Dean's new pitch to American Indians doesn't sit well at home

[Skwmom]

"He's talking out of both sides of his mouth," said April St. Francis, chief of the Abenaki tribal organization in Vermont. "I'm outraged."

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/bfpnews/news/1000h.htm

[Hep]

1. "I didn't get what I wanted and now I get a public stage to bitch about it

. I agree with Dean on gaming. It's not a solution. It's like solving unemployment with new Burger King's.

[returnable]

3. Which part do you agree with?

His opposition to gaming as Governor of Vermont?

Or his support of gaming as a presidential candidate?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[returnable]

51. I bought a clue, thanks!

Maybe you should purchase one :hi:

Seriosly, Hep - I've had some exchanges with you that I considered quite civil. Why do you need to get so nasty and personal now?

Anyway, back to the issue at hand.

“Although I do not personally support gaming, I support the tribes’ right to do exactly what they want to do,” Dean said in his opening remarks. “I don’t have a problem with that.

That was NOT his policy as governor. He opposed the tribe's "right to do exactly what they wanna do."

Or maybe you missed that part?

[Hep]

54. this is easy

Maybe you should purchase one :hi:

Seriosly, Hep - I've had some exchanges with you that I considered quite civil. Why do you need to get so nasty and personal now?

Because you are deliberately misconstruing his position, which is insulting and infuriating. If you want a civil discussion, don't start it with a lie.

“Although I do not personally support gaming, I support the tribes’ right to do exactly what they want to do,” Dean said in his opening remarks. “I don’t have a problem with that.

That was NOT his policy as governor. He opposed the tribe's "right to do exactly what they wanna do."

Or maybe you missed that part?

You said he supports gaming. He doesn't. He said so. I didn't miss anything. You need to learn the difference between supporting something and recognizing that your opinion is moot when it comes to the decisions of sovereign nations.

[returnable]

67. OK, fine

He opposed granting gaming rights as Governor.

He supports granting gaming rights as a presidential candidate.

It's still a policy flip-flop. Even his own policy advisor says so.

"You need to learn the difference between supporting something and recognizing that your opinion is moot when it comes to the decisions of sovereign nations."

Too bad Howard didn't know the difference while governing Vermont, eh?

[Hep]

81. You're still at it

He opposed granting gaming rights as Governor.

Prove it. But first, prove that gaming rights is something he has the power to grant. The article stated that he didn't want to give them state recognition, which would lead to federal recognition, which would grant them gaming rights. I'm wondering at this point how uninformed you are willing to look for the singular purpose of painting Dean unfairly.

Dean opposed granting recognition to this particular tribe for several reasons, one given in the article, and more discussed by someone else in this thread.

He supports granting gaming rights as a presidential candidate.

He supports tribal leaders in deciding what's best for their people. Your horrible, ignorant way of freebasing his position remains inflammatory. And you expect civil discourse? Feh.

I'll further point out that you are mixing federally recognized tribes with those not even recognized by their state. To what lengths are you willing to shut off your brain in order to demonize Dean?

It's still a policy flip-flop. Even his own policy advisor says so.

His advisor is wrong.I find absolutely no fault with applying a different standard to federally recognized tribes than one does to tribes seeking recognition on a state level. Why you find such fault is quickly becoming obvious.

Too bad Howard didn't know the difference while governing Vermont, eh?

Nothing you've argued or shown has illustrated Dean's not knowing the difference.

[returnable]

88. I'm not "painting" him at all

FIAGRA doesn't apply to Vermont. I know that much.

Which made it all the more amusing that Dean would use the threat of casinos to deny Abenakis' recognition.

"His advisor is wrong."

So a man who worked closely with Dean on this very issue doesn't know what he's talking about, but you do?

I know which person I'll choose to believe. Thanks.

[Hep]

95. Believe who you want

no one is infallible.

I already knew you'd believe whoever supported your assertion. It's not like that's news.

[returnable]

97. For the record, it wasn't "my" assertion...

...that started this. It was the advisor's.

Thanks :hi:

[Hep]

99. Can you show me

Where the advisor posted here?

As far as I can see, your post alleged that he flip flopped, which he didn't.

[returnable]

101. Geez, you're really grasping at straws...

"your post alleged that he flip flopped"

And my post was based on what the advisor said.

To recap, the advisor said "This is not the policy Howard Dean had when he was governor of Vermont."

The advisor said Dean flip-flopped.

See how that works?

[Hep]

110. NO I don't see how it works

If you assertion was based on INTERPRETATION, you can't project theat interpretation on his advisor and say it was his advisor's assertion. It's YOUR allegation. And it's based on bad information and weak interpretation.

His policy is different because the needs of the people are different. People bitch about how his being the governor of a small state is a problem, and then when he demonstrates an understanding for the differences between Vermont and the US, he's admonished for not sticking to his platform as governor. The Dean critics are officially insane. Can't win for losing.

Dean did NOT flip flop. He adopted a position more fitting of a presidential candidate.

[returnable]

119. "He adopted a position more fitting of a presidential candidate."

But I thought your contention was that he hadn't changed his position at all :hi:

"People bitch about how his being the governor of a small state is a problem, and then when he demonstrates an understanding for the differences between Vermont and the US, he's admonished for not sticking to his platform as governor."

Look, I don't disagree with you on that one. Dean takes some unwarranted hits. All the candidates do.

He also takes some well-deserved heat for shifts in position. His record as governor is what is. Not everything can be explained away simply by saying "Well, he's going national now. The last 10 years don't matter."

When Dean's own advisor expresses surprise at his take on an issue, I think that's worth bringing up.

[Hep]

122. Right

But I thought your contention was that he hadn't changed his position at all :hi:

Right. as a presidential candidate he hasn't. His platform for president isn't the same as his platform as governor. There is no shortage of links to that end. But the thing you Dean Haters never address is why it's a bad thing for his presidential platform to be such an improvement over his platform as governor. You guys only point out that what he did as governor is different than what he says he'll do as president. But can you say that Dean veered away from his platform as governor? Did he lie when he ran for governor?

See, you guys don't have a point. You make these obvious observations, but you never address what's important about it. Anyway, this is all beside the point. The point is that his advisor never said he flip flopped. He said Dean's proposal differs from his record as governor. None of the Dean bashers have stated why that's bad, and whether or not they agree with his declared position. I wonder why...

He also takes some well-deserved heat for shifts in position. His record as governor is what is. Not everything can be explained away simply by saying "Well, he's going national now. The last 10 years don't matter."

When Dean's own advisor expresses surprise at his take on an issue, I think that's worth bringing up.


So what can't be explained away, exactly? And it's important to note that the person expressing surprise is not one of his current advisors but someone who advised him when he was governor.

[returnable]

123. "You Dean Haters"

Hate to break it to you, but I'm no Dean Hater.

He's not my first choice, but I don't hate him. I don't "hate" any of the candidates (well, with the possible exception of Holy Joe. But I digress.)

"His platform for president isn't the same as his platform as governor."

Well, I guess this is the crux of it. You don't think this is an issue. I do. That's his record.

Do you think Gephardt's record as a representative isn't subject to debate? Do you think Kerry's record as a senator isn't subject to debate? Why is Dean always railing about what they did and did not do as congressmen?

You say "Dean Haters" don't have a point.

Well, since I'm not a Hater, I can't speak to that.

But as someone who cares about who gets the Democratic nomination, I contend I do have a point. And that point is Dean's platform as a candidate is different than his record as governor. You don't even dispute that. In fact, you agree ("His platform for president isn't the same as his platform as governor.")

You don't think it's important. Well, that's your opinion. That doesn't mean it isn't an important issue for others.

"And it's important to note that the person expressing surprise is not one of his current advisors..."

Well, he was current as of of 4 weeks ago. But why does that even matter? He was advising Dean while he was governor of Vermont and the gaming issue was being tackled, so presumably he has better insight into Dean's position than either you or I.

[Hep]

125. YOU Dean Haters

Hate to break it to you, but I'm no Dean Hater.

Anyone who posts deliberately misleading information about Dean is a Dean hater. Sorry you qualify.

"Dean supports gaming" is a deliberately misleading statement.

Do you think Gephardt's record as a representative isn't subject to debate? Do you think Kerry's record as a senator isn't subject to debate? Why is Dean always railing about what they did and did not do as congressmen?

I think it's subject to debate. On it's own. I don't talk about Kerry's recod as a congressman compared to his platform as a candidate. I have a problem with his IWR vote. It's why he isn't my candidate. But I don't seek out ways to find discrepancies between his record as senator and his platform as candidate. The best example is how I don't hold Kucinich's pro-life record against him. I just question some of his current stances on specific reproductive rights issues like gag rules and overseas funding.

But no, no one's record should be compared to their platform for the purpose of pointing out discrepancies.

But as someone who cares about who gets the Democratic nomination, I contend I do have a point. And that point is Dean's platform as a candidate is different than his record as governor. You don't even dispute that. In fact, you agree ("His platform for president isn't the same as his platform as governor.")

