Dean and Clark, the re-regulation issue.

[madfloridian]

Clark really does disagree with Dean on this. I happen to think Dean is correct.....I don't think a democracy can survive without certain aspects of it being regulated.

Dean would likely look at these areas:
"re-regulation effort would likely target utilities, large media companies, businesses that offer stock options and possibly the telecommunications industry..."

Dean is right on this, and even our most Republican neighbors agree on it since they have seen what happened. This is one issue I am glad Dean changed his mind on. He saw what was happening, and he changed.

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=62607
SNIP..."The retired Army general, in the harshest assessment of a rival to date, said Dean's plan to re-regulate U.S. businesses is a major departure from Clinton, who strongly backed deregulation of energy and telecommunications markets.

"The results in the '90s spoke for themselves," Clark said at a brief news conference in which he referred to Clinton by name six times. "Regulation is not going to get our economy moving again. It failed in the past, it will fail again."

SNIP...."Dean, the former Vermont governor, said Tuesday that if elected president, he would move to re-regulate business sectors such as utilities and media companies to restore faith after corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom.

Responding to Clark's criticism, Dean spokeswoman Tricia Enright said Wednesday, "Under the Bush administration, the balance of power has shifted against the American people and toward greedy pharmaceutical companies, powerful energy corporations and media monopolies. If Democrats are not concerned with protecting consumers, workers and the average American, then they are truly out of touch."..."

We are seeing the results now of several years of this deregulation, and it is not pretty. To deny it is useless. People know better, and they have suffered for it.

[Jim Sagle]

1. Dean's right, Clark's wrong, and that's the end of it.

[dd123]

2. Dean gets it.

Why Clark doesn't realize that consolidation of the media is a threat to democracy is beyond me.

[many a good man]

3. Clark is dead wrong on this

In my book this is the biggest strike against Clark. Deregulation begun under Clinton was what made the corporate scandals like Enron and WorldCom possible. It was by far Clinton's greatest mistake.

Clinton went whoring for corporate cash to win back the WH after 12 years of GOP misery and it worked. It won him important concessions from a GOP congress but at what cost? In my opinion this tarnishes his legacy much more than the Monica thing.

Now Clark is whoring for DLC support, as if he has to. I guess he figures he has to sell out to the corporate greaseballs so they won't go with * despite the damage he's doing to our economy. Its cheap opportunism; I expected better from him.

As a former economics professor he should know better. I'm still for ABB, but I'm tired of having to hold my nose every time I go into the voting booth to cast a vote for president. Please don't accuse me of flaming because every candidate has one or more maladorous positions (except DK maybe, but unfortunately I'm too realistic to give anything more than moral support).

[mikehiggins]

4. Here's the deal

Clark is talking about what he beleives. It isn't formulated by focus groups or polls, just by what he has learned and experienced in his life.

Opinions are different from facts, quite often. Facts are verifiable and reproductable, opinions are subjective and often based on other than absolute facts.

Clark looks at what happened during the Clinton years and deduces that deregulation had a salutary effect over all. Dean disagrees.

Dean is reported as calling for the reestablishment of regulatory schemes in several key industried. Clark disagrees.

You have two different points of view. Choose.

There is no need to spend a great deal of time showing how Clark's disagreement with Dean is proof of his collusion with the Council of Rome and the Rosicrucians. (Not is it proof that Dean IS the antichrist). Its just two men seeing things differently.

I've said it before but I think it bears repeating: we say we want people with ideas and who speak their minds, but when we get them we insist they MUST agree with us or they are bad, bad, bad. Nobody with a mind is going to agree with everyone all the time. That's just the way it is.

[democratreformed]

5. Thanks

You are absolutely right. That's why we have an election to begin with.

[Rose Siding]

7. What salutary effects can be traced to deregulation

Specifically, rather than using the talisman "Clinton years" (which I use myself when arguing for a roll back of the insane tax cuts) how has deregulating energy and the media benefited society as a whole?

[SahaleArm]

12. Media deregulation happened before Clinton...

and has been furthered by Bush II/Powell. Clark has pushed for rolling back ownership rules and reinstating the fairness doctrine.

The Clear Channel folks hate Clinton:
The liberals won't stop with cross-ownership. Democrats have announced their intention to re-regulate the entire industry, with a comprehensive plan (proposed by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a New York liberal with a 95% ADA rating) including reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Regulation advocates include a Who's Who of the "government knows best" crowd: Bill Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Jesse Jackson, Common Cause, Ralph Nader, NOW, and People for the American Way.

http://www.stopmediaregulation.org/talkingpoints/5reasons.htm

[many a good man]

8. What he believes

As voters we are unlikely to find any candidate with whom we agree 100% on every issue. We weigh our differences and come to a decision. I have not yet ruled Clark out; I'm just saying this issue weighs heavily in my book.

