard Dean who suggested that the U.S. military is understaffed in Iraq? That Iraq simply needs more troops for the ongoing occupation?


Do you even listen to your candidate? To be quite frank, Dean's supporters are very mis-informed about his statements and his record in Vermont.

[Guaranteed]

127. Yes, exactly! Those two!

He wants to SAVE them (Medicare and SS). That means FIXING them.

AND on edit: YES, we either need more of OUR troops or more troops from other countries. I think THAT was what he meant (i.e. we need help from the UN!!). Sorry if you weren't listening. Obviously the job isn't getting done with just this amount, now is it? And, if the job doesn't get done, will we ever leave? GET THE FRICKING JOB DONE.

I don't know when he said that about Israel, but I know that HE knows that the right position on the conflict is complete neutrality. That's the ONLY way to keep things from spinning out of control. You can see how as Bush leans too much toward the Israelis they start getting big heads and starting shit. He knows that.

If you have a problem with my interpretation of his position on Israel, what's Kucinich's position on that conflict? Does he have one?

[JohnKleeb]

137. allow me the link

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_socialsecurity.htm for social security
http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_middleeast.htm

[TLM]

142. You really have the talking points down...

"worst problem ever?"

No, he said it was one of the worst run programs and he is right.

The FACT that Dean bashers ignore when tryign to hype this is that Dean massivly expanded Medicare coverage in VT and wanted to cut the administration to pay for expanding coverage.

The way medicare is administrated is very very wasteful and does need to be reformed. However some desperate folks want to act as if because Dean supported cuts to refine and reform medicare so it would be stable and better able to deliver care to more people, that means he was all for Newt's plan to cut medicare apart with no fix, to kill the program



" The same Social Security that he tried to undermine by teaming with Newt Gingrich against the Democratic Party in Congress?"

You do not have a clue what you are talking about. It was the medicare cut in the early 90's that Dean was accused of siding with Newt on, not social security.

Could you at least try to get your smears straight?


The social security attack is based on an answer Dean gave to a hypothetical question about the balanced budget amendment in 95, wherein he listed things that would likely be cut if a BBA passed.

[AntiCoup2K4]

140. Can't figure it out?? Are you kidding?

Dennis doesn't have a chance in Hell. It's not an issue of whether he should, or what you like about the guy, because I would probably agree with you.

It's a question of who is better equipped to face the opposition as it now stands.

George Bush Jr and his Criminal Empire control not only the entire Federal government but also the television, radio, and print media. Beyond that, he's created a climate of fear in this country like no other time in history. A morbid paranoia of an enemy more fiction than fact - but tell that to the 70% of the population who think Saddam Hussein personally guided those planes into the world trade center.

And who's best to fight that?? A guy who wants to pull every last soldier out of Iraq and create a "Department of PEACE"???

Again, it's not a question of whether you agree with Kucinich or not. It's what the BCE and the media will do with it. And how they'll twist that to feed the paranoid fear of the ignorant masses.

Picture this Bush 2004 campaign ad....

Dennis Kucinich doesn't believe we should fight a war on terror. He thinks if we all sit around and meditate with tie dyed shirts on that Al Qaeda will sit down with us and drink tea and bake brownies...

**Cue cheesy mushroom cloud footage**

Can America afford a weak on terror pacifist in these tough times??
Vote Bush/Cheney and KEEP AMERICA STRONG!!

Hell, that's probably mild compared to what they could come up with. But the sheep will buy it, and we will have 4 more years of fascism.

The system is far too corrupt for Dennis Kucinich. And that's a sad reality, but a reality just the same.

[Andromeda]

141. You say you are an attorney...

so, no offense, but you probably have a proclivity to engage in argument for argument's sake. Nobody can split hairs like a lawyer because that's what they learn how to do in law school and it's what they're good at.

Some of your arguments about Dean are weak---just as weak, IMHO, as some people's arguments about Clark are. I happen to like both candidates and I can't wait for the process to narrow down the number of contenders to the one candidate who will take on, head to head, the Bush administration. The one who wins will have to be the strongest (the metaphorical law of natural selection) and he {I'm presuming) will be able to withstand the accusations, falsehoods and dirty tricks by the Republicans and the complicit RW media.

Dean can give it right back---and so can Clark. Both men are articulate, impressive and accomplished. If Clark gets the nomination, I will support him, however, if Deans wins will you support him?

Neither man is even close to being a Republican. It doesn't mean you are a Republican if you have conversations with Republicans. Democrats have to work with Republicans and, horrors, sometimes have to compromise with Republicans.

The important thing is that Clark, at this time, is declaring himself to be a Democrat. That's good enough for me and I'm just glad he's on our side because he will be a formidable candidate.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

33. Yes, "Centrist" aka "GOP-Lite" or "Bush Lite" or "Republican Lite"

Dean did his job, and made sure a real progressive like Kucinich didn't get the anti-war vote.

[Deja Q]

139. Pro status-quo then?

Then we don't want him. Especially if he puts corporations before people.

I'll still vote Dem unless it's Clark or Lieberman, but I will be protesting should the next President do something I dislike. (and the way the sheeple are acting, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush was elected.)

[MuseRider]

3. It seems

to go in a pattern. Everyone is a target and as difficult as it is to withstand when you feel so invested it is important to have these discussions. I understand your frustrations. All of these things have to be out on the table for us to ever come to a good decision.

[HFishbine]

4. "This post is inspired ...

by a sudden posting of several anti-Clark threads by an individual on DU."

At least we know your motives.

[wyldwolf]

6. That you do!

...which is not to tear down Dean but to show they all have positions that need clarification. Even Clark. Even Kerry. Even Dean - my top 3.

[AWD]

8. Violation of Rule #5

This post is inspired by a sudden posting of several anti-Clark threads by an individual on DU.


You openly claim you're starting a flame war brought over from previous threads on DU.

That violates Rule #5.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

12. I propose a new rule

avoiding discussion by citing rules instead.

[Cha]

21. A rule is a freakin' rule....And this is our DU board...and we

should respect the Admins and their Rules. After all we Voted on them.

[AWD]

32. Whoa....

....I didn't see what you responded to (ignore button - learn it, live it, love it), but did somebody actually advocate breaking rules???

Wow. No wonder that person is on ignore.

[Forkboy]

63. Just the opposite

[AWD]

66. OK

Cool...I was wondering. I mean, people are on my ignore list for reasons, but none of them for advocating rule violation in order to support a candidate.

Glad to hear it. Thanks.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

37. and it's the most subjective one

and the one that most people were reluctant to approve including the admin. But like I said, we can talk about rules instead of having a real discussion if you so choose.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[AWD]

39. Bye

What he did violates no rule.

Wyldwolf claims this thread was started because of other threads that have anti-Clark views. Rule #5 states "You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread.

So, yes it does violate a rule.

I take seriouse offense to those who attempt to quell them.

And where exactly did I say I was trying to quell anything? All I said was it was a rules violation, which it is.

I take serious offense to those who try to claim I am doing more than I actually did do.

you're sure as hell not impressing me as the sort I care to ally myself with.

