Dean Is NOT Progressive, Would Be WORSE Than Clinton

[DemBones DemBones]

Howard Dean is a centrist who is being perceived as far more left-leaning than he actually is. His own mother said so in an interview, adding that she hoped people wouldn't find that out too soon!

(N.B. I have been studying Dean's positions on issues and have put considerable time into this analysis. If you want to respond to my comments about Dean, please be fair enough to read my entire post first.)

Bill Clinton is also a centrist in many ways, but more left-leaning than Howard Dean, and more charismatic as well. Clinton also came from a lower-middle class home and had to work hard to get where he is today -- Yale graduate, former Rhodes Scholar, holder of a law degree from Yale Law, former Arkansas governor, former two-term president of the United States whose popularity ratings stayed high despite Republican efforts to discredit him, including impeachment.

Like George W. Bush*, Howard Dean was born into wealth. Getting into Yale wasn't quite the accomplishment for the sons of a U.S. president or a Wall Street broker that it was for Bill Clinton, step-son of a car dealer in Hot Springs, Arkansas. Like Bush*, Dean went into the family business (brokerage) after Yale, only later setting his sights on med school. Like Bush*, Dean has never had to do without.

George and Howard can't be blamed for the milieu in which they were raised but as voters we should consider it, asking the question: Does this man really "get it" about what it's like to have to work for a living, to be dependent on a salary for everything you need -- and often for everything your children need? Few people who have been rich all their lives ever really understand what other people's lives are like. They can't imagine not being able to afford to go to the doctor, for example, or not being able to afford needed surgery or tests.

Clinton tried to give Americans national health care. Dean insists that national health care can't be done, which is a fine way to avoid doing it. "Gee, I'd like to but it can't be done." He'd throw a bone or two to the uninsured while protecting health insurance companies' profits and physicians' fat salaries.

Clinton built up a huge projected surplus in Social Security and Medicare. Dean doesn't seem to know exactly what he would do about funding Social Security and Medicare. The other night, and on other occasions, he said he would consider raising the retirement age, a step that is grossly unfair to many Americans, particularly blacks and people who do the physically demanding jobs in our society. If you are black and/or have a physically demanding job, you have a much lower life expectancy than whites with relatively easy jobs. Raising the retirement age for Social Security is highly discriminatory against blacks and anyone who does hard labor, and quite possibly against Hispanics and other minorities as well. American Indians, for example, have a much shorter life expectancy than whites.

Yesterday I read that Dean is backing off on raising retirement age and talking about raising the cap on taxable income, which is what he would have been for in the first place if he were not a centrist accustomed to pleasing the wealthy (and not realizing how others are discriminated against when the retirement age is raised.) Why should only the first $70,000 of income be subject to Social Security tax? It's not as if a few more dollars in Social Security taxes are going to cause someone whose income is over 70K to go bankrupt. And the people at the bottom of the pile are paying more of their income than they should have to because of the cap. Yet the 70K and up crowd will draw Social Security as well and their payments will be larger so why should they be allowed to have part of their income untaxed?

The WORST thing Clinton did was support so-called "free trade" treaties and
policies. We are paying the price for that now. When Clinton was in office, the economy was strong, but Bush* and Cheney started talking down the economy well before the 2000 election, predicting a recession that would "require" massive tax cuts for them and others in the higher tax brackets, (which, combined with military spending needed after Pearl, er, 9/11, made it possible for them to loot the Social Security "lockbox." The economy declined, just as they had wanted it to, and American companies began laying off American workers right and left, exporting their jobs to other countries where labor is far cheaper (low wages, no benefits, little or no environmental or worker protections.)

People in America have to have jobs. Great Depression II is NOT something we want to have to live through. Talk to people who did if you don't believe me. Yet Howard Dean is for "free trade," pro-NAFTA (yes, he says he'd change it a little but he basically supports it) although it means jobs are becoming one of the U.S.'s leading exports.

Free trade is a tool of cheap labor conservatives, not of progressives. It was wrong for Clinton to support it during a strong economy, it's even more wrong for Dean to support it when the economy is on the skids.

Changing NAFTA and WTO sounds good but it's unrealistic to think that countries like India and China are going to agree to amend trade treaties when amendment would require them to initiate environmental and labor protections. They'll laugh at Dean, and American companies will keep sending jobs to Asia and Africa.

Recapping: Dean will allow your job to be transferred overseas. Dean will not work to get national health care for the many uninsured Americans. Dean is not prepared to fix the problems with Social Security. He hasn't pledged to make sure Social Security remains solvent and, for all I know, may think privatization is a good idea, having been a stockbroker himself. Perhaps one of the Dean supporters here at DU can tell us if he's ever answered a question about his views on privatization

What will Dean do that's good? Based on his tenure as Vermont's governor,
he'd sign a bill legalizing civil unions for same-sex couples IF Congress passed one and he couldn't get out of it (but he won't even tell Larry King whether he'd support same-sex marriage.) Would he avoid future wars? Not necessarily. He opposed invading Iraq only because the UN wasn't supporting it. He opposes cutting the Pentagon budget (which has some goofy stuff in it, like the Star Wars missile shield, an Army sponsored NASCAR car, an online Army life video game, etc.) Sounds like BBC to me -- Barely Better than Chimpy.

Dean is NOT a progressive. Dean will be WORSE than Clinton.

[liberalnurse]

1. Okay, then don't vote for him.....

Your going to be lonely out there. Well, I love ya and I'll leave the porch light on...

[joeybee12]

2. Barely Better Than Chimpy????????????????????

Can't be possible because I believe Chimpy is BBTH--Barely Better Than Hitler.

[Tammuz]

7. He wont get rid of.....

The patriot act
Genetically modified food
Nafta
WTO


So he isnt much better

[ButterflyBlood]

38. He said the unconstitutional parts of the patriot act should be repealed

and there is nothing wrong with genetically modified food.

[DemBones DemBones]

41. The entire Patriot Act needs to be repealed and there is plenty

wrong with GM foods.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[geoforce]

128. RE: FOX NEWS: FAIR AND BALANCED??? YOU DECIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:puffpiece:
This is a petition for people to express their views on the FOX News Channel. Are you familiar with this channel? Do you have any opinions to express about it??? If so please post your comments on the link below. What is Your Take on Bill O'Really, Sean Hannity-Insanity, and other FOX ancwhors? The results will be sent unedited and unexpurgated to FOX anchwhors.

This is really more like a man on the street interview than an typical petition or poll. This is about Your Ideas. If you would like, you can post your name online as "anonymous" or just your first or last name (though full name is preferred), but please post only once. This is a fair and balanced petition.

Some people have informed me that this petition has been "freeped," because there are Pro-Fox views. Actually I tried to post the link to the petition on freerepublic.com myself to get a full range of opinion, since this is a free country. Immediately after posting the link my post disappeared and my posting privilage was revoked. For some reason The Free Republic doesn't want freepers to express their views on this issue.

I also feel it's my duty to inform womenfolk and kinfolk that this link contains some strong and suggestive language which may be considered inappropriate, so viewer discretion is advised.

If anyone is concerned that posting on this petition will let Fox know that you are watching, which is what they want, you should know that they don't really care. FOX News is the #1 Cable "News" channel. During the Second Gulf War a poll said that about 37% of Americans said they relied on FOX News for most of their war coverage.

Did I mention I can also send the results of the petition to media outlets throughout the nation through gopteamleader.com?

If this petition gets enough posts it will be put on the front page of petitiononline.com, where John and Jane Q. Public will be able to have their say.

Note: If you have signed this petition and would like this message "kicked up" to the top of the page, please click reply, and also share what you wrote. Lotta People Here!

Good Luck and GODSPEED!

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?q51286

[LEFTofLEFT]

62. You can eat shit if you want

I say label GM foods - so you can eat only shit

I do not want to support that system - label and give me a choice

[MadHound]

172. Apparently you don't have allergies to anything

There have been reports of people reacting to GM foods because one of the strands used to modify the food was from what they are allergic to.

Also there is a large and growing problem of GM crops cross pollinating with natural ones. The seed companies that own the GM patent then come in and seize the whole natural crop claiming patent infringement. GM foods also mean an increasingly narrow gene pool. Then there is the farmers' problem of not being able to set apart a portion of their crop each year for reseeding the next. Every year they are forced to go out and buy more seed. This further hurts the small farmer while benefitting the large industrial farms. Plus there is the threat to wildlife. A GM corn plant was altered to poison a certain pest, and wound up killing monarch butterflies too(ironiclly monarchs help in the pollination process with corn and other plants). These are just a few of the side effects of GM foods. I suggest you do some more research before making such blanket statements.

Plus have you ever tasted GM foods? More than likely you have if you shop at your average supermarket chain. I don't know about you, but I think they suck. Taste very bland with a cardboard texture. Try this, do some side by side tasting. Go out and get some organic fruits and vegetables, then get the same at the supermarket. Try them for taste, texture, and then tell me there is nothing wrong with GM food.

To top this off, very little research has been done into the side effects of GM foods. The last time there was this much slacking in gov't research we wound up with Equal sugar substitute(aspertane) which wound up killing people, affecting peoples' memory, and has links to cancer.

Don't believe the hype, GM foods are bad, both for people and the planet they depend on.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

74. What is this genetically modified food issue anyway?

Someone was going off on that at the 4th of July march in Philly, and complained that Dean supports labeling but not outlawing genetically modified foods. I did not know what to say because I did not understand what this whole controversy is about. What is wrong with genetically modified foods, and why is mandatory labeling not a solution? I don't know much about it but it seems to me that people should have the right to know and decide for themselves whether they want to eat them. Is there something dangerous about them, or is it an animal rights issue, or something else?

[Mairead]

107. Their long-term impact is completely unknown

Genetically modified grain pollen is already contaminating other crops, so it's a 'genie out of the bottle' thing--despite all the assurances that it could be, we now know for sure that propagation cannot be confined to test plots. So if they go on planting them, even with every safeguard they can devise, we know for sure that soon there will be no other kind of crop.

And the long-term effects on health of frankencrops are not known and cannot be predicted with any confidence either. We have no way to model the effects. It's like all the other 'harmless' interventions that gave us out-of-control takeover populations of, e.g., kudzu. Only at the genetic rather than macro level.

[tom_paine]

Kinder and gentler, though

For the moment, anyway.

I wouldn't bet my house on whether that will be the case in 2010, 2020, or 2050.

[JohnKleeb]

3. I saw that

One of the many increasing things that give me a bad vibe about him. National Health Care cant be done, you ought to believe, while I will agree change doesnt happen overnight you have to desire change and saying its impossible wont do it. I hope you dont get flammed for this, but its more honest than "Does Kucinich piss you off".

[XanaDUer]

4. You won't be too lonely...

Healthcare is issue number one for me and my friends, and I don't like what I am hearing from Dean on the issue.

[tjdee]

59. Why?

Even I think it's alright.

???

[ModerateMiddle]

103. consider HOW Dean got health care for all kids

in Vermont - he used federal subsidies. Where is he going to get someone to subsidize the federal government? One of the programs he used, CHIPs, was introduced by Kerry in 1996!

[TLM]

139. Are you serious....

The government does not need the be subsidized, as the programs are federal level programs. The reason the states are subsidized is the states can not afford to do the whole thing alone.

However by following the model in vermont... the existing federal programs can be expanded to cover everybody.

[donco6]

5. OK, I'll bite.

Obviously, you feel DK is the better candidate. I would be happy to read your thoughts on why you feel he would fill the role better than Dean.

[Alexander]

6. Dean supports civil unions and is against the war in Iraq.

Two important issues where he's more liberal than Clinton.

Your entire post is based on wild speculation and second-guessing. Dean also wants national healthcare, restore taxes to 1990's levels, and wants to eliminate the deficit. Doesn't sound very much like Bush to me.

So he's not a flaming Green liberal. Good, that means he actually has a chance of winning, since he's smart enough to know how to nail down his base.

And personally, liberalism isn't as important to me as someone who fights. Kerry's more liberal than Dean, but he doesn't fight the administration as aggressively. The best of both worlds here is Kucinich (and having met him, I have to say he's a wonderful human being), but unfortunately he doesn't have a realistic chance of winning, whereas Dean just made the covers of both TIME and Newsweek.