Right. I believe that the needs of vermont are very different from the needs of the country as a whole. I don't think Vermont is a very adequate microcosm of the United States. I'd be more suspicious if he DIDN'T adapt his platform.

You don't think it's important. Well, that's your opinion. That doesn't mean it isn't an important issue for others.

Well, I do think it is important in terms of noting that he has had to reevaluate his positions from a broader perspective if he wants to be a good leader. Seriously, I'd be worried if he tried to govern the US as if it were a state with some 700,000 people.

Well, he was current as of of 4 weeks ago. But why does that even matter? He was advising Dean while he was governor of Vermont and the gaming issue was being tackled, so presumably he has better insight into Dean's position than either you or I.

Current as of four weeks ago? He had been giving advice up until as recently as four years ago, but he wasn't one of Dean's actual ADVISORS. I know, technically, all you have to do to be an advisor is give some advice. But that would make ME an advisor. Still ont a biggie, who the guy was. The important thing is that he is familiar with Dean policy.

[returnable]

135. We're getting closer to finding common ground...

But we may have to agree to disagree on this premise:

"But no, no one's record should be compared to their platform for the purpose of pointing out discrepancies."

I think it's fair game.

Had more moderates/independents (not to mention the media) analyzed Bush's record as governor as opposed to the platform he was running on, we may not be in this mess we are today. As we've seen, Bush's record as president is a lot closer to his Texas record than the platform he ran on.

Before you blow a gasket, no, I am NOT comparing Dean to Dubya. Apples and oranges and all that.

I'm just stating why I think it's important to take a candidate's record into consideration when making one's decisions.

"Seriously, I'd be worried if he tried to govern the US as if it were a state with some 700,000 people."

I agree with you there.

But I also think how he governed those 700,000 people is worth discussing.

[Hep]

137. LOL

I don't mind the Bush example. I think yours is a legitimate concern. Assuming that basic personality differences don't play into our perception of how trustworthy a person is.

And I know that not every decision Dean has made as governor have upheld the most liberal principles. But it seems as though he served his constituents very well, from what Vermonters have told me and the record of civil unions, etc.

It's all good.

[returnable]

139. Cool

"Assuming that basic personality differences don't play into our perception of how trustworthy a person is."

I'm with ya all the way :toast:

[TLM]

144. Is his position even different?

He was against this tribe being recognized because their presence on the land for the required time was in doubt.

He's said he doesn't like casinos personally but that he'd support any federally recognized tribe's right to build one.

How's that different from his position in VT?

Is there some example of Dean being against federally recognized tribes building casinos?

[returnable]

147. His advisor seemed to think it was different...

...in fact, he said it WAS different.

And that was the point of contention here.

I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe the advisor.

[Hep]

150. Here is why the advisor is wrong

Because his recent statement is about federally recognized tribes and his policy as governor was about NON recognized tribes.

His advisor is surprised that it is different? I find THAT surprising.

[returnable]

158. Yep

"Because his recent statement is about federally recognized tribes and his policy as governor was about NON recognized tribes."

That's an important distinction, I'll agree.

However, since Vermont doesn't allow gambling and no federally recognized tribes petitioned for gaming rights (that I know of) during Dean's term as governor, we don't know how he would've reacted to a FIGRA challenge. For all we know, he might've opposed it based on his personal opposition to gaming. Maybe that's what the advisor was referring too.

But since he didn't qualify the statement further, I agree it's kind of pointless to read any more into it. So I won't.

I now back away from this discussion forever :toast:

[Hep]

161. Don't GO!

I have to mention that Bingo is allowed in Vermont! Seriously! The only legal "gaming" in the state!

[TLM]

163. Frankly I think Dean position was more about land use

by casinos than about the casino itself.


That seemed to be a much bigger concern... that there would be legal battled over who owned the land, and what could be done with it. VT under Dean was very strict about what could be developed, and where.

If some tribe wanted to build a casino on land that was not in a designated development area, because the tribe claimed ownership, and also wanted to build access to the casino and all that goes with it... there would have been a HUGE mess.

Jesus just look at the crap that they went through over walmarts in VT. Imagine if they wanted to build a casino on land that the state designated as protected land? WHo owns it, and who has the right to control development?

[TLM]

156. What was the difference....

you can site a guy saying there is a difference, but what's the difference?

[returnable]

159. See my post directly above

EOM

[LeahMira]

118. I had thought...

... that tribes could do whatever the states do. Therefore, if Vermont law would permit casinos for its citizens, it would permit tribes to open casinos as well. If Vermont only permitted Bingo games, then that's all tribes could do. Do I have it right or not?

[Hep]

126. I'm not sure

I do know that federally recpognized Native American tribes get to decide whether or not they want to subscribe to daylight savings time.

That screwed with my mind for an entire week, driving through the southwest, into and out of time zones and reservations. We never knew what time it was.

[TLM]

142. Did you even read the piece?

"Dean, as governor, based his opposition to state recognition for Abenaki on a Vermont attorney general's opinion that said the Abenaki presence has not been constant during the past 100 years, a requirement for legal recognition. "


It was rather clear about wht Dean did not grant their tribe state recognition.


So why try and lie and claim Dean was using the threat of casinos to deny their recognition?

[returnable]

145. I did read the piece

And I didn't "lie". Dean DID use casinos as an issue.

"Dean said that could lead to extensive legal battles over Abenaki land claims and possibly allow the Indians to build casinos in Vermont."

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/Archive/Articles/Article/40922

The 100 years rule was the legal basis for denial. But the casino issue informed his viewpoint and he politicized it.

[Hep]

148. But do you know more about the history than that one article?

Do you know about the background of the tribe or its struggles?

I mean, to really talk about this objectively we need to understand the history of the people as well as the position the government was in over the course of the centuries that this has been an issue. I don't think any of us are in such a position.

We attack Dean or we defend Dean, but none of us really knows a whole lot about that which we are talking. I feel like we're marginalizing the whole thing, trying to squeeze political juice out of a spent lemon.

[returnable]

153. I agree

"I feel like we're marginalizing the whole thing, trying to squeeze political juice out of a spent lemon."

This topic is already tired. I promise to never bring it up again if you do :)

[Hep]

154. truce!

Done and done.

[TLM]

160. You did not say Dean made casinos as an issue...

you said "Dean would use the threat of casinos to deny Abenakis' recognition."

And as you admit above, "The 100 years rule was the legal basis for denial."

Of course Dean made casinos an issue as well as land possession issues, which would bring up development issues which are a big deal in VT.

Dean talking about the things that could happen as a result of this recognition, is not the same as Dean being totaly against casinos any more than he was againt all land development. The piece you site says he was just bringing up these issues.

Dean didn't even tell lawmakers to be against it... he just said to be careful and to be aware of the results.

"The comments came a day after Gov. Howard Dean told reporters he was urging lawmakers to be very careful before endorsing a resolution saying the Abenakis should be granted limited state recognition.

Dean said even such a limited government endorsement could lead to much more powerful federal regulation for the state's estimated 1,700 Abenakis. He said that could lead to extensive legal battles over Abenaki land claims and possibly allow the Indians to build casinos in Vermont."

[LeahMira]

108. Not quite...

According to the article, he did not support the tribe's efforts to get state recognition.

Hard to believe that the Abenaki are neither state recognized nor federally recognized.

Still, if the government refuses to extend formal recognition to a tribe, then at least according to the government, they aren't a sovereign nation. They would be just citizens, with the same rights as any other citizens of the state or nation. Hence, they could not "do exactly what they wanna do." They have to do what U.S. law requires them to do.

Sad, enit?

[returnable]

109. Yes, indeed...

:toast:

[GreenArrow]

87. "GAMING"

is a weasel word. I don't give a fuck how the industry wants to spin it--it's gambling.

[retyred]

102. President Flip-Flop

Watching dean is like watching the weather in Wisconsin, "Don't like the weather? Wait five minutes....it'll change"


I'm runnining for President so we don't need to do this now!
Retyred In Fla
So I Read This Book

[Hep]

111. Go pick up your meds!

Yer blood's getting all angered up.

[TLM]

146. What is it you Dean bashers have against whole sentences?

I've never seen so many ellipsis as in the quotes you Dean bashers try to spin.

[returnable]

2. Sounds familiar

"This is not the policy Howard Dean had when he was governor of Vermont," Benay said, referring to the gaming issue.

:hi:

[Skwmom]

5. Kind of reminds me of candidate Bush during the 2000

election. He said one thing, his record said another. Bush is a man without principles.

[blm]

6. Chalk up another issue Dean has changed as governor to campaigner.

How old are Dean's new bedrock principles? About 11 months.

[Scott Lee]

113. Conservatives do hate liberals who change their minds, yup

But changing your mind is really a legitimate act if it's predicated on new information and not on expediency.

I'm sure Deans no-slow-down gains are giving you major heartburn, blm.

[Skwmom]

164. How are Dean's constant flip-flops predicated

on new information and not on expediency?????

