Who believes that Dean is not liberal enough?

Many of us non-Deanies get accused of selling our souls to the DLC, abandoning our party, etc., etc.

But I am are wary of Dean partly because he is not liberal enough, and because I worry that we will not be able to implement sufficiently progressive politics. Dean supporters respond--BUT DEAN IS A CENTRIST--as though that's a response: an affirmation isn't a rebuttal.

I want more liberal stances on International Relations, on Gun Control, on Progressive Taxation, and on the Environment than I think Dean's politics will allow.

I don't want liberal fire per se; I want liberal victory and liberal policies. Does anyone else feel this way?

(edit typo)

people like me get labled extremeists :D but who gives a damn, I am a liberal and I am proud.

he's no where close to being liberal enough for me

Yes Dean is not liberal enough for me.

intentionally offensive?

:shrug:

Love Me, I'm (Not Really) a Liberal

Liberal Democrats Project Their Desires onto Howard Dean

MONTPELIER, VERMONT--Howard Dean, media-anointed Lord of the Left and Prince Protector of Progressivism, is surfing a tsunami of Democratic discontent that could carry him to the White House. But as Vermonters tell anyone who's willing to listen, the former governor they call "Ho-Ho" is at best a leftie-come-lately. "The Howard Dean you are seeing on the national scene is not the Dean that we saw around here for the last decade. He's moved sharply left," says John McClaughry of the Ethan Allen Institute, a rightie think tank, of Dean's campaign rhetoric.

Vermont created proto-gay marriage "civil unions" during Dean's term--but that was the state Supreme Court's doing, not his. Even though Vermont's constitution didn't require him to balance the budget, he was a fierce deficit hawk who vetoed proposed Democratic spending. He sided with ski resort owners over environmentalists. And when big business called, he always picked up the phone. "We would meet privately with him three to four times a year to discuss our issues, and his secretary of commerce would call me once a week just to see how things were going," gushes IBM's John O'Kane.

According to Vermonters, Dean is a shrewd operator who saw millions of anti-Iraq war demonstrators last spring for what they were: untapped Democratic primary voters. A few well-placed verbal broadsides spread his reputation as the only presidential contender willing to go after Bush while other Democrats remained silent or supported his war. His opportunistic Bush-bashing attracted liberal voters tired of being taken for granted and disgusted by do-nothing "Republican Lite" Dems.

Liberals are driving Dean's come-from-nowhere campaign, but they don't share his take on most issues. "If he gets the nomination, he'll run back to the center and be more mainstream," predicts Republican resort owner Bill Stenger. "He was not a left-wing wacko."

CONTINUED...

http://thomasmc.com/0813b.htm

But I still believe he is the best candidate to defeat the Bush Criminal Empire in 2004.

I absolutely respect that. Keeping the eye on the ball...

i'd vote for al sharpton before dean

He's too much of a enigma to really say that he's "overall" too conservative. The only thing that I can recall off the top of my head that he seems to be completely and consistently "Progressive" on is "gay rights."

Two things that are absolute killers for me: his stance on criminal justice (very pro-prosecution, pro-incarceration, pro-prison and anti-public-defender). Claims that defendants "get all the breaks." Tried to cut grants that were to go to mentally ill defendants. Told defense attorneys "My job is to make your jobs tougher." The other issue is his record on the environment.

I would of course, vote for him over Bush. At this point, I hate to say I would seriously look at supporting Lieberman over him if Liberman has better stances on the environment and criminal justice. I support Clark, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards and Kuchinich over him.

Also quite bothersome to me but not COMPLETE dealbreakers are his stances on the death penalty, medical marijuana, the Middle East (AIPAC) and gun control.

The right to keep and bear arms is a civil liberty that's I'm not too keen on giving up, not to mention it's a loser issue for Democrats. Democrats should be protecting the Bill of Rights, not trying to weaken it. The second amendment is part of that.

I am far to the left of Dean on taxes. Hell, Clark is probably to the left to Dean on taxes.

The poor and the middle class have been screwed long enough. Repeal the tax cut on the wealthiest 10%. That will pay down most of the deficit.

(disclosure: I'm a Clarkie). Clark has mentioned progressive taxation a lot. We'll get some details over the next month to see if he plans to make that policy.

;) We don't know Clarks many positions on the issues yet. But he's a pollin at da top in spite?!

And frankly you'll have every right to make fun of me until Clark reveals his details. I've heard him speak about the necessity of progressive taxation--in those terms--many times. Moreover, as a former econ profressor--and one who can talk like a damn egghead economist when he wants to--he surely knows that present low taxation levels aren't sustainable.

I think we'll see something more progressive than Dean soon. But until then I can't really hope to change any minds yet...

That's the problem.

I received a $400 check, but my property taxes increased even more. In addition state tuition went up etc...

Dean want's to return the the Clinton economy, and so do I.

In the post WWII era, taxes on the rich and very rich were quite low under the Clinton era. Lieberman (of all people!) has proposed keeping the tax cuts on middle and lower income people while raising taxes on the very wealthy.

THAT's what I'd like to see, not merely was Clinton was able to eke out.

And as I said as a person whos on the poor end, I never got a tax cut. I got scammed.

Mondale was as 'liberal' as it gets and he admitted he had to increase taxes. I have no problem with that because it saves ME money in the end.

Lieberman's emphasis was on raising taxes on the wealthy. Higher than the status quo ante tax cutes. That's not pandering: that's--a shocker for Lieberman--progressive.

contrary to popular belief ;) If you check his voting record you'd be surprised. However, his position on Iraq is disapointing fer shur...

However, he's pandering to the majority of Americans with that. I don't doubt he means what he says though in all honesty.

Lieberman gets a bad rap. He's actually decent on most non-high-profile issues, strangely enough. But he's not pandering on Iraq: he believes what he says there.

It's a surprise because it's publicaly progressive, while Lieberman tends to be publicly right-wing and privately somewhat more progressive.

As for taxes: it is the most (except maybe for Kucinich?) progressive proposal I've seen

it's consistent with his liberal beliefs.

And Dean worked on deregulationg energy in Vermont.

Dean is center-RIGHT and his CLAIM that he wouldn't have voted for the Iraq Resolution is really ALL he has to appeal to the Progressive and Center-Left Democrats.

The fact that he would celebrate the Anniversary of the Iraq War Resolution by sending out an email is proof of this.

As someone who finds it disgusting to see Junior cynically using 9/11 to push his own agenda, I find it almost equally distasteful that Dean would have marked the Resolution's One Year Mark.

That came out during the last blackout.

I've seen one article that explained that he opted out of dereg as a goal and I know VT has regulated electricity now.

There's a thread that has my links in Politics and Campaigns about this...

It was the Vermont Legislature that stopped the Deregulation.

and that he no longer supports it. Unfortunately, one particular Dean basher likes to mislead DUers into thinking Dean supports de-regulation of utilities. The fact is, however, that he made a mistake quite some time ago, realized and admitted it was a mistake and learned from it. It takes a big person to say that, not to mention an honest and principled one. It's a shame Kerry can't take that approach regarding some of his more recent votes. Ownership of one's errors goes a long way. So, you can take this off your list of why you dislike Dean. It's one thing to disagree with him on something, but you should not be dissing on him based on bogus information.

