uh oh, all Dems, please read with an open mind:

Dean's No Wellstone
by Jim Farrell

<snip>

While Dean may share some measure of Wellstone's passion, his record and his agenda are very different. As governor of Vermont, Dean targeted for elimination the public-financing provision of the state's campaign finance law--a law similar to the one Wellstone pushed in the Senate. In February 2002, Dean said his big donors are given special access. While Wellstone fought for people on welfare, Dean said some welfare recipients "don't have any self-esteem. If they did, they'd be working" and scaled back Vermont's welfare program, reducing cash benefits and imposing strict time limits on single mothers receiving welfare assistance.

<snip>

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0523-03.htm




Please read the entire article and THEN comment. Thanks to all who post without nastiness…

I (for one) never looked at Dean as a successor to Wellstone's legacy.

I never expected Dean to walk in Wellstone's shoes, I expected him to bring his own (shoes).

I expect the same from all the other Dems...........

I hate how people keep assuming that just b/c someone supports Dean, they feel that he is the "perfect candidate" or that he is "very liberal". I haven't met a Dean supporter who is with him on 100% of the issues. In fact, at one of the Boston meetups last night, everyone in my small discussion group who I talked to described themselves as "much further left than Dean" (as do I), but we all felt that he offers the best alternative to Whistle Ass right now. To all you anti-Deaners out there, please stop incinuating that Dean supporters think that he is perfect, he's not, we all know that he has his issues just like every other candidate, his are just more pallatable to us:)

There are several DUers who do think Dean is perfect. They have even defended his actions and statements which even Dean admitted were mistakes.

MOST Dean supporters. You can trot out a small number of posters who will hold the extremely marginal position on any issue, there are certainly some of these on DU. But 99% of Dean supporters feel the way that I just described, I don't think that a few exceptions to the rule (and I strongly believe it is a few, considering how many Dean supporters there are here, that is to be expected) are that significant IMHO.

You're never gonna get the ideal candidate; it just is never gonna happen. Wellstone was a saint, a one-in-a-million kinda guy, whose stature was attained precisely because he was so different. Dean is no Wellstone. So what? He may not be the greatest single politician to come down the pike, but damn...He's still got lots of good points, he's got the momentum, he knows what he's doing, he's taking on the Bush Family, he can get swing voters. And you're complaining because he's not Mother frikkin' Teresa?

Can we hold off on the Dean bashing, please? It's really getting tiresome. My money's on Dean, and you can't sway me.

I honestly was not trying to join the Dean-bashing so unfortunately found mostly by Kerry supporters on this site.

This morning, I ran across this article while researching the candidates' positions on the death penalty.

The reason I began with "uh oh" is because the article saddened me; not because I intended to Dean-bash.

Please forgive me for not expressing myself as well as I obviously should have.

:pals:

Also wanted to say I like your FZ pic...

Is it the same as "avatar"? Please tell me what FZ stands for.

Thank you.

Mother Teresa. I'm just complaining that he isn't a progressive and that I disagree with many of his positions. And I'm as tired of the glorification of Dean as you are of what you see as bashing. I might be able to buy Howard as an acceptable candidate if his supporters would talk about his bad points as well as his good points. I don't mean you guys have to bring up his bad points, but when someone criticizes Dean, it would be nice if Dean supporters wouldn't get mad right off the bat but would instead explain why the criticism is misplaced.

I'm not supporting Dean but I could refute most if not all of the criticism in this article by presenting Dean's side of the issues, by showing errors if they exist, and perhaps by saying about some criticisms something as simple as "He was wrong about this," or "I don't agree with him on that."

The issue is not that the criticism is false or that it's "bashing" but that the author has his point of view as Wellstone's friend and spokesman. Dean supporters each have their own point of view as to why this criticism doesn't make them give up supporting him. I keep hoping to see some real answers from them.

As much as I admire Wellstone, I don't know that he would have run successfully for president (maybe he would've...it sure would have been nice to find out).

Anyway, the reason I like Dean is that, in my mind, he's got a good chance of building a strong independent/center/left coalition, which is what we need to defeat Bush's strong corporatist/right coalition.