[w4rma]

162. Papau's post #37 seems to have the most well thought-out explanation

papau's post #37:
Does anyone read these links - this is almost pro-Dean! He sounds solid!
Let's see, it says:

that Dean's American Indian policies were developed with the help of an advisory group headed by LaDonna Harris, a Comanche and founder of Americans for Indian Opportunity, and Wilma Mankiller, a former Cherokee chief. ..... this is bad?

that in general "off-reservation" tribal groups are not included in new laws and that Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt., once had to make a special effort to include the Abenaki in a rewrite of a federal Indian education act.

that the off-reservation tribe "the Abenaki" wanted State recognition so as to sue the state and towns and to help get Federal recognition for a casino project. Does not mention year-long study Dean ordered that conclude that "the Abenaki" were not native to Vermont - with some moving there in the last several decades and that the tribe had a history of moving through Vermont - not staying in Vermont. (The Chief - St. Francis - says they "went underground")

And it says that even Chief St. Francis says Dean was helpful - assisted - the Abenaki on cultural and ancestral burial grounds issues.

And lost in all this is the Dean Albuquerque speech, where he "blasted President Bush for not working cooperatively with various tribes. He said a Dean administration would rebuild trust between the federal government and American Indians and help them address housing, health care, energy and education needs..."(Bush) has allowed the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian health services and the Administration for Native Americans to languish for months without leadership," "

The only "evils" noted (by Jeff Benay, chairman of the Vermont Governor's Advisory Commission on Native American) is that Dean (1)did not address the problems of unrecognized or "off-reservation" tribes, despite Dean's personal knowledge of how those problems affected the Abenaki in Vermont, and (2) that since Dean did not see casinos as the way to make Indians economically better off, how could Dean say he was not against Indian casinos.

and on this we have a DU bashing thread?

[Julien Sorel]

4. The 'straight shooter' shoots crooked yet again.

What a pandering piece of shit. Does he have any core beliefs at all? Is there anything he won't prostitute?

[Terwilliger]

7. you mean, he's like Clark?

oh, that's horrible! :eyes:

[Julien Sorel]

13. No, he's the exact opposite of Clark.

Or maybe you can show me where Clark has made these constant and cynical flip-flops on core policy positions?

[CWebster]

15. You mean like the iraq war?

Mary! Mary! What is my position again?

[Julien Sorel]

19. Show me where he 'flip-flopped'

on the Iraqi War resolution. With your typical level of honesty, you're taking one statement, and trying to twist it into something it isn't. To bring this back on topic, Dean made a career pushing certain positions, and now that he's got a different office to aspire to, he's changing his 'philosophy' wholesale, depending on which audience he's speaking to. Howard Dean? No. Whore-ard Dean.

[w4rma]

157. Clark on whether he'd have voted on the IWR

Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War
…
General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."
…
"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

General Clark said he saw his position on the war as closer to that of members of Congress who supported the resolution — Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina — than that of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has been the leading antiwar candidate in the race.

Still, asked about Dr. Dean's criticism of the war, General Clark responded: "I think he's right. That in retrospect we should never have gone in there. I didn't want to go in there either. But on the other hand, he wasn't inside the bubble of those who were exposed to the information."
…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/politics/campaigns/19CLAR.html

Clark Explains Statement on Authorization for Iraq War
…
"I never would have voted for war," he said here this afternoon in an interview and in response to a question after a lecture at the University of Iowa. "What I would have voted for is leverage. Leverage for the United States to avoid a war. That's what we needed to avoid a war."

Speaking about the resolution on Thursday, General Clark said, "At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question."

He then added: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways, because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position. On balance, I probably would have voted for it."
…
About Iraq, he said "There was never an imminent threat," and called the war "a major blunder."

"We're not the sort of `you're with us or against' kind of people," he said.

"We're a come-and-join-with-us kind of people," he told a crowd of 1,000 in the main lounge of the Iowa Memorial Union. "Americans know in their hearts that you don't make our country safer by erecting walls to keep others out. You make us safer by building bridges to reach out.

"We also have to recognize that force should be used only as a last resort, when all other means have failed."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/20/politics/campaigns/20CLAR.html

Clark on whether he'd have voted on the IWR and Dean's response
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=401401

[Terwilliger]

17. "George Bush and Colin Powell are doing a great job"

what more do you need?

BTW...what core policy positions? I've still heard very little about exact positions.

[Julien Sorel]

21. They were doing a great job -- in Afghanistatn, when he said that.

Still, no flip-flops.

His positiions are on the campaign website.

[in_cog_ni_to]

48. Uh,

he made that statement on May 11, 2001. Loooong before the chimp illegally invaded Iraq. That should show the man has principles! He saw what this administration started doing after 911 and "saw the light." I don't think that statement is a fair argument. He does not support this administration any more. Period. He IS a registered Democrat.

[Terwilliger]

56. uh

I thought Bush was a total dickhead before he became president...much less anything he did thereafter.

It's like Kerry and the pink-tutu boys saying that they believed Bush when he said x, y, z...suspend logic and we'll have a go!

[KittyWampus]

78. Calling The President Dickhead Would've REALLY Helped Clark Make His Point

Have you EVER gone beyond that one line, which is essentially a gracious salutation, and READ THE REST OF THE FREAKING SPEECH???

God Damn, if you ever actually bothered to do that you'd read how Clark goes on to essentally raise concerns and critique Junior & Co.

[in_cog_ni_to]

85. Of course Bush was a Dickhead

before he was selected, but the General changed his stance once he saw what that Dickhead was doing after 911! HE is a man of HONOR and Dickhead is NOT and Clark was smart enough to recognize that.

[TLM]

149. Don;t forget he also said Reagan and Bush Sr. were great leaders

he said that in 2001, well after both of their horrible records were well known.

[LeahMira]

121. Not a flip-flop, but not honorable either, IMO.

It's like Kerry and the pink-tutu boys saying that they believed Bush when he said x, y, z...suspend logic and we'll have a go!

Well, if the only information you get to see is information that leads you to the desired conclusion... and if the Vice President of the U.S. looks you in the eye and tells you that the Iraqis have the bomb... then unless you are absolutely convinced that the administration is, from the top down, capable of a bald-faced lie on such an important issue yes, you do believe what you are told. Unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20. But we digress...

After reading the article, it seems to me that the Abenaki have no sovereign rights either in the state of Vermont or in the United States. If that's the case, then they can't open a tribal casino because "officially" they aren't a tribe.

It's perfectly possible for Howard Dean to support Indian gaming while at the same time denying the Abenaki permission to open a casino.

Now, if indeed Howard Dean worked against extending state recognition to the Abenaki because, among other things, he didn't want them to be permitted to open a casino, then I say shame.

I honestly don't know that much about the tribes in New England, but the Abenaki name is certainly familiar to me. I'm surprised beyond belief that as one of the groups that we "settlers" have known about and dealt with for the longest amount of time there aren't the records and evidence needed for them to get federal recognition. I suppose the "settlers" and the U.S. government chased them around Vermont at gunpoint but now accuse the tribe of failing to live on the same piece of land for the past five centuries.

Still, the Mattaponi and Pamunkey in Virginia, whose people met the settlers at Jamestown, are still not federally recognized either, although they are state recognized. The state of Virginia, though, is not anxious for them to get federal recognition for just the same kinds of reasons... they are afraid the tribes will open a casino. Forget that most of the people in that area including most of the Indians are Baptist and are strongly opposed to gaming of any sort. Virginia is frightened to death that the Indians might somehow compete and pull revenues away from their Virginia racetracks. Heaven forbid!

So, if Howard Dean has ideas like these in mind, phooey on him. I certainly would have expected better of him. He knows the laws and he's right about them, but if I were American Indian I don't think I'd be ready to pin on the Dean button just yet.

[Classical_Liberal]

77. Bush had determined to invade Iraq by then

and their were protests about it. So there.

[RetroLounge]

104. "No, he's the exact opposite of Clark."

You're right, Dean's a Democrat.

[SahaleArm]

130. You mean libertarian.

And still pandering to whomever he can.

Nafta, Confederacy, Native American Tribes...

[CWebster]

8. Oh look a Dean bashing thread from the Clark corps

And to think, one of you was asking me to play nice when Clark exposed his black deregulating corporate heart. Maybe I'lll just go find that thread y'all are doing your best to ignore, and kick it up again....just as a little reminder of the courtesy repaid.

[sandnsea]

9. Don't forget the Kerry Core!!!

:bounce:

(it's a joke)

[returnable]

11. Who's bashing?

And why make this about Clark? Or is that all you know how to do?

Dean opposed gaming as Governor. He now supports gaming as a presidential candidate.

That's a flip-flop. That's a fact.

And it's not a bash to discuss it.

[TLM]

151. WHat has chenged?

Dean did not personaly like casinos as gov, and still does not. He does support a federally recognized tribe's right to build them.

However this tribe did not have that recognition and did not meet the requierments for it.

[Skwmom]

16. That's not how I see it.

IN A CLARK EMAIL:

In today's Washington Post, Governor Howard Dean said he plans to make a major departure from the proven economic strategy that our party adopted in the 1990s under Bill Clinton, the same economic strategy that brought us more than 22 million new jobs and the strongest economy in American history.