Was it AFTER he decided to run for President?

Please explain this:

Dean:

"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially
laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets,
markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the
"hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.

And I heard Dean comment on this with my own two ears during an interview regarding the debate over media deregulation because the issue was brought up. I don't take any quotes seriously unless I see the FULL quote, just so you know. I also trust my own eyes and ears over butchered statements.

I pasted your quote in google and discovered that the article you butchered in a cheesy attempt to trash Dean was talking about something Dean said "Several years ago". So, how about you find something recent next time, and include the relevant facts AND a link, thank you very much.

why he changed. When he said one thing yesterday or last month or six months ago or four years ago, but something else today, then we have every reason to suppose he's simply pandering unless he gives an explanation and behaves accordingly.

He doesn't do that.

by anyone other than the ScreamTeam on Fox?

By the mainstream media, by Fox, etc.

Again, some of us are liberals who want liberal politics. It's nice that he admits he isn't a liberal: but that doesn't mean that his politics should be my favorite.

And that's my truck with Dean. Here's a nice essay on the subject:

Is Howard Dean the Crypto-Republican Candidate?

http://www.hermes-press.com/HDean/dean_republican.htm

International Relations-Even handed approach praised by Carter sounds great by me.

Gun Control-Deans position is reasonable IMHO

Progressive Taxation-Dean want's to return to Clintons tax plan and so do I.

Environment-Dean has an excellent enviromental record in Vermont (unless you ask a couple quacks) The documentation is there.

If you haven't read this, please do...

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

International Relations -- First, the basic skill and deep knowledge needed to handle IR; Second, not merely the right instincts, but an articulated devotion to multilateralism and international institutions, as well as a primary emphasis on traditional alliances with democracies. I've seen some of this from Kerry, and a ton from Clark. Dean is against the war--that's good--but I haven't seen nearly enough here.

Gun Control -- This is terrible. An "A" rating from the NRA is bad: we have tens of thousands of murders per year. We need tighter gun control, incrementally implemented.

Progressive Taxation -- If you think that Clinton's taxes were progressive, then that's nuts. We absolutely need higher taxes on the rich--higher than under Clinton--if we are to secure Social Security, pay for Universal Health Care, and keep the budget control. I want more than the status quo ante: we'll hear if Clark's policy matches his rhetoric over the next month. Even Lieberman has a more progressive taxation plan!

Environment--You might be right here.

Second, not merely the right instincts, but an articulated devotion to multilateralism and international institutions, as well as a primary emphasis on traditional alliances with democracies. I've seen some of this from Kerry, and a ton from Clark. Dean is against the war--that's good--but I haven't seen nearly enough here.

Oh, goodness, you've missed it. He is VERY strong on all these things. And has been since before Kerry started talking much (if at all about it) and before ole Wes was on the radar screen. Have you visited his site?? Read or watched his June 23 speeech? Heard him start out his speeches with his grave concern, his sorrow (not his words, but definitely his demeanor) at the destruction to our reputation internationally, the destruction to the UN, the humiliation Bush has imposed on our alllies, etc., etc.

Gun Control -- This is terrible. An "A" rating from the NRA is bad: we have tens of thousands of murders per year. We need tighter gun control, incrementally implemented.

Okay. I actually think his position is splendid. It's what we've got now + closing the gun show loophole + whatever any of the states feel is necessary for them. It's practical, and it takes a very contentious issue off the table. He won't have an A rating going into the election -- that was for governors.

Progressive Taxation -- If you think that Clinton's taxes were progressive, then that's nuts. We absolutely need higher taxes on the rich--higher than under Clinton--if we are to secure Social Security, pay for Universal Health Care, and keep the budget control. I want more than the status quo ante: we'll hear if Clark's policy matches his rhetoric over the next month. Even Lieberman has a more progressive taxation plan!

Look. Here's the deal. First, NO ONE was clamoring for tax cuts when Bush enacted them. Second, what the middle and lower classes got was a few, and very few, crumbs. They will get much, much more in return for healthcare. They can't have that without repealing ALL the tax cuts. But ambitious politicians can promise it nonetheless. Dean won't do that. He's being honest -- and giving a choice.

Third, if you're not familiar with the absolutely devastating and very, very dangerous fiscal situation Bush has gotten us into -- so dire that Krugman has actually voiced concern for our continued EXISTENCE as a nation if it's not corrected!! -- I think you'd agree that ALL the tax cuts nobody wanted or were interested in to begin with need to be repealed.

Finally, Dean IS for progressive taxation. However, we need to stem the hemorraghing (by repealing the tax cuts no one clamored for in the first place), stabilize the patient, and then we can set about building a more progressive tax system, and a simpler one too. Besides, if you believe that just leaving the middle class tax cuts in place will result in a more progressive taxation, you're misinformed.

Eloriel

:yourock:

>>Second, not merely the right instincts, but an articulated devotion >>to multilateralism and international institutions, as well as a >>primary emphasis on traditional alliances with democracies. I've >>seen some of this from Kerry, and a ton from Clark. Dean is against >>the war--that's good--but I haven't seen nearly enough here.

>Oh, goodness, you've missed it. He is VERY strong on all these >things. And has been since before Kerry started talking much (if at >all about it) and before ole Wes was on the radar screen. Have you >visited his site?? Read or watched his June 23 speeech? Heard him >start out his speeches with his grave concern, his sorrow (not his >words, but definitely his demeanor) at the destruction to our >reputation internationally, the destruction to the UN, the >humiliation Bush has imposed on our alllies, etc., etc.

Yes, I watched the Great American Restoration speech live, and it was very good. But it was extremely weak on its foreign policy. It hit the right tone, but said next to nothing on how America should be embedded in the international system. It takes more than good instincts; it takes deep thinking about how to implement progressive politics on foreign policy. There's nothing I've read of Dean that has demonstrated this.

It's horrible. Totally horrible. There is no way we are going to bring down our atrocious murder rate without more than little moves like closing the gun-show loophole.

Gun Control is NOT a state matter, and cannot be so long as we've got those, you know, open borders and stuff.

agree on Gun control.

"I support the Second Amendment. People like firearms, they feel secure with firearms, they should keep their firearms," said Clark, who has been shooting weapons since he was young.
Source: Jim VandeHei, Washington Post, p. A5 Sep 19, 2003

Read your constitution, amendments 9 and 10. Thank you, and have a NICE DAY! :eyes:

What the hell? If you take that interpretation of the Constitution, you'd take such a narrow reading of it that the New Deal and Great Society would be illegal.

This makes no sense.

WERE technically illegal. The Supreme Court got around that part of the Constitution, however, by saying that government had a "compelling interest" in overriding it.

And the ban all guns liberals HURT our party more than any other issue group.

