Dean responds to Gephardt Attack

Dean: Gephardt Resorting to Politics of the Past
MANCHESTER--Governor Howard Dean, M.D., issued the following statement this afternoon:

"I consider Dick Gephardt -- a man I campaigned for 16 years ago -- a friend of mine. But I am deeply saddened that he has chosen to resort to the politics of the past by engaging in name-calling, guilt by association and scare tactics.

"It is a sad day for Dick Gephardt when he compares any Democratic candidate running for President to Newt Gingrich and his divisive policies. No Democrat in the presidential race bears any resemblance to Newt Gingrich on any major issue. And for Dick Gephardt to suggest otherwise is simply beyond the pale.

"It is the politics of the past, and attacks like these, that have caused so many people to opt out of the political process. My campaign is about bringing those people back in, by offering a positive vision of the future, real solutions to America's problems, and by restoring a politics of meaning and a sense of community in political discourse."

------------------------
Gephardt compared Dean to Gingrich - http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/6756342.htm - when discussing Dean's Medicare work in Vermont. Of course almost everyone in Vermont has Health Care...

a "miserable failure" when he undercut negotiating that was going on in the Senate re: the Iraq resolution. Hey, Dick, you helped contribute to that "miserable failure."

Gephardt didn't just contribute to Bush being a failure, Gephardt
is a failure. Look what happened to the domocratic congress under
his leadership.

The topic is Medicare.

That Dean once agreed with Gingrich on an issue? Should we tally up the times over the years that Gephardt has voted along with Gingrich, or worse yet with W?

It was fair for Gephardt to note Dean's past position as a way of pointing out that Dean's current health care plan is less expansive than Gephardt's. Unfortunately, his comparison of Dean to Gingrich is way over the top. I've lost whatever respect I had for Gephardt.

"To be fair to Gephardt, it should be noted that he never "compares" Dean to Gingrich, but merely states a position on which the two ostensibly agreed. But, either missing or ignoring this nuance are most of the story writers, who includes in his lead the assertion that Gephardt was "likening him to Republican Newt Gingrich." Not hard to see how, with reporting like this, the press contributes to the perceived atmosphere of "attack politics" which it simultaneously criticizes"....from http://www.pornlitics.blogspot.com/

So why don't you read every side of issue and not just the article and the Dean press release before saying such an unfounded thing. I like both of these candidates a lot, but we need to cut at the issue here. What's on the table when making cuts. Dean should just say, "hey that was the mid 90's and I was wrong. As President, I'd never dip into the SS Trust fund or cut Medicare."

Yes, I should read Gephardt's speech to see if the AP misrepresented his comments. Pornlitics says they did, but I'm not going to take their word for it.

<http://www.dickgephardt2004.com/plugin/template/gephardt/*/1958>

Here is the part mentioning Newt:

"The story begins in 1993. As I mentioned earlier, that was the year I led the fight as Democratic Leader to pass the Clinton Economic Plan and balance the budget. It brought back fiscal discipline, asked the wealthy to pay their fair share, and cut wasteful spending - not Social Security and Medicare. Not a single Republican voted for that plan but we passed it by one vote. It went on to create 22 million new jobs and led to the longest period of economic growth in our country's history. In fact, that great economy led to gigantic budget surpluses that allowed us, for the first time in decades, to begin paying down the national debt. The debt was to be erased by 2012 and the saved interest would extend the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund for fifty years.

"But one year later, before the benefits of that economic plan could yet be seen, we lost the Congress in no small part because a lot of Democrats made that courageous vote. That's when the Gingrich Republicans took over and began advocating plans to push seniors out of Medicare and into managed care plans. This has been the Republican position on Medicare since its inception. In 1965, Republicans advocated a privatized Medicare program and voted against the Medicare program that eventually passed that year.

"Thirty years later, in the midst of the so-called Republican Revolution, Howard Dean actually agreed with the Gingrich Republicans. His home state newspaper reported time and again how Howard Dean supported turning Medicare into a managed care program.