This is an area where the differences between the choices Howard Dean and Wes Clark would make for the country are clear.

The Clinton economic approach was to create jobs, wealth and growth by bringing labor and business together - not pitting them against each other. That's the only way to create real, long-term growth for both business and workers. And the results spoke for themselves: 22 million new jobs. 1970s-style regulation is not going to get our economy going again. It failed in the past. And it will fail again.

Clark agrees that we need to dramatically ramp up our efforts to hold corporate America responsible for their misconduct. He agrees that we need to limit media ownership. He agrees that we need far stronger protections for workers, consumers and our environment - going beyond where the Clinton administration went in several respects, as times and circumstances have changed, too.

Clark's jobs plan is based on the core Clinton formula of creating jobs by investing in urgent needs and investing in our people, especially in the hard-hit manufacturing sector.

Clark proposed a $2.35 trillion Savings for America's Future plan to restore our fiscal discipline. He supports unleashing high growth job-creation sectors like high technology and why he supports a strong science and technology program.

Clark will make unprecedented investments in our human capital: in health care, in education, in job training. He will promote smart, fair, market-based incentives regulatory reforms, rather than red tape, and volumes of outdated regulations.

[TLM]

152. So CLark attacks Dean for wanting "1970' s style regulation."

Then says " we need to dramatically ramp up our efforts to hold corporate America responsible for their misconduct. He agrees that we need to limit media ownership. He agrees that we need far stronger protections for workers, consumers and our environment - going beyond where the Clinton administration went in several respects, as times and circumstances have changed, too."


If not though regulation and law, how the hell does Clark expect to do this... harsh words?

[mzmolly]

73. OMG, laughing outloud CWebster....

heh heh heh...

[Loonman]

10. If the white man ever kept his word or treaty with the Indian

It would be a cold day in Hell.

[democratreformed]

14. This is

the best comment I've seen on this thread! :)

[Skwmom]

20. Anytime you see an Indian issue in a Supreme Court

case you can pretty well predict the outcome which is a disgrace.

[sandnsea]

12. How many times can Dean change tunes

How many times can he bend

The answer my friends, is blowin' in the wind

Dean is just blowin' in the wind.

(Okay, I'm not too good at this song stuff)

[phirili]

23. Dean speech at the Iowa fund raiser was a disaster

I wish Dean puts the "speech" on his website. That would be like trying to find Dean's Meet the Press interview in June on his website.

[WilliamPitt]

18. Dean the Governor v. Dean the President

Clue Phone Calling: Positions appropriate for governing a small rural state may not apply on the national scale. Ergo, Mr. Dean uses the brain God gave him to restructure his positions according to national requirements. This we call being smart.

[Julien Sorel]

22. Really? Indian gaming is bad

for Vermont, but good for the rest of the country? What unique circumstances about Vermont make that true? Perhaps you can clue me in on that as well, O cluemeister.

[WilliamPitt]

27. Nah. I think I'll just be unnecessarily harsh

Neener neener neener.

I feel better. Don't you?

[Skwmom]

36. That type of response

doesn't reflect well on an author.

[Andromeda]

198. And your kind of post

reflects badly for someone who calls themself a Democrat. Typical smear tactics and an unflattering display of malice and pettiness doesn't represent the core principles of the Democratic party yet I see it everyday on this board.

The meanness underlying this flame bait post goes beyond healthy debate because it's designed not merely to oppose a candidate's position but to destroy the candidate.

This isn't what we are supposed to be about, folks, but I understand that some of you just can't help yourselves.

How are you going to switch gears when the Democratic candidate for President is chosen because there is a strong possibility that your guy may not win. Are you going to support whomever gets the nomination?

[Skwmom]

38. Duplicate

[Julien Sorel]

41. In other words, your previous post

was bullshit, just like the typical Whoreard Dean policy position. You wanted to defend Dean, so you threw whatever was out there you could, even though it obviously holds no water.

Neener, indeed. There are reasons people despise Dean, and whoring out issue after issue is one of them. Beyond a certain point, there is no difference between being 'smart' and being a complete whore without principles. Dean is just about beyond that point.

[Skwmom]

29. This isn't the first time that Pitt's logic in supporting

Dean has fallen apart. Maybe Dean being photographed reading Pitt's book has clouded his judgment.

[WilliamPitt]

39. Maybe your personal attacks are about to get deleted.

Ya think?

[Skwmom]

43. I don't consider it a personal attack.

In deciding the validity of someone's point I think it's relevant to consider whether they might have a vested interest in who they are supporting.

[WilliamPitt]

46. Right

:)

[TLM]

166. Last I checked, Will is a Kerry guy.

he just has enough honesty to point out when attacks on Dean are bogus opportunistic crap.

That’s why HE is respected.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Julien Sorel]

45. He didn't want them to become a sovereign nation,

because he didn't want them to be able to institute gaming. It was in the link above.

[Hep]

50. That's inaccurate

The tribe did not appear to meet federal guidelines for being recognized.

[Bertrand]

69. No

Dean is in control of State, not Federal, guidelines so that issue isnt even relevent to Deans opposition of Abenaki sovereignty.

St. Francis said Dean had hurt her tribe's progress by refusing to grant it state recognition on grounds that if he did, it would trigger federal recognition and allow the Abenaki to open a casino on their lands near Swanton in northwest Vermont, as well as making land claims.

Also, Deans argument for not recognizing them is a copout so that Vermont wouldnt grant them land and gaming claims.

Dean, as governor, based his opposition to state recognition for Abenaki on a Vermont attorney general's opinion that said the Abenaki presence has not been constant during the past 100 years, a requirement for legal recognition.

"That's baloney," St. Francis said. "We're the only race that has to prove who we are." The Abenaki have argued they went underground at times in history to avoid oppression.


He used a loophole to repress the Abenaki from the rights they should be entitled to for having a distinct heritage that dates back to when they were "discovered" in the 1500s.

[Hep]

82. While your selective interpretation is entertaining

I seldom find it convincing from someone who is anything but unbiased on the issue. Maybe next time you won't try to convince me that you know what was in a person's head. I don't believe in mind reading.

[Bertrand]

89. Everybody is biased

and nobody is infallible, so thats a copout from discussing the issue.

An interesting piece from the Burlinton Free Press:

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/Columnists/Sam/0313042611.htm

The state's position, from its perch outside the loop, is that federal Census and other data in the period of 1860 to 1960 show little evidence of an ongoing Abenaki organization in Vermont.

"One of the criterion is if there was a meaningful community of individuals that existed as a political entity for that time," Chief Deputy Attorney General William Griffin said. "We've seen no evidence of that."

Various Native American scholars at Dartmouth College, the University of Vermont and elsewhere disagree.

They say that, for decades, the Abenaki simply hid their heritage from Census workers and others under fear of persecution.

"Just because it was hidden doesn't mean it wasn't real," historian Nancy Callahan said.

He used a loophole to repress the Abenaki from achieving sovereignty and then bottled up a state congressional resolution in committee to make sure that he wasnt circumvented. Thats not someone that Native Americans should support, and they most likely wont.

[Hep]

98. It's still selective interpretation

to which you are entitled. So they hid their heritage, and now they pay the price. Can you name for me another tribe who hid its heritage systematically and got recognized?

[Bertrand]

131. What a disgusting response

So they hid their heritage, and now they pay the price.

Because they didnt participate with the people that ethnically cleansed them, you say tough luck? This is nothing short of horrible.

[Hep]

133. Come off it.

You didn't answer my question.

Some tribes defended their heritage. They're scattered throughout the country. They risked their livelihoods and their futures because their heritage was everything to them.

Why would you marginalize the issue by making such a weak emotional appeal that people who denied their heritage should get all the same benfits that people who risked their lives earned? I don't know anything about this tribe, but if they failed to meet the criteria, they failed to meet their criteria. Bottom line.

You can speculate on Dean's motoives all day long. I don't care. But it has been claimed that this particular issue was affecting Vermonters since WAY before Dean. You r attempts to use this as an opportunity to bash Dean is a disgusting marginalization of the issue.

[Bertrand]

165. Re: Come off it

You didn't answer my question.

Some tribes defended their heritage. They're scattered throughout the country. They risked their livelihoods and their futures because their heritage was everything to them.

Why would you marginalize the issue by making such a weak emotional appeal that people who denied their heritage should get all the same benfits that people who risked their lives earned? I don't know anything about this tribe, but if they failed to meet the criteria, they failed to meet their criteria. Bottom line.

Listen to yourself. It is disgusting that you would elevate those that fought initially as being more worthy of claim than those that were degraded and pushed out by society as outcasts, and the emotion that comes with it. You have ignored all of my substantive claims and are now saying tough luck because the people that were ethinically cleansed didnt participate correctly with the ones that cleansed them. The Abenaki are a people that have been recognized by the NCAI, historians, professors, the state of Vermont which legally recognized them in 1976 but rescinded it in 1977 when the new Republican governor came into power, and even Howard Dean who has given them money to build a museum, so they are known to have exist.