Bye. Since I have no idea who you are, I'm sure I'll miss you.

[RapidCreek]

114. Strange

No where did the original poster say he was starting a flame war and in no shape or form did he. No place. He called no one names...made no offensive remarks nor cast any superfluous aspersions. I invite you to find any such infraction. He simply stated that his posting the above information was inspired by anti-Clark threads....not a Clark flame thread, not any particular thread. As such he did not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. You insist that he did? Fine, what flame war was he continuing, from what thread was it being continued and how was he flaming anyone? What he posted seems to bear out....as you have, as yet, failed to post anything which would prove as false, the points made in the articles he linked to.

Frankly I'm not convinced that either Clark or Dean are the candidate I will support. I come to this board to avail myself of information on all the candidates, so I may make an informed decision when the time comes. I'll say again, someone who wrongly accuses others of breaking rules in what appears to be an attempt to prevent them from presenting valid points concerning candidates and subsequently me from hearing those points, is quelling my ability to garner information or discuss its merits. I thought information dissemination and discussion was the point of this board.....Am I wrong?

Yea Bye. Seeya. Feel free to ignore me. It's sad you feel so threatened by me. I won't ignore you or anyone else on this board, whether I know them or not. That would be my loss. Ignoring leads to ignorance.... a personal quality which I strive to avoid.

To the mod who deleted my previous post....I'll ask you in the appropriate forum, why, as I see nothing in the rules to which the text of your deletion directs me, which clarifies your motives.

RC

[wyldwolf]

118. A voice of reason in a sea of rabid spinners!

Thanks!

[imhotep]

13. The difference is

Clark became a democrat a few weeks ago as an opportunist.
Dean has been a lifetime Democrat.
Both of them are not liberals.

[wyldwolf]

16. As Sharpton said...

"It's better to be a new Democrat that is a real Democrat rather than old Democrats up here who have been acting like Republicans."

And the "opportunist" dig is just your opinion. Good thing for Democrats nationwide that we don't all feel that way! :)

[KittyWampus]

My Suggestion- Maybe This Belongs In Politics Forum

I have "issues" with Dean. And I might start a thread about it. :) But I get squeamish with "revenge" threads.

[janekat]

79. Why? This is a discussion of the issues with links to articles

n/t

[gully]

15. You are responding to my 'current' articles with old rehashed

vitriol on Dean. In addition, my articles did not 'trash' Clark. They were fair questions raised by the authors. And they were current.

Regarding these very issues with Dean...we've all been there, done that...

I have articles from long ago on Clark as well, but in an effort to stay with in the new guidelines (which I appreciate) I have not posted them...

[wyldwolf]

18. Gully? You're still here?

Didn't you just say above: I prefer not to encourage these types of threads otherwise. And here you are still contributing!

And still, I need to see those new guidelines you keep talking about on "old articles."

[gully]

20. I am, but am on my way out..

"5. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time."

It looks like they removed the 'current info' piece of the threads in the rules. Apparently it is now ok to 'rehash' the same trite again and again..???

I am sure I can dig up 'some old concerns about Clark' given the flexiblity we now have. PHEW! It's a bit more difficult with out his having a history in politics, but we know it can be done... ;)

Not sure if I'll have time though today... Perhaps tomorrow? :shrug:

Ta Ta :hi:

[wyldwolf]

24. Wait a minute, Gully...

Above you said, And the articles you post are not current, which is a violation of the new user rules.

So... WHAT new user rule prohibits posting articles that aren't current?

Answer, there AIN'T one! You made it up!

Have a nice day!

[gully]

27. My mistake, that was taken out of the user rules...

But, they were there at one time. I guess people had issues with it...

You should have read them before voting on numerous occasions wyld...

[bushclipper]

31. I never saw them in user rules?

Is there an archive or something we can confirm this with?

[gully]

89. There may be, but you'll have to donate to use it...

:think:

[AWD]

35. Strange...

...you didn't seem to argue this much when it was mentioned that you started a new flame war inspired by a different thread....ALSO a violation of the rules. gee, I wonder why?

[bushclipper]

19. Instead of responding to these points...

...all I see are people diverting to Clark issues, repeating the old "he's not a democrat" mantra, and talking about some rule or guideline that I honestly didn't know about.

Is there some rule for how old articles can be? And why would that matter?

[gully]

22. Bushclipper, your now, but these points have been responded to on numerous

occasions here. Do a search if you'd like. Wyldwolf raises the same issues on a regular basis...

[bushclipper]

28. Really? When?

I have researched the prior posts. I don't see wyldwolf having made these on a regular basis. I would appreciate you showing me where he has and that they've been addressed. Thank you.

[Forkboy]

29. but if Bushclipper is new

how would he have seen them?

[bushclipper]

34. And if I might add...

..these points aren't going away and they come from reputable sources. Honestly, how can they be refuted unless you call the sources liars?

They can be spun. They can even be rationalized based on a Dean supporter's opinion.

But not refuted.

[Forkboy]

23. This seems to be a standard reponse tactic for far too many

regardless of who the question is about.Clark supporters will bring up Dean as a defense,Dean supporters will bring up Clark as a defense,etc etc etc.

Neither side has impressed me very much to be honest,and they dont do their candidate of choice any favors by acting this way.

[gully]

25. I'll personally refute every claim made here 'again'...

unless someone beats me to it. But, it will have to be later...

OK Bye, I mean it this time ;)

[bushclipper]

30. Well, I hope so, because the claims come from reputable sources..

...honestly, how can they be refuted unless you call the sources liars?

They can be spun. They can even be rationalized based on a Dean supporter's opinion.

But not refuted.

[Capn Sunshine]

40. So How does this Help Clark be VP?

Since THAT is exactly what he's running for?

[wyldwolf]

41. Riiight! That's why he's in the lead! He wants the #2 spot.

... I hadn't thought of that!

[madfloridian]

42. You will "cease" and desist? You gotta be kidding.

...."After this, I will cease to criticize unless I see blatant hypocrisy from other candidate's supporters, or, pot calling kettle black syndrome...."

Are you appointing and annointing yourself judge and jury?

This is such an arrogant statement, and you are so hurting this board with stuff like this.

You and a couple of others turn this place into a contest of hatred. If someone gives you an answer, you say "not enough" "prove it". You don't want answers, you just want the satisfaction of having criticized someone else's candidates.

If you want Clark, support him, and vote for him. Just quit being such a pain about Dean. We know you detest him. Just leave it alone. You are so so obvious.

Now, think of a nasty statement to me. That is just what this board is about anymore!!! It is just plain ugly! And it is permitted to be that way.

I posted 3 articles of importance today. They just dropped. Thanks so much for the bashing posts that keep important things out of sight. Could that be your intention?? Surely not.

Oops! Is this post of mine enough to get me banned because I got mad? You are good at that as well. You make people so mad they respond in anger, and they get banned. Not you.

So be it.

[wyldwolf]

44. I'm appointing myself judge and jury of myself...

...what more can I do?

You make people so mad they respond in anger, and they get banned. Not you.

Yeah. imagine what I do to republicans!


Have a nice day!

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

48. wow! talking about rule breaking!