I'm no political strategist, but to me that's what we need to do to beat Bush.

financial security CAN translate into social justice. It's down to Kerry & Dean. For me Kerry represents old time get along politicos as usual. His recent characterization of George Bush as 'a good man trying to do good things' shows a man totally out of touch with reality and reinforces the idea that George 'tricked' him into voting for the Iraqi Bombing Resolution.

If Dean ever refers to Chimpy is such glowing terms I'm the first out the door.

Dean '04...

Dean is not 'the most progressive in the race'. And it's not 'down to Kerry & Dean'.

I like Kucinich, but please tell me when he's going to make his push and become a viable candidate. Tell me how it will happen, how he will gain the momentum and the groundswell of public support necessary to even come remotely close to polling 10%,how he will gain close to enough support to get the nomination. For all intents and purposes, who will challenge Kerry and Dean if Clark doesn't hop in (I"m not even sure that it's not getting too late for Clark at this point, but who knows?) Edwards' big push is supposed to be bet. now and October according to some of his supporters, if he hasn't made any decent inroads by then (and I don't by the "but he'll come on strong late in the southern primaries" argument b/c he isn't even doing that well in the South compared to the other front-runners), then I don't see anyone else presenting them with a threat to their "front-runner" status. Any ideas?

considering that he only entered the race at the end of February. The poll numbers from numerous other primaries have been posted here several times, showing how a lead at this point can evaporate before the primaries begin.

But that's not the issue that Mairead was addressing. The issue Mairead raised -- and it's my concern, too -- is that Dean simply is not the most progressive Democrat in the race. On the progressive scale, I'd rank him below several other candidates.

but show me someone more progressive (not Dean or Kerry) who stands a chance in the race at this point (I'm not talking a "well, if all the other candidates were assasinated" type argument), and then show me how they stand a chance (not just the "well, Kucinich would have a chance if everyone who voted for the other candidates would just vote their conscience and vote for him", it's not realistic), and I'd be willing to listen:) Please just make it at least semi-realistic.
DK is not polling well or doing well in fund-raising at this point, unless you compare him to the "second-tier" candidates like Sharpton and Moseley-Braun. Hell, if you want to go with the "he only entered the race in February", Kerry only officially entered the race on Tuesday, and look where he is:) I don't think that DK's numbers are anything substantial at this point, show me something to prove me wrong:)

on edit: added a few sentences

and has a shot

really? How has his support been lately besides his obvious union support (which is not as solid as it once was)? How has his fund-raising been doing outside of the union bloc? How many articles have you seen on him in the news? How many rallies has he had where has attracted a large crowd numbering in the theousands of devoted followers? Do you really think he has a chance, or are you just saying that because his poll numbers haven't slipped far enough yet b/c of his residual name-recognition? They'll keep slipping all the way into the primary season, where he drops out by at the latest, early April, IMO.

Really. And I think you are "begging the question" by portraying Gephardt's support as nothing more than "name recognition", a point that's confirmed by your prediction that his #'s will "keep slipping all the way into the primary season, where he drops out by at the latest, early April, IMO."

FYI - I'm not crazy about Gephardt. I mentioned his name because:

a) He is more liberal than Dean
b) And he is a viable candidate

Care to actually offer any examples, or are you just into posting one-liners?

civil rights, the environment, NAFTA, free trade, criminal justice...

How are being anti-NAFTA and anti-free trade progessive issues?

Are you saying that one cannot be progressive unless one opposes those issues?

I think free trade and NAFTA are progressive policies, as a matter of fact.

The execution of the principles involved has been severely flawed, but merely being anti-free trade is no more progressive or reactionary than being anti-the sun coming up in the east.

You seem to suggest that merely being against free trade is intrinsically more progressive than being for it. Am i interpreting that correctly?
The Professor

How are being anti-NAFTA and anti-free trade progessive issues?

The supposedly "free" trade that we are engaged in is basically a modernized version of mercantilism. There's no progress in that. Reforming intl trade so that it recognizes labor rights, human rights, and environmental protection would be progress.

Are you saying that one cannot be progressive unless one opposes those issues?