"I don't know about the other candidates, but I think making Medicare a wholly managed care program, whether it's run by the government or private companies, is the wrong thing to do and I'd never agree to that as President of the United States.

"But in 1995, the Republicans were looking to do even more. That same year, the Gingrich Republicans confronted President Clinton and the Democrats and demanded a $270 billion dollar cut in Medicare. In fact, Gingrich shut the government down in an attempt to force President Clinton to accept those Medicare cuts which they needed to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Sound familiar? It was in this period when Gingrich said Republicans wouldn't immediately kill Medicare, instead, they'd let it ‘wither on the vine.'

"And it was also during this time that Howard Dean, as Chairman of the National Governor's Association, was supporting Republican efforts to scale back Medicare. Howard Dean told a gathering of reporters that the way to balance the budget was to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, and cut defense, Medicare, and veterans' pensions. Well, I couldn't disagree more with Howard Dean. This is not what we stand for as Democrats.

"In the end, I was proud of that moment in history. 1995 was the time for the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to stand up and be counted. I led House Democrats as we joined with President Clinton and we stopped the Medicare cuts and forced the Republicans to abandon the government shutdown.

"In 1995, we won the fight to protect Social Security and Medicare and I'll never abandon that fight as president.

"Both sides in any battle will speak the gospel of perseverance. It can be, at once, the greatest virtue and the greatest threat. Today, Republicans are still pushing their rejected policies from the past which is why we must be ever-vigilant. Today it's their inadequate prescription drug program that shoves seniors into a privatized Medicare system. Tomorrow it will again be privatizing Social Security.

"It's like the movie Groundhog Day, we keep waking up and reliving the same Republican nightmares: irresponsible tax cuts, huge deficits, a national debt that's growing again, and plans to privatize Social Security and Medicare. We can change that in 2004.

"When I'm president, we'll get this economy moving again the right way with health care for all, a strong aggressive trade policy that creates jobs, and a focus on raising up the middle class. It's what I helped Bill Clinton do in the 1990s. And by beating George Bush, it's what you can help me do in 2004.

"This is an economic plan that can not only re-energize our country it can help preserve Social Security for decades to come. It's a far superior plan to President Bush's dangerous scheme of privatizing Social Security. Like we did in 1993, and again in 1995, we have to do the right thing; we have to be straight with the American people and, as Democrats, we have to stand for something.

"Elections are about differences. As Democrats, we need a nominee who is clearly different from George Bush on protecting our seniors from deep cuts to Medicare, and on privatizing Medicare. These are the issues where we know we can beat this president. I, for one, am not willing to cede the moral high ground to George Bush. We can beat this president on the issues but we have to fight on our issues, and not his.

"I believe deeply in the effectiveness and success of Medicare and Social Security. I believe we can improve these lifelines by raising them up, and not tearing them down. And I believe in the sanctity of a social compact that says we will not balance our budgets by placing our elders in peril.

"We can win this election, but we have to stay true to our shared principles of protecting one another and of protecting our country. One cannot be sacrificed at the expense of the other. This is a critical time in our country's history, a time when choices must be made that will affect the direction of our party for generations to come.

But I still think Gephardt was out of line, even more than before, unless he has evidence that Dean specifically supported the Medicare bill that Gingrich was pushing in Congress.

Dean: "But I am deeply saddened that he has chosen to resort to the politics of the past by engaging in name-calling, guilt by association and scare tactics."

Politics of the past? As in early this year when Dean was bashing every Democrat in Washington?

Sheesh.

are they really Democrats or just DINO's?

If they supported Yucca Mt. are they DINOs?

If they supported Sierra Blanca are they DINOs?

If they scorned Marian Wright Edelman are they DINOs?

If they tended to agree with Bush on TIPS are they DINOs?

If the NRA gives them an A are they DINOs?

If they support the death penalty are they DINOs?

If they won't cut the defense budget are they DINOs?

If they want further deregulation of electricity are they DINOs?

If the CATO Institute is happy to work with them are they DINOs?

"If they supported Yucca Mt. are they DINOs?"