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, troll, conservative, Republican, or FReeper. Do not try to come up with cute ways of skirting around the spirit of this rule.

DU Rules...

[TLM]

49. Wow, talk about a pile of spun crap and half quotes...

"Howard Dean's Republican leanings"
"And many in Vermont, particularly environmentalists, see Dean as just another Republican in Democrat's clothing."



The many in question were far left anti-development folks who felt that ANY level of development anywhere was awful and anti-environmentalist. The fact is that Dean was pro-business and encouraged development, but also protected a full 8% of the landmass of VT to prevent development, and made places like Wal-Mart build in existing business districts, to prevent sprawl. He did a great job… ask some of the DU board members from VT, not some Clark Corps spinner trying to distract the attention from Clark being a lobbyist for Kissinger and speaking at republican fundraisers in 2001.


As for the states rights attacks… some of us don’t want the federal government to control everything. Being strong on states rights is a position that plays very strong in the mid-west and south. Especially on guns.

"Let's keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have, close the gun show loophole using Insta-check, and then let the states decide for themselves what if any gun control laws they want. - Howard Dean, A-rating from the NRA.”

Lame attempt to spin that as if Dean wants to get rid of ALL gun controls or allow states to have NO gun control. But that statement refers to any laws in addition to the existing laws… which is a sensible position.


“He did encourage the legislature to pass a civil unions bill. But the alternative he averted was legalizing gay marriage, not preventing gay domestic partnerships.”


Please, some people will make anything into an attack… Dean literally risked his life by signing the civil unions bill, he had to wear a bulletproof vest as he traveled around because he’d gotten several death threats. Dean did what could get passed… had he pushed gay marriage instead of civil unions, the conservatives would have been able to stop it and amend the state constitution to prevent it. Instead, Dean made it about the rights, not the words, and got it passed.


“Because he apparently believes”

Sorry I don’t give a shit about some writers opinion of what or why Dean “apparently” believes in States Rights. Though I bet it has more to do with the fact that constitution specifically assigns states all authority not specifically designated for the federal government.


Regarding Dean being less than enthusiastic about increasing the DA office budget… he was. He’s cheap. He wasn’t interested in giving them more money, which they wanted. If you read the rest of that EDITORIAL you quoted you’ll find this.

“Vermont is not Texas, where the public defender’s program is notorious for signing up incompetent, inebriated, or sleep-deprived lawyers for indigent clients. But lawyers who are short of resources cannot serve their clients well.”

This is all this is about… the DA’s office wanted more money than Dean wanted to give them.



See Also the disturbing accounts of Dean's relationship with Vermont's Attorney General William Sorrel:

Dean's Corruption in the Green Mountain State
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/Frank_Dean-Sorrell-Corruption.htm

What a steaming pile... nothing but inuendo and asumptions. Not one source supplied to back up any of the accusations.


As for the civil liberties stuff, Dean said there would be debate… and in another quote he said very clearly he was talking about things like airport security, and the Clark Corps are trying to spin it as if he was pining for McCarthyism.


Now can the Clark Corps guy who posted this collection of crap, care to explain exactly why Clark was working as a fucking lobbyist for Henry Kissinger up until the day he declared he was running as a democrat?

[wyldwolf]

50. After all that, all that was accomplished is...

..we now know what your opinion is - with no sources to confirm!

Dodge, duck, spin!

[TLM]

53. As expected... when someone does take time to negate these points.

you attack them, and claim they are dodging.


Same thing you have done over and over again.

I also note that you couldn't respond to so much as a single refutation I offered, nor could you answer my question about Clark being a lobbyist for Kissinger.


Also, half the sources you cite, do in fact support my points if you bother to click on them and read them, rather than just puking up the talking point sheet that has half of a sentence cut out of context to try to prop up some half assed spin attack.

Feel free to address any specific point, and I will shoot your spin to shit, easily. I will not however continue to play this game where you post a mountain of shit someone else prepared, then I spend an hour writing a full response only to have you reply with some snide shit before running to the next thread to repost this shit again as if it had not been refuted.

Your shit has been negated, respond to that or make excuses, the choice is yours.

[wyldwolf]

57. No, they weren't negated... c'mon...

These points were sourced. You disputed them from your mind.

That isn't negating, its spinnning.

Also, half the sources you cite, do in fact support my points if you bother to click on them and read them...

What about the other half?

I will not however continue to play this game where you post a mountain of shit someone else prepared

snicker...

[TLM]

60. You sourced op ed pieces and outright attacks...

then you spun them. I negated the spin quite effectivly, as evident by the fact you won't even try to argue my points. But then, since you are just rehashing someone else's troll piece, you wouldn't know where to start an actual argument on these points... so all you can do is attack me or stick your head in the sand and try to deny that the BS attacks were just shot down.

[wyldwolf]

62. I thought I was on ignore!

Don't disappoint me!

And I hear that "stick your head in the sand" line sooo much its really losing its effect.

[TLM]

65. Well I figured that if I pointed out where you really have your head stuck

the post would be deleted.

[wyldwolf]

69. You're sooo cute!

...how can you be responding to me when you put me on ignore?

[gully]

84. Im with you TLM. The spirit in which this thread was started deserves

no response.

If I thought you were really 'concerned' and open to another opinion, I'd be glad to take the time to reply.

You know these issues have been debated here on numerous occasions.

Thankfully for you, Clark has no record for us to examine though huh?

[wyldwolf]

88. Gully! You're back!

Remember how you were saying I'd broke a rule but it turned out you were mistaken?

Well, check out THIS rule infraction!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=531857

[gully]

96. I posted the title of the story, I only wish people had read it...

Fire in the Belly: Is Clark His Own Man?
by Tamara Baker

http://www.apj.us/20030916Baker.html

If you have a problem with the title, write the author.

Here it is again for those who missed it. Apparently the mod didn't see the content on Clark?


"Yeah, I know -- he was the head of NATO during President Clinton's time in office. But really -- who is he?

Does he have his own thoughts, his own views, his own philosophy on how a nation should be run? Is he running because he, Wesley Clark, really wants to become our next President?

Or is he not really his own man, but just the last gasp of the elitist Democratic Leadership Council's "Stop Dean" brigade?"

[bushclipper]

71. It does appear that you're spinning these points...

...perhaps there is no other way to refute them? Or maybe you're not privy to the info?

But opposing the sources through your own mind is not negating. And your vocabulary leaves a lot to be desired.

[gully]

85. Bushclipper, haven't you come to wyldwolfs defense on other occasions?

Seems there are a few 'new' posters who do so?

[TLM]

143. I noticed that too.... clark corps crap.

meme squad out in force.

Notice not one of them has even tried to argue my points, rather they just attack and claim there was no refutation, call my response spin, and ignore every hole that was just shot in their attack.


That's the tactic... post this huge pile of attacks that somebody else wrote up, and then if anybody argues the points, attack them... and if anybody attacks them, they cry that nobody is arguing the points.

[IndianaGreen]

51. C'mon, I stayed out of your Clark threads (I am trying to be good)

If you are going to start this thing with Dean you will only succeed in pissing people off that you are going to need later on if Clark becomes the Democratic nominee.