No, I am not saying that.

The execution of the principles involved has been severely flawed, but merely being anti-free trade is no more progressive or reactionary than being anti-the sun coming up in the east.

Ahh, the old "flawed implemetation" ploy. FWIW, I don't think the implementation was flawed. IMO, "free" trade works exactly as planned, as demonstrated by the profits earned by it's biggest supporters.

You seem to suggest that merely being against free trade is intrinsically more progressive than being for it. Am i interpreting that correctly?

No. You are being far too binary about it. As I'm sure you realize, given your background, intl trade is a complex topic. My position is not "merely" one of opposition to trade that is truly "free". My opposition toward what's called "free trade" is based on how it actually works, and not based on ideology.

It could have been, I reckon, but it wasn't. Now many Dems are regretting their votes and bemoaning the "race to the bottom" as something they never intended. So now they have to propose all sorts of corrections. Well, Gep was there making that argument when it mattered. He saw through the hype and deceptions and saw it for what it really was, and the real effects it would have on workers in the U.S. That's progressive.

"Free trade" is less a policy than a shiboleth. "Fair trade" is a more progressive term. It puts the emphasis on social justice without being against global commerce. There's nothing progressive about making our workers compete with child labor, sweatshops, prison labor, slavery--more exploitation than you can shake a stick at. If you don't see that as the result of some of these multilateral trade agreements we've entered into, then you're just not looking at it through a progressive lens. As Gephardt is fond of saying, we need to level the playing field.

The notion of global "free markets" usualy means that capital is free to come and go, manufactured goods are free to come and go, but workers aren't. They can be literally in chains and the "free market" capitalist will whine about tarrifs and trade barriers as the greatest evil imaginable. So the claim to be in favor of "freedom" much less to be progressive is a sham. I think you would be hard pressed to argue that these agreements are fostering entrepeneurship and the liberation of the human spirit to any appreciable degree. But if you want to stick up for the new neocolonialism, let's hear it.

still has raised more money than he has, so I guess Dean's not doing very well, is he? There's always a different way to view info. The bottom line is that the only numbers that matter are the ones that result from actual primaries in 2004.

You seem to be saying it's OK to characterize Dean as "the only progressive" or "most progressive" based on the idea that he can win and the more progressive candidates can't, but that's false because 1) no one can honestly say who can and who can't win -- it's all conjecture, and 2) a case could be made for other "top tier" candidates being more progressive than Dean. An analysis and comparison of Kerry's record and positions vs. Dean's would show Kerry to be more progressive than Dean. Gephardt would probably also come out being more progressive than Dean. Even (gasp!) Lieberman has a pretty solid liberal record that would compare favorably to Dean's.

I have serious reservations about all four of the top tier candidates but Jim Farrell made the point I've been trying to make at DU lately about looking for the good in each candidate. It's important to know about the bad and determine if you can live with it but also be aware of the good. The party will get behind just one of these candidates next year and I'll actually be surprised if their choice will be my first choice or yours.

it may have looked that way though from the context of that reply to Sangh0, my apologies:) I was merely trying to state that Dean and Kerry at this point are the front-runners, and that no other candidate has proven me otherwise at this point (be they progressive, conservative, etc..., you see what I was getting at, it wasn't really the "progressive" thing at all). And I know that Kerry is leading in fund-raising, have a look at last quarter's results though, and then about this time next month, have a look at this quarter's results, and I think you'll start getting a better picture of which candidates really are the front-runners. How they did 2 or 3 quarters ago means nothing, how they are doing now heading into the final quarter before the primary season means everything. You can't discount fund-raising, I'd like to say that money doesn't matter, but in primary season, it matters immensely. So, do you really (I mean really, not just "you can't tell at this point") believe that any other candidate other than the aforementioned two has a chance at this point, and if so, please elucidate, I'm all ears, and I like them all (besides one Senator from CT who will remain nameless;)

on edit: spelling

though Kerry and Dean have raised the most $. I mean, if it's all about the $, we've already lost to Bush*, haven't we?