You can speculate on Dean's motoives all day long. I don't care. But it has been claimed that this particular issue was affecting Vermonters since WAY before Dean. You r attempts to use this as an opportunity to bash Dean is a disgusting marginalization of the issue.

Youve missed the point. It's irrelevent if it was an issue before Dean because it was an issue when Dean was Governor, and he not only used a loophole to block them from their rights but he also blocked a resolution from getting out of committee that would have recognized them. You claim my emotional appeal was weak when i called you out on your horrible remark of:

"So they hid their heritage, and now they pay the price."

and yet you claim that Im disgusting for trying to marginalize the issue by using this to attack Dean? Please. It's about native rights. Dean, who acknoledges the culture of the abenaki, is blocking them from achieving legal footing. You also attack me for "speculating on Deans motives" yet you speculate on mine. lol. Im not speculating on Deans motives because im quoting from various AP articles on him. For example:

The comments came a day after Gov. Howard Dean told reporters he was urging lawmakers to be very careful before endorsing a resolution saying the Abenakis should be granted limited state recognition.

Dean said even such a limited government endorsement could lead to much more powerful federal regulation for the state's estimated 1,700 Abenakis. He said that could lead to extensive legal battles over Abenaki land claims and possibly allow the Indians to build casinos in Vermont.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/Archive/Articles/Article/40922

[Hep]

181. I'm not claiming they don't exist

Listen to yourself. It is disgusting that you would elevate those that fought initially as being more worthy of claim than those that were degraded and pushed out by society as outcasts, and the emotion that comes with it. You have ignored all of my substantive claims and are now saying tough luck because the people that were ethinically cleansed didnt participate correctly with the ones that cleansed them. The Abenaki are a people that have been recognized by the NCAI, historians, professors, the state of Vermont which legally recognized them in 1976 but rescinded it in 1977 when the new Republican governor came into power, and even Howard Dean who has given them money to build a museum, so they are known to have exist.

Right, butif their efforts to hide their heritage have resulted in their not meeting criteria for recognition, then that's it. I'd love for them to get recognized, but the idea that you're trying to promote that Dean somehow had malicious intent directly conradicts evidence you provided.

And I'm not suggesting that they don't deserve anything. I'm merely saying that every tribe that makes a claim doesn't necessarily get it. Maybe they should, that's for a different thread. The fact of the matter here is that Dean didn't have it in for this tribe as some make it sound. This issue is far too complex for those kinds of assertions.

and yet you claim that Im disgusting for trying to marginalize the issue by using this to attack Dean? Please. It's about native rights. Dean, who acknoledges the culture of the abenaki, is blocking them from achieving legal footing. You also attack me for "speculating on Deans motives" yet you speculate on mine. lol. Im not speculating on Deans motives because im quoting from various AP articles on him. For example:

Exactly what is wrong with the position Dean took? As far as your motives, your posts here lend great detail into your motvies. Mine isn't as much speculation as it is observation.

[Bertrand]

192. It's politics

the attorney General, a Dean ally, claims they dont meet the criteria (which isnt valid because not only do they have legal precedent of meeting the criteria because of their previous recognition, but the rules in themselves are a loophole designed to specifically nullify many claims of native peoples. Everyone knows that the Abenaki existed, and that many of them live in Swanton. They have even been recognized by Dean. A blood test should be given to everyone claiming to be a member, and if they meet the 25% guideline that i believe is the minimum percentage in VT, they should be recognized as such.

edit: added a comma

[diamondsoul]

197. What I see as wrong with Dean's initial position-

Bear with me because I know my decidedly anti-Dean feelings are well know, however I have no intention of bashing with this. I believe it's a legitimate question so I'm going to pose it for your thought.

The Abenaki hid their heritage to prevent it from being obliterated as was done to many other First Nations peoples. The children were forced into Christian schools to be retrained, viciously, and horribly. This is not a secret, and the Government knows it happened. The Government officials know there qwere valid reasons for tribes to hide their heritage, thus Dean's position is that they deserve to continue to be mistreated because of the misdeeds of the settlers of this nation.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that, and I find taking such a stance to be reprehensible on his part. Having said that, I ALSO realize he had a duty to consider the impact on his State by changes to land rights and gaming. Even so it is disturbing to me that he would put those concerns above what is just for the Native American people. Not just wanted, but truly JUST.

Does that make sense to you? And does it make sense that I would question whether he would take the same dismissive attitude as President of the Country if he didn't like the potential impact?

[TLM]

168. So basicly the Abenaki hid from the census folks...

and now are not qualified for the tribal recognition because they lack the census record... and that's Dean's fault how?

That would be like if I spent years hiding my name and SS number, then at some point later wanted to sign up for a program and got denied because my name and SS number could not be varified.

[Bertrand]

174. wrong

first of all answered this question with hep, but you seem to be unable to follow conversation. The census is a construct of those that oppressed the abernaki people, which are even recognized by Howard Dean, who gave them money to build a museum, so that isnt the issue. You are arguing a legal loophole to oppress a people (What kind of liberal argues in favour of legal loopholes that continue oppression?). You also fail to mention how Dean killed a congressional resolution in committee since he disagreed with the implications of legally recognizing the Abenaki. Dean wont get the NCAI endorsement because the Abernaki will remind them about what Dean did to them. I have faith in the NCAI.

[TLM]

184. It isn't wrong....

The Abenaki moved around new england, and did not reside in VT for the time needed, which is the last 100 years.

The tribal leader says they were "underground"... if we assume they were on the land, yet hiding, then how is that Dean's fault?


It is not a loophole, it is the rule for being recognized to keep any jerk from claiming his family is a "tribe" that gets to be their own nation. If I go drink at age 19 and get busted for underage drinking... I don't get to call that a loophole just because it is a requierment I did not meet.

And as you mention Dean did a lot to help these people, event he tribal leader admits that. He just wouldn't grant them recognition which they did not qualify for.

"Dean wont get the NCAI endorsement because the Abernaki will remind them about what Dean did to them. I have faith in the NCAI."

The NCAI seemed very happy with Dean in NM.

[Bertrand]

194. Re: It isn't wrong....

The Abenaki moved around new england, and did not reside in VT for the time needed, which is the last 100 years.

The tribal leader says they were "underground"... if we assume they were on the land, yet hiding, then how is that Dean's fault?

It is not a loophole, it is the rule for being recognized to keep any jerk from claiming his family is a "tribe" that gets to be their own nation. If I go drink at age 19 and get busted for underage drinking... I don't get to call that a loophole just because it is a requierment I did not meet.

And as you mention Dean did a lot to help these people, event he tribal leader admits that. He just wouldn't grant them recognition which they did not qualify for.

There is historical proof of them existing in swanton in 1758 when they were ethnically cleansed by american colonists. The root of the Attorney Generals claims stem from the fact that they became assimiliated and lost their political entity as a nation-state by the end of the 19th century. Because they were assimilated by the americans and didnt participate in their oppressors census, they are being denied their right to being a sovereign people.

Edit: added "and"

[KaraokeKarlton]

120. Actually Vermont residents don't want casinos

and since Dean represented the people of Vermont, he acted in our best interest. Since Dean protected more acreage here than all other previous governors combined, it only makes since that he would protect Vermont from large casinos with the same determination he protected the Champion lands from clear cutting and development.

[Bertrand]

180. So your argument

is that because the people of Vermont didnt want casinos, Dean was right in blocking the abenaki from achieving legal sovereignty? I hope not.

[KaraokeKarlton]

199. They don't qualify for federal recognition

They were given state recognition in 1976 and it was revoked in 1977 because they pushed to have special hunting and fishing rights that were unfair to the rest of the state. Aside from that, they didn't even meet the state rules to qualify for recognition in the first place. The only reason they want legal sovereignty is so they can open a goddamned casino. On top of that, one of the "tribal leaders" pushing for sovereignty looks like he just stepped off the Mayflower...he has more European blood than Abenaki. The reason the tribe doesn't qualify is because they never had an organized tribe all along. The issue is a lot more complicated than anyone looking at it from the outside can even begin to comprehend. Dean isn't the bad guy and he has always done right by the true heritage and history issues of the Abenaki in Vermont. He's just not giving a modern day tribe mostly Europeans with a smidgeon of Abenaki blood the power to open a casino in Vermont.

[Skwmom]

24. So I guess you would call what Bush did in the

2000 election smart (because this is exactly what Bush did). In addition, there are MANY times when Dean has changed his position on an issue after becoming a presidential candidate.

We cannot oust George Bush with a man the American people cannot trust. He's been given a free pass in the primary - in the general they will nail him. The Democrats are going to look like the party of liars and hyopocrites.

Dean has a track record of saying one thing to get elected and turning around and doing the exact opposite once he is elected.

But since this is coming from someone who called Dean a stud, why should I waste my time.

[WilliamPitt]

28. Don't waste your time.

:)

[Skwmom]

31. The way I look at it

it's not really you that I'm directing my comment to.

[returnable]

25. That's a fine line to walk

But getting back to the issue at hand here:

Why was it "appropriate" to oppose gaming as governor? Why is it "appropriate" to support it now?