[JohnKleeb]

9. Alexander see what you mean

But Novak and Buchanan opposed the war. I do like what you are saying though but keep this in mind, remember long ago Dean was like how DK is now, He can rise, stranger things can and will happen.

[DemBones DemBones]

14. The media like Dean, which concerns me. I won't go so far as to

say that one should never trust anyone the media like but I do wonder if it's a negative. They like Bush*, after all.

Read my post re: civil unions & Iraq.

[blm]

33. It just got worse with the media, DB DB...

Tweety reported tonight that Dean now will have a PRESS PLANE. This is truly bizarre. FIVE MONTHS before the primary. The corporate media has already chosen which Dem will be the nominee. They are shoving Dean down the public's throats.

Nothing to see here.

[JohnKleeb]

39. what?

That astounds me.

[DemBones DemBones]

42. I can't say I'm surprised. I also think that they have chosen him. n/t

[TLM]

52. Having met Howard Dean, I understand why he is getting press...

Not only is he getting unprecedented support from people all over the country... now over 80,000 people on meetup... his is exactly the kind of story media whores love. He's the hot headed underdog.

Understand something... the media will go where the money is. If even half of Dean's supporters buy a magazine because Dean is on the cover, that's got to represent a huge boost in the number of people buying the magazine who might not usually buy it.

Add to that the fact that Dean has an army of people all over the country all contacting their local tv news or newspaper, in addition to the campaign people doing media relations.

At this point the media is playing catch up. Dean was smart enough to use the net to reach out to hundreds of thousands of people, circumventing the press. And when this guy from Vermont comes to town and 500 or 1000 or 1500 people show up to hear him speak at 8am the media starts to pay attention. After Dean is climbing in the polls, and getting massive donations from average people, drawing huge crowds... now the media starts paying attention and are finally giving Dean some good national name recognition...


I do not see what is so nefarious about that.

[blm]

54. Guess you didn't notice

that he was getting attention long before those numbers grew. And it started when he went on the attack of the other Dems and the Dem party. THAT'S a storyline that the media loves to promote.

[TLM]

56. He got the odd headline when he said something about Dems or Bush...

that would sell papers... as I said, hot headed underdog.

But he did not start getting major attention until after he started bringing in serious numbers, money, and support.

[blm]

57. I monitor the news pretty closely...

the press and even Tom DeLay saw he would be a great dividing tool for the Dems.

That serious money started when he was being hailed by the press as the liberal antiwar candidate, when Kucinich was the liberal antiwar candidate who was actually speaking out at the antiwar rallies. Dean was neither liberal or completely antiwar, yet he was reticent about correcting that perception for the first few months while he was collecting the liberal antiwar $$$$$.

[DemBones DemBones]

83. Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner here!

The press and the GOP must be laughing their asses off at how well it's worked. Dean's rolling in dough (which does not worry Bush* at all because he has far more) and the other candidates are not getting enough. Perfect example of the sort of rigged "free market" the oligarchy supports.

[TLM]

138. Tell me something.... how it is you think Dean can't win against Bush...

But Kucinich can?

[DemBones DemBones]

162. ??? I DON'T think "Dean can't win against Bush"

nor do I think Kucinich can't beat Bush*, Kerry can't beat Bush, etc.

I have great confidence in Bush* as a loser. :evilgrin:

[TLM]

137. More of the same old crap...

"the press and even Tom DeLay saw he would be a great dividing tool for the Dems."

Oh please, Dean is doing more to bring more people on the left together with people in the middle than ANY of the other candidates. THat's why he is gettign so much press.


"That serious money started when he was being hailed by the press as the liberal antiwar candidate,"

And Dean has pointed out countless times that he is not anti-war nor a hardcore liberal... so what you are doing is basicaly trying to blame Dean for things like being attacked as a far out leftist by Kerry's DLC.

"when Kucinich was the liberal antiwar candidate who was actually speaking out at the antiwar rallies."

Oh boo fucking hoo, Dean did a better job than Kucinich... because Dean grabed the groups that was not anti-war across the board and the group that was against another Bush oil war, while not being against the idea of war all together.

While Kucincich was way out of the far left of the issue, Dean's more moderate position won out. Now teh DK folks are havign a fit because Dean is doing so much better.

"Dean was neither liberal or completely antiwar, yet he was reticent about correcting that perception for the first few months while he was collecting the liberal antiwar $$$$$. "

Bullshit, he was very clear on his position on Iraq from the begining... and you know it, given how often you try to claim biden lugar was exactly the same as the iraq war resolution. Dean was very out and very clear about exactly what he would support in terms of actions in Iraq. Now you want to claim, after spewing your BL crap, that Dean was trying to hide the fact he'd support action against Iraq under different circumstances?

Seems your story changes more than kobe's.

[Ardee]

96. interesting point that

especially in the face of the avalanche of negativism following Naders attacks on democratic strategies...Dean supporters seem almost cult-like to me, refusing to see him in the clear light of his history. The man is clearly a centrist at best, will do little to alter the face of american domestic and foreign policies, and will serve as an easily bested opponent for Bush (my opinion only).

I think it far better to work for a candidate who actually expresses similar beliefs and desires for our nation as I envision. I will work for, campaign hard for and vote for that candidate, regardless of anyones opinions as to electability. I see no future for my nation or the world in voting for some compromise candidate who changes his stance from centrist to a Wellstone democrat in order to win an election. Dishonesty is just that, regardless of motive. Dean is being disengenuous, sorry to all you cultists.

[bitchkitty]

93. Be fair -

the corporate media chose Dean? I beg to differ - the people chose Dean. If the media has decided that they like him, GOOD. They're right for a chnage.

[sangha]

171. Actually, so far "the people" are choosing Lieberman

who is running ahead in the polls. And yet, the media is paying attention to Dean. But that's not too curious, because as bitchketty informs us for once "They're right for a change."

Nope, not curious at all.

[okieinpain]

102. the dude is hot, personally I like the guy and I really don't understand

the leftie tag. I haven't heard anything that sounds like leftie talk, and I'm guite pleased with that.

[TLM]

141. Exactly...that why the DK and Kerry camps are scared shitless

Dean is not a far leftie... he is a moderate. He doesn't scare off the center and moderates the way DK does. That's why he is gettign so much support from all over the spectrum.

And he's on the right side of the war issue, unlike Kerry, without being anti-war across the board like DK. He has the right idea about the budget, unlike both DK and Kerry.

Plus he beats both of them silly on the gun issue... and his healthcare plan is far far more workable and affordable.

Dean is liberal enough on issues like civil unions and corporate reform, to get support from teh far left... but moderate enough on gun control and spending to get support from the center.

[wrkclskid]

71. Th fact that the media likes him impresses me

Everyday I see him getting more and more electable, and I am really uncomfrotable with the idea of supporting him (though over Bush i would feel a lot more comfortable.) He has managed to control his posistion from one who was previously viewed on the far-left to one who is more moderate. Like it or not, the media determines how the general public percieves the candidates, and Dean has done a good job of shaping his political perception. He has shown he is no push over politically.

[DemBones DemBones]

84. Remember that the media like Bush* as well. eom

[TLM]

144. So if DK gets some good national coverage...

will you also consider him part of the evil media conspiracy? Or is that view reserved for the candidates who are leaving DK in the dust?

[xray s]

8. Huh?

"Few people who have been rich all their lives ever really understand what other people's lives are like."

Ever heard of FDR or JFK?

[JohnKleeb]

11. "few" she said I guess that means she doesnt think Dean is one of them

just posting my inference, objective on this

[Bombtrack]

10. ure gonna get flamed

Dean has exactly the wrong political formula to win. He'll do worse than Gore did in several categories, and do way worse in rural areas and the south. He would get less black support AND far less of the soccer moms and dads(another name for white middle clas college educated suburban married people).

Dean would lose on issues that already happened and he can't change(like the war and his signing of the civil unions bill) which is just plain stupid

of course 50 Deanheads are going to flame you with their empty talking points now

[tsipple]

23. Why?

First of all, Dean is a flaming moderate with a libertarian streak here and there. That's not a bad place to be ideologically.

But he thinks there ought not to be more gun control unless individual states want it. That's a winning strategy for the South, something he does not have in common with Gore. (Gore probably lost West Virginia on that issue.)

And then you've got this inconvenient fact to political commentators: Gore by himself won more votes, but add in Nader and it's a landslide for left and center-left. And that was without four years of lousy right-wing presidential performance. If Dean is the nominee, I doubt we'll see Nader split off as many votes, even if he does run. (Dean is winning the Nader demographic handily.)

You can't look at the current president and say that the country is right wing. Doesn't work that way. There's ample evidence the country is much more centrist and (gasp!) even liberal than the pundits say. (There was no marching in the streets when the Supreme Court legalized sodomy, for example, and the few complainers seemed sort of kooky.)

Finally, Democratic primary voters aren't stupid. They take all this stuff into consideration, and you hear it over and over in interviews: "I want to pick someone who can beat George W. Bush." Howard Dean is persuading more and more Democrats (the plurality now in Iowa and New Hampshire) that he's the man. You can rant all you want about how stupid Democratic voters are, but I don't think that'll get you very far.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. Democratic Voters Can Be Pretty Stupid

They nominated George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, and Walter Mondale. Hell, they nominated Adlai Stevensnon twice, and Eleanor Roosevelt, god bless her soul was pushing Adlai in 1960....

Don't get me wrong all of the above were good and decent men but they had no business being the party's nominee if winning is your goal.


I don't understand some DUer's infatuation with guns. It's no big deal to me because there's too many guns out there to do anything about them.

Being pro gun is just one of many issues. Clinton was one of the most ant-gun presidents in history and he did well in the South and border states.

The Vermont governor by way of Park Avenue is going to have difficult treading in the heartland. I doubt he carries one state south of Maryland including the much talked about West Virginia with it's 5? Electoral Votes.

You need a little of Elvis... A little of Billy Graham.... and a little of Lyndon Johnson to compete in the South and Howard Dean doesn't have any of that.


Some people just don't get it.

[tsipple]

94. Democratic Voters Stupid?

You're really making this argument? OK, some questions then:

1. Who should be deciding the Democratic nominee instead? A gaggle of CNN pundits? A three judge panel?
2. For each of the candidates you just named, name another declared candidate that year who would definitely have won the presidency.
3. In 1992, would Bill Clinton have won the nomination if it hadn't been for Democratic voters? (The "experts," including his own party, thought he was dead.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

99. It's Up To The Voters

1) The voters make their decisions but their decisions are not infallible.

2) I think the Dems could have done better than McGovern in 72. I think Gary Hart would have run a much stronger race in 84 than Walter Mondale. I think a "fresher" Al Gore would have run a much better race than Michael Dukakis in 88. I also think Gary Hart beats Bush in 88 if he doesn't self destruct . The 88 race was ours to lose.

3) I always believed Clinton had the right stuff so you won't get a debate from me.

[TLM]

145. You know who they want to pick the dem nominee...

the 12 people who support Kucinich.

[Ardee]

100. a few contrary points, if you please

First of all, Dean is a flaming moderate with a libertarian streak here and there. That's not a bad place to be ideologically.

€ well, not if you read his record as governor he aint!

And then you've got this inconvenient fact to political commentators: Gore by himself won more votes, but add in Nader and it's a landslide for left and center-left. And that was without four years of lousy right-wing presidential performance. If Dean is the nominee, I doubt we'll see Nader split off as many votes, even if he does run. (Dean is winning the Nader demographic handily.)

€ Nader polled 2.74% of the vote nationwide, so where would this landslide be? You simply assume that those who voted for Nader would automatically have voted for Gore, certainly a tenuous and easily disputed assumption. You may be correct in assuming that a certain percentage of that 2.74% will vote Dean if given the choice, but how many who voted for Gore will not choose to support the Dean candidacy?
I have seen no such demographics as you post without proof.......

Finally, Democratic primary voters aren't stupid. They take all this stuff into consideration, and you hear it over and over in interviews: "I want to pick someone who can beat George W. Bush." Howard Dean is persuading more and more Democrats (the plurality now in Iowa and New Hampshire) that he's the man. You can rant all you want about how stupid Democratic voters are, but I don't think that'll get you very far.