I suspect that party insiders will push for Kerry to be the nominee. The DLC may love its president, Joe Lieberman, but I think the party as a whole will see that he can't get enough support. I don't think the party wants Dean, either. Wellstone never won national office saying he was from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party and I doubt that he could have. I continue to hope that Americans will discover Kucinich and support him so heavily in the primaries that the party won't be able to stop him, as no doubt you hope for Dean. But in all honesty, I see a tall senator from Massachusetts in our future.

How about reading my post #24 and telling me what you think about it?

and it's a good post, and fairly valid. I hopped on the Dean bandwagon in late march-early april (before that tentatively supported Kerry). I do think that lately a lot of Dean people haven't been refuting criticisms of him, however, in all fairness, I have seen these same criticisms brought up countless times in the past few months, and all of them were addressed ad nauseum (same thing with people's criticism of Kerry's war vote, you either accept it or you don't, and no matter how much people argue about it, there are no new angles to be played). It seemed that in the period during and after the war, people were making very in-depth criticisms of the candidates, which were matched by even better rebuttals. A lot of the criticisms now seem tired and have already been hashed-out many times (I saw this article a few months back, as an example). And I like your analysis, but if Kerry can't put out the grassroots brushfire that Dean's campaign has started, it might just consume the whole party, b/c insiders can't ignore the will of the majority of the party (or they shouldn't, at least).

Because Kerry transferred a bunch of money from his Senate election fund. For this race, Dean has raised more than Kerry...and Dean will blow the rest out of the water with fundraising in this quarter. He's going to beat Clinton's record this quarter.

People are actually beginning to hear about him, finally. So my answer to your question is: it's happening now. It's bloody slow, but he's accelerating. When you evaluate DK's progress, please remember how long ago HD formed his first PAC, how long ago he pre-declared, and the resources he commands by being a member of the elite. Where was he 6 months after he pre-declared?

at a time of war. I choose not to do that."

"the president was misled by those in his administration..."

"George Bush governed as a moderate in Texas."

Yes, George, I'm 100% behind you on Yucca Mt., just like we worked together on Sierra Blanca. (My paraphrase)

Its only September not even a half of year away. BTW Kucinich wasnt tricked neither.

we Dean supporters already know he is not Paul, NO ONE is. Dean is his own man, he has his faults, I do not agree with him on all issues, but he is the ONLY ONE out there saying bush* lied, about the war, his tax cuts, etc. I respect him and will continue to support him.

Dean is not 'the only one'

He voted for the patriot act. He voted for DOMA.

"He was not perfect. Who is?

Most notably, he failed to join Senator Russ Feingold in voting against the USA Patriot Act, and he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

It was this last vote that caused him some self-recrimination, which he relates in his autobiography, 'The Conscience of a Liberal.'

'What troubles me is that I may not have cast the right vote on DOMA,' he writes. 'I might have rationalized my vote by making myself believe that my honest position was opposition. This vote was an obvious trap for a senator like me, who was up for reelection. Did I convince myself that I could gleefully deny Republicans this opportunity? . . . When Sheila and I attended a Minnesota memorial service for Mathew Shepard, I thought to myself, 'Have I taken a position that contributed to a climate of hatred?' . . . I still wonder if I did the right thing."

http://www.progressive.org/webex/wxeul102502.html


He could've been stronger on I\P.

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk021101/us16.shtml

unless you want it to be. He didn't say all welfare recipients lack self-esteem, he said some do. Allthough I don't know how cutting their benefits is going to help them get it back. There are some, possibly many welfare recips who are content to stay on the governments rolls forever, I've met them and worked alongside them. Not bad people just don't care, it's free money to them.

Anyway, didn't see anything really bad, yes DEan may not be as liberal in practice as he says he is which is too bad but are any of these candidates all that they say they are?

Oh dear. Not this partial quote -- AGAIN! At least we'll have it fully debunked before the general election. But, gosh, it sure is getting tiresome.

The quote is taken out of context. Dean was actually condemning a system that robs people of their self-esteem, not the people themselves. But don't take my word for it, here's the complete quote:

"Those recipients don't have any self-esteem. If they did, they'd be working. They'd be trying to get out of a system that is essentially saying to them: 'You don't have anything to contribute. Take our money and then go away and beat the system.'"