"Gun Control is NOT a state matter, and cannot be so long as we've got those, you know, open borders and stuff."

A state, if they have need to, can make it a state crime to enter the state with an undeclared fire arm.

Why does gun control have to be federal? You go explain to the swing voters in the mid-west in states like CO, AZ, and MO that are won or lost on the gun issue, why they have you have teh same gun laws as New York or Florida.

But tell me something... how much gun control would be enough for you? Do you support a total ban? Do you think that would somehow stop violence and murder?

First of all Dean is obsessed with Balanced Budgets.

And Krugman points out that a deficit COULD be very helpful right now if used to actually STIMULATE SPENDING BY THE MIDDLE CLASS.

How to stimulate the economy through spending.... Give the middle class a TAX CUT.

And the Upper Income Brackets can afford a tax hike.

Further, there needs to some serious money taken out of the Pentagon's budget.

And Dean could never do that- he would be labeled "soft on defense".

First, as you point out, Krugman hasn't called for a total repeal of all Bush*'s tax cuts. Eloriel implies that Krugman agrees and supports Dean's position on this, but that's just untrue.

Eloriel is also mistating the truth when she claims that Dean spoke about the need for multilateralism before Kerry did. The truth is Kerry has been speaking about this for years, a time when Dean thought foreign policy was figuring out whether he should let Wal-Mart open superstores in VT.

And she is flat-out misrepresenting when she claims that keeping the middle-class tax cuts WON'T make the tax code more progressive. She even goes so far to insult those who know better by ridiculing them. By definition, middle-class tax cuts makes the code more progressive. She's blowing wind out of her ass on this one.

..

International Relations -- First, the basic skill and deep knowledge needed to handle IR; Second, not merely the right instincts, but an articulated devotion to multilateralism and international institutions, as well as a primary emphasis on traditional alliances with democracies. I've seen some of this from Kerry, and a ton from Clark. Dean is against the war--that's good--but I haven't seen nearly enough here.

Here's a start...

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_speech_foreign_cfr

Gun Control -- This is terrible. An "A" rating from the NRA is bad: we have tens of thousands of murders per year. We need tighter gun control, incrementally implemented.

Look, I might agree if I thought Gun laws would do any good. Ask yourself what drug laws do, laws against prostitution etc... Guns will be easier to get if they are illegal. I know, drugs are illegal and that didn't stop me and my friends from gaining access to any drug we wanted right in our High School. I find Dean's position reasonable. Did you see MM's Bowling for Columbine, MM pointed out that many nations have many more guns, but far less gun crime. Why? Outlawing Guns will not stop people from getting them. However I'd like to share Deans position with you.

"I believe the federal gun laws we have -- like the Brady Bill -- are important, and I would veto any attempt to repeal or gut them. The Assault Weapons Ban expires next year, and it should be renewed. Although President Bush has claimed he supports renewing it, he is talking out both sides of his mouth; his staff has signaled that he doesn’t want or expect Congress to renew the ban, and that is wrong.

I don’t think we need a lot of new federal laws. But we do need to do a few things at the federal level, like requiring Insta-Check on all retail and gun show sales. We also must do a better job of enforcing the laws on the books. President Bush promised to be tough in enforcing gun laws, but his Administration has prosecuted only about 2% of all gun crimes and they are virtually ignoring 20 of the 22 major federal gun laws on the books. That is an abysmal record, and as President, I’d make tough enforcement a reality, not just political rhetoric."

More here:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_sensiblegunlaws

Progressive Taxation -- If you think that Clinton's taxes were progressive, then that's nuts. We absolutely need higher taxes on the rich--higher than under Clinton--if we are to secure Social Security, pay for Universal Health Care, and keep the budget control. I want more than the status quo ante: we'll hear if Clark's policy matches his rhetoric over the next month. Even Lieberman has a more progressive taxation plan!

Please see more information here. I know I personally preferred the Clinton economy to the Bush economy. I think those that say they will repeal a certain portion of the taxes are pandering. They'll wait untill there elected and do what Dean says he'll do now.

More information on his plan here:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_record_economy

Environment--You might be right here. I am :)

Please look over Deans website, I think you'll be impressed with much.

* In addition HD warns people not to 'fall in love with him' he says being president will mean tough decisions that don't please all of the people all of the time. All the more reason I LOVE HD... ;)

Two things:

(1) Gun laws are absolutely a federal issue. Keeping the status quo ante, which is what Dean proposes, is not enough. We have tens of thousands of murders a year, and there is no way to put a real serious dent in this without federal action.

The analogy with the drug war is off-base. The drug war involves a huge stream of income from a consumable and addictive product. The economics are just totally different, and I think punitive and prohibitve action would be more effective.

While a few nice and neat countries--Switzerland, Canada (? not sure here re Canada?)--have fairly unrestrictive gun laws while maintaining a low murder rate, far better analogies to the US can be seen in industrial, crowded countries like the UK, France, and Germany. These places have ghettos, nastiness, and poverty like here; the huge variable is the lack of easy access to hand guns.

(2) The IR speech.

Good to read. Dean might win, so I am reassured somewhat.

But compare to these two:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16650
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0209.clark.html

What you see in those two is a deep understanding of how international processes work.

I totally disagree. We need social policies that make problem-solving-by-killing unnecessary.

About half of all firearm deaths are suicides. Why do people kill themselves? It's not that they're all nuts, that's simply not credible. So what's the deal?

Many more firearm deaths are related to the drugs war. With no legal avenue for dispute resolution, drug dealers start shooting. If drugs were legal, those deaths would go away. Nobody has a shootout over who's going to own the corner off-licence shop.

Almost all firearm related deaths are related to fsckups in our social policies. THEY are what need to be fixed.

And it is dishonest for a supporter to say that.

His record was moderate.

Some Good.

Some Bad.

Absolutely NOT excellent.

++ The Environment: Dean's Vermont "has one of the most progressive environmental programmes in America" according to the London Times. As former Vermont radio and television talk show host Jeff Kaufman points out, "During his decade in office, Governor Dean helped protect more land from development than all previous governors combined; ... he administered a 'best practices' agriculture plan that preserves land and water quality; he helped form the nation's first statewide energy efficiency utility (preventing more than one million tons of greenhouse gas emissions since 2000); and he championed a commuter rail system to lower traffic congestion and pollution while diminishing urban sprawl (in its last report on sprawl, the Sierra Club ranked Vermont as the second best state in America for land use planning)." Vermont also followed California's lead in establishing regulations on greenhouse gas emissions that go beyond standards set in the Kyoto Protocol. According to the New York Times, Dean "is calling for the auto industry to build cars that get 40 miles per gallon by 2015 and for 20 percent of the nation's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020. ... s president he would close the loophole that exempts sport utility vehicles from gas-mileage standards, ... make the Environmental Protection Agency cabinet level and work to re-establish the Clinton administration rules limiting roads in national forests." Even when Dean was judged less favorably on environmental issues, the executive director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council Elizabeth Courtney recognizes that pressing economic circumstances impacted his decisions ("in the early 90s the rest of the country seemed to be pulling out of the recession and Vermont seemed to be languishing in it") and acknowledges Dean's general qualities as governor: "fresh candor and intelligence. You always know where Howard Dean stands. He is candid and honest in his communications with Vermonters, and he is appreciated for that. He's also very bright, and he has a clear sense of his direction." The San Francisco Chronicle reported that " Pope said that although the Sierra Club had some disagreements with Dean's land-use policies, Dean did 'fabulous things in Vermont.'"