€ This is nothing but your opinion, one in which you are entitled to belief in of course, but, in my neck of the woods Dean is convincing damn few, and, by the by, if the democratic voter isnt stupid Deans record as governor will play far more importantly to them than will his sudden and dubious conversion towards liberalism......

[ModerateMiddle]

106. "Dean is a flaming moderate"

Not unless you average all of his positions, he's not a moderate. He has some fairly extreme positions - both ends of the spectrum. His "pragmatic" politicism that so many folks praise? In many instances, politically, it is pragmatic to fuck over the powerless. They don't have any power, remember? Mandatory medications for mental health patients (the doctor knows best!), dump your nuclear waste on a poor border community. His anti-war stance was his ticket to fame, and now he's going to have to work like the dickens to get out from under the "peace-nik" label that it bought him along with his fame. Expect further sharp turns to the right.

[TLM]

147. MOre of the same BS....

"Mandatory medications for mental health patients (the doctor knows best!),"

Well who knows better who needs meds, the mental patient or the mental patient's doctor? Should mental pateints be able to determin their own medications?


" dump your nuclear waste on a poor border community."

Dean had nothing to do with selecting the place that the states waste would be dumped, and their movement was a FEDERAL mandade.



" His anti-war stance was his ticket to fame,"

No, his anti-Iraq oil war for no damn good reason... and his willingness to be out in front against the war while Kerry and Gephardt were voting for it, was part of what got him some initial attention. It was not his ticet to fame... if anything the civil unions act and healthcare plan is what got him attention.

Both of which are very left-moderate positons.

[VermontDem2004]

24. The only talking points that are empty are yours

you stated he will do bad in all of the above but you don't state why. Why will he get less black support? Why would he do far less of the "soccer moms and dads"? Why will he do way worse in rural areas and the south? And Why will Bush pick up the support Dean won't? The only one that has to worry about losing support is George W. Bush. He lost about 95% of the Muslim Vote for the obvious reasons, he will lose 5% of the black vote because of the war(I know alot of them that don't like him because of his action in Iraq), comparing affirmative action to a quota system, the fact they were better off during Clinton's term then Bush's term such as unemployment rate, jobs lost, economic wise.

If you think that being against this war and being for civil unions is "stupid" you go right ahead and vote for GW.

[Corgigal]

61. The Black Congressman

who runs our Meetup for Dean says black support in SC is great.
I guess he would know.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. Isn't That A False Dichotomy

Being a loyal Democrat and having problems with a Dean candidacy are not mutually exclusive.

I was agnostic on the war but if two people of the same gender want to marry that's fine with me.

I don't think Bush is worried about the black vote. He got 8% in 00 so he could go down to 3% in 04.

I really think Bush will get roughly the same percentage in 04 as he got in 00

Here's the problem for Dean in the south and border states. His ultra secular values are at odds with the traditional values that many in the south and border states hold.

That's the way it is. I wish some folks were more progressive but they are not. As Edmund Burke said " we must take man as he is not the way we want him to be."

[TLM]

55. Have you seen the meetup numbers in the south?

"He would get less black support"

I doubt that... what I keep hearing from the black and latino supporters I talk to at the meetups is that health care and child care are major issues for working poor and lower middle class minority communities... and these folks love Dean's positions on those issues.


"AND far less of the soccer moms and dads(another name for white middle clas college educated suburban married people)."

Yeah because there's none of them in vermont.

[gully]

12. What's progressive about Kucinich, his voting record on choice or...

his voting to protect the flag from evil demonstrators?

[gully]

13. The Progressive Case for Dean

by Nico Pitney

"I passionately supported the Greens in 2000 and 2002. I traveled 125 miles to see Dennis Kucinich speak when he came to Los Angeles in May, and had the pleasure of introducing him to a crowd of several hundred when he spoke in Santa Barbara recently. Kucinich is a guiding light in Congress and, of the nine Democratic presidential contenders, his views most closely mirror my own.

Yet I won't be voting for Kucinich in the Democratic primaries, nor will I vote Green in the general elections. My support will go to Howard Dean."

and ...

"Unfortunately, most left-leaning commentators have written about Dean as though their responsibility was to lead the well-intentioned but misguided progressive flock away from his campaign, implicitly and sometimes explicitly asserting that supporters have jumped on Dean's bandwagon without seriously considering his record. Antiwar.com's Anthony Gancarski "wonders if the Dean supporters are following their candidate blindly, without knowledge of the full spectrum of his positions." Potential Green presidential candidate Carol Miller told NBC News that she feels "sorry for those people when they learn who the real Howard Dean is."

Putting aside the patriarchal presumptuousness of such sentiments, they're also wildly ironic: the overwhelming majority of claims that Dean is a far-left candidate come from conservatives who are clearly attempting to marginalize one of the two prominent Democratic candidates. Almost without exception, right-wing commentaries on Dean compare his campaign to McGovern's and brand Dean as an "extreme leftist" whose support is built predominantly on activists' antiwar sentiment. Rush Limbaugh recently warned his listeners about a shift he perceived in mainstream press reports on Dean: "Have you noticed how some in the press are starting to say Howard Dean is not that liberal? Keep a sharp eye out for that, because the left knows that being a far left, progressive liberal is a killer, so they're going to try to paint the picture of Dean as a moderate." Surprisingly enough, one of the few prominent progressives to make a substantive link between Dean and Kucinich was Ralph Nader, who noted that Bush "is very vulnerable but not if you campaign the way the major candidates - except for Dean and Kucinich - are campaigning."

Read full text here...

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

[DemBones DemBones]

15. I can refute Nico Pitney point for point but why don't you READ MY POST

instead of just spouting off after skimming through it? Are you THAT brain-washed? Incapable of considering my points?

[Sinistrous]

16. To quote the eloquent Audrey II:

"No shit, Seymour!". To which I add: "So what?"

Aside from the fact that half your post is BS and the other half has been refuted here six dozen times, being less great than Bill Clinton still leaves a lot of room to be extraordinary.

I am getting a bit tired of these rehashes of those sorry old DLC talking points.

[Blue_Chill]

17. After reading your post I like Dean more then I did.

Thanks.

I'm going to go play that video game you bitched about.

[REP]

85. Hell Must Be Frozen Over

Because I agree with Blue Chill (except for the video game - and I don't disagree, I just don't play video games!)

:hi:

[DemBones DemBones]

18. I am going to leave to eat dinner. Please READ MY INITIAL POST

before responding. If you support Dean, make your case -- show me where I'm wrong. Don't talk about "electability" but about ISSUES.

[rucky]

19. Sounds to me like he is a Progressive....

He's just not moving at a pace that's comfortable with other progressives. But he IS pragmatic... and very open about his strategys. Healthcare is good example: while Dean ultimately agrees that a single-payer plan would be ideal. His healthcare plan moves slowly and deliberately within the existing system. Hillary's plan got shot down because it was so drastic (and $$$). You left out the part in your post where Dean outlines a detailed universal healthcare plan, which is on the homepage of his website www.deanforamerica.com

Dean uses the pragmatic approach to reforming NAFTA and other Clinton-centrist babys - graaaadual reform. And given the current situation in Congress - which is not likely to change much in the next election - gradual is prolly the only way to get something done. What you call "changing (NAFTA) a little bit" amounts to Dean's idea of Unionizing the labor force in these industries operating overseas. That's an idea that deserves more than a glossing over.

Kucinich may have a better platform, but how many of his ideas would realistically fly? Dean's plans have a greater chance at success, IMHO, and if we see more "give" with Congress in 2005, Dean will push harder for reform.

As for the multitude of Anti-Dean posts lately - I don't see much difference between bashing Dean for being too "centrist" and Leiberman bashing the other Dems for being too liberal. After the primary, someone's going to have to eat their words.

[TLM]

150. Yes right there... that's the point Dean is not progressive enough...

"He's just not moving at a pace that's comfortable with other progressives."

I call it McPolitics... there is a group with this fast food Mtv instant gratification short attention span ADD shaped idea that all the change they want has to happen in one election.

If the candidate does not represent a total reversal of all the things they dislike, then in their minds he is just as bad as the guy who is 100% against them.

This stupid all or nothing thinking is what is keeping the left from making any progress at all. The right has spent the last 25 to 30 years making small steps to the right and over time they've gotten to where they are today though incremental progress.


But since these retards insist on all or nothing, they keep ending up with guys like Bush.

[Green Mountain Dem]

20. I wonder how many....

states are experiencing a budget surplus this year like the state of Vermont....10M thanks to the efforts of our last gov...Howard Dean !!
I wonder how many other govenors can say that all of the children in their state have free health care.

Dean actually had little to do with same sex unions...it was mandated by the Vermont Supreme Court and the State Legislature...all he did was sign the Bill sent to him into law, and had he vetoed the bill, it would have been overridden.


Even if he was 100% worse than Clinton it would still mean he would be a 1000% better than Bush !!!

[WilliamPitt]

21. Dean = 'worse than Clinton' = BETTER THAN BUSH

Gas face to this whole thread. I understand your purpose, and it is a good one for the primaries. Get all this out. But gas face to the idea that Dean is somehow not worth voting for, a subtext to this I percieved (that may be wrong).

ABBA.

By the way, this is the gas face:

[DeaconBlues]

22. If I were a republican,

I would come to DU just to be cheered by the sight of so many progressives ripping each other apart. As the saying goes - "We need to hang together, or hang separately."

[Jonte_1979]

25. Welcome to DU, Deacon!

:toast:

[cherryperry]

26. As I've posted more than once,

"can't we please just get along"

Someone responded by saying now is the time to hash this stuff out, but I still disagree. I'm afraid we're going to end up with a lot of anger at whomever gets the nomination and it is imperative now that it is anyone but Bush.

I would prefer Kucinich or Moseley-Braun, but I realize that ain't gonna happen, so I won't involve myself in these arguments. Please everyone, "keep your eye on the prize"!

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

27. I am wondering

What did you post this for? To express the reasons why you don't like Dean? What good does that do? Do you realize that each of the important issues in this campaign have been argued ad naseum, especially in reference to Dean? Are you trying to change Deaniacs' votes? Do you think some undecided voter is going to read this and there mind will be made up on who NOT to vote for, instead of looking at what each of the candidates DO stand for? It doesn't seem like you wrote all this just to get the Deanies all riled up to flame you, but I honestly don't see what other value this post has. What is there to gain? How about posting why you like (insert candidate of choice here) and explain why.

[newsguyatl]

29. he posted

it simply because he's frustrated at the growing support for dean and the LACK THEREOF for HIS candidate...

by the way, great appearance by kucinich the other night at the afl-cio debate :eyes: what leadership skills he showed! :eyes:


now why don't you go spend some time helping YOUR candidate out, instead of bashing... GOD KNOWS he needs all the help he can get... what is he now? 1.2% in the polls now? woohoo!

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

32. Where did I bash anyone?

I happen to like 8 of the candidates, and have posted positive things about all of them at some point during my time at DU. I wasn't intending to bash the OP either, but am frustrated myself at the negative energy spent by people complaining about Dean's success instead of posting convincing arguements for their candidate of choice.

[newsguyatl]

34. ummm

that response was directed to you in your question to originl poster, not ABOUT you...

re-read

[JohnKleeb]

36. Yeah Dean was once where he was

anything can happen. This isnt bashing, I think disagreements are different btw I see it from both sides so dont tell me I am being biased.

[DemNoir]

28. Quite a post!

And those capitalizations of key words really drove it home for this reader! I tell ya everytime I saw WORSE it sent shivers down my spine!
A work of freakin genius!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Good points, but..

I prefer Kucinich to Dean, Mosely-Braun to Kucinich, and Sharpton to any of them.

However, as I see it, Dean is the only one who is viable against the 4 dwarves and the DLC.

Convince me otherwise and I'll vote for Dennis.