Clark looks at what happened during the Clinton years and deduces that deregulation had a salutary effect over all.

C'mon. After twenty-three years of constant deregulation its obvious that we have gone too far in some areas. Our history is marked by periods of greater regulation followed by deregulation, alternating regularly in a somewhat self-corrrecting fashion. With Clinton we missed the deregulating cycle. The current administration is deregulating like there's no tomorrow.

Even industry leaders admit that changes have to be made. I find it hard to believe that deep down Clark doesn't believe it, too. Clark made this statement for one of two reasons: 1) simple campaign trail rhetoric to distinguish himeself; or 2) he wants to show big business that he's friendly. No grand conspiracy theory, just plain old politics as usual.

The article further states...
Clark said he would increase efforts to hold corporate America responsible for misconduct and indicated that in some instances, would go beyond the Clinton administration. But he said he would do so without writing rules and regulations.

These two sentences sound contradictory. How can he go beyond Clinton regulatory policy without writing regulations? Voluntary compliance? Sounds like hot air to me. In fact I doubt he's serious at all on this issue and we're likely not to hear much more about it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. They probably do disagree some

But the difference is not as dramatic as the quote snippets you used would imply. Many threads ago I posted Clark's full statement, which I unfortunately did not save. He went on to say that things have changed in some areas since the Clinton years, and some additional protections for workers, consumers and the environment may be needed. Clark is also a big proponent of enforcing the rules currently on the books, which he believes Bush has turned a bling eye to.

[Upfront]

16. Nice Post Mike

I do think the mess our country is currrently in, is evidence says Dean is right.

[Upfront]

17. Nice Post Mike

I do think the mess our country is currrently in, is evidence says Dean is right.

[sandnsea]

6. pander, pander, pander

There's a whole lot more to creating a secure economy than shouting out deregulation because that's what his voters want to hear. There's good points and bad points to deregulation, it needs to be done smartly. Once again, Dean offers no details, just hyperbolic ranting that appeases his base. If you're going to use a renewable energy like wind, there's no way to put enough wind farms in NYC. That electicity has to come from somewhere else, perhaps as far away as Iowa or Nebraska. How do you expect to do that with the current regulated power market? His plans aren't even coherent, this guy is such a fraud.

[SahaleArm]

11. Reactionism sells

Well reasoned and nuanced solutions don't; see John Kerry... Somehow weighing the pros and cons isn't a good idea :eyes:. The lastest gripe is about telecom, yet my phone bill was constant until I dumped my land line, I've got six choices for cell phone providers, multiple technologies, and number portability. I've got DSL versus cable with wireless networks on the way.

[lastliberalintexas]

15. Given your avatar

I'd say it's safe to assume that you live in a large metro are. Those who live in small cities or rural areas have been slaughtered by deregulation, with prices going up significantly on a yearly basis. There are large parts of this country that are only serviced by one cable company, one elctric company, one gas company, etc. I'm just amazed to see people on DU arguing that those companies should not be subject to increased regulation.


Do you *honestly* think deregulation is a good idea, or is it just a reflex defense of your candidate (since they all get bashed too frequently here)? Some supporters are so defensive that they feel the need to defend every stand of a candidate, even when they are wrong. I can admit that Dean is wrong on the death penalty and med mal issues, though I too want to reflexively defend every post criticizing him just b/c of the few, very vocal bashers.

[janx]

9. Yes and very much to Dean's credit, he has remarked about

the ebbs and flows re regulation and deregulation. Reagan deregulated everything to such a degree that now we're seeing the pendulum at its extreme opposite point.

Dean knows there are times when we don't need to regulate, and he knows there are times when we do.

[FrenchieCat]

10. This guy has a pretty interesting take on it...

http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2003/11/wes_clark.html
Writer is Venture Capitalist and Tech programmer:
This is his take on what Clark said....Read the actual blog at link.

He talked about jobs and why we are are losing so many. I asked him to talk about his comment in Monday's debate about software jobs going to India. He said that the US can't and won't stop these jobs from going to India, and for that matter, Russia, Eastern Europe, and possibly China. He said that anyone with a computer, an Internet connection, and a talent for writing great code can become an employee of a software company these days. He's right. And further, I am impressed that he understands that. So many of our candidates don't.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. I agree

Re-regulation is the way to go.