[Hep]

32. more details please

How did he not support gaming in Vermont, exactly. Let's test the depth of your knowledge of this subject.

[returnable]

62. From the article

Jeff Benay, chairman of the Governor's Advisory Commission on Native American Affairs in Vermont under Dean, expressed surprise at Dean's policy statement on Indian issues, especially since he had been providing advice to the campaign on American Indian issues as recently as four weeks ago.

"This is not the policy Howard Dean had when he was governor of Vermont," Benay said, referring to the gaming issue.




So don't take my word for it - take the word of Dean's own advisor.

[Hep]

64. You call that detail?

A quote from an article. Well. at least my goal was met. We do now know exactly how deep your knowledge of this issue is.

[returnable]

83. What more do you want?

Dean fought against granting recognition to the Abenakis in part because he feared they'd build casinos.

" said that could lead to extensive legal battles over Abenaki land claims and possibly allow the Indians to build casinos in Vermont."

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/Archive/Articles/Article/40922

So much for allowing sovereign nations to "do what they want do."

I admit my "depth" of knowledge on Vermont gaming legislation isn't encyclopedic. Forgive me.

But yours obviously ain't too deep, either.

[Hep]

86. I don't want or need anything else

It's clear that you're not really up on this issue. Thanks for driving that point home.

So much for allowing sovereign nations to "do what they want do."

Uh, they'r enot sovereign nations if they're not federally recognized. HTH.

At least I have a BASIC knowledge of it.

[TLM]

170. The paragraph before what you quote shows your spin...

Dean wasn't even opposing it... he just was raising the issues that could result and telling lawmakers to be careful.

"The comments came a day after Gov. Howard Dean told reporters he was urging lawmakers to be very careful before endorsing a resolution saying the Abenakis should be granted limited state recognition.

Dean said even such a limited government endorsement could lead to much more powerful federal regulation for the state's estimated 1,700 Abenakis. He said that could lead to extensive legal battles over Abenaki land claims and possibly allow the Indians to build casinos in Vermont. "

[chimpymustgo]

65. Case closed. Thanks, returnable.

WAKE UP!!!!

[TLM]

169. You've shown there was a difference... or at least

that someone says there's a difference. Yet you've not demonstrated what the differene is/was nor have you shown Dean was against casinos.

Rather what I've seen shows Dean was against the kind of development that would result from building a casino... not the casino in and of itself.

Any casino would have to be built on indian land, which very likely would be undeveloped land that was protected in VT.

[WilliamPitt]

34. At last, a polite response

Gaming, to my understanding, is supported by leaders in areas where more revenues are needed for government. Lotterys and casinos generate funding for public programs. Perhaps Dean saw the funding to come from gaming in Vermont not necessary. As for why he supports it now, wait ten seconds and I'm sure the campaign will have an answer for you.

[Julien Sorel]

49. Perhaps?

The tribe wanted it; the tribe should be the judge. Who is Whoreard Dean to tell the tribes what they do and don't need?

[WilliamPitt]

52. So your standard for policy decisions is

"Constituency A wants Policy X. Because Constituency A wants Policy X, Constituency A gets what it wants because it wants it."

Note to self: Never vote for BillyBunter. If that's your standard, then you have a lot of gall calling other people whores.

[returnable]

57. But that's Dean basic position on this issue

"Constituency A wants Policy X. Because Constituency A wants Policy X, Constituency A gets what it wants because it wants it."

If you have issues with that line of reasoning, what do you make of this?:

“Although I do not personally support gaming, I support the tribes’ right to do exactly what they want to do,” Dean said in his opening remarks. “I don’t have a problem with that.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/967704.asp

[Hep]

60. What part do you not get?

Are you saying his position is wrong?

[returnable]

71. What part do YOU not get?

I was addressing Pitt's theoretical analogy. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Hep]

84. I'll tell you the part I get

I get that a tribe looking for state recognition is not the same as a recognized tribe.

[RetroLounge]

105. "Whoreard Dean"???

Do you call Senator Clinton Hitlery too?

It's amazing the lengths (or depths) you Dean Bashers go.

[Hep]

58. I think

that it might have something to do with the fact that traditionally, gaming is a flimsy industry on which to build an economy. While gaming is fine as a decision of tribe, it seems to be a very similar debate to the one we have in NC about a lottery. It's trying to build an economy on a lie, knowing, relying on the fact that the house always comes out ahead.

[AP]

70. All states and the fed gov't are having revenue problems. Should they

all turn to gambling?

From 98-2000 all the states were making money hand over foot. Should they all have gotten rid of gambling?

[GreenArrow]

91. Finally!

After reading through almost every post on this thread, someone has used the word "gambling" instead of "gaming." Gaming is the Industry's word to make their product more palatable to the communities they are try to sell it to. It's a whitewash, it's dishonest, and it's roughly equivalent to the sort of justifactory terms and phrases that W-Inc. uses to sell its bullshit policies.

Yeah, this is tangential to the main topic here, but it's bewildering to see so many people using this weasel word--which is exactly what the Gambling industry and itsassociated interests want you to do.

[Hep]

100. That's the big question

Some states think a lottery is fine. Others don't. My state is on the fence. But the bottom line is that tribal leaders get to decide that, and it would be disrespectful for the US government to override their decision.

[sandnsea]

33. Bullshit

This we call being a hypocrite. If it were ONE issue, we might call it being smart. When it's EVERY issue, I actually think we call it whorish. I really thought you were smarter than to buy into a blatantly obvious media driven campaign.

[WilliamPitt]

44. Well, since I'm a Kerry supporter

I really haven't "bought into" anything Dean is selling. See you at the convention. :)

[SEAburb]

107. you have to remember that Mr.Pitt doesn't believe our candidates

have to be moral, ethical, or honest; just beat Bush.

[Hep]

114. IS wrestling fixed?

Your ability to read peoples minds must be a blessing and a curse.

[WilliamPitt]

115. Yeah, that's exactly what I believe

:eyes:

[SEAburb]

124. That was the reply I and another poster got from you

in your defense of Dean's use of the Confederate flag thread. And here you are again defending Dean, when a blind man can see Dean's remarks are disingenuous and political pandering.

[WilliamPitt]

173. Prove it.

[SEAburb]

196. Boy, you got me

Ya see the phrase "a blind man can see" is a figure of speech. It's a colorful and over the top way of saying "any reasonable person". The statement wasn't met to be taken literally, Hymie.

I hope this clears things up for you Professor.

[Skwmom]

167. Well if beating Bush is the criteria

I'd say that he's stuck out in all categories.

[SEAburb]

171. I couldn't agree more

Going into the gutter to battle Bush is a losing strategy.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

35. Dean the Governor v. Dean the Presidential CANDIDATE

That's the problem here- and the "restructuring" is an engineering marvel.

[Hawkeye-X]

47. Thank you Will!

That's what I have been preaching for DAYS, especially in the Yucca Mountain thread I started :eyes:

Dean bashers should answer the cluephone once in a while....

Hawkeye-X

[Skwmom]

189. I'd be careful of the use of the word "cluephone"

I think many of you are going to get clued in if Dean is the nominee.

[AP]

68. So Dean has a built in excuse to campaign 180 deg the opposite of the

way he governed VT?

VT small. USA big.

That is so lame.

[Hep]

116. Damned if you do and damned if you don't

Somepeople just don't wanna like him. It's OK to let it out.

[papau]

37. Does anyone read these links - this is almost pro-Dean! He sounds solid!

Let's see, it says:

that Dean's American Indian policies were developed with the help of an advisory group headed by LaDonna Harris, a Comanche and founder of Americans for Indian Opportunity, and Wilma Mankiller, a former Cherokee chief. ..... this is bad?

that in general "off-reservation" tribal groups are not included in new laws and that Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt., once had to make a special effort to include the Abenaki in a rewrite of a federal Indian education act.

that the off-reservation tribe "the Abenaki" wanted State recognition so as to sue the state and towns and to help get Federal recognition for a casino project. Does not mention year-long study Dean ordered that conclude that "the Abenaki" were not native to Vermont - with some moving there in the last several decades and that the tribe had a history of moving through Vermont - not staying in Vermont. (The Chief - St. Francis - says they "went underground")

And it says that even Chief St. Francis says Dean was helpful - assisted - the Abenaki on cultural and ancestral burial grounds issues.

And lost in all this is the Dean Albuquerque speech, where he "blasted President Bush for not working cooperatively with various tribes. He said a Dean administration would rebuild trust between the federal government and American Indians and help them address housing, health care, energy and education needs..."(Bush) has allowed the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian health services and the Administration for Native Americans to languish for months without leadership," "

The only "evils" noted (by Jeff Benay, chairman of the Vermont Governor's Advisory Commission on Native American) is that Dean (1)did not address the problems of unrecognized or "off-reservation" tribes, despite Dean's personal knowledge of how those problems affected the Abenaki in Vermont, and (2) that since Dean did not see casinos as the way to make Indians economically better off, how could Dean say he was not against Indian casinos.

and on this we have a DU bashing thread?