[Yentatelaventa]

31. An Army sponsored NASCAR car

And what pray tell is wrong with an Army sponsored NASCAR car? 99.9% of the brave men and women in the Army might disagree with using this against them.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

164. Because it ties in to the 'Militainment' marketing of power by TV Nation.

And the Detroit/Cheney/Enron vested interest in having Mr. and Mrs. Pick-Up see their SUV as an empowerment instead of a destructive addiction and thereby justify killing some brown people to guarantee access to oil. Quite like the tobacco companies marketing cigarettes to youth as 'freedom and self-expression' instead of addiction and disease.
I realize all my postings reflect a grim estimation of the general public's depth of understanding and susceptibility to fear-mongering and propaganda but it seems to me to be well-founded. I'm reading 'The Indispensible Chomsky:Understanding Power' and one of the points Chomsky makes is that democratic activists come and go with each generation while the power institutions retain and refine their ability to keep people down consistantly. And the wolves who are now in the White House and their corporate co-conspirators are fucking ROCKET SCIENTISTS of Propaganda and News Cycle Control! I'm sceptical of Dean's ability to knock Bush off the throne while the public is 'security minded.' I think they want to know that the King will Kill In Their Name, that is, be a bastard for them,a Heeler, not a Healer. Gawd, I wish I were wrong. But today I saw a commercial on CNN for Nascar that had a Hendrix-style Star Spangled banner music bed and race car drivers standing in a line like super-heroes with close-ups of the American flag and the corporate sponsor logo patches on their military-style jumpsuits. It was fucking nauseating. It tied together all these Masculine Power Themes-Rock Guitar, Jets, Cars, Nationalism, Military Might. I swore out loud and shocked the other people waiting at the gate in Atlanta airport.

[DemBones DemBones]

35. Message received: "Don't interfere with our dreams about what Dean is

by telling us the facts."

I knew I'd be flamed for pointing out that Emperor Howard has no clothes, or, more accurately that Howard's clothes are expensive preppie clothes, not 100% organic cotton or hemp, and likely not made in America.

However, I'm disappointed that not one person has refuted any of the points I made about Dean. Instead, I'm told my post is B.S., a "gas face" post (this from our resident acclaimed author), that we must all pull together (for Dean only, though because he's the only electable candidate), etc.

Last time I checked, this is not Dean Underground but Democratic Underground.

[JohnKleeb]

37. I agree with you too bad you are getting flamed

Guys I see you like Dean but can you realize that theres gonna be a ton of stuff you wont like, and it annoys some of us that some find him to be a messiah like.

[DemBones DemBones]

40. Thanks, John, but obviously you're either with Dean or against him

and ANY criticism brands you as being against him. The Dean supporters think they can win without all the people they're pissing off now. We'll see.

[ButterflyBlood]

43. yes, we all know this message board will decide the outcome of this electi

and annoying a few people on it who won't vote because they'd rather have 4 more years of Bush than vote for a guy who has a few dumb supporters (only word that can describe that is idiot) will definately cost the election. sheesh. Post flamebait, what do you expect?

[JohnKleeb]

44. Not all of them are like that

Fortunely. It just flat out sucks, this aint bashing, now if you had called him names then I may see, but this is merely the truth, theres a lot about Dean that doesnt appeal to me really. Its just so hard, I have been feeling really uncomfortable lately about Dean, I am sick of being told my guy is unelectable by supporters of a candiate who was a whiles back where mine is now, I dont understand really, but I cant explain it, Ive got misgivings about the guy, and there are plenty of things DK has done I dont like either so dont jump on me for that. I want bonafide change and this is why I support Kucinich. Also flame me if you want but I for one thought Dean had a lot of nerve saying he represented the Democratic wing of the democratic party, Wellstone's former chief of staff took offense to this. Wellstone was a rare politican, the kind you rarely see today.

[indigo32]

47. Your a good guy John

but I don't see any responses here, to a post that was not as fact filled as the author would maintain, that really qualify as flames. And yes... I do understand that there are supporters here who act like he's GOD or something and that's surely annoying to folks who are behind other candidates. But nothing here is that harsh.

[JohnKleeb]

48. well you should see this one

He showed a picture of DK and said "does this look presidential" Kucinich supporters are mostly nice people, the god bs really annoys me you know, I really have to admit, although I have friends here who are for Dean, I keep on getting iffy, and I really think the media has a played a large role in Dean rising from where he did, I cant wait if Kucinich gets that, we kucinich try we really do but maybe some of them have a harder time keeping in that iffyness, its hard for me too now, people ought to keep in mind this is not the Howard Dean lovefest, I am sorry if I sound harsh but you know it's like to them if you dont love Dean, you are a Rovian infiltrator and frankly that pisses people off.
on edit
The cabbage patch Dean thread showed Kucinichites myself included having an open mind, and Sean was right he does kinda look like alfala but I think Holy Joe must be related to Yoshi.

[diamondsoul]

66. Nah, and I have to say this because

it's been bugging the hell out of me not to admit it...

To me Dean just looks like the guy who would sneak in a grab of some unsuspecting woman's rear as he passed her on the street. He's got that arrogant "I'm too sexy" sort of air to him and it makes me want to slap him silly.:shrug:

[TLM]

154. I think you're dealing with some of your own issues there....

You may see his being confident as odd compared to the timid and meek types in our party that we are so used to. However I see it as a very good thing... he is not afraid to be a democrat and that is something our party needs.

[TLM]

153. Oh come on now be honest....

Kucinich looks like Eddie Munster all grown up.

And like it or not, looks do play a roll in how well a candidate does... that what scares me about Arnold running for gov in the most looks obsessed state in the union.

And DK just looks goofy... that look might fly at a Phish concert, but not in the White House. And I like Kucinich... I'd say right now he is my 2nd choice behind Dean.

[TLM]

152. I do not expect a candidate to be a perfect 100% refelction of me

I expect only to agree with him more than I disagree. And right now I'm about 90% in agreement with Dean.

And perhaps the reason some see him as messiah-like is that there is such a pissy little group of zealots trying to crucify him?

[Blue_Chill]

67. You got the wrong message.

Many of us on DU are not as liberal as you are and LIKE a guy like Dean.

[TLM]

155. Sometimes those on the far far left forget....

that not only does half the country disagree with a lot of their ideas... but a good chunk of their own party does too.


Some of the authoritarian proclamations about doing things via executive order that Kucinich has made, worry me.

I do not want an authoritarian in the office, regardless of the letter behind his name.

[tedoll78]

82. I know very well Dean's positions.

And I like them, so for me, the Doctor does have good clothes.

[JNelson6563]

114. oh, yanno what???

Dear, I am afraid you hold way too high of an opinion of your post. I see your criticisms, I don't agree with Dean on some things myself but I still support him.

As I see it your post is hardly a litany of facts. You sprinkle in heavy doses of opinion, conjecture and a little fact arrangement even. Please! If you want to go around and be as couter-productive as you can be my guest, freedom of speech and all that...HOWEVER, stop embarrassing yourself by parading around as though you have posted unassailable logic and irrefutable facts. It's getting laughable.

Julie

[TLM]

151. Oh GOD Dean is not wearing hemp....

Clearly he is doomed with mainstream america because of it.


Hearing that made me so mad i spilled my patchouli oil.

[Blue_Chill]

160. Only in DU

does someone state that a candidate NOT wearing hemp is doomed.

lol

[LuminousX]

173. You are making the same mistake

so many before you made.

You think that Dean supporters don't already know his lineage and centrist policies. We know. Many don't like his more conservative stances, but all in all, as a package, we like what we see. Why? Because Dean has proven he isn't an idealogue, that he is willing to compromise. Very little is set in stone with Dean, except the bottom line, which must be balanced and health care, which must be given to everyone.

[MaverickX]

45. worse than Clinton?

The lowest rate of unemployment, longest period of peace in 40 years, billion dollar surplus, how was Clinton bad? Who defines what progressive is? Is Dean going to deregulate business? Will he give the rich a taxcut? What will he do that's so bad? Does the President have the authority to overturn NAFTA? No he doesn't. He does have the power to enforce NAFTA and do you think Dean will enforce it in a way that undermines labor, etc.

[indigo32]

46. You want Point for Point... OK

Lets start with your whole message on charisma, frankly charisma is very subjective and I think Dean has quite enough.

Then theres the whole issue of being born into money... geez are we ever gonna get into policy, you keep talking about how much research you've done. None of this is anything but your opinion so far. Let me say one thing. I was watching him in Iowa last night. He was talking about balancing budget so that we could be in a position to forward "Social Justice."

Health Care plan. You say... Bill tried to give us national healthcare. Operative word here, "tried". Now I'm ALL FOR national healthcare... but maybe the Doc is onto something here. You can talk about throwing boned and protecting Insurance Co... but you give NO DETAILS at all.

Moving on to SS. Dean wisely reassessed his position. I don't think that's a bad thing. Its a good thing... he LISTENS. OH and he MOST CERTIANLY DOESN'T want to to privatize it.

Nafta and Jobs... true people need jobs. Howard Dean isn't ignoring that. The latest talking point seems to be that China and India won't go along with changes. So you think it would be easier to just drop all of it. What sort of impact do you think it would have on us and our relations with other nations we need to trade with (for the sake of JOBS) should we just drop the whole thing. Seriously? And what candidate beyond Dennis Kucinich is abdicating that?

You left out that he'll appoint Judges that will affect the entire next genaration. He'll do everything he can to get more people insured. He'll roll back the tax cuts to the rich. He's not interested in fully funding Star Wars. He'll actually talk to other nations instead of challenging them.

[indigo32]

51. Bump for Dembones

*

[DemBones DemBones]

73. Argumentum ad hominem, straw men galore, very little substance

and definitely not a point by point refutation. Not even a refutation of one point.

I left out many things besides appointing judges but since you brought that issue up I'll point out that the candidate I'm supporting, Dennis Kucinich, has pledged that no candidate will be nominated for the Supreme Court unless he or she supports upholding Roe V. Wade.

Do you have links to Dean saying that he will roll back the tax cuts to the rich?
What about not being interested in fully funding Star Wars? And why not dump the program instead of just "not fully funding it"? It doesn't work, after all. Is that like "doing everything he can to get more people insured"?

Kucinich has offered a plan to get everyone in the US on Medicare. He'd do it through Pentagon cuts and progressive taxes, rather than the regressive taxes we have now. I'd like a link about Dean not supporting privatization of Social Security, too.

Edit: I'm asking you quite honestly to convince me that Dean is as great as you say he is.

[indigo32]

88. Right back at ya...

are you really under the impression that there was any substance to the original post you made? As for the links... I'll happily provide them...maybe you could return the favor and answer a couple of the questions in my response?

SS link
"Will you support or oppose measures to replace any part of Social
Security's guaranteed benefits with individual investment accounts or
to increase the retirement age (which will increase to 67 under
current law)?

I oppose privatizing Social Security. As President, my primary
objective for Social Security will be to preserve the integrity of
the system for living and future Americans. Putting currently
guaranteed benefits at risk is unacceptable. "

http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/politics/candidates_dean.cfm

ohhh and you can also find the Tax Cut link in the same interview... he says it just about everytime he gives a speech ...

"What will you do to restore economic growth that reaches all Americans?

First, I will work to repeal the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which were unfairly aimed at the wealthiest Americans and which saddled the U.S. economy with long-term deficits that will seriously impede future economic growth. In their place, I will propose a targeted program to put dollars in the hands of people that will spend them, through tax policies that help low and middle income people, and through expanded unemployment benefits, and assistance to states and localities. Second, I will see to it that we have a sound dollar that allows American manufacturing to compete. Third, I will propose new ways to help small business, especially small manufacturing business, to ensure that adequate private capital is available to finance the demands of a growing economy. In addition, I will pursue a prudent fiscal policy, and aim to balance the federal budget within five years of taking office."

as for me convincing you he's as great as I say he is...
well seems to me like you've got your mind made up already about him and whom your candidate will be.. go right ahead and vote for DK if you'd like (but I definitely wouldn't go there with your abortion swipe...your guys on shaky ground there, like it or not). Based on your posts I'm honestly having problems taking your request seriously. And I've never been the preaching type anyways. I just like a little honesty is all. What you stated in the original post was OPINION. That is all.
I'll say this though. I like Dean because he's saying what I feel about the current political situation. I like Dean because he's generating excitement. I like Dean because most of his positions make sense. Yes there are some I don't agree with (Death Penalty for one). Take it or leave it. Fine by me either way.