Did he have any say over the site that the federal government selected or over the mandate to secure radioactive waste?

"If they supported Sierra Blanca are they DINOs?"

Did he have any say over the site that the federal government selected or over the mandate to secure radioactive waste?


"If they scorned Marian Wright Edelman are they DINOs?"

Yeah because we know how horrible it is to say that liberals are wrong on any issue... because liberals are infalable, right BLM?


"If they tended to agree with Bush on TIPS are they DINOs?"

Why continue this lie when you know that I have seen the whole quote and that in it Dean was calling bush on TIPS?

MR. RUSSERT: You heard Mr. Armey’s objection to the president’s TIPS Program, where cable installers, utility workers would observe what’s going on and report anything suspicious to the police. Do you support the president?

GOV. DEAN: I tend to support the president, although I have some reservations about this one as well. All I’ve seen is what’s been on television, and I have something in me that is bothered by the notion that Americans are going to be spying on each other. So if the president is simply asking people to be alert, I think that’s fine. If the president really is encouraging Americans to spy on each other, I have a problem with that.

MR. RUSSERT: You did say after the 11th that the United States may be prepared to have to sacrifice some personal liberties and civil liberties in order to fight the war on terrorism.

GOV. DEAN: We already are. I think when I got on the airplane to come down here, it took me about 25 minutes longer than it would have a year ago. And those are the kinds of liberties that we are going to be sacrificing and there may be some other ones.




"If the NRA gives them an A are they DINOs?"

Lots of dems are not anti-gun. Kerry for example, loves using guns to hunt.


"If they support the death penalty are they DINOs?"

Nope not unless they support it in more than the most severe cases.


"If they won't cut the defense budget are they DINOs?"

You mean won't make uninformed claims about %15 cuts to the defense budget without first looking at the spending and what can be safely cut?

BTW what is Kerry's plan for cutting defense spending?


"If they want further deregulation of electricity are they DINOs?"

You mean like net metering?


"If the CATO Institute is happy to work with them are they DINOs?"

Nope, simply capable of bringing both sides of issues together, imagine that.

Just wondering. (It really hurts your credibility)

while at the same time supporting a candidate who is further to the right than those accused? And also has a lengthy record of aligning with the GOP in Vermont?

But I'll answer yours anyway.

The 4 most important votes in Congress in Chimp's Administration, imo, were:

1. IWR
2. PA
3. Homeland Security
4. Tax Cuts

Voting for 3/4 of these makes one Bush-lite. Voting for 4/4 of these makes one Bush-heavy.


Vermont politics are so far to the left of the rest of the country's politics that your comparison lacks validity. If you listen to Tom Hartman, and I know you do, he describes Dean as an honest, socially liberal, fiscally conservative politico. I know he took a shot at him once but so do I once in a while. The show originates from Vermont. I hope you won't mind if I take his word over yours.

I think you could draw a distinciton between the desperation of comparing someone to Newt Gingrich - and Dean's linking of Washington insiders to the support of the President's failed policies.

that Dean did not merely link "Washington insiders to the support of the President's failed policies". He called them "Bush-lite"

...is a colorful and unfortunately accurate description of how too many Dems in Congress followed Bush's lead on foreign policy. Gephardt's comparison of Dean to Gingrich is simply misleading.

is a colorful and unfortunately acurate description of Deans position. Dean's respons is simply hypocritical.

(Isn't it fun to state opinions as if they were facts?)

:hi:

They have stuffy heads. Dean was so on target! It is a sad day when the callous and mean spirited democrats behave like repulicans.

That was Deans point.

mr. smart-ass-one-liner-good-for-nothing-kerry-disruptor?

That summarizes the the content of the issue.

is a sure-fire way of getting publicity and a fading campaign with little coverage has nothing to lose.

"It is a sad day for Dick Gephardt when he compares any Democratic candidate running for President to Newt Gingrich and his divisive policies. No Democrat in the presidential race bears any resemblance to Newt Gingrich on any major issue. And for Dick Gephardt to suggest otherwise is simply beyond the pale.