This is as bad as those posters that start their threads by saying "I am not for censorship, but..." and then proceed to advocate censorship.

[wyldwolf]

52. I agree with you...

... the reverse is also true, though.

Did you notice there were no threads that could be construed as "anti" for the past few days until someone posted a few on Clark today? And then seemed appalled that someone would post something that might be taken as negative on Dean?

oh well, so much for truces.

[IndianaGreen]

55. I think we all need to remember who the real enemy is

It is one thing to post a news story that is published about a candidate or his/her campaign, it is quite another when one starts by attacking one the Democratic candidates. There are enough fireworks in the media as it is, just witness the stories about the "feud" between Kerry and Dean.

Oh well, c'est la guerre!


"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the
manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words,
you can control the people who must use the words."
(Philip K.Dick)

[TLM]

58. Republicans are the enemy...

that includes Clark... lobbyist for Kissigner and Republican fundraiser.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

59. Well, now TLM, you've gone and hurt my feelings...

not.

[TLM]

64. Where's your substantive argument...

so far you posted someone else's troll, and openly admitted doing so as a continuation and response to anti-Clark posts.

When your garbage was exposed as such, point-by-point, you just stuck your head in the sand and ignored that, refused to argue the points raised, and launched into personal attacks.

You are clearly tolling and no longer warrant response from those of us interested in actual substantive debate.

Bu bye.

[wyldwolf]

68. I'm STILL not on ignore!

You really disappoint me, TLM. I thought you were a man of your word.

However, before you go, clear one item up for me:

so far you posted someone else's troll, and openly admitted doing so ...

I missed that. I mean, you think I would know my own post but... point it out to me how I "posted someone else's troll."

[gully]

93. My threads were not 'anti' anyone. They were valid issues raised

by journalists of late. I continue to check Clarks website for 'issues' and there STILL aren't any.

I dunno bout you, but I am concerned that the front runner is someone we know little about.

I may be a staunch Clark defender someday, if I knew what the hell it was I was defending.

The first primaries are a couple months away, and I want to know what Clark is selling before I buy.

I don't think that's too much to ask for.

[wyldwolf]

95. you say po-tay-toe, I say po-tah-toe...

They were valid issues raised... because they were about Clark. Valid issues about Dean are just lies! bwhahahahaha!

[gully]

99. Valid issues about Clark are not addressed by you, you simply start

a Dean bashing thread to 'distract'... Flame bait if it were. And you get away with it time and again.

You admited this thread was such.

The issues you raised are not new, and you know it. Dean has been put through the ringer here more then anyone. So, I ask why is Clark sacred Wyldwolf? Is it because he hasn't clarified his positions in writing anywhere?

That's a pretty good tactic, if you can be the front runner with out a clear stand on the issues.

Pretty hard to critique NOTHING now isn't it.

[wyldwolf]

103. what a funny post!

Flame bait if it were. And you get away with it time and again.

Must mean you and the mods/admins disagree on the definition.

The issues you raised are not new, and you know it. Dean has been put through the ringer here more then anyone. So, I ask why is Clark sacred Wyldwolf? Is it because he hasn't clarified his positions in writing anywhere?

Well, until their either addressed with actual sources (i.e., NOT the responder's keen intellect) and until the very last new member joins who've never seen the info, they remain valid questions.

As for Clark, flame away, hell I don't care. That is to be expected when one is in the lead. Part of the political game.

Did you enjoy your time away?

[gully]

110. Glad you got a chuckle. I did enjoy my time away, thanks!

Though I don't believe you were actually concerned about Dean, I did take 5 mns to address your so called concerns.

Also, if you are concerned about these things, why is Dean your #3 man?

I'm glad you can take the Clark heat though, because the right wing is gonna give you plenty if Clark gets the nomination.

Most of the concerns have been addressed by Nico Pitney here...I imagine you've seen this? I may duplicate his efforts however.

http://deandefense.org/archives/000596.html

Regarding Howard Dean's (so called) Republican leanings:

You seem to call being fiscally responsible Republican? I guess that concerns me. We need someone who is going to get our deficit under control, and Dean is that man.

However, Dean puts jobs before a balanced Budget...

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/09/27/dean/print.html

In addition, Vermont is one of few states not suffering under the Bush administrations 'borrow and spend' policies. Dean is just what this country needs after the wreckless spending of the Bush administration.

Howard Dean, fiscally responsible-socially liberal. Exactly what the doctor ordered IMHO.

Regarding the enviroment.

http://deandefense.org/archives/000596.html

++ The Environment: Dean's Vermont "has one of the most progressive environmental programmes in America" according to the London Times. As former Vermont radio and television talk show host Jeff Kaufman points out, "During his decade in office, Governor Dean helped protect more land from development than all previous governors combined; ... he administered a 'best practices' agriculture plan that preserves land and water quality; he helped form the nation's first statewide energy efficiency utility (preventing more than one million tons of greenhouse gas emissions since 2000); and he championed a commuter rail system to lower traffic congestion and pollution while diminishing urban sprawl (in its last report on sprawl, the Sierra Club ranked Vermont as the second best state in America for land use planning)." Vermont also followed California's lead in establishing regulations on greenhouse gas emissions that go beyond standards set in the Kyoto Protocol. According to the New York Times, Dean "is calling for the auto industry to build cars that get 40 miles per gallon by 2015 and for 20 percent of the nation's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020. ... s president he would close the loophole that exempts sport utility vehicles from gas-mileage standards, ... make the Environmental Protection Agency cabinet level and work to re-establish the Clinton administration rules limiting roads in national forests." Even when Dean was judged less favorably on environmental issues, the executive director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council Elizabeth Courtney recognizes that pressing economic circumstances impacted his decisions ("in the early 90s the rest of the country seemed to be pulling out of the recession and Vermont seemed to be languishing in it") and acknowledges Dean's general qualities as governor: "fresh candor and intelligence. You always know where Howard Dean stands. He is candid and honest in his communications with Vermonters, and he is appreciated for that. He's also very bright, and he has a clear sense of his direction." The San Francisco Chronicle reported that " Pope said that although the Sierra Club had some disagreements with Dean's land-use policies, Dean did 'fabulous things in Vermont.'"

Howard Dean and State's Rights. This doesn't concern me personally. What's Clarks position on States Rights BTW? Or, don't we know that yet.

Here is some info on the medical Marijuana issue.

++ Medicinal Marijuana: Dean's reputation as a hard-headed skeptic of medicinal marijuana belies his actual position, which is more nuanced (if a bit neurotic, presumably because of his experience as a doctor). Dean doesn't "believe the war on drugs is a criminal matter; it's a public health matter. I think to throw users in jail is silly." He recently told the Liberal Oasis that his "opposition to medical marijuana is based on science, not based on ideology. More specifically, I don't think we should single out a particular drug for approval through political means when we approve other drugs through scientific means. When I'm President, I will require the FDA to evaluate marijuana with a double blind study with the same kinds of scientific protocols that every other drug goes through. I'm certainly willing to abide by what the FDA says." After resisting a medicinal marijuana bill that had made its way through the Vermont legislature for the reasons stated above, Dean eventually did sign a bill in June 2002 that established a task force "to investigate and assess options for legal protections which will allow seriously ill Vermonters to use medical marijuana without facing criminal prosecution under Vermont law." The Marijuana Policy Project said the bill set "the wheels in motion for solid patient protection."