[indigo32]

90. OK Dem Bones

I reread your original post...and I'm starting to actually understand your earnestness in asking about Dean....but you have to admit coming in with:

"Recapping: Dean will allow your job to be transferred overseas. Dean will not work to get national health care for the many uninsured Americans. Dean is not prepared to fix the problems with Social Security. He hasn't pledged to make sure Social Security remains solvent and, for all I know, may think privatization is a good idea, having been a stockbroker himself. Perhaps one of the Dean supporters here at DU can tell us if he's ever answered a question about his views on privatization"
ect... not to mention other posts you've made in this thread... are a little, possibly, hostile? How do you expect us to respond?
And since post 63 takes a decent shot at answering your questions I'm not sure what else to say. I'll post more links, answer any questions about specific policy. Just don't come out with both barrels loaded.
And maybe you'd like to explain to us pragmatists how you expect National Healthcare and a repeal of Nafta to happen in todays political climate. Just a thought.

[DemBones DemBones]

161. Today's political climate can be changed. We can elect

a more progressive Congress, for one thing. For another, a leader with good ideas can convince the people and the Congresspeople to support his (or her) programs. Of course the cheap labor conservatives don't want to repeal NAFTA or institute national healthcare and they've been able to convince many people that they're looking out for their welfare. A lot of people are waking up and realizing that the cheap labor conservatives don't give a fig about them (us) and that they should investigate things on their own. And a lot of them have always known NAFTA and GATT were not done to help the little guy, and that health care is too expensive, insurance too expensive. (Clinton's failed attempt to get national health insurance got people thinking about the issue so it will be easier next time it's introduced.) The ones who aren't awake yet (and aren't total GOP-pod people) need to be awakened. Dean supporters are justifiably proud of how many people have been involved in Dean meet-ups and that's an example of awakening people.

It's fine to be pragmatic but some people say it's pragmatic to elect Lieberman and I don't think you want to go that far, do you? ;-) I'm not giving up on Kucinich's campaign because some people say he's too far left and/or unelectable. I don't suggest people give up on any candidate if they know what he supports and agree that his positions on the issues are the best positions espoused by any of the candidates.

Thanks for your replies and the link on Dean's statement re: privatization. I was honestly asking if he'd ever been asked about privatization because I didn't know and figured a Dean supporter could tell me. I still think he was wrong to ever entertain the idea of raising the retirement age but I accept that people's views can change so if he's now committed to removing the cap on taxable income, good on him.

[LWolf]

49. Dean isn't progressive.

I don't think it's the fact that he's a centrist that rankles; he's more center than I am, and I don't support his candidacy, but that doesn't mean I think there's something wrong with his being a centrist. I think what rankles is the "liberal/progressive" label, when he really, in his own words, isn't. He's up front with that. Yet the media touts him as a progressive, and gasps over all the support from progressives. In reality, I don't think his supporters are misled; I think they are centrists. I don't think it is really the more liberal dems that have "met up" to campaign for him. I guess it's all relative; if you are further to the center than I am, I tend to view you as a centrist!

So I think all of the flaming and battling re Dean has 2 different sources here. One is that he is a sharp campaigner, and his campaign is organizing around negative campaign tactics. Not all of his individual supporters, but much of the organized campaign involves negative attacks. That invites a response in kind, and the flame wars are on. Either the negative campaigners don't know, or don't care, that there is a point where the opposition has been offended beyond return. Even if my candidate dropped out before the primary vote, I wouldn't vote for the guy who's been thriving on negative campaigning. He wouldn't gain many of our votes. And that's supposed to be the whole purpose of a campaign.

The other issue I see happening is that those of us further on the left from Dean and his people feel like it's our liberalism, not our candidate, that is truly under attack. We're used to hearing it from republicans, but to hear it from your own definitely fans the flames.

I'd like to know that other dems will not stoop to deriding and disenfranchising the liberal end of the party. And, in turn, I can agree not to dismiss the centrists out of hand. If we can't keep peace in the family, the democratic party is going to lose more of the left end to alternative 3rd parties.

In my idealistic way, I'd like to see people post positive things about their candidates. I'd like to see the negative crap go away. I'd like to see disagreement/debate engaged in civilly, over issues and with documentation. Not with playground bully-tactics. That's too much like * for comfort. For example, I'll agree not to start a thread bashing Dean. As far as I can recall, I haven't done that yet. I'm sure a Dean person would check on that for me! If I don't agree with Dean or Kerry or whoever, I'll explain why I disagree, without the juvenile by-play. Either in a thread of my own, or by posting a response to someone else's thread. Once I've made my point, I'm done. I don't have to come back and do the "yes well, he's a______, no he isn't, your candidate's a _______" thread bumps that accomplish nothing but make one side feel like they have to have the last word to "beat" the other side.

The best way to put out a fire is not to fan the flames. If someone is fanning flames for no constructive purpose, ignore them. Or ((ignore)) them. It works. And we can go back to working for the candidate of our choice!

[JohnKleeb]

50. That was great

and you made good points too.

[DemBones DemBones]

86. I agree with everything you said, particularly your points about

negative campaigning and offending other Democrats so much that they won't vote for the man whose supporters have used negative tactics, even if it means Bush* is elected. It is most unfortunate that positive posts about any candidate are overwhelmed with comments saying "But my guy is better than yours!"

It's also unfortunate that there can be no discussion of the pros and cons of Dean's positions without offending his supporters. Any criticism is seen as "Dean bashing." I think I'm through reading any threads at DU related to the presidential primaries. The signal to noise ratio is way too low.

[gottaB]

124. hear hear

on Newshour Friday I heard Dean described as the progressive candidate, and it just made me want to holler.

Kucinich has earned that label, and perhaps Sharpton, while others are more to the left of Dean on key issues. I feel like the media are still trying to pick our candidates and define our issues, rather than fairly and accurately reporting what we're saying, and dicusssing that. Their excuses for ignoring liberal candidates and ideas are hollow. They don't lay them out and debate them with actual progressives, because no thinking person could come to their conclusions.

Well, I resent that, and I'm guilty of projecting those negative feelings onto Dean and his campaign. Mea culpa. And yet when I look at his campaign and especially the comments made on Dean blogs, I am truly taken aback by the lack of awareness of liberal perspectives, and the almost total deafness to the concerns of certain disenfranchised and politically underrepresented groups.

So I think it's a good thing all around for Kucitizens to turn up the heat, because it raises awareness of a true progressive and what progressive issues really sound like.

Oh, I know there are a whole lot of Deanies who know they themselves are centrists, or that their candidate is actually a moderate neothisandthat, and further to the right than they are. They like him because he's a fighter. And he's better than Bush, I'll buy that. But as long as the media continue to portray Dean as the progressive voice of the Dems, and he doesn't fight that representation, progressives are right to ask what Dean's fighting for.

[IndianaGreen]

125. Speaking of relativism

since you brought the topic up, one could make the argument that anyone that supports capitalism could not possibly be a progressive. Capitalism is a system based on exploitation and injustice, unrestricted capitalism (which is what Bush wants) is unrestricted exploitation and injustice.

Speaking also of relativism, if we were to do a match up on the issues, one would be surprised to find out that some of the candidates we have maligned on this board are closer to our hearts than those we adulate.

If we were to look at the voting records of Kerry, Graham, Lieberman, Edwards, Kucinich, and Gephardt on abortion legislation, we may find that some of those that we have savaged because of a single prowar vote are on our side when it comes to abortion rights. We may also take notice that even a gnome like Lierberman has a very good voting record on gay rights and women's rights. I am not speaking of one solitary vote, but of years of consistently voting in favor of those rights. The same claim cannot be made about the candidate preferred by many of my friends on the Left, and I mean the real Left.

[KG]

53. Clinton wasn't a progressive -

i don't see your point. :shrug:

progressive causes took a beating under clinton.

and i expect progressive causes to stay on the run no matter which of the legit candidates wins, because none of them are progressives either.

[goforit]

58. But 1,000,000,000 time better than *!!......Wake up!!!!

*

[JohnKleeb]

60. thats not the point

she wants DK as do I, check out my thread if you wanna know what we are all about.

[EAMcClure]

63. Refutation of beloved points

"Clinton built up a huge projected surplus in Social Security and Medicare. Dean doesn't seem to know exactly what he would do about funding Social Security and Medicare. The other night, and on other occasions, he said he would consider raising the retirement age, a step that is grossly unfair to many Americans, particularly blacks and people who do the physically demanding jobs in our society. If you are black and/or have a physically demanding job, you have a much lower life expectancy than whites with relatively easy jobs. Raising the retirement age for Social Security is highly discriminatory against blacks and anyone who does hard labor, and quite possibly against Hispanics and other minorities as well. American Indians, for example, have a much shorter life expectancy than whites."

I listened to Dean's speech in Iowa last night. He was asked specifically about raising the retirement age, and he said he was against it. He further explained that the best way to fund social security and maintain its solvency was to eliminate the cap... he said it was unfair that someone who makes a cool millions pays as much social security taxes as someone who makes 70k.

If you are a progressive who believes in social security, I think his ideas are good. So, point dismissed. I know how much you would like to bring in discrimination based on race and class, but on this particular point, that dog won't hunt.

"People in America have to have jobs. Great Depression II is NOT something we want to have to live through. Talk to people who did if you don't believe me. Yet Howard Dean is for "free trade," pro-NAFTA (yes, he says he'd change it a little but he basically supports it) although it means jobs are becoming one of the U.S.'s leading exports."

Number one: We are in Great Depression II, the formula is already established and it is time to dig in and face the fact. The economy is only going to get worse, over decades. The goal being a military state. Neocon objective: all able-bodied poor boys and girls enlisted, earning their keep by acting as "honorary investors" in regional conflicts over resources.

Howard Dean stated that he would not support free trade without conditions... which isn't free trade at all. He stated that any country which has the right to organize, strike, and in other ways allow unions to exist and ensure a middle class, then free trade for you. He did misstate Brasil's union capacity (compared to the rest of South America, Brasil is a beacon, but still, a lot of work needs to be done), but I found that Howard Dean was actually making a *gasp* socialist point: that a country's strength is measured by the breadth and depth of its middle class. He said that promoting the middle class worldwide was his goal. That didn't strike me as GATT and NAFTA friendly talk.

As far as same sex civil unions, once again he addressed the topic in Iowa. He stated that he believes that religious institutions reserve the right to define marriage however they see fit... but he believes that EVERYONE should enjoy the civil/legal benefits of marriage. I think the point was made crystal clear.

Dean's stance on health care is pragmatic, and not ideal. Actually, in a lot of ways I find Dean to be cut from the same cloth as Dewey, another New Englander... also a New Englander born with a silver spoon. I think his positions are left of center, and he will ultimately appeal to a broad support base.

I have read that some posters here consider him sunk in the south and in "rural areas." Howard Dean will be portrayed as a yankee there, and it is his job to point out otherwise.... a candidate should be judged by the campaign and not the pigeon-holing which is tantamount to discrimination.

I hope you find your points addressed, Dembones. You made an awful lot of noise about that. I would reccomdend watching C-Span more often... the Dem candidates are given a fairly good amount of coverage,

which reminds me.... Al Gore kicked some serious ass for Al Gore. Maybe to a lot of us political illuminati he came off as light, but oh man he said some serious shit. I for one hope he actively campaigns for the party. (Not the Presidency)

Eric

[diamondsoul]

69. You seem to be a Dean supporter so

maybe you can help alleviate something that has been bothering me for a while. How long ago did Dean start putting forth the position you posted on NAFTA and free trade conditions? Did anyone see him before the AFL-CIO debate where he said those exact positions on NAFTA and free trade? Also how long ago did he start with the "Take back America" thing to close his appearances?

I'm not going to say what I'm wondering about because it would just upset a lot of people and I don't want to do that. I'm hoping like hell I'm wrong about it, and that's what I'm looking to prove, for my own peace of mind.

[DemBones DemBones]

81. Yes, LAST NIGHT Dean said he wouldn't raise retirement age but

what did he say before last night? I refer you another DU thread (posted August 5) for quotes:

Kucinich Challenges, Dean Dissembles at the AFL-CIO Debate

At the AFL-CIO Presidential Debate in Chicago last night Dennis Kucinch accused Howard Dean of supporting raising the retirement age to 68, even 70. When Dean got his turn, he began by correcting Kucinich, even implying that Kucinich lied. Dean said he had never supported raising the retirement age to 68 or 70. Dean intimated that he had supported raising the retirement age, though the actual age was unclear.

http://tinyurl.com/j4z2

After hard questioning on the Sunday, June 22, airing of Meet The Press from host Mr. Russert, Dean suggested the following options for Social Security:

Mr. Russert: Would you raise
retirement age to 70?