But it's OK for him to call Democrats "Bush-lite"

Dean calling the other's Bush-lite forced them to start campaigning against Bush instead of against Democratic ideals. Do you honestly think Gephardt would have called Bush a miserable failure if Dean hadn't already proved a candidate could oppose Bush strongly and still get people's support?

This is a good move by Gephardt. It is the only way he is going to get any real press in this current climate. Unfortunately, his name will have to appear next to Dean's name, just further raising Dean's recognition.

Do you honestly think Gephardt would have called Bush a miserable failure if Dean hadn't already proved a candidate could oppose Bush strongly and still get people's support?

Because Daschle called him that months before Gephardt did, and long before Dean started. (See Al Franken's latest book) Your claim that Dean started opposing Bush* is untrue

Dean used that term in January, yet in the Dec. New Yorker, Carville said that the Dem candidate who spoke out most substantively against Bush by that point was Kerry.

Face it, the problem was that the press at the time was not anxious to cover criticisms of Bush, and the only way Dean received so much coverage early this year was with HIS criticisms of the other Dems. THEN the media focused on him so much it seemed that ALL the criticism of Bush, too, was coming from Dean.

Do you believe Hussein was a nuclear threat, blm?

Clinton shared that info with Kerry. Scott Ritter testified in 98 to Kerry that Saddam still had capabilities. They didn't have any real facts that pointed otherwise. They didn't know if in 98 when Clinton bombed whether or not they hit the right targets that wiped out those facilities.

That's why Kerry urged for thorough inspections FIRST before any use of force.

Now....If someone is going to say that liberal Democrats were campaigning against Democratic ideals, I'd like to see links that PROVE it.

What in the Democratic platform were ANY of the Dem candidates campaigning AGAINST? Gun control? That would be Dean. FOR deregulation of electricity? That would be Dean.

Its been noted here on DU......

to describe the other Dem candidates. When Gephardt used Bushlite he spoke of Dems in general. So did Kerry when he used the term Republican lite to describe the style of campaigning that was used in 2002. Dean specifically called the other candidates,"Bushlite".

They voted for the no child left behind act, the 350 billion tax cut, the patriot act, the war... and Gephardt even voted for the defense of marriage act.

He likes tax cuts, regressive tax structures, NAFTA, big business, AIPAC, Gingrich, Cuba embargo, polluters, Wal-Mart, welfare "reform", and he doesn't like liberals like Marion Wright Edelman, medical marijuana, welfare "dependancy", "technicalities" (ie. what the rest of us call "constitutional rights"), social spending, Democrats

the other candidates.

We sure thought they all were....except maybe you and maybe one or two others.

CHEAP shot.

If Dick Gephardt cant win on his own record and merit, then thats his fault and responsibility. When he resigned as Minority Leader, it was essentially because he was receiving such a barrage of criticism for his lack of leadership. I like Gephardt, but I believe he is deluding himself to think that by failing to stand up to the Republicans as House Minority leader, Americans are going to feel confident in his capacity to stand up to the Republicans (and anyone else for that matter) as president? Gephardt criticizes Bush and yet is front and center with him for a photo op supporting the War Resolution.

Gephardt lost my vote and my confidence after one too many cave-ins and I have to say one too many betrayals on very important issues. He is one more representative that I feel has become much too cozy in D.C. and has basically forgotten what its like in the real world.



Perhaps all is fair in love and elections, but I dont think at this point Gephardt should be pulling such a low punch, especially when he knows it isnt true.

It's true that Dean "sided" with Gingrich on this issue, but with good reason. The Gingrich proposal was to have the government fund several alternatives to Medicare, and leaving the choice of programs up to individuals. Gingrich later commented that given the choice, most people would choose the alternatives, and Medicare would be left to "wither on the vine" from lack of subscribers.

Gephardt and others made it sound like Gingrich was going to simply revoke funding for Medicare, and leave Medicare beneficiaries out to dry. This was never the case.