2. Civil unions and gay marriage-Dean risked his political career.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/pica_essay_winner_2001_dziczek.html

"In his campaign for reelection to a fifth gubernatorial term, an ambitious Dean would have focused on health care, taxes, or any of a number of "safe" political platforms. However, disturbed by Vermont’s reaction toward gay civil unions, Dean made the "extension of the rights and benefits of the constitution to all Vermonters, regardless of their sexual orientation" (Dean) the heart of his campaign for acceptance and understanding. Over the next six months, Dean fought harder for open-mindedness than for votes. He spoke against the "Take Back Vermont" movement, his most serious Election Day threat, stating that he never wanted to take Vermont back to "a time when it was okay to discriminate against people" (Goldberg). Dean effectively avoided the homophobic trends in political campaigning, but burdened himself with the political plague in popularity polls.

In an interview with The Advocate, Dean maintained that despite damage to his campaign, he had no regrets about supporting Vermont’s civil unions bill: "This . . . is about principle, and that principle is respect for everyone—and that is regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, race, or any one of a number of factors that makes us different" (Dean). Minority champions like Dean, with the courage to hold principle and respect for all people above common opinion, are the reasons that today women can vote, African Americans are legally protected from discrimination, and homosexuals can engage in civil unions.


3. Gun Control

"Let's keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have, close the gun show loophole using Insta-check, and then let the states decide for themselves what if any gun control laws they want. - Howard Dean, A-rating from the NRA.

I agree with Dean's stated position, and so does Clark right?

Howard Dean on justice, public defense, and civil rights

I'd like to see actual quotes from Dean on these issues. The author of this article takes great liberties. Reminds me of an Ann Coulter piece.

However, Dean defense has a lengthy examination of these claims.

http://deandefense.org/archives/000744.html

In addition you can actually view Deans position on his website. Still waiting for Clarks...

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights

Regarding Green Mountain...Are you endorsing all the information on dissident voice? If so you should look at the Clark concerns as well. The Green Mountain issue has been discussed here, and you've taken part, so I won't rehash.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

I personally find their info on Clark much more disturbing.

ALSO, WOULD YOU BE SO KIND AS TO PROVIDE US WITH INFORMATION ON CLARK REGARDING THESE ISSUES?

Perhaps you can start a new thread/info dump on Clark, so we know where he stands on the issues you are concerned about most.


Thanks

[RapidCreek]

121. Thanks for the intellegent response Gully!

Don't know that I agree with all of the above, but it's nice to read something coherent in response to Wyldwolfs post. Now I guess it's up to Mr. Wolf to answer your questions.....will he, I wonder?

What are Clarks positions on the points Gully brought up Wolfy? Got anything to say about where your man stands? Thus far I havn't heard anything from you on that. How about it, watcha got for us?

RC

[wyldwolf]

123. A response...

Gully wrote:

Also, if you are concerned about these things, why is Dean your #3 man?

It is because I'm concerned about these things that he is my #3, not my #1 or #2. He is closer in other aspects than the other 6, but not as close as #1 and #2.

Regarding Howard Dean's (so called) Republican leanings:

You seem to call being fiscally responsible Republican? I guess that concerns me. We need someone who is going to get our deficit under control, and Dean is that man.

However, Dean puts jobs before a balanced Budget...

In addition, Vermont is one of few states not suffering under the Bush administrations 'borrow and spend' policies. Dean is just what this country needs after the wreckless spending of the Bush administration.

Howard Dean, fiscally responsible-socially liberal. Exactly what the doctor ordered IMHO.

All that is wonderful and Dean is to be commended, but, as you can see from the original post, my contention of Dean's republican-like leanings never touched on the idea of fiscal responsibility. Besides, since the Clinton administration, the democrats have been the party of fiscal responsibility.

No, my belief that Dean has republican leanings stemmed from Former VT governor Philip H. Hoff who said "As governor, he fell under the sway of business interests."

And, environmental activists who saw Dean as just another Republican in Democrat's clothing.

Regarding the enviroment.

++ The Environment: Dean's Vermont "has one of the most progressive environmental programmes in America" according to the London Times. As former Vermont radio and television talk show host Jeff Kaufman points out, "During his decade in office, Governor Dean helped protect more land from development than all previous governors combined; ... he administered a 'best practices' agriculture plan that preserves land and water quality; he helped form the nation's first statewide energy efficiency utility (preventing more than one million tons of greenhouse gas emissions since 2000); and he championed a commuter rail system to lower traffic congestion and pollution while diminishing urban sprawl (in its last report on sprawl, the Sierra Club ranked Vermont as the second best state in America for land use planning)." Vermont also followed California's lead in establishing regulations on greenhouse gas emissions that go beyond standards set in the Kyoto Protocol. According to the New York Times, Dean "is calling for the auto industry to build cars that get 40 miles per gallon by 2015 and for 20 percent of the nation's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020. ... s president he would close the loophole that exempts sport utility vehicles from gas-mileage standards, ... make the Environmental Protection Agency cabinet level and work to re-establish the Clinton administration rules limiting roads in national forests." Even when Dean was judged less favorably on environmental issues, the executive director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council Elizabeth Courtney recognizes that pressing economic circumstances impacted his decisions ("in the early 90s the rest of the country seemed to be pulling out of the recession and Vermont seemed to be languishing in it") and acknowledges Dean's general qualities as governor: "fresh candor and intelligence. You always know where Howard Dean stands. He is candid and honest in his communications with Vermonters, and he is appreciated for that. He's also very bright, and he has a clear sense of his direction." The San Francisco Chronicle reported that " Pope said that although the Sierra Club had some disagreements with Dean's land-use policies, Dean did 'fabulous things in Vermont.'"

Dean never once got the endorsement of the sierra club in Vermont.

Also, there is this article: http://www.wildmatters.org./stories.php?storyID=85

"......"EP under Governor Dean means Expedite Permits, not Environmental Protection," proclaims Annette Smith, the director of the Danby-based Vermonters for a Clean Environment.

Smith is no stranger to Dean's environmental record, having tangled with the Dean administration on everything from OMYA's mining to pesticide usage on Vermont's mega-farms. When Smith learned that Dean was holding a press conference at the Burlington Community Boathouse last week to celebrate his eco-legacy, she fired off emails to Vermont environmentalist calling for a protest of the event and wondering if they were "going to let Governor Dean ride out on his white horse of environmental leadership?"

....."Dean's attempts to run for president as an environmentalist is nothing but a fraud," Smith told Wild Matters. "He's destroyed the Agency of Natural Resources, he's refused to meet with environmentalists while constantly meeting with the development community, and he's made the permitting process one, big dysfunctional joke."