Dr. Dean: Social Security,
I—the best way to balance Social
Security budget right now… is to
expand the amount of money that
Social Security payroll taxes
apply to. It's limited now to
something like $80,000. You let
that rise. I also would entertain
taking the retirement age to 68.
It's at 67 now. I would entertain
that.
(Emphasis added.)

Posted by DUer dpbrown at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=14186&mesg_id=14186

This disproves your claim of "point dismissed." Dean is clearly still figuring out his policy on Social Security. That's not a bad thing in itself. It IS bad that he would consider raising the retirement age, no matter how unimportant you may think race and class discrimination are. I hope he won't revert to that position.

(The AFL-CIO Debate was on C-SPAN, by the way. "Meet the Press" is not on C-SPAN but perhaps you saw it anyway. I do watch C-SPAN a lot but thanks for your suggestion.)


You wrote:

"Number one: We are in Great Depression II, the formula is already established and it is time to dig in and face the fact. The economy is only going to get worse, over decades. The goal being a military state. Neocon objective: all able-bodied poor boys and girls enlisted, earning their keep by acting as "honorary investors" in regional conflicts over resources."

I agree with you here (except for the relatively minor point of whether the new depression has already begun as I'm not sure it has -- but you may be correct.) The oligarchy is established, now all that's needed is to push the middle class down into one big mass of peasants. At this point, I am not at all convinced that Dean will do enough to avert it, even if his talk is not "NAFTA and GATT friendly."

Again, he wouldn't answer Larry King's question about whether he personally supported same-sex marriage. I take that to mean "No." People who consider this as a major issue should demand that Dean answer the question.

Thank you for taking time to address actual points from my post. Sorry you thought I was making a lot of noise about it but there are currently more than 70 replies in the thread and no one else has seriously addressed any of my points. I'd like to understand why progressives are so gung-ho about a slightly left-leaning centrist such as Dean. If he should actually be the nominee, I'd like to know why I should vote for him. This will be the ninth time I've helped select a president and this time I'm asking myself why I should vote for a Republican calling himself a Democrat yet again. Obviously, I am examining all the candidates. In this thread, I'm asking: What would Dean really do to change the disastrous course this country is on?

[JohnOneillsMemory]

165. On the nose, EAMcClure. It's about using the poor to occupy for oil.

"The economy is only going to get worse, over decades. The goal being a military state. Neocon objective: all able-bodied poor boys and girls enlisted, earning their keep by acting as "honorary investors" in regional conflicts over resources."

The po' folk are supposed to hold the stock of a rifle to hold stock in USA,Inc. The 'Homeland Security' angle is the most important psychological aspect of selling a new leader to the political market. It is an ignorant, fearful, indoctrinated and propagandized market that will buy on gut instinct. That's why Schwarzenegger could end up president and Kucinich won't. The subtleties of domestic economics will be sublimated to the TV Nation's 9/11 post-traumatic stress disorder. Democrats need to put forth the tallest type-A silver back gorilla they can find to knock fly-boy W down.

[IndianaGreen]

68. Hmmm, isn't it about time you took your meds?

When did you change your avatar to Kucinich's?

We know full well that Dean is a moderate, but he is a well-balanced moderate: against the war, for sound fiscal management, for full civil rights for all, etc.

BTW, I don't remember Andree Maitland Dean saying the things you said she said about her son Howard.

Here is an excellent article about Dean:

The Unlikely Rise of Howard Dean
The five-time governor of the Ben & Jerry's state is actually a product of Park Avenue, an outspoken critic of war against Iraq, and suddenly, a Democratic presidential force.

By Meryl Gordon

Howard Dean is running for president as Jimmy Stewart. The buttoned-down Democrat begins campaign speeches by conceding to his audience, “You don’t know me,” before describing his transformation from medical doctor to Vermont’s five-term governor. Instead of jetting around the country on chartered planes, Dean flies coach on Southwest Airlines and JetBlue. Known for padding around his governor’s office with holes in his socks and plain, well-worn suits, this frugal contender for the highest office in the free world avoids $450 hotel suites on his travels, preferring to bunk at the homes of supporters, even though it often means being shoehorned into kids’ quarters. When he comes to New York, as he does often these days, he stays at his mom’s place.

It was there, in fact, that Dean, suddenly the hottest comer in the densely bunched Democratic pack, entertained 30 moneyed and influential party stalwarts last week, including superlawyer David Boies and JFK speechwriter Ted Sorenson. Still, the crowd wasn’t exactly slumming: The Dean family homestead is a Park Avenue apartment serenely decorated with small African sculptures and modernist paintings and prints.

Let his Democratic rivals hype their only-in-America humble origins-Joe Lieberman is the son of a liquor-store owner; John Edwards’s father worked in the textile mills-Howard Brush Dean III is the proud patrician product of Park Avenue and 85th Street, the son, grandson, and great-grandson of investment bankers. After graduating from Yale, Dean, too, worked on Wall Street before quitting to attend Albert Einstein medical school, where he met his wife, Long Island-born physician Judith Steinberg. Dean didn’t just summer in the Hamptons; his parents belonged to the Maidstone Club, and his family’s Sag Harbor roots trace back to an eighteenth-century whaling captain.

He enjoys watching New Yorkers’ attitudes change when they discover he’s not a hick from the state of Ben & Jerry’s. “New Yorkers are tough; they want to know what you’ve got,” says Dean. “But I’ve never had people open their hearts to me more than when they discover that my wife is Jewish and I’m from New York. They look at you completely differently. It’s flabbergasting.”

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/n_8376/

[DemBones DemBones]

76. Now there's a fine argument -- accuse me of needing meds!

:eyes:

I have used the Kucinich avatar since the first week at DU2. I did use a Birkenstock sandal at first because I wear them, making me an old hippie :hippie: but soon decided to use the avatar and sig line to stand up for my candidate. What your question is intended to accuse me of, I have no idea, but I know an insinuation when I read one.

I did read the comment I attributed to Mrs. Dean, despite your insinuation that she never said it. Why do you assume you know everything she's ever said to a reporter?

Your post refutes none of my points about Dean and I must admit I'm disappointed because I expect better from you. But you've changed lately, from a very left-wing socialist (Marxist if I recall correctly) and Green Party member who voted for Nader, to supporting the centrist Dean. Who are you and what have you done with the real Indiana Green? ;-)

[IndianaGreen]

78. Dean is one of the few candidates that can unite the party

and he is probably the only one that has a good chance to defeat Bush.

I won't speak ill of Kucinich. How could I, I like what he says!

[LWolf]

95. I disagree.

The tactics used by Dean and his campaign/supporters have divided. I've attended several campaign functions for DK, and what I hear from them over and over is that they will not support Dean. The progressive dems will support any dem candidate before Dean. One of them said to me Thursday night, "When I think about him actually getting the nomination, it makes my heart drop. It fills me with dread. I'm working to keep Dean off the ticket." That doesn't sound like a unifying response to Dean to me.

And any of them can beat Bush. Bush has willingly jumped into a quagmire of his own making. If the dems can't beat a man with a record like *, they may as well give up and take us the rest of the way to a one-party dictatorship.

[indigo32]

104. Interesting isn't it

how that's Deans fault. I've been to several functions for Dean... and none of us are saying anything of the sort about ANY of the other candidates. But it's all the fault of Dean and his supporters.

[LWolf]

113. What is all the fault?

I'm not following this. My point was that Dean is not going to unify anyone. That his campaign tactics are divisive, and that he has already driven away many people who might have been supporters if their candidate dropped out before the primary, or if he managed to get the nomination. I don't think this was a post about blame or "fault." It was a post disagreeing with the "Dean is the only one who can unite" statement, and giving an example.

[IndianaGreen]

112. So who will they vote for, Bush? Because that's the only choice we have!

Give me a break! These assholes that say that they will not vote for Dean were he to become the nominee have no clue, or don't care, that Dean is head and shoulders above Kucinich on women abortion rights.

If you want to talk about a candidate's record, that's fine, but don't ignore your own candidate being the darling of the Right to Life movement until just a few months ago.

Abortion is like the war. Abortion is a moral and ethical issue in which there is little room for compromise, if any. If one believes that abortion is snuffing out a human life and that it should be banned, as Kucinich's voting record indicates, how could I trust his recent epiphany to support abortion rights?

Kucinich is the only Democratic candidate that was not pro-choice. Even the much maligned Lieberman has a record of defending women's reproductive rights. Kucinich is to the extreme right of Lieberman when if comes to reproductive rights.

Kucinich is not like Ted Kennedy, who despite his own Church's pro-life position has consistently separated his religious views from his public actions.

[LWolf]

115. Bush and Dean are not the only choices we have.

1. If you have questions about "women abortion rights," please feel free to ask Dennis. He is not uncomfortable discussing it, and I haven't found anyone who has actually listened to what he had to say about it that is uncomfortable with his position.

2. It's ok to say you don't believe his position is sincere. It's a misdirection to say that he was ever the "darling" of the right-to-lifers. I understand your hesitation over the issue; again, the best way to settle your distrust would be to listen (really listen; be open to hearing and understanding) to what he has to say about it. Then honor what your gut tells you; no misdirection necessary.

3. We have plenty of other choices. Right now, we have 8 other choices. When the general election gets here, a large contingent supporting DK will vote 3rd party if they don't feel like the dem choice will represent them. And yes...voting 3rd party or not voting would benefit bush. Which is why I won't do it. I'll vote for the dem. But, in the area of unifying, DK is bringing in a large number of 3rd party voters and disenfranchised people who generally don't vote at all. That's unifying; bringing the outside in to join you, not dismissing them because they aren't mainstream enough. That's the work that Dennis is doing to unify; he's reaching those voters we lost in 2000 and bringing them back into the fold.

[Mairead]

132. Unite the party? When's he going to start, then?

Because he's sure as buggery done nothing to attract me.

[KC]

116. Is this the comment from Mrs. Dean ?

http://www.mediaresearchcenter.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030804.asp

At this early stage it's likely that Dean enjoys support from those to his left who don't know the fine points of his proposals as well as they know the fine volleys of his rhetoric. In that sense, it's hard to imagine Dean's glorious season ending without disappointment. Either he will alienate the mainstream by tacking left in order to keep his troops in their combat sandals, or, more likely, they will shed a tear when they learn who he really is. Last week I asked Dean's mother Andree Maitland Dean of East Hampton, N.Y., whether her son is truly a liberal insurgent. "He's not really," she said. A beat passed, and she added with a chuckle, "I hope they don't find that out just yet."

[DemBones DemBones]

117. Yes, that is the quote I referred to. Thanks for

posting it.

[IndianaGreen]

120. So, like fundies do, you are taking one tiny itsy verse and...

building an entire new theology out of it!

Isn't that the same thing fundies have done when they took an obscure passage in one of Paul's letters and used it as the basis for the Rapture?

Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed--in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

-- Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 15, verses 51-52

At least the fundies had more than one sentence to work on, while you take an out of context remark by Dean's mom as the basis for your lengthy rant in which you accuse Dean of being a stealth servant of Satan. That's quite a stretch!

[Mairead]

133. No, actually the two situations aren't comparable in the slightest

Because Paul was, in modern terms, a sexual neurotic at best and an intermittant psychotic at worst.

I doubt the same is true of Dean's mum.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

77. So Dean will do well here in New York City

gee I'm glad that you ended that suspense for us. :eyes:

I'll say this though, there is one thing that really disturbs me in this thread and that is the fact that blm reports the media have "warmed up" to Dean, more or less "anointing" him their favorite.
They did this with Clinton and it pissed me off to no end. I liked Brown and Tsongas much more, and I knew Bill was pretty damned "slick". Obviously, in retrospect, that turned out for the good, but the press did it NOT because they knew Clinton was the best candidate, but simply because they liked him. As an example of the problem with this: this article identifies him as more liberal than Edwards, and more outspoken than Kerry, amongst its many other fallacious claims. These are hard claims to make, yet there they are in print.

Dean is not Clinton by a far stretch. He has not the intellect, the political seasoning, or instincts. He is a lightweight compared to Kerry, or even Edwards. If he is the nominee, we are taking a HUGE risk on someone who may not be ready for prime time.