Dean's reforms would have turned Medicare in his state into a full-blown managed health care program, and then used the savings to provide a perscription drug benefit -- not unlike what Congressional Democrats are calling for now.

Gep took Gingrich out of context then, and he's taking him out of context now. Dean didn't call him on it, but Dean's supporters will.

I don't like Newt, but neither do I think we should stoop to Rovesque tactics in attacking him or his programs. We did it in the past and we shouldn't have done it then. We shouldn't repeat the mistake now.

I don't think Dean will defend Newt. Newt can defend Newt. I think Dean will defend his own record on this matter, which reflects that the reforms he proposed for health care were more progressive than what Gep is portraying.

stance - he chose play up the Gingrich connection instead. Something sure to stir up the faithful. But he still didn't respond to the main criticism of why he was backing the Republican plan in 1995.

but you'll never hear the "Straight Talker who is also flexible" admit that

aren't all the candidates DINOs?

Sorry, depressed and tired.

Does Lieberman "campaign to the left"? I don't think so.

Are you saying that Dean is dishonest and campaigning "to the left" when he KNOWS he would govern "to the center"? Is that what a "straight talker" does?

are clamoring to the left to pick up the progressive vote. Lieberman has no great following here so I didn't include him. I beg your pardon.

In my opinion, it breaks down like this.

Kucinich - left-center
Kerry - center-left
Edwards - center
Dean - center-right

Three of them are DLC. That organization has no problem running to the left and governing towads the center. It worked for Clinton.

Kucinich for me is the wildcard. I don't know enough about him but he is definitely trying for the progressive vote and ran Cleveland pretty much down the middle.

I'm not saying anyone is "dishonest". I am saying that they are all political and will say what they have to in order to get the votes they need.

Is Graham "campaigning to the left"? I didn't think so

And the DLC's main point is Dems should both campaign and govern from the center. Those three DLC'ers won't be doing that.

I'm not saying anyone is "dishonest". I am saying that they are all political and will say what they have to in order to get the votes they need.

And that's not dishonest?

you just think he did. His speaches have always emphasised his centerist credentials. Even the ones from earlier in the year.

He's further out of touch with the base of the party than I thought.

The interest appears to center around Dean, Kerry, Clark and Kucinich.

The Democratic base is left to left-center. Are you saying that those three aren't campaigning to the base of the party? that's not really surprising to me. It just means that they're further out of touch than I thought.

Clinton ran left and governed center. He's a DLC success story. Why do you think that the three DLCers would throw that strategy away?

I was trying to keep from saying that they're all dishonest since you chose to limit it to Dean. If that's the game you wish to play then, yes, all politicians are dishonest in order to get votes. That's the nature of the current process. A candidate can't be successful unless he panders to some interest. You appear to be happy with those rules. If they work for you, so be it. I don't want a candidate who feels he owes anyone but the voters for his office.

I expect to get another "ridiculous" from you without anything to back it up. In my eyes, Kerry has already proven that he will vote to the center when he believes it's politically expedient. PATRIOT Act, Homeland Security and the War Resolution come to mind. The others (except Kucinich, thank God) are on record as being in favor of slightly modified forms of these laws. Dean was against gay marriage and would've vetoed the legislation but for political pressure which led to the civil union compromise.

What makes you thing that they wouldn't govern from the center when the chips are down? Or are you saying that those are really policies that liberals should espouse?

Do these guys not even have a clue of how much good they do for our next President, Howard Dean, every time they attack him.

Having establishment politicians like Gephardt and Lieberman who supported the first American military defeat of the 21st Century in Iraq, only galvanizes more support and money for Dean.

I beg all six of you here at the DU who support these two to please call their campaigns and urge them to keep it up for me!

President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution



President George W. Bush along with bipartisan leaders from the House and Senate announced the Joint Resolution to authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces against Iraq. "The statement of support from the Congress will show to friend and enemy alike the resolve of the United States," President Bush said during the announcement in the Rose Garden, Wednesday, October 2, 2002. White House photo by Paul Morse.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-7.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/images/20021002-7_d-iraq10022002-th-1-515h.html