.....Remember, when Dean took office there were no Wal-Marts in Vermont; there was no Home Depots; Burlington’s downtown was dominated by local stores not the national chains that now rule the roost; there were 36% more small farmers in existence; there were no 100,000-hen mega-farms; and sprawl wasn't a word on the tip of everyone's tongue.

......Stephanie Kaplan, a leading environmental lawyer and the former executive officer of the Environmental Board, has seen the regulatory process under Dean become so slanted against environmentalists and concerned citizens that she hardly thinks its worth putting up a fight anymore.

“Under Dean the Act 250 process (Vermont’s primary development review law) and the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) have lost their way,” contends Kaplan. “Dean created the myth that environmental laws hurt the economy and set the tone to allow Act 250 and the ANR to simply be permit mills for developers.”

Kaplan points to the “Environmental Board purge” in the mid-90s that allowed Dean to set the pro-development tone.

.....A year after receiving their public rebuke from Dean, four of the Environmental Board members – including the chair – were up for reappointment. With the not-so-subtle clues from Dean that he didn’t approve of the Board’s political direction, the Republican majority in the state senate shot down each and every one of their appointments, thus dramatically changing both the structure and climate of the Board."

Dean was also a backer of shipping nuclear waste to both Yucca Mountain and to Sierra Blanca

Howard Dean and State's Rights. This doesn't concern me personally. What's Clarks position on States Rights BTW? Or, don't we know that yet.

We're discussing Howard Dean here.

Civil unions and gay marriage-Dean risked his political career.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/pica_essay_winner_2001_dziczek.html

"In his campaign for reelection to a fifth gubernatorial term, an ambitious Dean would have focused on health care, taxes, or any of a number of "safe" political platforms. However, disturbed by Vermont’s reaction toward gay civil unions, Dean made the "extension of the rights and benefits of the constitution to all Vermonters, regardless of their sexual orientation" (Dean) the heart of his campaign for acceptance and understanding. Over the next six months, Dean fought harder for open-mindedness than for votes. He spoke against the "Take Back Vermont" movement, his most serious Election Day threat, stating that he never wanted to take Vermont back to "a time when it was okay to discriminate against people" (Goldberg). Dean effectively avoided the homophobic trends in political campaigning, but burdened himself with the political plague in popularity polls.

In an interview with The Advocate, Dean maintained that despite damage to his campaign, he had no regrets about supporting Vermont’s civil unions bill: "This . . . is about principle, and that principle is respect for everyone—and that is regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, race, or any one of a number of factors that makes us different" (Dean). Minority champions like Dean, with the courage to hold principle and respect for all people above common opinion, are the reasons that today women can vote, African Americans are legally protected from discrimination, and homosexuals can engage in civil unions.

The Vermont Supreme Court forced Dean to choose between civil unions or gay marriage...

"Dean really had no choice in this, regardless of risking his career.
In December 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that Vermont was "constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law." The court instructed the legislature to grant gays "inclusion within the marriage laws themselves or a parallel 'domestic partnership' or some equivalent statutory alternative."

Given that choice (being forced to make a choice), Dean took the more conservative option. According to the Associated Press, Vermont's lieutenant governor and House speaker supported gay marriage, but Dean didn't. Gay marriage "makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else," Dean said at the time. So he encouraged the legislature to pass a civil unions bill, averting legalizing gay marriage.

Many supporters of the bill criticized Dean for signing it "in the closet," in private and without a ceremony.

Gun Control

"Let's keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have, close the gun show loophole using Insta-check, and then let the states decide for themselves what if any gun control laws they want. - Howard Dean, A-rating from the NRA.

I agree with Dean's stated position, and so does Clark right?

Only to a point. Clark supports a complete ban on assault weapons whereas Clark would let the states decide.

Howard Dean on justice, public defense, and civil rights

I'd like to see actual quotes from Dean on these issues. The author of this article takes great liberties. Reminds me of an Ann Coulter piece.

However, Dean defense has a lengthy examination of these claims.

In addition you can actually view Deans position on his website. Still waiting for Clarks...

This isn't a denial, it's discrediting the source instead of adressing the point. The links you provided essentially say what Dean is saying now, not what his actions have been. We know people will say a lot. And again, we're discussing Dean, not Clark. Saying "but what about Clark" isn't a valid or meaningful point.

regarding Green Mountain...Are you endorsing all the information on dissident voice? If so you should look at the Clark concerns as well. The Green Mountain issue has been discussed here, and you've taken part, so I won't rehash.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, I have seen that.

[gully]

126. You've simply repeated yourself Wyldwolf...

And regurgitated the same articles that Dean haters post regularilly.

However, I'll await that Clark thread on the issues you raised.

Thanks ;)

[wyldwolf]

128. You're right...

..because you spun out of the point again.

[gully]

130. No, I gave you information that was contrary to the information you posted

If you bothered to read the links and info I posted that is.

I won't hold my breath for that Clark thread on the issues...

[wyldwolf]

132. no, you ignored the issues...

..for example, you tried to play off Dean's republican leanings by making fiscal responsibility the point, conveniently ignoring AGAIN that the points I made had to do with Dean's pro-business and environmental postitions.

[gully]

134. I addressed the concerns. You may need to actually read my post? And the

links I provided for the answer. I don't expect I'll open your mind any. But, I do know that we can find people who agree with you and those who agree with me and we could continue for an eternity here playing point counter point.

I'd rather not...

You however have ignored my request for Clarks positions on the issues you raised AGAIN.

[wyldwolf]

136. Gully...

Goodnight.

I'm sure we'll spar again later. :)

[RapidCreek]

138. Gee Wyldwolf...

I sure appreciate you inspiring the Dean supporters to defend their man. It would be nice if you took them up on their request to develop your arguments on Clark's positions. I must say I am a little bit in the dark on his positions, myself. It is only fair that you compare the positions of your guy Clark with those of Deans that you criticize. Don't you think?

RC

[AP]

61. How about posters who say, I'm liberal

and then say that Michael Portillo is charismatic and interesting?

[IndianaGreen]

67. I find Michael Portillo charismatic and interesting...

Just because I might want to fuck him, doesn't mean I want to marry him!

:evilgrin:

I would love to crack the whip over his buns...

[AP]

70. Would you want to elect him PM?

[IndianaGreen]

73. Fucking him and voting for him are not mutually inclusive

Besides, he might turn into a raging Marxist by the time I get through with him.

[janekat]

77. Dean's flip-flop on Iraq

http://www.blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/000211.html
.... many people said they respect Kerry but disagreed with his vote on the war. I shared with them Dean's own position, dated February 20, 2003, from Salon.com:

"If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

People were, to say the least, quite surprised. They assumed Dean's anti-war position was unequivocal.

When I spelled out Kerry's position -- that he voted, as under Clinton, to allow the president to go to the UN with this authorization to force Saddam into readmitting the inspectors -- they often walked away just a little less certain of the sheen of Dean's rhetoric.

JANUARY 31, 2003 - LA TIMES

Ron Brownstein writes that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, would support military action, even without U.N. authorization."

FEBRUARY 10, 2003 - NY TIMES

"Action with the U.N. is where we should be aiming at right now. We should be going back and set a timeline with the U.N. for absolute disarmament. I've chosen 60 days. And then there would be military action. Look, Saddam has to be disarmed. Everybody has to understand that."