[indigo32]

89. Actually I would argue

that the press doesn't really like Dean that well. Despite the coverage he's getting. It has been pointed out how Bush got different treatment than Dean on MTP, and just read the Time article and tell me how much they like him. I'm sure it's VERY frustrating how little coverage the others get... but frankly there is NO denying the grass roots buzz Dean has been able to create.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

92. media love affair with Dean a recent development

since MTP.

[Mairead]

131. 'Meds', huh? IG, that's a crap rx and totally unworthy of a socialist

I think you should take shame. You used to be a beacon...or someone posting under that handle used to be. Are you not the original IG, then? Because you certainly have changed for the worse if you are.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

70. Well, since Clinton was the best president in generations

Of course Dean can't match up

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. Given The Constraints Of Our Political System

and the era in which we live Clinton was the most progressive president we could have got.

[Mairead]

140. 'Generations'? Are you of a short-lived species, then?

Because it's only one human generation since LBJ, who was an order of decimal magnitude...maybe 2 orders...better than Clinton.

Hell, even Nixon was arguably as good as Clinton.

[JVS]

143. Aww Shit! Nixon as good as Clinton?

Are you ready for the flaming that saying that will bring to you?
I'm not sure that that actually is arguable.

[LynneSin]

75. DLC says he's too liberal. Non-Dean Liberals think he's a centrist

Geez, will someone make up my mind for me PUL-LEASE!!!!!

Here's a concept:

HE'S NOT FREAKING BUSH AND THAT GOES FOR ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT OUT THERE RUNNING

(gets off her soapbox)

Thank you

[Forkboy]

79. I doubt many Dean supporters believe he's progressive anyways

I like him and I know exactly where he stands :shrug:

[REP]

80. "Nobody Shoots At You On The Way Down"

The way some Kucinich supporters are howling about Dean just makes me smile and wonder just why they're not spending their time telling us about the wonders St Dennis of the Flip-Flop. I think I know why: they know their boy has no chance because he's not saying anything anyone wants to hear.

[fabius]

87. Any Democrat is 3OMBC

Three orders of magnitude better than Chimpy.

re: NAFTA: Nobody except Kucinich is really against NAFTA. Maybe Gep.
Dennis is great but needs to show more legs otherwise I have to support Dean. Most politicians don't get why the people don't like their wonderful free trade crackpot theories. That's because they don't have to live with the results. The people need to push this one and Dean is the guy who owes his entire success in this campaign to we the people. See below.

re: GM food: labeling is a start because then people won't buy the stuff and Monstanto goes out of business.

re: Fiscal responsibility: Not the classic liberal thing but it's what we need after Chimp.

re: Mobilizing the people: If Dean gets elected it's because of we the people, not because of the DLC and the corporations. Even if he has a particular stand now, he knows exactly to whom he owes his success so far. He will listen.

Dean gets big points for making grassroots politics possible again.

I've watched politics my whole life since the 1960 election (I was 6). This is the first election since 1972 where candidates are actually talking intelligently about real issues. (Well, Jesse Jackson did too). And where a lot of people are paying attention. The Internet, DU, and Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton and Braun get a lot of the credit for this. Gephardt gets half credit because he's opposing NAFTA somewhat. We are throwing off the oppressive yoke of the media and campaign consultants at last. Keep it up.

[Mairead]

142. Labeling GM food is only a start if they don't plant any of it

Because we already know from experience that cross-pollination cannot be controlled sufficiently well not to contaminate non-frankencrops. So if we accept a mere 'start', we're likely to find the jinn impossibly hard to force back into the bottle.

[jafap]

91. I did not like the title of this thread

and only read it because I have previously been impressed by the posts of "Bonesy". I found this post also to be thoughtful, although others have found legitimate flaws. I, too, have some qualms about rich people's ability to empathise with the working class. Of course, I cannot find my quote from Howard Fast's biography.
On MSN there was a link to each candidate. On the estimate of net worth it showed Dean at 3.6 million, JR Bush at 26 million, and JFK (II) at 200 - 600 million. Then there was Kucinich which they figured at 9 to 45,000. WTF??? Don't congressmen make about $100,000 a year? Almost 10 times what I make, and I am probably worth $45,000.

I liked Dean early, and am still in his camp, although I have read at DU "good" (by which I mean progressive) things about Kucinich and Clark. Dean got the most publicity for being anti-war, which I liked. Basically I am looking for an anti-war candidate who will reverse the top 20% of Bush's tax cuts and use that money for social programs and infrastructure. I am still up in the air about NAFTA, partly because, as a progressive, I care about Indians and Chinese jobs too. Also, I must say, that most people neither need nor want jobs. If you do not believe me, look at how many of us buy powerball tickets. What we need and want, is income. It is not a pragmatic thing perhaps, but the entire capitalist dis-organization of busy-work for livelihood is something I would like to see ultimately abolished ala Daniel Quinn. Not that I expect that from any candidate. We could use a man like Convict 9652 again.

[DemBones DemBones]

118. I take your point about the title as I think many people

misunderstood my intent. It's a fact that Dean is not a progressive -- he says himself that he is a centrist -- and I think it's a reasonable assumption, based on positions that he has stated, that he would be more centrist (and thus worse, in my view) than Clinton. But it would have been better if I had not said "worse," which was inspired by a "Dean will be BETTER than Clinton" thread." Being a centrist is not inherently bad nor is being more centrist than Clinton an evil position, but a progressive is more desirable, in my view. Some DUers who I had long thought were more left than I am are supporting Dean and I continue to be puzzled by that. Apparently it all comes down to "electability" in their minds. I don't think that Dean is the most electable Dem, think instead he's being used as a wedge to divide the party. (NOT suggesting he's complicit in this, saying I think the media and GOP see his candidacy as useful to their purposes and are helping pump him up.) I don't have a crystal ball, of course, but neither does anyone else so we can all voice our thoughts about what 's driving events and how this will all play out.
Ishmael seems not to care to comment, perhaps wisely. ;-)

[IndianaGreen]

122. And Kucinich is a progressive?

No progressive would ever cast a vote to restrict women's reproductive rights. Not even a toad like Lieberman ever did such a thing!

Kucinich is a populist, not a progressive. Perot was a populist, as was Huey Long, and George Wallace. As you can see, being a populist is not necessarily being progressive, although sometimes one borrows the themes of the other. Pat Buchanan had a populist message when he spoke against NAFTA and for American jobs, but no one in their right minds would ever say that Buchanan was progressive.

Dean is a moderate Democrat like John Kerry and JFK. The only reason many of us are supporting Dean over Kerry is the war, and only the war.

But if the worse were to happen, and I had to choose between a warmongering Lieberman (or a "waffler" on the war like Kerry), and a candidate that only pays lip service to abortion rights, I would be very hard pressed to vote for the anti-choice candidate.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

129. The only reason you are supporting Dean over Kerry is the war?

Sure. That and the fact you are willing to delude yourself with this kind of thinking: that "Dean is a moderate Democrat like John Kerry and JFK." Kerry, the lifelong liberal, is suddenly a "moderate".
Seems that "war vote" (as you are all so fond of branding it) undid virtually a whole lifetime of service to liberal ideals and causes. It's pathetic really. Yeah, Kerry's a hypocritical windbag who hemmed and hawed and stammered as he tried to explain why he was about to vote for the "war" resolution. Sorry you didn't feel his pain. Sorry you didn't feel his anger at Bush for putting him in such a spot. I did. And I'm still angry now.

Kerry's vote was right. It's the war that was wrong.

[IndianaGreen]

130. My Congresswoman, Julia Carson, voted for the PATRIOT Act

As many DUers are aware, I have been relentless in attacking the PATRIOT Act, and it was even more shameful that Congress passed the bill without even reading it. Would you sign a contract without reading it?

Julia Carson redeemed herself by her voting record before and after PATRIOT, and her own admission that her vote on PATRIOT was wrong and that Congress needed to revisit the issue. Carson voted against the Iraq war!

What did Kerry do? Has Kerry redeemed himself by word or deed on his vote on the war? No, he continues to waffle the issue and he sounds like he supports Bush's doctrine of preemption. Kerry only disagrees with the sloppiness following the conquest of Baghdad. Kerry has not said a word about tactics used by Task Force 20 that are eerily similar to the death squads the CIA was running with the military during the Phoenix Program in Vietnam.

Much was expected from Kerry based upon his background, and Kerry has been, and continues to be a great disappointment.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

134. Kerry also disagreed with the lack of diplomacy before the war

the whole point being to AVOID a war. So again, you're selling him short.

[Mairead]

146. 'Lip service'? Are you talking about Dennis?

What do you call his votes against the anti-'PBA' bill and for abortion in mil hospitals, then? Doesn't sound like mere lip service to me.

[IndianaGreen]

149. How pro-choice is Kucinich, or is Dennis being Clintonian?

BTW, I lambasted my own Senator Evan Bayh for voting for the so-called "partial birth" abortion, which apparently Kucinich voted for back in the late 1990s.

November 1, 2002, 8:30 a.m.
Pro-Life Progressive No More
The strange journey of Dennis Kucinich.

By Timothy P. Carney

Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has progressed rather suddenly from an anomaly — a pro-life liberal — to just another Left-winger doing the abortion lobby's bidding.

Making headlines in recent weeks for leading an antiwar faction in the House, Kucinich is not known for being thin-skinned. But apparently the Roman Catholic couldn't stand up to a little criticism from the far-Left journal, The Nation.

A quick look at Kucinich's record shows the odd journey of this singular lawmaker.

In the Ohio state Senate, Kucinich voted to ban partial-birth abortions. In 1996, while running for U.S. House, the former "boy-mayor" of Cleveland said, "I believe that life begins at conception." When Kucinich was coming to Washington, the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy counted the former mayor as one of a handful of "anti-choice" Democratic newcomers.

Upon arriving in our nation's capital, the Cleveland Catholic lived up to his billing. In the 105th Congress, Kucinich — no conservative — earned a 90 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-carney110102.asp

February 20, 2003, 9:10 a.m.
Kucinich’s Choice
Does the presidential contender mean what he says on abortion?

By David Enrich

Kucinich is following in the footsteps of Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, and other Democrats who flip-flopped on abortion shortly before launching presidential bids. Pro-choice groups are divided over whether the metamorphosis is genuine or a political ploy.

"He understands that this is a fundamental freedom. Do I think that's sincere? Yes I do," says Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. She says the transformations of Kucinich and past Democrats are "the opposite of being political. When they were being anti-choice, it was the political thing to do maybe. At that time, their position was expected of them to be anti-choice. I think they've thought a lot more about this issue and came to the decision after a great deal of thought and not as a reflex."

Others are not so sure. Kucinich's pro-choice makeover "is testament to the fact that he realizes the power of this issue, certainly within the Democratic camp," says David Williams, political director of Planned Parenthood. "This is something that remains a very powerful issue and will in time emerge in the selection process of a Democratic candidate." Williams says he isn't persuaded by Kucinich's recent pro-choice rhetoric.

Another possible sign that Kucinich's morphing position could push abortion into Democratic debates: Democrats for Life, a national group, is urging members to contact Kucinich to tell him "to stick by his principles and continue his strong pro-life advocacy."

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-enrich022003.asp

[DemBones DemBones]

156. You IGNORE Kucinich's pledge to appoint only those who support

Roe v. Wade to SCOTUS. No other candidate has made that promise.

Dennis Kucinich has a history of keeping campaign promises, even though doing so cost him his office as mayor of Cleveland.


From the National Review article you cited:

"He understands that this is a fundamental freedom. Do I think that's sincere? Yes I do," says Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Kucinich has in the past supported a consistent pro-life ethic -- against capital punishment, against abortion, against war in general (though recognizing that there can be a need for war in some circumstances; he is not a pacifist.) He has now decided, as he announced several months ago, that abortion must be legal for women to be equal. Kucinich argued strongy AGAINST the partial-birth abortion ban when it was being voted on in the House a couple of months ago. It has been two years since he cast a vote on an abortion measure that opposed NARAL.

Kucinich continues to oppose the death penalty and war in general. He has continued speaking out against military involvement in Iraq all during the build-up to hostilities, on the day we invaded Iraq, and ever since.

