Republicans afraid of Dean and getting desperate

And for good reason!

on how to "Reclaim The American Dream"!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=544536

"Like Enron, the administration hasn’t simply misled, it’s hidden the truth. When the Treasury Secretary commissioned a report on the long-term liabilities created by Social Security, Medicare, and the tax cuts, the report was suppressed. When its statisticians discovered that 1.3 million more Americans were living in poverty, it tried to find a way to make the problem go away by redefining poverty.When its military leadership warned of the real costs of the war in Iraq, they were muzzled and ignored.

It doesn’t have to be this way. As President, my fundamental and abiding economic pledge is that our federal budget will once again serve the needs of our country, not the ideology and narrow financial interests of a powerful few. My campaign is about empowering people. My economic plan is no different – it is about empowering all Americans to participate in their economy again. It’s about giving ordinary Americans the opportunity to reclaim the american Dream – by putting America back to work, restoring fiscal discipline, addressing the economic stress facing working families, and restoring fairness to economic policy at home and abroad"

Talk talk talk.

Going by his record, his walk won't match his rhetoric.

And that, unfortunately, is when his supporters would be very dissapointed.

Meet Howard Dean

The Man from Vermont is Not Green (He's Not Even a Liberal)

by MICHAEL COLBY
Counterpunch

For Vermonters who have seen Howard Dean up close and personal for the last eleven years as our governor, there's something darkly comical about watching the national media refer to him as the "liberal" in the race for the Democratic nomination for president. With few exceptions in the 11-plus years he held the state's top job, Dean was a conservative Democrat at best. And many in Vermont, particularly environmentalists, see Dean as just another Republican in Democrat's clothing.

As the son of a wealthy Long Island family (his father was a prominent Wall Street insider), Dean's used to having his golden path well greased. After dutifully attending Yale and then medical school, Dean looked for a state to launch both a private medical practice and a political career. He chose Vermont as much for its beauty as its lenient mood toward carpet bagging politicians, thus joining Brooklynite Bernie Sanders as a born again Vermonter.

Dean became Vermont's accidental governor in 1991 after Governor Richard Snelling died of a heart attack while swimming in his pool. Dean, the lieutenant governor at the time, took the state's political reins and immediately followed through with his promise not to offend the Snelling Republicans who occupied the executive branch. And Dean carried on with his right-leaning centrism for the next eleven, long years.

With his sights now set on the White House, the Dean team has been doing its best over the last year to polish up a mediocre gubernatorial record. They're also trying to position Dean as "the liberal" in the Democratic field so as to grab the much-coveted early primary voters.

And nowhere are the tall tales of Dean's liberalism more off the mark than when the Dean team begins to gush about his environmental record.

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/colby02222003.html

He's not as green or liberal as Kerry?

The entire thing is a direct quote from Mr. Gillespie of the RNC, so the usual rules regarding printing entire articles should not apply.

<i>"Today Governor Howard "Fritz" Dean unveiled an old idea. Twenty years ago, a politician promised American families, workers and small businesses a massive tax increase. Today Howard Dean restored that dream as a prescription for economic growth. It was bad policy for America then, and it is bad policy for job creation now."</i>

I kinda figured this would be the deal when Dr. Dean suggested rolling back Bush's ENTIRE tax cut. The question is, will the good doctor be able to articulate that most of us got approximately SQUAT for a tax cut? My guess is...maybe. I don't have to agree with anyone 100%, but I think there should be a relatively shame-free way to ratchet back that particular plank before it becomes a trap door - something along the lines of "I will balance the budget, but nobody who makes less than $100,000 a year will pay a dime to do it."

Of course, the repukes will accuse him of (gasp!) defining 'rich' or some nonsense like that. THEN Doc can come back with the line, "how many of you out there make six figures a year? <blank stares> I thought so."

your on to something.

Isn't that a Tax Raise? Isn't Dean actually asking for a MASSIVE TAX CUT by rescinding bush*s tax RAISE?

It seems to me depending on the scope, a "partial" rollback would still be a tax raise or possibly neutral.

Whether or not the average American can be "sold" on the fact that they got squat from the tax cuts. One would hope the average American was bright enough to look at a pay stub from before tax cut and be capable of comparing it to a current one.

Frightening that chances are this is beyond so many.

Julie

with just this one snip from his econ speech:

Today I plan to talk about the failure of this President’s economic leadership and about my plans for reclaiming the American Dream for our nation’s working families. Our founders built America on the principle that power should rest in the hands of the people. Political power and economic power. Our system of free enterprise has always upheld the notion that the interests of the people should never be subservient to those of the privileged few. That the democratic power of the people should never be subservient to the power of capital.