FEBRUARY 20, 2003 - SALON.COM

Jake Tapper writes, " is -- 'as I've said about eight times today,' says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.


FEBRUARY 25, 2003 - PBS NEWS HOUR

"If Saddam refuses, for example, to destroy the missiles as the United Nations has demanded, then I think the United Nations is going to have an obligation to disarm him."

"If he were , I would advocate unilateral action."

[killbotfactory]

83. How is that a flip flop?

Dean didn't want to invade Iraq, or give Bush authority to invade, unless Iraq was a threat to the US or unless Iraq refused to disarm and the UN would do nothing about it.

His Iraq position was pure common sense. It's not his fault Kerry backed down from this reasonable position and voted to give Bush authority to invade another country, and then supported the unilateral invasion even though inspections were cut short and Bush bungled the diplomacy horribly, without proof that the country was a threat to the US.

[TLM]

144. Don't expect an answer from the meme-bots.

the Dean flip flop ont he war meme is a one that can carry no argument.

One simply needs to point out that Dean's position has been consistant, and taking parts of his statemetns about different plans of action based on different circumstances, and acting as if they are all the same, is what this crap is based on.

Dean's position has been the same since day 1. He was against going into Iraq and supported a policy of inspection and containment to disarm Saddam of any weapons he may have.

However absent proof of a real threat to the US, there is no justification for war.

When asked under what circumstances he would support unilateral action against Iraq Dean said IF we find weapons that consitute a real thrat to the US and IF the UN refused to act, only then would he support such action.


You see the bashers take a quote from Dean saying we shouldn't be in Iraq... then they take part of a quote from Dean answering the questions under what circumstances he would support invasion and try to act as if Dean said he supports invasion after saying he is against it.

Dean said he would support invasion only is certian things happened, and they have not happened. Yet the bashers edit out that preface, and act as if Dean just said he supports invasion.

[Kolesar]

101. 2 environmentalists and 1 pissed off web site writer

I would like to see more material on Dean's environmental record. Your citation only had a few summary paragraphs, and it is hard to figure out what exactly happened in Vermont under Governor Dean. The other environmental websites I have visited have not been so critical of Dean.

[janekat]

107. Where's that huge thread that I started on Dean and the Environment

about a week ago? Can anyone pull it up?

[janekat]

109. acticle re: Dean and the Environment

http://www.wildmatters.org./stories.php?storyID=85
......"EP under Governor Dean means Expedite Permits, not Environmental Protection," proclaims Annette Smith, the director of the Danby-based Vermonters for a Clean Environment.

Smith is no stranger to Dean's environmental record, having tangled with the Dean administration on everything from OMYA's mining to pesticide usage on Vermont's mega-farms. When Smith learned that Dean was holding a press conference at the Burlington Community Boathouse last week to celebrate his eco-legacy, she fired off emails to Vermont environmentalist calling for a protest of the event and wondering if they were "going to let Governor Dean ride out on his white horse of environmental leadership?"

....."Dean's attempts to run for president as an environmentalist is nothing but a fraud," Smith told Wild Matters. "He's destroyed the Agency of Natural Resources, he's refused to meet with environmentalists while constantly meeting with the development community, and he's made the permitting process one, big dysfunctional joke."

.....Remember, when Dean took office there were no Wal-Marts in Vermont; there was no Home Depots; Burlington’s downtown was dominated by local stores not the national chains that now rule the roost; there were 36% more small farmers in existence; there were no 100,000-hen mega-farms; and sprawl wasn't a word on the tip of everyone's tongue.

......Stephanie Kaplan, a leading environmental lawyer and the former executive officer of the Environmental Board, has seen the regulatory process under Dean become so slanted against environmentalists and concerned citizens that she hardly thinks its worth putting up a fight anymore.

“Under Dean the Act 250 process (Vermont’s primary development review law) and the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) have lost their way,” contends Kaplan. “Dean created the myth that environmental laws hurt the economy and set the tone to allow Act 250 and the ANR to simply be permit mills for developers.”

Kaplan points to the “Environmental Board purge” in the mid-90s that allowed Dean to set the pro-development tone.

.....A year after receiving their public rebuke from Dean, four of the Environmental Board members – including the chair – were up for reappointment. With the not-so-subtle clues from Dean that he didn’t approve of the Board’s political direction, the Republican majority in the state senate shot down each and every one of their appointments, thus dramatically changing both the structure and climate of the Board.

[gully]

111. Dean has an excellent environmental record in Vermont.

The Environment: Dean's Vermont "has one of the most progressive environmental programmes in America" according to the London Times. As former Vermont radio and television talk show host Jeff Kaufman points out, "During his decade in office, Governor Dean helped protect more land from development than all previous governors combined; ... he administered a 'best practices' agriculture plan that preserves land and water quality; he helped form the nation's first statewide energy efficiency utility (preventing more than one million tons of greenhouse gas emissions since 2000); and he championed a commuter rail system to lower traffic congestion and pollution while diminishing urban sprawl (in its last report on sprawl, the Sierra Club ranked Vermont as the second best state in America for land use planning)." Vermont also followed California's lead in establishing regulations on greenhouse gas emissions that go beyond standards set in the Kyoto Protocol. According to the New York Times, Dean "is calling for the auto industry to build cars that get 40 miles per gallon by 2015 and for 20 percent of the nation's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020. ... s president he would close the loophole that exempts sport utility vehicles from gas-mileage standards, ... make the Environmental Protection Agency cabinet level and work to re-establish the Clinton administration rules limiting roads in national forests." Even when Dean was judged less favorably on environmental issues, the executive director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council Elizabeth Courtney recognizes that pressing economic circumstances impacted his decisions ("in the early 90s the rest of the country seemed to be pulling out of the recession and Vermont seemed to be languishing in it") and acknowledges Dean's general qualities as governor: "fresh candor and intelligence. You always know where Howard Dean stands. He is candid and honest in his communications with Vermonters, and he is appreciated for that. He's also very bright, and he has a clear sense of his direction." The San Francisco Chronicle reported that " Pope said that although the Sierra Club had some disagreements with Dean's land-use policies, Dean did 'fabulous things in Vermont.'"

http://deandefense.org/archives/000596.html

[janekat]

116. Thanks to Jeffords and Leahy - Vermont is "Green" NOT Dean...

Dean green on trail, but Vermont knows better
http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/state2003/082103dean_env_2003.shtml
On the primary campaign trail, Howard Dean speaks with great intensity about the environment. He talks about the need to develop wind power and combat global warming at virtually every campaign stop, delighting many a green-minded voter.

.....But back home in Vermont, Howard Dean wasn't exactly the belle of the granola ball. In his five campaigns for governor, the Sierra Club's Vermont chapter never endorsed him. Even in 2000, when he faced the most difficult election of his career after signing the country's first civil unions bill, 40 prominent environmentalists publicly backed Progressive Party candidate Anthony Pollina.

.....While Dean might have been a bit greener than your average governor, Vermont is whole lot greener than your average state.

"In Vermont, I was pretty much in the middle - the business community on one side, the environmental community on the other," Dean said in an interview yesterday. "But in the end we did what we had to do to make the environment better and stronger.

-snip-

Dean suggested the state consider building a clean coal-fired plant. Though he emphasized he wasn't necessarily proposing anything - "this is intended to spur discussion," he said - the environmental community flew into an uproar. What about renewables? What about conservation?

....in a move that enraged progressives even further, he ousted one of his environmental advisers, respected Conservation Law Foundation attorney Elizabeth Courtney, for publishing an opinion piece criticizing Dean.

.....Tom Elliott, the former volunteer political director for the Vermont Sierra Club, said he stood outside a Dean fundraiser the week of the coal controversy wearing a sign that said, "Shame on you, Dr. Dean."

"Howard Dean's environmental record in Vermont is toxic," he said the other day.

[gully]

120. Guess thats debatable at best....

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_record_environment

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_record_economy_agriculture

And once again...

"++ The Environment: Dean's Vermont "has one of the most progressive environmental programmes in America" according to the London Times. As former Vermont radio and television talk show host Jeff Kaufman points out, "During his decade in office, Governor Dean helped protect more land from development than all previous governors combined; ... he administered a 'best practices' agriculture plan that preserves land and water quality; he helped form the nation's first statewide energy efficiency utility (preventing more than one million tons of greenhouse gas emissions since 2000); and he championed a commuter rail system to lower traffic congestion and pollution while diminishing urban sprawl (in its last report on sprawl, the Sierra Club ranked Vermont as the second best state in America for land use planning)." Vermont also followed California's lead in establishing regulations on greenhouse gas emissions that go beyond standards set in the Kyoto Protocol. According to the New York Times, Dean "is calling for the auto industry to build cars that get 40 miles per gallon by 2015 and for 20 percent of the nation's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020. ... s president he would close the loophole that exempts sport utility vehicles from gas-mileage standards, ... make the Environmental Protection Agency cabinet level and work to re-establish the Clinton administration rules limiting roads in national forests." Even when Dean was judged less favorably on environmental issues, the executive director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council Elizabeth Courtney recognizes that pressing economic circumstances impacted his decisions ("in the early 90s the rest of the country seemed to be pulling out of the recession and Vermont seemed to be languishing in it") and acknowledges Dean's general qualities as governor: "fresh candor and intelligence. You always know where Howard Dean stands. He is candid and honest in his communications with Vermonters, and he is appreciated for that. He's also very bright, and he has a clear sense of his direction." The San Francisco Chronicle reported that " Pope said that although the Sierra Club had some disagreements with Dean's land-use policies, Dean did 'fabulous things in Vermont.'"

The information I gave sites many sources...

[TLM]

145. As I already pointed out about these attacks...

they come from a handfull of very anti-development folks.


Dean is greener than GOre, but he gets so much shit from the far out wackos that thing that we should all be living in caves wearing fig leaves to be one with nature. These folks are anti-development in any form at all.

Dean told them flat out that their policy would keep VT in the economic problems... you can not have economic growth without some level of development. Dean did a great job of balancing the needs of business with the enviornment.

The fact that a handful of the extreamists didn't like his support for business in VT, is hardly a sound attack.

[poskonig]

113. These aren't real problems.

Though I also have concerns with Dean, this thread is poorly thought out. What purpose it serves beyond internecine warfare is unclear.

Vermont is the only state that has gay marriage, for instance. If Dean has any problem on this issue, it is that he actually signed the bill, which southerners may not like.

Republican leanings will actually help Dean in the election. I find it interesting that when Dean was losing he was called McGovern, but when he is winning, he is called Gingrich.

Rethink your position, and try posting again.

[wyldwolf]

115. OK. thanks!

Though I also have concerns with Dean, this thread is poorly thought out.

Flows perfectly to me. And some others. I see you have a problem with it. That's OK! That is what a discussion forum is for.

Vermont is the only state that has gay marriage, for instance. If Dean has any problem on this issue, it is that he actually signed the bill, which southerners may not like.

No, Vermont has civil unions. You know the difference, right?

Republican leanings will actually help Dean in the election. I find it interesting that when Dean was losing he was called McGovern, but when he is winning, he is called Gingrich.

Ah! You admit he has Republican leanings. OK, cool. I'd be interested to know how that will help him since it is so widely denied and Dean supporters have spun him into a Wellstone-Liberal.

Also, I don't recall a time when Dean was actually losing. I thought it was pretty common knowledge the McGovern comparisons were based on Dean's perceived maverick liberal democrat persona. I guess you missed that point.

And actually, only Gephardt is comparing him to Gingrich, so THAT part of you statement is a bit misleading.

Rethink your position, and try posting again.

I rethought it and came up with the same thing! Damn! And since I have a little experience posting, I don't really need you to tell me to try posting again.

But, hey, thanks!

[poskonig]

119. Well, your idea does merit serious revision.

One needs to decide if Dean is too liberal and cannot win, or is an evil Gingrich stealth Republican in disguise.

I believe you don't care, and this is just "GO-TEAM" Clark/Dean feuding.

[ozone_man]

125. You've got that right.

Civil unions/Gay marriage, what a nitpicker!

Seriously, Dean is a centrist and gay marriage is still a touchy issue. Still, I think Vermont is a leader on this issue and that Dean has put himself on the line to support this law, and he deserves much credit for this. You have no idea what the "take back Vermont" campaign by the conservative Republicans was like. The good thing is that the liberal Republicans supported the bill. :-)

I think California may be the only other state with this progressive legislation (or maybe it is in the works). So Wyldwolf can try to attack his stance, but there is no basis.

The Republican Party has talked about making gay marriage an issue in the election, so it is a sticky issue and Dean has been careful not to go to far, too soon IMO. He is a smart politician, in a good way!

Dean represents the center of the Democratic Party, and as such, he is a social liberal and fiscal conservative. He is strong on environmental and health care issues.

Having said that, some of the things that are dear to me are that he plays ice hockey on Lake Champlain, hikes the Green Mountains, and sent his kids through the public school system.

[gully]

129. Bravo

:toast:

Dean did not want to intrude on the seperation of Church and state, thus the position on Gay marriages. He said it's up to the individual church to decide whom they want to marry.

I find that reasonable personally.

[wyldwolf]

133. You have a quote from Dean on this...

...or did you read his mind?

And ask somone who is gay if the civil union/gay marriage distinction is nit picking.

[gully]

135. I do, and I have gay friends who support Dean..

I wont dig for a quote, because it won't make a difference to you. But I assure you it's out there.

Do the research...

What would Clark have done? Do you know??

[TLM]

146. The civil unions thing is one reason I like Dean...

He got it passed by making the issue about the rights, not the words.

That is pragmatic moderate progress.

[Capn Sunshine]

122. Clark withdraws, Wyldwolf unable to post on DU

There are other topics in the world old buddy. You're preaching to the converted withthis. No one is going to change their vote based on an anti-Dean or a pro Wesley Clark post.

[wyldwolf]

124. check my Dean/Clark/other posts ratio...

I believe you only notice these because they are the ones you look for.