He may have a good environmental record for the London Times, which is the CONSERVATIVE paper out of the non-tabloid dailies (The Daily Telegraph is right-wing wacko, The Guardian is liberal, and the Independent is, erm, "independent").

Getting a "good" rating from the London Times doesn't mean much unless you're a conservative. It's a bit like getting praise for your positions from the WSJ editorial board.

Definately NOT something I'd want to put on my resume if I was appealing to a left-leaning crowd.

That's not just opinions... that quote is a list of facts. Facts about what Dean did and how it ranks with the other 50 states.

Do you deny Dean did those things?

Sure, there is some criticism coming from Vermont "environmentalists", but unless you have a true understanding of both who those people are and what the environmentalist atmosphere is like in Vermont, it doesn't really mean much. First of all, anytime you see something written by or about "Vermont Progressives" you should be a bit suspicious because that is an actual Political Party and they are even further left than the Greens. They also don't support Democrats as a rule. They also are usually voicing the criticism for the purpose of political gain for their party. Okay, once you understand that you have to take into consideration things like the environmental regulations that exist in Vermont. If they aren't the toughest in the country, they've got to be darn close. Vermont's environmental regulations are more stern than Kyoto and just because Dean may have sped the process up for valuable employers to help Vermonters have more employment options, it doesn't mean those businesses don't have the same environmental regulations that every other business has to follow. These are the big complaints most often heard, and when they are put in their true perspective and all the wonderful things Dean did for the environment is added to the picture, it shows that Dean has been damn good on the environment while also understanding the importance of JOBS and progress for Vermont's residents.

I hope this helps.

As one of those idealists (Progressive Dem/Ind/Green), whose slacked off a bit over the years, I have argued against Dean's position on Hydro Quebec, but like you say, we are so far out past what the national norm is for environmentalism, that he comes out as pretty green IMO.

Dean has a very good record with installing energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in Vermont, and he is railing on Bush about his failure in this area. You won't hear many Vermonters complaining about Dean on the environment, and we care dearly about that issue. Come to think of it, most conservative Republicans up here are pretty strong on the environment.:-)

Dean is liberal on social issues, I don't think anyone disputes that. Having passed civil union legislation. Also key is his support of health care in VT and he is making that a major part of his platform.

On guns, he has a great stance and is in good standing with the NRA. Vermont is a hunting state as are many other rural states, so some differences may apply. Dean prefers to have states handle some of the more detail issues.

So, Dean has the important liberal issues well covered and is fiscally responsible. He is not a tax and spend liberal, but is frugal about where the money goes, choosing to spend it wisely. We are entering into a long economic decline in this country and whoever is next in charge will have to deal with enormous economic problems of the like seen only in the Great Depression. I think Bush would be a disaster in the next four years. We need someone who can allocate the scare money, without ballooning the national debt ('cause that will kill us also), create jobs, health care, etc.

Life's a compromise and Dean is the best (electable) candidate in my opinion.

He protected more land in his state than anybody else... and the only criticism of his enviornmental policy comes from folks who wanted NO DEVELOPMENT at all and were pissed that Dean told them how stupid and wrong such a policy was.

Vermont and Leahy and Jeffords have good records. He did have a few accomplishments and supported a few programs but overall he would get a C- on his record on the environment. If he hadn't been Governor of the greenest state around - i have the feeling he would have run totally roughshod over the environmentalists.

http://www.wildmatters.org./stories.php?storyID=85
....Stephanie Kaplan, a leading environmental lawyer and the former executive officer of the Environmental Board, has seen the regulatory process under Dean become so slanted against environmentalists and concerned citizens that she hardly thinks its worth putting up a fight anymore.

“Under Dean the Act 250 process (Vermont’s primary development review law) and the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) have lost their way,” contends Kaplan. “Dean created the myth that environmental laws hurt the economy and set the tone to allow Act 250 and the ANR to simply be permit mills for developers.”

Kaplan points to the “Environmental Board purge” in the mid-90s that allowed Dean to set the pro-development tone. In 1993, the Board issued an Act 250 permit to C&S Grocers in Brattleboro with conditions that restricted the diesel emissions from its heavy truck traffic. After C&S execs cried foul and threatened to move to New Hampshire, Dean broke gubernatorial precedent by publicly criticizing the Environmental Board for issuing what he called a “non-permit.”

You see, we can all 'play'...

" i have the feeling he would have "

I have a feeling that when you have no facts to support bashing what Dean did, you have to resort to what you feel Dean might have done.

You keep reposting and rehashing the same crap from this tiny group of extremist who hate Dean because he supported development, when they were 100% anti-development.


"Under Dean the Act 250 process (Vermont’s primary development review law) and the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) have lost their way,” contends Kaplan. “Dean created the myth that environmental laws hurt the economy and set the tone to allow Act 250 and the ANR to simply be permit mills for developers.” "

Dean did not create the myth that that environmental laws hurt the economy... he pointed out the fact that you can't have an economic recover with ZERO deveopment. Having laws that drive businesses out of the state, hurts the economy. Hence the fact that VT economy boomed thanks to Dean.


"Kaplan points to the “Environmental Board purge” in the mid-90s that allowed Dean to set the pro-development tone."

Again these folks HATE development on any level... ANY development is evil. THey are so far out in left field, they make the greens look like Mr. Burns.



"In 1993, the Board issued an Act 250 permit to C&S Grocers in Brattleboro with conditions that restricted the diesel emissions from its heavy truck traffic."

So restrictive were the permit conditions that the store couldn't ship food in to sell in their store because the shipping truck’s emissions. I guess they expected the tons of produce to be delivered on horseback or by wagon train… although these asses would likely have found the horse crap an unacceptable environmental disaster.

" After C&S execs cried foul and threatened to move to New Hampshire,"

Wait I thought it was a myth that these laws hurt the economy... yet here he admits businesses were threatening to leave.

" Dean broke gubernatorial precedent by publicly criticizing the Environmental Board for issuing what he called a “non-permit.” "


OH GOD say it isn't so, Dean actually criticized an environmental policy that hurt the economy more than it helped the environment.

I want someone willing to stand up to the wacko extremists on the left as well as the right.


Now, do you have a real argument, or are you just going to puke up talking point memes?

I don't like his UHC proposal, and his support for states' rights regarding gun control really bother me.

But it's easy for politicians to pander on Healthcare. It's happened for decades now. Dean's plan can and will pass. It passed in VT, it can pass in Congress.

He has said over and over: Democrats have been promising healthcare since Harry Truman and every time it comes up we argue about how to fix it, and then it gets defeated by Republicans, and Americans go another decade without health insurance. Let's get everybody covered and then we can fix things.

I want it passed NOW. I don't want some pie-in-the-sky, absolutely unpassable, impractical, never-happen plan that makes everyone happy in their little fantasy worlds but will never happen in real life, certainly not straight out of the gate.

Dean is a pragmatist. He can make it happen. And he's not promising anything he can't make happen, unlike others.

Eloriel

He has said over and over: Democrats have been promising healthcare since Harry Truman and every time it comes up we argue about how to fix it, and then it gets defeated by Republicans, and Americans go another decade without health insurance. Let's get everybody covered and then we can fix things.

Since Harry Truman, the Democratic Party has expanded health care for tens of millions of Americans. Once again, Dean tries to gain politically by running against the achievements of the Democratic Party, which is not surprising coming from a man who denigrates Medicare, Social Security, and other New Deal programs.

I just don't think he's man enough.

Ah-nold or GI Clark?

But I like Clark. But I was speaking more to Dean's tendency to whine, and his rich boy upbringing.

For the record, it's not about military service. Paul Wellstone didn't serve and was this country's best senator on either side of the aisle. He was also more liberal than Dean and I loved him for it.

Both are bad republican actors.

I mean, really.

Why vote for Republican Lite when you can vote for a Republican.?

My we dont need that in the White House now do we? ;)

What kind of response is that? He truly, deeply, honestly holds a bad position?

He's not a liberal, but that's OK because he says he's a centrist.

I don't like his positions, but that's OK because he says that I won't like his positions.

I believe that he is genuine in his political views. Fine. The point is that I do not agree with many of those views; I do not believe that they are progressive enough in themselves, and that political pressures will be such that he'll lurch to the center or the center-right.

aside the gun control issue for a second and ask if we think it's OK to have libertarian philosophies take up the space which should be occupied by the Democratic party, you know, the party that thinks it's OK to regulate the sale of things that can cause injury out of proportion to the ease with which they can be used?

are the Democratic party. Like the right to
freedom of speech and association. Anti-gun
positions do not now or in the past define what
it means to be a member of the Democratic party.
This Dean is a "libertarian" crusade is complete
crap. So you don't like Dean BFD. What makes
you think this "libertarian" smear is going to
get traction. I wish Dean and the others would
embrace more "libertarian" ideas like drug
legalization and non-intervention to name two.

Find a new hobby horse to ride.

I guess I just don't get it.




;-)

What does Dean;s policy position on guns do to HURT gun control?

and gun control doesn't mean "anti gun". That's NRA spin. Your header is right out of the NRA strawman playbook.

Throwing the gun control ball into the State's Rights court is avoiding the issue. It's also throwing out one of the primary planks of the Democratic Party. Some think this is a good strategy to pick up
votes among gun owners. I doubt it. I don't think dressing up a pig makes it anything more than a pig. And co-opting a Republican position won't get you many votes from Republicans - though it may lose some Democratic votes.

I live in a state (Colorado) that's been taken over by a bunch of right wing lunatics. I don't want them making my gun laws. I especially don't want the NRA making my gun laws. And the fact that Howard Dean got an "A" rating from the NRA sends up a giant red flag.

liberal enough he's a punk just like the other candidates excluding DK & Sharpton. What Dean does best is represent his own class meaning he's a centrist wishy washy status quo candidate who does'nt think out of the box!.

or do you want a good, honest guy who has shown that not only will he support some pretty liberal issues, but can present them in a way that is more appealing to middle America, resulting in those issues often times actually getting passed? Kucinich is the most liberal of the pack. He also comes off as the most radical and sometimes downright kooky of the pack. Because he comes off that way, even if he did ever manage to win the nomination (which is very unlikely, at best) he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting things passed because he comes off as way too radically left. Politicians like Kucinich best serve voters as lawmakers because they are good about warning Americans when the others start getting sneaky and dishonest, trying to do shifty things. But they just aren't a good fit for president because they only really represent the philosophy of a very small percentage of Americans. The best presidents are the ones who are somewhere in the middle and able to look at the best things the opposite sides of the fence have to offer while making sure to balance things fairly and in the best interest of ALL people. Right now we have a radical in the white house, and it's proven to be a disaster. The same would be true if a radical on the other side took office. It would be a different set of problems, but still bad for the overall good of the country because only a small portion of the people would agree with the philosophy. Both way left liberals and the right wingers are needed in Washington casting votes and representing their constituents. But it has to be the center that represents the majority because the majority of people fall somewhere between the left and right. Dean is a great representative of what is needed in the White House. This isn't meant as a slam on anyone, just a little dose of realism and a reminder of why the most liberal of candidates don't fare well in presidential races.

Dick Gephardt or Joe Lieberman? You know, the centrist wing of the Democratic Party?

Take a long hard look at what Bush has done to our country. We absolutely NEED someone with proven executive experience who has had to clean up big messes before. Dean fits the bill. When he took office after Snelling died he inherited a $65 million + deficit and the state's financial situation was a mess. He quite miraculously managed to turn that (huge by Vermont standards) deficit and turn it into a $100 million surplus. While doing that, he took our lowest NE bond rating to the highest in NE, still managed to lower taxes 3 times, raise the minimum wage twice, create his early childhood program that cut physical abuse and neglect in half, cut sexual abuse by over 70%, made Vermont's kids have one of the highest immunization rates in the country, insured virtually all Vermont's kids, expanded health care coverage to the bulk of the state's adults, gave seniors prescription drug benefits, gave homosexuals the same rights as everyone else, made sure all kids in Vermont gets an equal shot at the best possible public education, did more to let seniors get home care instead of being put in nursing homes if it was workable for them and they wanted it, fought drug companies from being able to bribe their way into getting their more expensive drugs prescribed over cheaper generics...and the list goes on. Dean did this while always balancing the budget, too.

Anyone who takes an honest look at what Bush has done to destroy our country who doesn't see where Howard Dean is best equipped and experienced to take on the task of taking the pooper scooper to follow behind where Bush has gone isn't being honest with themselves, in my opinion. This damn election isn't about who we all agree with more or like more, it's about who can get the job done that needs to be done. Bottom line is this...EVERY election is different, and the country has different issues and needs at each election time. Our job, as voters, is to know enough and have enough wisdom to match up the problems we currently face and match that up with the person best equipped to contend with those problems. That's exactly what I'm doing and it's why Dean is the best one for THIS election.

and while your passion for this candidate is admirable in a time when it's too easy to be politically cynical, it's ultimately just your opinion. I don't see Dean as "best equipped to contend with those problems". I see him as the former Governor of a small and relatively inconsequential state who is lacking in the one area most important to the Presidency: Foreign Affairs.
In the post 9/11 era this is a big deal, and Dean is vulnerable. If it comes down to voting for a centrist, there are several more qualified/more electable candidates, all with better credentials in the area of foreign policy.
The bottom line is - THAT'S what this election is going to be about, and Dean, in my opinion, comes up short.

If he's so damned "kooky" as you say, then why are the things he's supporting the same things that have been in the Democratic Party platform for the last 30 years???

Equal rights, curbing bloated Pentagon waster, Universal Healthcare FOR ALL (not 95% percent), a foreign policy that will use peace first and war as a last resort, and an economic policy that works for EVERYONE, not just the plutocracy who runs the country today.

Yes, that's might "kooky" I'd say. Of course, most folk would consider this COMMON SENSE.

The reason so many folk don't take Kucinich seriously is that he's a "serious" candidate. :eyes:

Extremely massive information dump on Gov. Howard Dean, M.D. (v2.0)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=41214

I am to the left of him on nearly everything, but I'm also a realist and an incrementalist.

I don't think its governorship in vermont makes him look that libera either. Short answer, no I don't think he's liberal enough. But then again, I'm a progressive, and I think Kucinich is the best candidate in the field, which means my ideas are pretty much totally inviable. :)

Dean is not liberal. His "don't get weepy and liberal" comment about disproportionate levels of black incarceration was probably an honest reflection of how he feels. He is pro-gun, not just neutral but NRA level pro-gun. He is liberal on land conservation but not on environmental issues. He is for tort reform. And I won't even go into his stated opinions about medicare and social security.
Dean was a member of the DLC. He is a centrist.
But the problem is that to the general American public he and will always be a liberal because of his angry anti-war stance and because he signed a gay union bill he had no choice but sign after the Vermont Supreme Court ruling on the issue. It may not be fair but that is the way that it is. And when he tries to move back to the center, he will be seen as a Lying Liberal. You can write the ads yourself.
It looks like he is in great shape with activist Democrats, but . . . the problem is that he has made himself a deep hole with the general election electorate and he can't make himself stop digging.

"Dean is not liberal. His "don't get weepy and liberal" comment about disproportionate levels of black incarceration was probably an honest reflection of how he feels."

Yeah that hand wringing doesn;t solve the problems. Liberal lip service sounds nice and some stupid people are happy with someone just mouthing the right words... but Dean wants to make a difference and change things. And he is right that getting all liberal and weepy doesn't solve the problems. Programs like sucess by six, do.


"He is pro-gun, not just neutral but NRA level pro-gun."

Bullshit, he is simply not anti-gun. Some folks on the left define pro-gun as anybody who doesn't want to ban all guns.

Please tell me what gun law Dean wants to repeal?


"He is liberal on land conservation but not on environmental issues."

Yes he is, and his assive record of accomplishments in VT proves that.


"He is for tort reform."

Who isn't for some level of preventing abuse and frivilous lawsuits?


"And I won't even go into his stated opinions about medicare and social security."

Of course not, because that stupid shit attack has been torn apart over and over.


"Dean was a member of the DLC. He is a centrist. "

He's mroe a moderate than centrist.


"But the problem is that to the general American public he and will always be a liberal because of his angry anti-war stance and because he signed a gay union bill he had no choice but sign after the Vermont Supreme Court ruling on the issue."

More bullshit, Dean could have refused to sign it and the repukes would have been happy to alter the state consitution as other states are doing to prevent the law. Dean instad made the fight about the rights, not the words, and got it passed.

I am amazed at the folks who want so much to attack Dean as not being liberal, that they'd totaly dismiss the civil unions bill.

But hey, what else have you got?

I just want someone who belives that the government plays an important role in making sure that there's a level playing, that there's an equality of opportunity, and that the tax code is actually an important part of achieving this end.

With how long Dean fought against medical marijuana and how anal libertarians are about legalizing pot, I find your assertion to be downright ridiculous. Finally, after over a decade, Dean is willing to consider medical marijuana if the FDA tells him it's the right treatment for certain illnesses. ALL governors take issue with federal tinkering with state politics simply because it makes the governors job more of a pain in the patootie.

problems.

Just stop it for crying out loud.

The conference was held as enthusiasm for utility deregulation in Vermont is waning due in part to rate shock and rising prices in California, Maine, and Massachusetts. Even Gov. Howard Dean, once an ardent proponent of electric industry competition, said recently that he was glad the Legislature derailed his administration's drive to deregulate.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/14542.html

And Vermont Gov. Howard Dean thanked lawmakers for blocking his push to deregulate 31/2 years ago.

How long did it take to change Dean's mind?

"About five minutes once I saw what was happening in California," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/02/03/power.woes.02/



And the CATO speech comments was SEVERAL years ago, before the statements I've posted. Give it a rest, already.

In Oct 2000 AFTER the energy companies ripped off San Diego, Dean said about this issue that he was glad that the legislature blocked his own play for deregulation that he ardently supported because it would have been disastrous.

Did his philosophy change dramatically because he was running for president? Maybe his philosophy hasn’t changed. Maybe he thinks that there’s a form of privatization that works.

It’s just not enough to be thankful that the legislature fortuitously saved your viability as a Democratic candidate for me to be convinced that the a candidate feels the way I do about electricity deregulation.

Your selling this line out the back of truck on
the roadside with a big sign and dancing girls.

What makes you think Dean doesn't believe in
progressive income tax?

He has called for the rollback of all the Bush
tax cuts in order to fund medical coverage for
more people.

Is this not proof that this "libertarian" line
is a complete fabrication?

What whould Cato do?

Answer: Not at all what Dean has stated he would.

Conclusion: Dean is not getting his programs from Cato.

I wish he would take up drug legalization and
non-intervention from the "libertarian" party.

They can keep the rest.

I want a pragmatist who looks at the facts instead of what interest groups (left AND right) want him to do.

But every politician in the world says s/he is a pragmatist. Every politician tries to claim s/he is a problem solver, not driven by interest groups.

That's an empty answer--there are left-wing, centrist, and right-wing solutions to almost any given political problem. I have no doubt that Dean would be effective--he's an extremely capable man; my issue is that his "solutions" will be more middle than left.

because that's where most people land politically. The right wants their "solutions", which is only fair to the right. The left wants their "solutions", which are only fair to the left. The vast majority of the people in the country fall in the middle, and like it or not, the middle "solutions" are the fairest to everyone. That's just the way the ball bounces.

That's where this nation has been dragged politically. You would never get a Great Society program or a New Deal initiative passed in this climate; they were radical then, and passing a new such measure would be unthinkable now.

Universal Health Care is popular, but it's not in the political middle. We need a candidate who can drag the center to the left; I do not believe Dean is that candidate.

Is that his CURRENT belief even after all we've been through with Enron, etc.?

I wonder what he'd have to say on privatization?

Posters above say that his position has changed. And Dean never wastes a chance to castigate Enron....

way too often for my comfort. Why do we want to risk it all on an ametuer?

We cain't have that now can we..

And that's what it is - spin. You want to have it both ways. If you agree with Dean, he's the best thing since sliced bread. If you disagree - he has an open mind.

There's an inherent illogic in all of this, don't you think?

Of course if you disagree, that's ok.

I have an open mind, too.

which they have in VT now... where you have power generating stuff like wind or solar, and during the day your house feeds power BACK onto the grid at the same price the electric company sells it to you.

So your bill balences out most the time.

When Dean saw what enron and co did with enegry deregulation, he quickly figured out it was a bad idea and is against it for that reason.

That's all. He's repealing all the tax cuts, then he's for tax reform, but he won't tell us what kind of tax reform. He's for war to disarm Saddam and going to the UN, but he's also against the war and always has been. He boasts about setting aside land in Vermont which makes him an environmentalist, but he allowed the land to be open to logging and snowmobiling. I would guess he's for clean air like any Democrat, but he proposed a coal power plant as an energy solution for Vermont. He was for disposing waste in Yucca Mtn. with no concern for Nevadans, but now he says he cares and would have to reconsider. The list just goes on and on. I have no idea where he really stands on anything so I couldn't possibly say whether his policies would be the kind I would want from a Democratic President. Based on what he actually did in Vermont though, I would tend to say he would not be restoring the values of the Democratic Party I grew up in.

"That's all. He's repealing all the tax cuts, then he's for tax reform, but he won't tell us what kind of tax reform."

Yes he has... many times he has spoken of his plans to put forth a tax system that puts an end to corproate tax loopholes and over seas tax shelters, but to help small businesses, because they don't move their jobs out of the country.

To say Dean has not talked about this is to say you are either ignorant or outright lying. Took me about 10 seconds to find this on his site.


"The pre-certification program is a travesty. It brings the full weight of the IRS to bear on low-income Americans who are doing their best to raise their children in non-traditional situations. It is an unprecedented extension of IRS authority.

If the Internal Revenue Service is serious about minimizing improper claims for deductions or credits, I suggest they begin by considering pre-certification requirements for those who would seek the benefits of tax shelters. A reputable study by Harvard economist Mihir Desai estimated that corporations sheltered $155 billion of profits in tax shelters in 1998 alone. "




"He's for war to disarm Saddam and going to the UN, but he's also against the war and always has been."

More bullshit... Dean has always been against war to disarm Saddam. He said that he'd only support use of force if there was a real threat, and then only through the UN... and not invasion but only to disarm. The only way he said he would support unilateral action without the UN is if there was solid proof of a real threat to the US and the UN refused to act.

Get your BS straight.


"He boasts about setting aside land in Vermont which makes him an environmentalist, but he allowed the land to be open to logging and snowmobiling."

More bullshit, Dean allowed only a small fraction of land to be open to recreational activities like snowmobiling and commercial activities like logging.



"I would guess he's for clean air like any Democrat, but he proposed a coal power plant as an energy solution for Vermont."

More bullshit, Dean suggested looking into a clean coal plant as a replacement for a nuclear plant. While clean coal plants are not ideal, they don't make nuclear waste, and they are a lot cleaner than regular coal burning plants.


"He was for disposing waste in Yucca Mtn. with no concern for Nevadans, but now he says he cares and would have to reconsider."

Dean had no say over site designation, nor the federal mandate to secure waste. The facility in VT simply wasn't up to the job of storing the waste from their plant safely.


"The list just goes on and on."

The list of your BS, yes it does seem to be never ending.

"I have no idea where he really stands on anything so I couldn't possibly say whether his policies would be the kind I would want from a Democratic President. Based on what he actually did in Vermont though, I would tend to say he would not be restoring the values of the Democratic Party I grew up in."

Care to cite anything specific, instead of just lying about things?

The NRA rates him an "A."

For those interested: The NRA gave Kerry an "F."

can claim to have more liberal positions.

For Clark supports to question Dean's liberalism is hilarious since Clark modeled his sketchy positions on Dean's successful formula combined with a DLC operative spun lightweight campaign.

But do you know what would have to happen in order for a more liberal administration to be able to pass it's agenda through the other two branches of gummint and actually create change?

Liberal candidates (few and far between) would have to take TONS of seats in the senate and the house. I just don't think it is going to happen.

I think yes, Dean is a centrist. But he has plans that I think will give everyone access to healthcare NOW. He has plans that will improve schools and provide jobs NOW. When we have those things, I believe we'll have the foundation to make even MORE progressive change.

But we on the left have to prove that our ideas will work, and skeptical people in the middle and on the right will bristle to the thought of a department of peace or a single payer health care plan.

We just don't have the numbers.

liberal on some issues and a centrist on others. But he was wise enough (liberal enough?) to oppose the war on Iraq and the Bush tax cuts which some "more liberal" candidates ended up voting for.

yes, the war. Remember the war? OK, Kerry is great, Edwards is great, Gep is great, etc. etc. Why continue to punish them for the war? I mean, it was only the f'ing war, right? You know, the war that is about to cost us billions and billions of dollars that could be spent elsewhere? Like health care? Well when this war was in it's infancy I knew that what we're seeing now was going to happen. You don't have to believe me but that's the truth. Now if some schmuck like me can see this crap coming, I sure as hell expect guys like Kerry and Lieberman to see it coming. Dean took an unpopular decision and stood by it the whole time. So if liberals are standing by Dean just because of the war...good. He deserves it.

his positions reperesent progress on these liberal issues, not perfection.

Where did you get the idea that in order to have a victory for liberal policy, one must be a liberal extreamist?

This is more of this ignorant notion that 20 years of repuke work to move policy to the right, is going to be undone in one f-ing term by electing some super liberal.

THat's just stupid. Nobody like Kucinich can win in the general, and if he could win, he'd be crippled in terms of pushing the policy.

We need progress... not idealistic failure.

A moderate like Dean can win, and get things done to move our progressive agenda forward. That's what matters.

"I want more liberal stances on International Relations,"

What specificaly about Dean's positions on international relations that you find to be not liberal?


"on Gun Control,"

Same question... what is it about his position that hurts gun control? Dean is not doing anything to undo or get rid of gun control. He simply says that we have enough federal laws and states should be responsable for any more gun control if they want it.


" on Progressive Taxation,"

Again please cite any specific policy where Dean is against progressive taxation.


"and on the Environment than I think Dean's politics will allow."

Dean is easily the man with the strongest enviornmental record running. The fact that a handful of anti-development folks had a fit because Dean decided that having an economic recovery in VT was more important than preventing all development, doesn't make Dean anti-enviornment.

if Dean is a moderate, a centrist, why should I vote for him over other moderates, like Joe Lieberman or Dick Gephardt?

Because he can deliver affordable healthcare to evreyone, and the other two can't. Because he was against the war. Because his philosophy is CURRENTLY changing the face of the party. There are lots of reasons, but I'm hungry.

Because he can deliver affordable healthcare to evreyone,
Sorry but no. 98% is NOT "everyone".

Because he was against the war.
No he wasn't. He was against the way BUSH waged the war, but he was not against the war in priciple. In fact he's still in favor of keeping the US there for the foreseeable future. Hardly against the war, IMHO.

Because his philosophy is CURRENTLY changing the face of the party.
What "philosophy" is that? Grassroots campaignin is not new, Jackson used it quite well in 1988, and came in the top four in Iowa. Economic conservatism and cultural liberalism is nothing new to the Democratic party. Don't you remember the 1990s?

Different face, same losing message we've been using for the last decade.

You're right 98% is not everyone. Who can provide 100% with the support of the doctors, the drug companies, and insurance companies?

No he wasn't. He was against the way BUSH waged the war, but he was not against the war in priciple. In fact he's still in favor of keeping the US there for the foreseeable future. Hardly against the war, IMHO.

He was against the war in Iraq in which we engaged. That's not false. So let's not lie to ourselves, OK? I didn't say he's against war, and neither am I. Wrong thing to do at the wrong time, yes.

And of course he wants to keep troops there. I want to keep troops there. Your suggestion is that we just bail out now? How exactly will that do any good? We can't change the fact that we're there. We have to do what's right. And bailing out is not what's right. I don't care WHAT Kucinich says about it. Yeah, get the UN in there, Dean wants that.

What "philosophy" is that? Grassroots campaignin is not new, Jackson used it quite well in 1988, and came in the top four in Iowa. Economic conservatism and cultural liberalism is nothing new to the Democratic party. Don't you remember the 1990s?

Yeah, I'm aware of all that. I'm not saying it's revolutionary. I'm saying he is the one doing it NOW. The only one.

Different face, same losing message we've been using for the last decade.

Nice sound bite! But now it is up to you to explain what you think the message is, how it is wrong, and what message is right.

Because he can deliver affordable healthcare to evreyone,
Sorry but no. 98% is NOT "everyone".

Only 98% are signed up... doesn't mean the other 2% can't. Some opt to not make use of the program. But the fact is that every kid is covered, every person under 165% of poverty is covered. Those most in need are covered, working families can easily get coverage that's is either free or very affordable.

And can you show me anybody running who has done better?


Because he was against the war.
No he wasn't. He was against the way BUSH waged the war, but he was not against the war in priciple. In fact he's still in favor of keeping the US there for the foreseeable future. Hardly against the war, IMHO.


Sad... Dean was against the war. He has always been against the war because there was no threat to the US. Dean supports containment and inspection to the end of disarming Saddam, not invading the country and taking over. Dean does support us cleaning up the mess we made, but he wants us to bring in the UN.


"Because his philosophy is CURRENTLY changing the face of the party.
What "philosophy" is that? Grassroots campaignin is not new, Jackson used it quite well in 1988, and came in the top four in Iowa. Economic conservatism and cultural liberalism is nothing new to the Democratic party. Don't you remember the 1990s? "

"Different face, same losing message we've been using for the last decade. "

Maybe you slept through the 90's but the economic conservative and social liberal message won.

And what DEan is doing that is so different is the grassroots organization and mobilization. Dean is chaning the face of politics, and that can be seen in how everybody else running is now modeling Dean and even taking his lines in debates.

Dean said in February 2003 that he was in favor of giving Saddam a sixty-day waiting period BEFORE we took any action. After that he wanted to get a UN resolution to support it, but, if we were unable, would support a UNILATERAL invasion of Iraq to get rid of Saddam's WMD.

This is not a "talking point" as you say, it's what really happened.

He also said, at the last debate when quesitoned by Kucinich, that he SUPPORTED the $87B request for Iraq. Dean has said that we're "stuck" in Iraq REPEATEDLY during the campaign, apparently your memory is short on this...:eyes:

Kucinich has CONSISTENTLY been against the war. He even has a plan that would not only get the US out, but would get the UN IN and keep Iraq from becoming yet another colony of BushCo's Big Oil buddies.

Maybe you slept through the 90's but the economic conservative and social liberal message won.

Oh REALLY? Is THAT why the Dems not only lost control of the US House (which they had controlled since 1954), but also control of the US Senate? And is that ALSO why Clinton NEVER won a presidential election with the majority of the popular vote?

With "victories" like that, who needs defeats, huh?

Heck, Dean's mushball message was so "popular" with the voters of Vermont that his re-election percentages DECREASED each time. Not to mention that he was the governor picked by the DNC to lead the fight for more governorships in 2002. Apparently THAT didn't work too well, either.

Dean is chaning the face of politics, and that can be seen in how everybody else running is now modeling Dean and even taking his lines in debates.

Oh quit drinking the Kool-Aide already. The only thing Dean is changing is the face of the Democratic Party: whiter and more yuppified than ever before. And it's quite an insult to the other campaigns to say that somehow they are "modeling" themselves on his campaign, when he's "modeled" his campaign on so many that came before.

Speaking of "taking his lines", you may find this interesting:

"TAKE BACK AMERICA" -- Jerry Brown, 1992.
"TAKE BACK AMERICA" -- Howard Dean, 2004.

Yes, that's quite the "original" message there. :eyes:

than either of those guys.


Also, Lieberman and Gephardt have spent the last 3 years giving W a lewinski on the war, tax cuts, the no child left behind act etc. While Dean has been out there going after Bush and his bad policy.

ALso those guys are DC power elite insiders, and Dean is not.

Those guys are DLC, Dean is not.

Those guys are owned by special interests, Dean is not.

Neither of those guys showed any back bone in attacking Bush, until Dean did it, then they followed Dean.

I never really understood the DLC attacks on Dean. Calling him an ultra liberal and all that. I mean, we've pretty much established here that Dean is not a liberal; he's a centrist.

Why, then, should a liberal vote for Gov. Dean over Kucinich, or John Kerry? Is he more electable? Does, as other posters have suggested, a moderate have a better chance of dealing with Congress? Wouldn't Dean's "outsider, non power elite status" hurt him here? In fact, wouldn't his outsider status hurt him in a general election? Can his grassroots campaign raise the kind of money needed to defeat Bush?

i still feel that he's the best choice out there...he's got MY vote.

Dean is a moderate posing as a liberal. However, I must admit that no candidate would be liberal enough for me unless they were talking about redistributing the wealth downwards. George McGovern ran on this in 1972.

That being said, I will support and work for Dean if he gets the nomination. He is better than many of the Dem possibilities. I like Kucinich but I know he cannot win. (just being a realist for a change)

In 2004, we must oust Bush. In 2008, we can push for a more liberal agenda. Getting Bush out is TOP Priority.

I like Kucinich but I know he cannot win

That's what they said about Wellstone in 1990. I know, I was there, fighting against the DFL establishment FOR Wellstone. He CAN WIN if we drop the whole "electability" argument and vote for a candidate who actually REPRESENTS OUR VIEWS!

Right now, "Unnamed Democrat" is polling better than the Shrub. That means that any one of our nine can beat him. If that's the case, why not support the one who's most in line with our values, who won't sell us out to the right the first chance he gets (a la Clinton)?

WE can do it, if we don't "settle" for something that's not much better than what we have. :(

what is Kucinich going to do to win the nomination? If things go as they are now, he has no chance. I like Him, I;ll vote for him in a heartbeat, but how is he going to win the nomination and the election?

And as a kucinich supporter, will you be the first here to tell me you'll vote for any D to win the nomination?