[TLM]

172. Well it isn;t like the bashers have anything else

they have to grab hold of one spun quote or one line and act like Dean is an evil kitten eater.

It is all they've got.

[in_cog_ni_to]

40. I read the article

He's being disingenuous, to say the least. When he DENIED a tribe State Recognition because it would trigger federal recognition and then the tribe could claim THEIR land and open casinos? I find that reprehensible. He did speak out of both sides of his mouth. All he did was pay lip service to the Native Americans he spoke to. WHY would he not want the tribe to be federally recognized?...HE DIDN'T WANT A CASINO IN VERMONT! Actually, that really pisses me off that he did that. Those people have suffered enough. Give them back their land and let them make a living!

"Howard Dean not only opposes gaming, but also shows a dangerous lack of understanding of the benefits gaming has brought to many Indian communities," the letter said in part. NOT GOOD for Dean. This is exactly why my support has switched to Clark. Perfect example. He didn't support the tribe in Vermont and denied them a casino but he will now support them in their efforts in gaming.....as long as it's not Vermont? Sheesh. Pretty bizarre.


<snip>St. Francis said Dean had hurt her tribe's progress by refusing to grant it state recognition on grounds that if he did, it would trigger federal recognition and allow the Abenaki to open a casino on their lands near Swanton in northwest Vermont, as well as making land claims.

Benay said the new policy also failed to address the problems of unrecognized or "off-reservation" tribes, despite Dean's personal knowledge of how those problems affected the Abenaki in Vermont.

He cited as an example that Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt., once had to make a special effort to include the Abenaki in a rewrite of a federal Indian education act that otherwise exempted all such "off-reservation" tribal groups.{/b}

[TLM]

175. Should they be recognized as a VT tribe...

if the tribe moved though VT, but has not lived on that land for the required period of time?

"He didn't support the tribe in Vermont and denied them a casino but he will now support them in their efforts in gaming.....as long as it's not Vermont? Sheesh. Pretty bizarre."

What spin... you must be dizzy. Dean did not deny them a casino... he doesn't have that authority. He denied them a state level tribal recognition, which they wanted so they could sue for federal recognition, which they need to build a casino. Dean says he will support federally recognized tribes in gaming, which the Abenaki do not have.

[in_cog_ni_to]

191. Ya, I'm always dizzy.

and why are they not a federally recognized tribe? Because DEAN denied them, that's why. The tribe explained their circumstances for going underground ....to avoid persecution. It sounds to me like they are a tribe from Vermont and have lived there for the required period of time. Various Native American scholars at Dartmouth College, the University of Vermont and elsewhere disagree.

They say that, for decades, the Abenaki simply hid their heritage from Census workers and others under fear of persecution.

"Just because it was hidden doesn't mean it wasn't real," historian Nancy Callahan said.

JACPO from a DIZZY person.

[chimpymustgo]

42. Okay, who's keeping the official Gov Dean vs. Candidate Dean list

of flip flops?

Other than Karl Rove.

[SEAburb]

129. Damn,that's a full time job

Take a day off and you miss a flip-flop.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

53. His campaign people should have known better to let him walk into THAT

or maybe they didn't know he had problems with the Indians in his state. Bad move...

[TLM]

176. He didn't walk into anything

no matter how hard the bashers try to spin this...

Read the whole piece and you'll see that.

[eileen_d]

55. The point is NOT that Dean did not support gaming!

The real issue in this article is that he did not support state recognition of the Abenaki tribe in Vermont. I'm not saying that is good or bad, because I admit I do not know the history, and recognition issues are always complex. But to understand this article one needs to read the paragraphs following the "talking out of both sides of his mouth" sound bite:

St. Francis said Dean had hurt her tribe's progress by refusing to grant it state recognition on grounds that if he did, it would trigger federal recognition and allow the Abenaki to open a casino on their lands near Swanton in northwest Vermont, as well as making land claims.

Dean, as governor, based his opposition to state recognition for Abenaki on a Vermont attorney general's opinion that said the Abenaki presence has not been constant during the past 100 years, a requirement for legal recognition.

...

St. Francis did credit Dean for assisting the Abenaki on cultural and ancestral burial grounds issues. "I'm not saying that everything he did was bad," she said. "He did help us in some ways."

The allegation that Dean "did not support gaming" appears to be the interpretation of St. Francis based on her tribe's particular situation. As another person in this thread said, a governor's position on this issue is likely to be different from a presidential candidate's.

Again, I'm not saying this is right or wrong - it's more complex than that. I'm not even a Dean supporter, but sheesh...

[WilliamPitt]

61. Come on, eileen

The issue is black and white. It has to be...around here.

:)

[eileen_d]

75. Oh, I swear.... at this moment...

I forgot I was in GD! ;)

It's funny how gray issues get when I actually understand the basics behind them. No wonder Shrub governs in black and white. (Why do I hate freedom?)

[Zomby Woof]

93. oh no

Now I have that song in my head. Oh, I swear!

[Hep]

66. Thank you so much

The real issue in this article is that he did not support state recognition of the Abenaki tribe in Vermont. I'm not saying that is good or bad, because I admit I do not know the history, and recognition issues are always complex.

thank you. Thank you thank you thank you.

Thank you,

Thanks

[KaraokeKarlton]

59. They had state recognition in 1976 and lost it in 1977

The tribe wanted special hunting and fishing rights that was unfair to the rest of the states hunters and fishermen/women. The tribe also does not meet the requirements for legal recognition. The fight was had long before Dean became governor and it's dumb to attack him for refusing to have the same battle over again. The tribe doesn't have federal recognition for the same reason...it doesn't meet the requirements to qualify. Dean has always respected the heritage and rights of the Abenaki in Vermont. He just didn't cave in to pressure to give them the power to open a casino, which was the goal. It's far more complicated than some on here would have you believe.

[Hep]

63. So what?

Someone said something bad about Dean, so it MUST be correct on all fronts!

[Classical_Liberal]

72. Why does support of American Indians always boil down

to support of Casinos. I think this is becoming quite corrupt to tell you the truth. The Casino Owners have more money than other interests in the Indian community so they can crow louder.

[TLM]

177. There is also a drive by some individuals to take advantage of

the law allowing casinos on indian land.

Some folks who have about as much native blood as me... like 1/16th, want to claim to be a tribe and build a casino. I'm not saying that's what's up in this case, but I do note that the native american people at this event were thrilled with Dean. It was the tribal leader... IOW the one who stands to make millions off a casino, who is pissed at Dean.

And even she said Dean was cool on other issues like burial grounds and such.

[Larkspur]

74. Seems like Dean's critic is the one talking out of both sides

St. Francis did credit Dean for assisting the Abenaki on cultural and ancestral burial grounds issues. "I'm not saying that everything he did was bad," she said. "He did help us in some ways."

As a Connecticut resident, whose state has 2 major Indian casinos, those casinos cause problems for the surrounding towns, namely less property to tax because the tribes buy up more land to build parking lots for their casinos. Less taxes means that towns have to either cut services or raise property taxes for the remaining property holders. The casinos cause heavy traffic through the surrounding towns, traffic that takes a toll on the byways the town has to repair. The casinos don't pay taxes to help these towns with those outlying support costs.

Also, Indian gaming may give jobs that pay a wage higher than minimum wage, but it does not come anywhere near what the manufacturing sector paid.

And gaming leads to addiction. At Foxwoods last year, a mother left her toddler in the car in 90 degree plus heat, so that she could gamble without her kid interfering. The kid died and the casino still has no child day care facility as far as I know.

Now, Foxwoods does get some credit. They are trying to use their gaming boon to help spur other industries for their tribe and business. For example, they are trying to create aqua farms for clams and other shellfish. This industry is along the line of what the tribe's ancestors did. However, not all Indian casinos are as successful as Foxwoods and are not as interested in diversifying their tribe's economy.

Personally, I can support Indian gaming on a limited basis. I can support it if it gives the tribe cash to diversify into other lines of business, but the tribes needs to consider the effects of a casino on the outlying towns, towns which could create a hostile environment for the casino's customers, an hostility that could hurt the tribes' business in the long run.

[GreenArrow]

94. Good points, thanks!

But I couldn't help noticing that you use the Casino Industry's term "gaming" instead of the more appropriate and traditional "gambling." They use the gaming term to sell gambling to the communites which then have to suffer from the problems you listed. It's like calling crack a refreshing morning picker upper.

[TLM]

178. I still think tribal casinos should have the slogan...

"Taking our land back, one hand at a time."

[Bertrand]

76. More on Dean and his non-support for the Abenaki

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/Archive/Articles/Article/40922


Dean said even such a limited government endorsement could lead to much more powerful federal regulation for the state's estimated 1,700 Abenakis. He said that could lead to extensive legal battles over Abenaki land claims and possibly allow the Indians to build casinos in Vermont.

...

Sen. Julius Canns, R-Caledonia and a key sponsor of the pro-Abenaki resolution, said it was now being bottled up in committees — at the governor's behest — despite support from all 30 Senators and 110 co-sponsors in the House.