Today I plan to talk about the failure of this President’s economic leadership and about my plans for reclaiming the American Dream for our nation’s working families. Our founders built America on the principle that power should rest in the hands of the people. Political power and economic power. Our system of free enterprise has always upheld the notion that the interests of the people should never be subservient to those of the privileged few. That the democratic power of the people should never be subservient to the power of capital.

Our nation’s economic strength has rested on a healthy partnership between the public and private sectors and on everyone having the fair chance to compete. But when the balance of power in Washington shifts and private interests trump the common good –American capitalism has been betrayed. Over the last 30 years, we have allowed multinational corporations and other special interests to use our nation’s government to undermine our nation’s promise. They have bought access to power with their campaign contributions and their lobbyists. And they’ve used that access to ensure that the laws – and most importantly the tax code - benefit them.

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

Can you imagine how it must jolt them to see this kind of talk coming from a nat'l candidate. My God, some of the people might actually hear him! :party:

Dean doesn't beat around the Bush, he goes right to the heart of the problem. All he needs to do is keep hammering Bush with this.

"reclaiming the American Dream for our nation’s working families"

Just wait until he starts ripping into Bush about his Enron/Halliburton/big oil connections and starting the Iraq war. He's going to tear Bush a new asshole, and I, personally, can not wait.

GO DEAN!!!! Give em hell... :spank:


:loveya: Edited to add, I voted for Fritz too!

I have came to expect this kind of thing from Dean. He has not let me down, but he has the rethugs jacked up big time. I smell panic in the air. It is great.

if that's the best the Repugs can do.

nominated.

why do you think that is?

WELL HASN'T A SINGLE ONE OF THEM EVER PAID ATTENTION TO THE WAY ELECTIONS ARE RUN AND WON IN AMERICA, OR ANYWHERE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER????

Is this the first election to which they've ever paid attention?

Oh yeah. It is.

quit the whining.

Well, a rhetorical quesiton. It answers itself.

The only thing I envy is the amount of free time the media gives Dean.

Dean worked harder than anybody else running, he traveled more, did so sooner, and worked not only harder but smarter.

And it has paid off in Dean getting more support, more donations, and more coverage.


Edwards is great, but he is not ready for the big chair.

and jumped in. I mean this is a democratic Republic. That whole by the people, for the people, of the people business only works when the people are involved.

I am glad Dean woke them up. We all should be. The more awake, lucid Americans, the better.

Give 'em hell Howard!! Woo-hoo!!!!!!!

Julie

And why is that? Because the established politicos have done such a BANG UP job so far? Because that's the way we've always done it? Or because some don't want any interference with the crippled, dysfunctional, barely democratic machine.

to capital."

Speaks to the "economic royalism" inherent in Republican Economic Policy (i.e. Looting)... very reminiscent of the Democratic attacks upon the Republicans of the 1920's. The current situation with a lot of Democrats compromised to Corporate State Economics is similar as well.

If Dean is not the nominee or VP candidate, what percentage of the new people he has brought to politics via meetups, newly found activism, do you suppose we lose?

And what is with this 'Fritz' appellation?

(1) How many people will bush be able to rally to the Republican side because he's running against an anti-war social liberal out of touch with the values of a lot of moderates?

(2) How many democrats who vote on their perception of the candidate being in touch with their experience of America are not going to get energized to go out and vote for one of two Yale graduates from wealthy families, who bummed around before having their family connections and/or money buy them second and third and fourth chances at reinventing themselves?

(3) How many of those people who are new to the process and don't understand the nunances of political policy might get turned off when they start to realize that their candidate might be, fiscally, closer to Herbert Hoover than FDR at a time when a Great Depression II is a real possibility?

So, what are the value of those voters? I don't know. But if we get a candidate who doesn't turn out to be much of a liberal, who doesn't have a plan which is going create much more than a lot of low paying jobs, an overburdend middle class, no economic growth, and a balanced budget, we could lose all those people forever.

It's better to get the right candidate for the moment in American history.

Your assessment of Dean and his supporters is so out of touch it borders on the delusional. I'm actually embarrassed for you.

Eloriel

issues and questions.

I'm not saying I'm right. But I definitely think this stuff is worth discussing. And I should note that there's nothing new in my post that hasn't been discussed elsewhere at DU and among PROFESSIONALS and the candidtates themselves without it being characterized as delusional.

Also, you're "embarassed for me"? What is that supposed to make me feel? That's just silly that you'd even say that.

Any reasonable reply to your "embarrassed?" question would
be deleted as a personal attac because we'd have to write
some ugly truths about your apparent "knowledge" about the
subject you're expounding upon.