[IndianaGreen]

158. I got news for you, the framework of Roe was overturned by Casey

What's left of Roe has been eroded over the years by Congress. A variety of gimmicks have been used to do this. Rather than ban abortion outright, the abortion opponents have succeeded in getting their friends in Congress, of which Kucinich was one, to enact incremental restrictions on abortion procedures. We have seen this strategy succeed over the years, from cutting funding to contraceptive services in foreign countries to outright bans on abortions in military hospitals and Congress's recent bans on specific surgical procedures used to terminate pregnancies.

Casey: Roe's near-death experience

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Pennsylvania law that required married women to sign a statement attesting that they had notified their husbands that they were seeking an abortion. The Court let stand a provision that required parental notification in the case of minors. The Court also scrapped Roe's much maligned trimester scheme.

The remarkable thing is that the Court was going to overturn Roe, but did not do so. In his inside the Court book Closed Chambers, former clerk Edward Lazarus gives a rather telling account of how the Court, prompted by the likes of Solicitor General Ken Starr (among others), had decided to use Casey to overturn Roe. This would have happened had it not been for Judge Souter. Souter shared the same concern for due process and stare decisis of his hero Justice Harlan, the lone dissenter in the 1896 Plessy decision. Souter convinced Justices O'Connor and Kennedy to write an opinion in which they would uphold Roe not on its merits, but to preserve the Court's institutional integrity. The language was simply stunning; a decision to overturn Roe would be "a surrender to political pressure, and an unjustified repudiation of the principle on which the Court staked its authority in the first place… (Overruling Roe) would subvert the Court's legitimacy beyond any serious question."(1)

<snip>

One cannot ignore the possibility that further advances in neonatal care developments will continue to push viability closer to the point of conception. Since viability in Roe marks the earliest point at which the State can impose restrictions on abortion, it would be within the realm of possibility for a State to intervene on behalf of the unborn the moment a woman first finds out she is pregnant without violating what remains of the Roe construct.(2)

<snip>

In a 1985 article written for the North Carolina Law Review, Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized Roe for being based on the right to privacy rather than on the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Ginsburg argues that abortion prohibitions should have been linked to discrimination against women. The conflict, according to Ginsburg, is not "simply one between a fetus' interests and a woman's interests ...nor is the overriding issue state versus private control of a woman's body for a span of nine months. Also in the balance is a woman's autonomous charge of her full life's course and her ability to stand in relation to man, society, and the state as an independent, self-sustaining, equal citizen."(3)

Conclusion

Women will continue to be subjugated by society, and be viewed as inferior to men, as long as our society and its laws are based on an unequal power structure. Laws will remain on the books that will treat women on an unequal basis when compared to men. Abortion will continue to be treated as a legal issue rather than as a personal one. It is debatable whether our society can address, much less resolve, the social inequality and injustice that are an inherent part of capitalism.

End Notes

1. Edward Lazarus, Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court (New York: Penguin Books, 1999), 476.

2. Louis Pojman and Francis Beckwith, eds., The Abortion Controversy: 25 Years After Roe v. Wade (Belmont: Wadsworth, 1998) 109.

3. Ibid.

[DemBones DemBones]

157. Kucinich is the progressive in this race and it is

ludicrous that you suggest he is "the anti-choice candidate" or "only pays lip service to abortion rights" when

1) Kucinich has pledged only to nominate supporters of Roe v. Wade as Supreme Court justices. (No other Democratic candidate has promised this.)

2) Kucinich argued strongly AGAINST the partial-birth abortion ban when it was being voted on in the House not long ago. (He voted against it as well, of course. He hasn't cast a ballot against "choice" in about two years, since he started reconsidering his position on the issue.)

[IndianaGreen]

159. I suggest his "reconsideration" of the abortion issue was not

a principled one, but one of crass opportunism. If one believes that abortion is murder, there is no way in hell one can crossover to the opposite point of view. There are two plausible explanations for this: either Dennis lied when he said he was against abortion, or he is lying now when he says it doesn't matter.

While there have been cases where abortion rights proponents have become prolife as in the case of Norma McCorvey, the Roe in Roe v. Wade, there is no one that I am aware of that went from the prolife camp to the abortion rights camp.

[Mairead]

167. Who says he believes abortion is "murder"? Got a cite?

Someone can be against abortion and not regard it as 'murder'. That's true of me. It's some kind of killing, in an ethical sense, though I don't quite know how to evaluate it in a way that satisfies me. I know that I view killing a kitten or puppy as much less okay than aborting a human, but killing a bug as more okay (or 'less not-okay', really). But that's as far as I've been able to go. I know that my position has something to do with the order of life -- killing a complex organism is less-okay than killing a simple one, and killing an already-independently-living organism is less-okay than killing one in the womb. But in no case do I regard an early-term abortion as 'murder'.

So, have you got a cite?

[jafap]

148. I took the first part as a given

Dean is not a progressive - isn't that part of the unconventional wisdom? I am sorta figuring that "fact" will enhance his electability. However, in his latest column, Ted Rall suggests just the opposite - that Dean is progressive and that his progressivity will enhance his electability.
I did not like Clinton in 1992, economically he sounded like a Republican - constantly chanting the mantra of economic growth instead of income redistribution. Poppy, on the other hand, seemed more moderate than Reagan who was more moderate than JR. However, after experiencing his two terms and reading Reich's and Begala's books, I feel like Clinton was better than most people give him credit for. He also had to deal with a hostile Congress, so he did very well, all things considered.
I appreciate Dean, if for nothing else, for talking the talk. Even if he is a closet centrist, his rhetoric helps to legitimize liberalism. I also love his fighting spirit, and even his "anger". We should be angry about someone who narrowly lost after campaigning as a centrist and then veered to the hard right. People who voted for JR based on his campaign rhetoric should be angry enough not to do it again. I cannot see Dean as divisive when his campaign is about "taking America back" from the radical right wing. We all should be united about that. And if the GOP wants to help spread that message then so be it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

97. Just a couple of points.

Howard Dean is a centrist who is being perceived as far more left-leaning than he actually is. His own mother said so in an interview, adding that she hoped people wouldn't find that out too soon!

By whom? Old school centrism or today's DLC Dinos? Who's perception are you talking about? His supporters? The unimformed media?

Clinton tried to give Americans national health care. Dean insists that national health care can't be done, which is a fine way to avoid doing it. "Gee, I'd like to but it can't be done." He'd throw a bone or two to the uninsured while protecting health insurance companies' profits and physicians' fat salaries.

Uh, Dean was part of the Clinton's attempt to get National Health Care passed. I believe he was part of Hillary's HC taskforce. His incrementalist approach is a result of the failure to get that plan implemented.

There's more but I'm not sure you're really interested. Vote for Kucinich. It's not a bad choice at all.

[buddhamama]

98. you're right, DemBones

but in all honesty, i think the majority of Dean's supporters know he is not a progressive.

but for whatever reason/s they have decided to back him.

excellent analysis though.

[maha]

101. Our long national nightmare

of peace and prosperity might return, you mean?

"Worse than Clinton" is not exactly a selling point hereabouts, I suspect.

[birdman]

105. Gasp !!!! You mean he might not give us a Department of Peace !!!????

or protect us from the dire threat of space based
mind control weapons ???

Or behave like a psycho-midget on speed during a debate ????

[veganwitch]

108. green dot babe!!!!

i am sooooo tired of dean being the perceived as the "great white liberal hope" (hype is more appropriate.)

[Ripley]

109. Give me one example of that.

I have never seen anyone say Dean is the "great white liberal hope."

[blindpig]

110. sound analysis

I like DK myself. However, unless the gods are royal flush beneficent I expect that we'll have to accept whatever plate of dog vomit the party sticks us with And that will still be considerably better than Bush.

[Cocoa]

111. "even worse than Clinton?"

what planet are you on?

On my planet, the Clinton years were a paradise compared to the reality we're in now.

[Mairead]

135. Sure. And gassed to death is a paradise compared to burnt alive

But you're done for either way.

The real goal shouldn't be to substitute gassing for burning, but to substitute living for dying.

(To forestall the usual idiots: I speak metaphorically, of course)

[Cocoa]

166. no, only one guy is killing us

just Bush.

Any of the dems is a rebirth after Bush's disastrous reign.

No dem, even Lieberman, will be nearly as bad. Only the worst republicans would be as bad either.

But the dems, all of them are astronomically better than Bush. Not even in the same league.

Take the worst dem, say Lieberman. If he worked his ass off for two terms trying to be as bad as Bush was his first day in office, he couldn't do it.

[govegan]

119. Better than the chimpster is NOT GOOD enough!

Shades of Rip Van Winkle!!!

How long have I been sleeping?

The general election was over one year away last time I checked on it (provided we are allowed to have one).

Now is not the time to dance around the issues because "better than the chimp is good enough."

I know many on these discussions are activists or at least concerned citizens, and many really are searching for answers to where this nation has been and is going.

American Democracy today is like that Gene Hackman cop in the second French Connection movie. Kidnapped by his nemesis, mainlined with junk until strung out beyond coherence, dumped in the street as useless and defeated. Those who care about Liberty, Justice, and Truth have to get tough here. It is time to cold tofu on this junk!

If America settles for some half-way house remedy in 2004, Justice will not be served. The bandits will continue to rape the planet, rob the poor, brutalize women and minorities and bide their time for more complete fascist control.

The condition of Democracy in this country is the result of a long ailment, as most of you know. Clinton's presidency was a correction, but only temporary as we saw. Not complete by any means, and not sufficiently in the interests of the people, was the correction.

Dean has time to win Kucinich supporters over. Kucinich has time to win Dean supporters over. Others have time to make their case.

The only candidates that I can feel comfortable supporting right now are Kucinich, Sharpton, Moseley Braun and Graham.

So why not Dean?

One major reason: He is a doctor from the American medical establishment, likely practiced in the fine art of disease care. I desire a strong and healthy democracy, not one on pills, half-way measures or life-support.

Let's make Democracy well again. No, let's make it healthier than it has ever been!

When a group like the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine endorses Dean, then he may be able to get my vote.

Dean's affiliation with the AMA needs explanation, the same as Kucinich's stance on a woman's right to privacy and control of her body needed explanation. I want control over the health of my body as well, and subsidies to big agribusiness, pharmaceuticals and other duplicitous deceits that flood my environment with toxins, lies and deceptions are not going to make it.


"The schoolteachers show the children
a marvelous light coming from the mountain;
but what arrives is a junction of sewers
where cholera's nymphs scream in the shadows.
The teachers point devoutly to the enormous domes
filled with burning incense;
but beneath the statues there is no love,
no love beneath the final crystal eyes."


-- federico garcia lorca

American democracy right now is a sham,
a pox on the planet.

[rucky]

121. Is This Thread EVER Going To End?

[Mairead]

136. Do your part, then: go away

[Wonder]

123. I do not sense DEAN is progressive EITHER.

It seems to me he reeks of the status quo! I do not feel the need to go round and round debating this either. It is just another two cents. One opinion, amidst the many.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

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

[ignoranceisstrength]

163. Dean grew up rich

not that there's anything wrong with it.

[CWebster]

168. Oh look, another Dean-bashing thread

And Kucinich supporters have the nerve to complain about Dean supporters criticizing Kucinich?

[gully]

169. Bravo!

:crazy:

[Mairead]

170. 'bashing' Dean but 'criticising' Kucinich, hmmmm?

Nice choice of words. No bias there, CW, uh-uh.

[Raenelle]

174. Worse than Clinton. Don't throw me in that briar patch.

n/t

[sangha]

175. Ironic. Dean supporters say "We know he's not progressive"

but when someone else points it out, they object

[kwolf68]

176. Yep...

And you didn't even hit on all the other issues. Dean is a fraud, dead man walking.

I am convinced the supporters of Dean are simply projecting their "wishes" of what they would like in a candidate. Because Kerry, Kucinich, and all the others have actual voting records in the last few years we can ascertain their positions.

Dean is a moderate from the word go. He is not principled in his stands and I don't trust him on many issues. Lieberman is far worse than Dean, but Dean is nothing but a stack of cards.

Funny thing is ... the stupid media and the Republicans are playing into this "Dean is so Liberal" spew. Dean is going to be WORSE than Clinton, because at least Clinton did a lot of good things with gun control (Brady Bill has been fine) and the environment. Dean wouldn't do shit for either of those issue. As far as "free trade" and globalization Dean and Clinton are both turds.