Despite the misunderstanding, Dean apologized anyway:

"I understand that a person is a person, no matter where they are on economic spectrum," he said. "When I realized my remarks were hurtful, I apologized.

"It came out differently in the paper than what I meant. What I meant was being on welfare can be really, really hard and the transition to work from welfare helps people feel fulfilled in their lives."

http://www.rutlandherald.com/election2000/deancrit.html

"Those recipients don't have any self-esteem. If they did, they'd be working" is just another way of saying "Welfare promotes dependency"

As someone who works with the poor, I can tell you that welfare recipients are so diverse, the only accurate generalization you can make about them is "Those recipients are on welfare"

the article has been discussed previously, but I thought Commondreams was supposed to be a rah-rah Dean site round-the-clock? ;-)

If Dean WERE exactly like Wellstone, he'd never be considered to oppose Bush. There is NO way that anyone as far to the left (that's not a criticism, merely a description) as Wellstone could possible give Bush a run for the money. Dean is not a liberal on many issues, but his stance on the war gives him a platform that energizes the party and can bring in the younger, often apathetic voters.

He's not perfect, but this is an election that can determine the future of this country. We have to have a winner...and right now (until I see something different) a Dean-Clark ticket has a shot. This is about beating Bush, and little else. The energy we have has to be put into getting the Nader people to back the Dem candidate. They'll back Dean, and that's a huge plus.

In Vermont, Dean had a specific constituency. Remember how Lyndon Johnson, a true Texan - became the champion of civil rights legislation once he represented the nation, not his southern voters. We can't negate a candidate like Dean on a single issue.... the nation can deal with the welfare issue only if we get a Dem Congress. We need a winner. We have to stop being divisive and forming that circular firing squad Dems do so well.

Jim Farrell.

Dean supporters will not be pleased with Farrell's delineation of the differences between Dean and Wellstone. Those who have already chosen another Democratic candidate to support will probably join me in wishing that Farrell had provided more information on the good points of each candidate, but Farrell ends by making a good call for unity. I hope we can all focus on that and understand that Wellstone's loss was a great personal loss for Farrell but he is calling on us to unite and defeat Bush*.

This is how he ends his commentary:

"Progressives must give each of the candidates a thorough look. None may be progressive in my or your terms, but let's be ready to get behind whoever wins the Democratic nomination, so we can send this hard-right Administration packing. And let's not let progressive style or language replace progressive substance simply because we no longer have a senator who is one of us.

Paul Wellstone closed his autobiography, The Conscience of a Liberal, with a quote from the famous abolitionist Wendell Phillips, who was once asked, "Wendell, why are you so on fire?" He responded, "I'm on fire because I have mountains of ice before me to melt." Since Wellstone's death, the mountains have grown. Let's direct our fire toward the ice and not let our desire for leaders with passion get in the way of the need to melt it. I do not yet support a candidate for President. In the end, I will choose one I believe will shine some light--and direct some fire--toward those mountains of ice we must melt."

I completely agree as well. We all must unite in the end in order to be rid of this regressive and truly frightening administration!

I just want to say after reading the replies to this post: so don't do the "your candidate isn't perfect" to everyone else, list their (gasp) flaws and then urge us to cast the flawed candidate in the dust. All these boys are politicians. I'm not swept off my feet by the virginity of any of them. I just walk around the edges, look at this pig pile and say: "hmmmm, if I was the average uniformed moron in this nation and one that will have right wing media whores sticking propaganda up my butt 24/7, which one of these dudes would appeal to me". They don't know agendas from their arse. They have no clue what center, liberal (except that that is a word that rhymes with Satan) DLC, DNC, QXYZ, 123 mean and will not listen while any windbag tries to educate them. So look at where these people are. Look at what still dings their bell and makes them all "proud to be American"-----and even though they would like out of the Iraq hellhole don't ever assume they no longer are "proud to be American". We just have to make them Proud to be An American Who Fucking Hates Bush. That's our mission and I'll take whichever one of these guys starts appealing to the MASSES (right now they are all appealing to their own little groups---i.e., Gep appeals to the Unions, etc.) I'm thinking bigger, bigger, much bigger.