Atlant

> (1) How many people will bush be able to rally to the Republican side
> because he's running against an anti-war social liberal out of touch
> with the values of a lot of moderates?

The answer in New Hampshire appears to be: zero. Here, we have a
significant number of "voted for Bush but are now disgusted with
how he lied to us!" Republicans and undeclareds volunteering for
the Dean campaign. And I've known some of these folks for a long
time and have gotten to know others quite well; if they're faking
it, they're managing to sound a lot more sincere than a lot of
our "friends" who inhabit DU.


> (2) How many democrats who vote on their perception of the
> candidate being in touch with their experience of America are not
> going to get energized to go out and vote for one of two Yale
> graduates from wealthy families, who bummed around before having
> their family connections and/or money buy them second and third and
> fourth chances at reinventing themselves?

Spurious question. Everybody who might get nominated is a graduate
of those same sorts of schools. And what does "who bummed around
before having their family connections and/or money buy them second
and third and fourth chances at reinventing themselves?" have to do
with Howard Dean, M.D., anyway? One doesn't earn an MD by "bumming
around on the family money".


> (3) How many of those people who are new to the process and don't
> understand the nunances of political policy might get turned off
> when they start to realize that their candidate might be, fiscally,
> closer to Herbert Hoover than FDR at a time when a Great Depression
> II is a real possibility?

Again, exactly who are you speaking of? If you're trying to fit those
words into Dr. Dean's programs, you are sadly misinformed. Or maybe
you were just hoping none of us actually understand Dean's proposed
programs.

Atlant

> (1) How many people will bush be able to rally to the Republican side
> because he's running against an anti-war social liberal out of touch
> with the values of a lot of moderates?

The answer in New Hampshire appears to be: zero. Here, we have a
significant number of "voted for Bush but are now disgusted with
how he lied to us!" Republicans and undeclareds volunteering for
the Dean campaign. And I've known some of these folks for a long
time and have gotten to know others quite well; if they're faking
it, they're managing to sound a lot more sincere than a lot of
our "friends" who inhabit DU.


I think it will be important to consider this number when (if) Bush starts running agains Dean. There are Repulbican defections in NE now, sure. Olympia Snowe-style NE Republicans will defect. However, I think that once Bush starts running against the nominee, there is a possibility that Bush will be able to turn Deans attack-style campaigning against him. Remember how Gore did that thing where he walked up to Bush during the debate and Bush have him a what-the-fuck? look. That was probably good for about a 200,000 vote swing in Bush's favor. Bush has a knakc for turning attacks against him to his advantage. It may not be enought to win it for Bush, but it definitely makes narrows the potential advantage. I think that Bush will get a lot of traction with that kind of thing in a lot of states, if not NH.

> (2) How many democrats who vote on their perception of the
> candidate being in touch with their experience of America are not
> going to get energized to go out and vote for one of two Yale
> graduates from wealthy families, who bummed around before having
> their family connections and/or money buy them second and third and
> fourth chances at reinventing themselves?

Spurious question. Everybody who might get nominated is a graduate
of those same sorts of schools. And what does "who bummed around
before having their family connections and/or money buy them second
and third and fourth chances at reinventing themselves?" have to do
with Howard Dean, M.D., anyway? One doesn't earn an MD by "bumming
around on the family money".

Spurious? Kevin Phillips thought this was an important enough issue that he writes about it in the introduction to Wealth & Democracy. He chides the Democrats for running Harvard and Princeton graduates, and sons of bank presidents and senators. If you want to dismiss this just because there are two other Democrats with Yale degrees, you're silly. At least Liebermann was the son of immigrants, and at least Kerry fought as a soldier in Vietnam (and I'm not saying that Kerry wouldn't have the problem too). I can't think of a bigger social leveler other than the army, which isn't far behind poverty.

I didn't say that Dean earned his MD buy bumming around. I'm saying he earned it after bumming around, and it was the third time he reinvented himself -- and we wasn't done. Since them he reinvented himself as a politician, and in 2000 he reinvented himself as a Democrat.

> (3) How many of those people who are new to the process and don't
> understand the nunances of political policy might get turned off
> when they start to realize that their candidate might be, fiscally,
> closer to Herbert Hoover than FDR at a time when a Great Depression
> II is a real possibility?

Again, exactly who are you speaking of? If you're trying to fit those
words into Dr. Dean's programs, you are sadly misinformed. Or maybe
you were just hoping none of us actually understand Dean's proposed
programs.


I'm speaking of the disappointment people will feel when the learn the difference between fiscal conservativism and fiscal liberalism when it's too late.

Right?

"And what is with this 'Fritz' appellation?"

Mondale told the truth about taxes & lost to Raygun, who ran us into huge deficits with tax cuts for the rich.

i.e. Bush's close business connections, and his reasons for starting a FUCKING WAR, among other things.

did anybody but die-hard Dean fans see or hear this speech?

Uh .... no.

Most Americans have barely heard of Dean. If they watched the last debate, they saw a guy who was barely allowed to speak. They don't understand whatsoever why he's the front runner.

Because (funny how this comes round) they've never heard him speak.

The media, I think, are already shutting Dean down. Have we seen him in the news at all lately? No. Was he allowed to talk in the last "debate?" No.

for the umpteenth time.

But if we just sit around and nay-say like you would have us do...well then, yeah, we're fucked. Think about that.

...three times as long as Kucinch, and more than the bottom three (Kucinich, Edwards, CMB) COMBINED!

all I saw was Gephardt and Lieberman blabbing away for what seemed like most of the debate.

Which is wrong. Yes I know some of that was rebuttal but christ it is unfair.

During that debate, Woodruff gave Dean (and Kerry, as well) opportunities to "rebut" comments that weren't even about them.

For example, she asked Edwards why his background had any bearing on his fitness to be president. He gave - as he usually does - a clear and articulate answer that did not in any way call into question his opponents fitness. Nevertheless, Woodruff asked Dean and Kerry to respond.

of them, by a fairly wide margin, as well. Something like Dean 15 minutes, Kerry 11 minutes, Clark 10 minutes.

during the 2004 campaign.

Thats why Bush is busting his ballz to place Kerry and Geptdhart in
the race so that Iraq won't be an issue.

What a bunch of putzs!!!

when Bush crushes him in every poll, and the electoral logic favors Bush against Dean more than any other major candidate?

:shrug:

Clark is the only one to consistently fall within Bush's MOE, while Dean is generally outside (sometimes well outside) the MOE.

I think Kerry might've fallen within the MOE once, and Gephardt once. But Clark's done it several times. The poll readings on these are quite consistent, actually.

And of course, Dean's chances in the South are much worse than Clark's.

DTH

http://pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

There all pretty close here. In addition, you'll note any dem beats Bush in the latest polls.

GO DEAN!!!

Out of curiosity, do you even bother looking up facts to support what you say, or do you decide to simply throw crap out there and hope it sticks? This isn't just wrong, by the way, it is grossly wrong.

If the election for president were held today and the candidates were George W. Bush for the Republicans and for the Democrats, for which candidate would you vote: Bush or ?"

GeorgeW. Bush %48
WesleyClark %33
Neither(vol.) %9
NotSure %10

George W. Bush %50
Howard Dean %32
Neither %10
Not Sure %8

Polling report has the following:

Bush 47% Clark 43 %

Bush 49% Dean 40 % (Newsweek)


Your poll is the older, and the only one that shows Dean even close, but you chose to cite it and exclude all other polls, all of which show Dean last or next to last in a head-to-head matchup against Bush, and to hide your information, you didn't even provide a link or source material. Seriously, did you think you'd get away with that trick? Dean's supporters have no shame, no sense of honor -- nothing. You people behave exactly like the Rushbots and the Bushbots. It's revolting to me to have to be on the same side.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

And people will be paying MORE ATTENTION to the election in the months to come.

Capiche?

No, I didn't think so.

Framing the debate is pretty standard stuff, and the Republicans want the tax-hiker box to stick, particularly on Dean.

but they are indeed getting depserate. Note the recent article I've read here (sorry, don't have link) where R legislators are getting worried about Jr's chances.

Then there's the article in my local paper that ran recently (I'm in northern Mich) where our R AG (Cox) was rallying the R troops by using Dean's name as a boogey-man to get the to knock on one-more door, contribute one more dollar, do whatever it takes to stop Mich's 17 electoral votes from going to Dean. It came off as kind of panicky.

Julie

What a moron, he can't even get his slams correct.

I don't know who the hell he was talking about, but in any case, he's lying. Eliminating tax cuts is not the same as raising taxes, and he damned well knows it.

Does he perchance look like this?

to bolster the totally ridiculous idea that the GOP is afraid of Dean.

The GOP is afraid of everyone. The GOP is built on fear.

or any Democratic candidate since Bush is beating all of them in the latest polls without even spending any of his warchest while in the middle of negative media attention because of Iraq and the Economy. Lets be real here.

of time CNN and FOX have givent the candidates, and look at the way they frame the issues by virtue of the quesions and who get to rebut what.