The resolution first “recognizes the tribal status of the Abenaki people,” and then tries to respond to the concerns voiced by Dean by adding:

“That, while this recognition is not intended to confer any special rights upon the Abenaki people, such as claims to Vermont lands or privileges not extended to other minority groups, it is intended to ensure that the Abenaki people receive the same recognition and privileges extended by the state of Vermont to any other minority group.”


Dean not only didnt want the resolution passed, he had it stalled in committee because of his slippery slope argument of them pushing for greater claims, which would be a legal issue between them and the courts to decide.

[TLM]

179. Why did you leave this part out?

"The comments came a day after Gov. Howard Dean told reporters he was urging lawmakers to be very careful before endorsing a resolution saying the Abenakis should be granted limited state recognition. "

Dean was simply raising issues that would result, and warning lawmakers to be careful.

[Bertrand]

187. The Next Paragraph

Dean said even such a limited government endorsement could lead to much more powerful federal regulation for the state's estimated 1,700 Abenakis. He said that could lead to extensive legal battles over Abenaki land claims and possibly allow the Indians to build casinos in Vermont.

You dont even try to absorbe the context of the articles, but pick and choose for when you spam in an attempt to obfuscate the issue. Dean was urging the state congress not to give them legal sovereignty because of the reasons he described. That's why he had the resolution killed in committee.

[Larkspur]

79. Dean's Indian policy was made in consultation with 2 excellent Indian

leaders.

Dean's American Indian policies were developed with the help of an advisory group headed by LaDonna Harris, a Comanche and founder of Americans for Indian Opportunity, and Wilma Mankiller, a former Cherokee chief.

Wilma Mankiller was the first female chief in Indian history.

As far as Dean recognizing Indian gaming, he said that he'd recognize it in federally recognized tribes. As President, he can't stop gaming on those reservations.

[Bertrand]

80. Your making an

appeal to authority argument (much like when many Dean supporters pulled out the tired "look, he has black friends" argument over the confederate flag issue).

Stick to the facts.


Edit: forgot a bracket

[Larkspur]

96. I did stick to the facts

Pointing out who Dean consulted with is important. He was trying to make sound decisions, not abstract ones.

[Zomby Woof]

90. The tribes know when they hear a forked tongue!

And Dean's is as forked as a snake's.

[in_cog_ni_to]

92. I hope they do, ZombyWoof

because they have been screwed enough. :(

[bhunt70]

103. As a member of another "not nationally known" tribe...

I tend to agree with what St. Francis is saying. It seems that not granting nationality rights to certain tribes is usually fought underhandedly and under false pretenses. In my opinion this is a case of Dean changing his views for a vote.

[Forkboy]

155. "The tribes know when they hear a forked tongue!"

They should have no problem figuring out the intent of this thread then ;-)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

106. Without Reading This Whole Thread...

Gaming.... Gambling..... Blah.... Blah....Blah....

Letting them have a few casinoes is the least we can do after stealing their land and destroying their culture....

[ozone_man]

112. I just wish that we didn't attach their livelihood to gaming.

Why did this ever happen? I am very much against gambling. My own take, however tin foil hat it is, is that the government found a way for Indians to make a living that would cause further cultural disintegration.

Why couldn't their livelihood be associated with something more culturally beneficial, like offering them control of National Park concessions and maintenance, etc. In some parks, this is the case. Perhaps it could be all National Park fees go to the Indians, since this is their land. Gambling belongs with alcoholism, both diseases.

[CWebster]

117. damn , didn't I just see a thread pass by about

how the indians were so impressed with Dean?

They love him, they hate him, he is to liberal, he is too DLC, he is a racist, he supports terrorists, he wants to destroy medicare, he will destroy the economy, he is a pacifist, he is too angry, he can't get elected, he has a cult following, he is anti-Israel, he is an elitist, he is an outsider...

That should cover every known base.

[Bertrand]

134. Continue to marginalize criticism instead of refuting it

what Dean did to the Abenaki was horrible, which is why the NCAI wont endorse him.

[Hep]

138. Subjective at best

what Dean did to the Abenaki was horrible

Which is why you Dean "critics" spent so much time on the subject before today.

Gripe dujour, admit it.

[TLM]

182. Funny that's not what the Abenaki chief said...

St. Francis did credit Dean for assisting the Abenaki on cultural and ancestral burial grounds issues. "I'm not saying that everything he did was bad," she said. "He did help us in some ways."

[Bertrand]

188. You missed the point of the argument

but that isnt what youre going for, since you are in the business of spamming to obfuscate. The issue isnt over Dean "assisting the Abenaki on cultural and ancestral burial issues" (although St. Francis also said he believed Dean gave them funding for the museum because of the possibility of Tourism revenue), but the fact that he blocked their request of being recognized as a soverign people by the state because of the legal implications resulting in land claims and gaming licenses.

[Hep]

190. So

in your mind there isn't a potential problem with a tribe that doesn't meet federal criteria for recognition getting land claims?

I mean, it can be argued that the feds would refuse to recognize the tribe, but then what good would state recognition do?

[Bertrand]

193. Re: So

Dean isnt responsible for federal criteria, which hasnt been decided upon with the Abernaki, but the State recognition which he has come out against. In fact, if Vt recognized them as a sovereign people, it would help the federal claim, which would result in greater leverage over legal negotiations for settlement, which is not the desired outcome for Vermont.

[Forkboy]

136. I just read that

I'm finding everything really confusing today....

[mumon]

127. And THAT'S the best they can get????

Seriously, who cares?

As governor, he's interested in maximizing his state's revenues.

As presidential candidate, he's interested in maximizing his votes.

And so who cares whether he "flip-flops" on this issue?

Oh, that's right: Repugnant media whores.

[mumon]

128. And THAT'S the best they can get????

Seriously, who cares?

As governor, he's interested in maximizing his state's revenues.

As presidential candidate, he's interested in maximizing his votes.

And so who cares whether he "flip-flops" on this issue?

Oh, that's right: Repugnant media whores.

[Scott Lee]

132. As April Lovejoy (Navajo) gives Dean her endorsement

Today's lesson: Truth in advertising.

[Loonman]

140. You can't lump all tribes and all Nations together

Not all Indians are the same or support the same causes.

Or even like each other, for that matter.

[Scott Lee]

186. And where was I doing that, exactly?

I said that April Lovejoy (Dineh) supports Dean. She does. I didn't say she speaks for all Indigenous ones. But she is a "leader" and her word carries much weight. I'm sure you could say the same for other leaders.

And please don't lecture me on "Indians". I've been "on the ground" so to speak, on this issue.

[TLM]

141. As usual, check the link and you see that the bashers

never give the whole story ever...

"Dean's remarks drew loud applause from the tribal group, many of whom were wearing Dean buttons. Back in Vermont, however, American Indian leaders and advocates were less enthusiastic. "


Later in the piece that same chief says...

"St. Francis did credit Dean for assisting the Abenaki on cultural and ancestral burial grounds issues. "I'm not saying that everything he did was bad," she said. "He did help us in some ways."



All this is about is that Dean did not grant this tribe recognition in VT because they'd not been on the land for more than 100 years, which is a requirement. And the tribal leader is pissed he can't build a casino because he doesn't meet the necessary requirements.

[slinkerwink]

143. for chrissakes, look at the thread I posted which REFUTES this....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=744913&mesg_id=744913

The thread I posted completly REFUTES your "one-line/quote-taken-out-of-context" thread.....

[TLM]

183. You rock!

It is the fact that Dean has folks like you who tell the truth in the face of attacks and spun BS that's going to put Dean in the White House.

[SahaleArm]

185. Dean to the Abenaki - Not on my watch!

If only the Abenaki would put on their feathers, dance their dances and agree to be the sort of feel-good cultural attraction Vermont tourist officials could promote.

That, it would appear, is the attitude the state will go on taking toward the long-maligned tribe until the day Gov. Howard Dean leaves office in January.

...

The state's position, from its perch outside the loop, is that federal Census and other data in the period of 1860 to 1960 show little evidence of an ongoing Abenaki organization in Vermont.

"One of the criterion is if there was a meaningful community of individuals that existed as a political entity for that time," Chief Deputy Attorney General William Griffin said. "We've seen no evidence of that."

Various Native American scholars at Dartmouth College, the University of Vermont and elsewhere disagree.

They say that, for decades, the Abenaki simply hid their heritage from Census workers and others under fear of persecution.

"Just because it was hidden doesn't mean it wasn't real," historian Nancy Callahan said.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/Columnists/Sam/0313042611.htm

[mitchum]

195. kick

[KaraokeKarlton]

200. Reality check about Vermont's Abenaki....LOOK here!

Here's one of the VT Abenakis who are pushing for recognition so they can open a casino in Swanton, Vermont. He looks kind of Irish to me...

?

I'm including an online article I remembered seeing in the paper when it first came out. In light of the recent criticisms of Dean on this issue I thought it might clear things up a little bit. It's obvious what this guy's goal is...a casino...which Vermonters DON'T want.



Read about his reason for wanting federal recognition here:



http://www.s-t.com/daily/04-99/04-18-99/e10he190.htm