You and I have disagreed in the past... but I love that line.

wants to do good things' then this week said 'Howard Dean's opposition to the war was wrong.' These very recent statements by John Kerry are very revealing. To descrive Bush as 'a good man' shows a real lack of understanding.


Dean '04...

see blm's post #25 above for some sample comments made by Dean.

They'll all criticize Bush* on what he's done but they'll try to avoid attacking him in a way that seems too personal. Look at how upset people get about criticism of candidates around here and you've gotta realize most people wouldn't appreciate a candidate who really trashed Bush*.

everything. It makes perfect sense for all Democratic candidates to attack Bush on the issues and not on his personality. Otherwise, they'll be easily tagged by the liberal media as a mean-spirited cabal engaging in the politics of personal destruction.

It adds little to the debate to try to pretend Kerry and Bush are roughly equivalent. While Kerry is far from perfect, it's obvious his record of support for liberal causes is far superior to that of the Selected One.

Another scared right-winger...

Wellstone was Wellstone ....

Kerry is Kerry ...

Gephardt is Gephardt ....

Ad nauseum .....

WHO implied that Dean was like someone else ? ...

Dean is like a Democrat .....

He is like a centrist at times ....

He is like an liberal ideologue at times ....

Just like ALL the candidates: ... he has a mixed set of philosophies that defy strict categorization ....

Again: WHO implied Dean was Wellstone's twin ? .....

appropriated Wellstone's line about being from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. (Yes, I've read that he claims he got it from someone else but she's not as well-known as Wellstone, and I don't think he said that until a month or so ago, while this article was written in May --- no, published in May so probably written in April.) Wellstone's spokesman didn't like the comparison. Dean's internet guru Joe Trippi was quoted being snippy about Kerry this morning. Everyone has their loyalties.

b/c Kerry has launched a couple of pointed direct attacks at Dean lately (last Sunday's meet the press, his announcement speech on tuesday). Don't see anything wrong with this, it's going to heat up between the two of them, and quick, b/c Kerry's team has changed strategy and is now criticizing Dean a lot more. Just an observation.

The comment sounded politically naive to me. It's a campaign, for Pete's sake! They're supposed to attack each other's positions. It's been clear to me (and you, too, I imagine) that many of the Dems were waiting until after Labor Day to get serious about campaigning. After all, a poll last week showed about two thirds of Democrats surveyed couldn't name any Dem candidate for president in 2004. It was summertime and nobody wanted to think about it, except us political junkies.

and only Dean is Dean

SO WHAT?

jeez

Dean is no George W. Fucking Bush either...

this far left liberal crap come from.

post #4

As long as many Dean supporters keep calling him "progressive" and/or "liberal", you'll continue to see this "far left liberal crap"

.........however I'll take Dean any day over junior.

Wellstone Memorial debacle.

And who then became the spokesman for Mondale's uninspired, losing replacement campaign, despite what should have been a huge sympathy vote.

Who is Farrell backing, anyway?

When I saw who authored the article back when it was published almost 4 months ago I immediately questioned its motivation- kind of like I'm questioning why the original poster drug up this old editorial.

Not that I have a problem with contrasting Wellstone to Dean- but this article despite its labored efforts to appear "fair minded," is obviously meant to be little more than a hit piece. And not a very good one at that.

this was a Dean-bashing thing to post, I was searching all of the the current candidates' positions on the death penalty. For some reason, this common dreams article came up. It made me sad because Dean has in fact appropriated Wellstone's statement that he comes from the democratic wing of the democratic party. I had never seen the article, I was not purposefully searching for anything against Dean or anyone else. Wellstone just touched me, that's all. I was incredibly saddened by his death. That's all.

There are no ulterior motives!

Again, I did not "drug up this old editorial"...for heaven's sake, can't you just understand, accept my apology and move on?

I'm still not over Wellstone's death and it has nothing to do with Dean - no motivation...Damn it!!!

Once again, I'm sorry :cry:.

:kick: