Why I Don't Hate Dean

Note to mods: Please don't can this thread, because it is both sincere and valid. The distinction between hatred and dislike needs to be addressed, and it is in that spirit - not flaming - that I present my case.

I want to make this clear to the Dean faction - I do not hate Dean. There is no powerful emotional force driving me to take him down. I will certainly vote for him, and will try to focus on my hatred of Bush if Dean becomes the nominee. That way, I will be able to muster some amount of enthusiasm without thinking too much about the obvious. Which is:

I do not like Dean. Please do not pretend there is no difference.

There are two reasons I do not like Dean.

1. The months of nastiness, distortion, and hypocrisy. I began by appreciating his policies, which are at least a pale version of Kerry's. But after awhile, the attacks got to me. No that's not quite true. It was the way he went overboard when, after months of focusing on Bush, the other candidates finally began hitting back.

Trippi on Sept. 4 said, "They ignored us for seven months; now they're attacking us."

While the other candidates (all of them) took Dean's hits with class, Dean immediately went off the handle, even as he was inventing new slams for Wes Clark.

The thin-skinned hypocrisy, even more than the Rove-lite mud-slinging was what got to me. On top of that, his reactions to criticism, especially when confronted at "Rock The Vote," demonstrated that he lacks a patient, Presidential temperment. People will notice this, hopefully sooner rather than later. Which brings me to...

2. The fact that Dean makes a very, very, very easy target for the GOP makes me very, very, very anxious. On top of the perception that Dean is an anti-war, civil unions Governor from a quasi-hippie state of 600,000, is the sheer fact that Dean has provided an endless supply of quotes and film footage of him looking like a rabid Chomsky-lover. Here is a small taste of what would be in store:

http://www.gop.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/TLvideo2.htm

It doesn't matter what his actual ideology is, liberal or centrist. What matters is that he appears radical and, frankly, unstable. Even if he is truly a centrist, as I believe, he is an extremely polarizing figure that likes to speaks Bush's language of a black and white world. That truth of the matter is that language inevitably favors Bush, especially in a time of national crisis when people are desperately looking for security.

Beyond that, Dean is clearly out of his water on foreign policy. I know that his supporters will say he was smart enough to oppose the war, but that doesn't make him smart enough generally. His policies are too often reactive to Bush, and the comment about getting a "good staff" (and putting Clinton in charge of the Mid-east) made my heart sink.

If Dean gets in a situation like Bush, with his Defense Dept. and State Dept. going at it, and mounds of intelligence briefings, I simply don't trust his judgement. I honestly wouldn't want to put him under the strain of, for instance, the Cuban missle crisis, considering how he handled Edwards and Sharpton. That sounds silly, but there is a very good chance that there will be something like the Cuban missile crisis between 2005-2009. I want someone I can trust, and Dean simply seems too unstable to be trusted at that level.

And I don't think America will trust him in 2004, either.

--------

You can call me a Dean hater if you want. I don't think it is true. I don't like his personality (that of a thin-skinned bully), I don't think he has a chance against Bush, and I ultimately don't trust him. But I don't think that is hatred, and I leave it to the DU community to judge that for themselves. I'm sure many of the responses will be predictable, but I am trying to be as open and frank as possible.

--------

A side note, I hope people notice that my criticisms do not apply to Gen. Wesley Clark, Sen. Edwards, or Congressman Kucinich - all candidates whom I have deep respect for. I believe that DU would be a heated, but much more civil place if the contest was between these candidates. I truly think that Dean has brought some real bad blood into this contest. I'm sure his supporters will blame Kerry, but I remind you that, as Joe Klein puts it:

"The 1996 Senate campaign between John Kerry and William Weld was the rarest of events in latter-day American politics: a civil, closely contested, intelligent, and wildly entertaining brawl."

A debate between two committed progressives like Kerry and Kucinich would be super intense (and intensely interesting!), but it would also be respectful. Personally, the thought of these two progressive gladiators going at it sounds like a dream - the kind of stuff you'd see between the founding fathers.

To make a slightly ahistorical point - I can't see Jefferson calling Hamilton "Bush-lite."

He's running on the exact same platform Clinton did.

He's Clinton Jr and he will win for it.

Dean is no Clinton Jr.

Also, Dean really bothers me when he says he is from the "Democratic Wing" of the Democratic Party.

NO

That was Paul Wellstone, and Howard Dean is no Paul Wellstone.

I liked Dean until I got to know him. Then I went looking elsewhere.

You shouldn't hate dean. You shouldn't really hate anyone though I'd make exceptions for Coulter, Hannity, Cheny, Rummy, KKKarl, RUSH, O'liely, and generic assorted winnuts/neocons,

Don't hate Shrub because he is challenged. It's not nice to hate people who are challenged.

Re-read the subject line

Dean after Geppy's Gingrich comment was misconstrued by Dean and he totally overreacted, not a quality I'd like to see in a presidential candidate. Great post.

Just Howard "Chance" Dean.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

A Democrat-Republican versus a Federalist...

Kind of like Democrats today against the dreaded federalist society.

Dean does look ridiculous in those clips, but if the Republicans think commercials like that are going to save Bush, they are sadly mistaken. Trippi could come up with clips of Bush that would be funnier!

somehow - do a count over in P&C....

BTW - you are allowed to hate Dean, criticize him and even bash him, but don't expect you'll get away with it unscathed. Not because Deanies are cult members or whatever the meme is this week, but because as much as you "dislike" Dean, many on this forum like Dean.

Good luck to you and whoever you support.

I haven't posted a thread there in a long time. I had to go aways back to find another one, which was the "compilation" thread, which was only to point out the thin-skinned hypocrisy I speak of here.

As far as GD, my pro-Kerry threads die quickly, while my Dean threads tend to hang on. Think there's something to that?

Watch how quickly they all ignore every Democratic hero who has sided with Kerry.

Before, Bush ignoring Gary Hart's warnings on terrorism was unfathomable to many here.

Now, Gary Hart's warning that Dean doesn't have a grasp of foreign policy needed in the job leads to ridiculing Hart.

Before, Joe Wilson going after Bush and Cheney for their bad intel and outing his wife as a CIA agent was heroic.

Now, Joe Wilson saying he agrees with Kerry's intent on the IWR and that he is the best man for the job makes Wilson's judgment untrustworthy.

Before, we all praised Fire Fighters who were amazing on 9-11, stood up against Bush and saved so many homes in California recently.

When Fire Fighters endorsed Kerry and warned that Dean has a bad record with fire fighters and their union in Vermont, their opinions hold no sway.

Just the way it is at DU.

to that.

Kerry supporters would rather bash Dean than promote Kerry. Pretty obvious, no?

Julie

I understand but it is still a bit grating.

Julie

Clark is a class act. Dean is...not.

Because no other candidate attacked Dean back for months while he was attacking them unfairly. They were trying to stay above that low road.

for his followers to take. Young Americans are dead because of the political ambitions and lack of conviction of many of the demo and repub professional politicians.

It is TIME to get on with the Dean/Bush campaign. Kerry/Gep/ & Edwards attempts to paint Dean as anti-middle class, anti-health care for all will not be forgotten.

Dean '04...The Nominee

with an 11 year record of aligning with the GOP in Vermont to prove it.

Vermont. No death penalty, civil unions, health care for almost everyone. Really in line with the right.

And that's why those liberals kept electing him.

He was elected NARROWLY in his last election because of it.

By ROSS SNEYD

Associated Press Writer

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — Howard Dean may be many things, say those who worked with him over nearly a dozen years as Vermont governor, but an elitist liberal is hardly one of them.

He’s actually a lot more moderate — many would say conservative — than the reputation he’s built during his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Many of the people who were his allies and adversaries in Montpelier over his 20-year political career have been quietly bemused by the liberal persona he’s built as he campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire, especially through his outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq.

>>>>>>
Dean kept his distance from his party’s liberals during his governorship.

"He seemed to take glee in attacking us at every opportunity and using us as a way to form alliances with more conservative elements," said former state Sen. Cheryl Rivers, a leader of the state Democrats’ liberal wing and former chairwoman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee.

Dean fashioned himself a position in the political center of Vermont politics even as the state has moved steadily to the left.
>>>>>>

So...while the state's population was growing MORE progressive, Dean was pulling rightward to MAINTAIN that centrism. His passion was FOR the center to remain in place, and FOUGHT the liberals who were pulling for more progressive policies.

That article is a load of poop and you know it!

He’s actually a lot more moderate — many would say conservative — than the reputation he’s built during his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The reputation HE'S built? Bull Hockey! It's the reputation thrust upon him by the media and the DLC. He's never compared his uh, liberalness, with the other candidates. I was NEVER under the impression that he is among the more liberal candidates. NEVER.

But I don't pay attention to NPR, FOX, or anyone else. I decide for myself.

Anyway, saying he wasn't as liberal as other liberals is not saying he was Bush-Lite, that much is for sure.

And that article didn't state ONE thing that could be construed as a load, unless you'd like to dipute it.

And why DID the corporate media call Dean an antiwar liberal when he was NEITHER? To send all the antiwar liberal DOLLARS and support to Dean early to build his momentum?

In SOME ways a libertarian is closer to Bush than a Democrat, in other ways, not so much.

On social issues, libertarians are very far to the left.

And why DID the corporate media call Dean an antiwar liberal when he was NEITHER? To send all the antiwar liberal DOLLARS and support to Dean early to build his momentum?

Because the cororate media NEVER EVER gets it right. I thought we knew that.

How (too) convenient.....

Dean '04...

I will not follow a LIAR and faux populist like so many are willing to do here.

Or have you conveniently forgotten about him in your virulent hatred of Dean?

My distrust of Dean is real and not based on hatred for him. I distrust anyone who governs one way and campaigns completely the opposite of the way he governed.

I also distrust the media's constant focus on Dean from the day he started attacking the other candidates back in January.

You guys are doing a really bad job if that's your intent.

But you are succeeding in one thing. Helping make this primary ALL ABOUT DEAN, which will be the underlying reason for his winning, if he does.

It also provides endless humor for the Dean supporters, especially when your posts include complaints about how Dean gets all the media, as if you aren't subscribing to the EXACT same mentality.

Dean continue to spin his web of lies? If the other candidates woul have stood up to Dean from day one he wmight not be where he is today . I hope Kerry has the guts to stand up and take that phony flim flam man down, using his own lies and words against him.

"pro-Kerry threads die quickly, while my Dean threads tend to hang on"

Unless I am clearly joking. But Kerry supporters have been hearing this crap for months.

But, who's counting?

;)))))

I've got some bookmarked threads and when you look back - wow, there's some nastiness!

There's no way I would have put up with this if I didn't love the man.

.

why everything brought up ISN'T policy related but IS horribly outdated.

He was my first choice before Clark came along. I do find a lot of his supporters to be annoying little groupies who aren't doing their candidate any favors by acting like spoiled brats in the midfdle of a temper tantrum.

That said, I will vote for Dean if he is the Dem nominee.

MzPip
:dem:

(Except on first choice candidate.)

label after that IWR vote last year and Geppy and Lieberman posing with Bush in the Rose Garden.

Dean became the voice of us who opposed the IWR and saw these Dem leaders falling for the most lethal con game in US History. When Dean called Kerry et all "Bush-lite," he was speaking for me.

most democrats aren't obsessed with being right about their objection to the war. Not even a solid majority of dem voters think the war was the wrong decision outright.

And many democrats who are/were against the decision to invade do not believe that that is way more important than the ability to defeat Bush.

Seems like one can always count on any statement on public opinion by you to be certifiably wrong. You know, it's the Ineternet Age -- it's not too dificult to double-check your suppositions before you spout them here as fact.

Among democrats, 64% think war with Iraq was not worth it.

And as for who is most fervently in favor of defeating Bush...

Americans who say the war was worth fighting, call the level of casualties acceptable and think Bush has a clear plan in Iraq support him by more than 3 to 1. Those who think otherwise heavily favor the generic Democrat.

I was an independent until recently, when I registered Dem. It was obvious that the war was based on lies.

I will not put up with such garbage. There are sons and daughters, wives, fathers, and mothers, dying for some geopolitical hard-on dream of some guys in a back room years ago.

against Iraq.

He (Dean) gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

http://fordean.org/aa/issues/press_view.asp?ID=398

way to provide context to illustrate how open minded you are on the issue!

It would really be great if one of the debate questioners asked Dean to explain this statement but of course that won't happen because they want the flim-flam man to win. Not only will Bush win in a landslide and the Repubs gain an even stronger hold in Congress but the Democratic party will be demoralized after being exposed for nominating a lying phony like Dean.

if you would explain the depth of your knowledge of what he was talking about, when he was talking about it, and how it fits into his ongoing and non changing stance.

But don't worry. I think you know better.

You're substituting a report's account for a Dean "statement."

Kerry (and Daschle) was not in the Rose Garden. Kerry aggressively called for Biden-Lugar at the time, and was pissed that Gep pulled out the rug. Gep and Lieb wanted Iraq off the table. Kerry wanted to extend negotiations as long as it took to get it right.

That doesn't sound like Bush lite to me.

"When a questioner said Kerry implied that Gephardt had compromised too easily with the White House, Gephardt replied that the president had made it clear he would not accept a "two-step" process that required him to come back to Congress for authorization of force."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0221-03.htm

I've seen some of the threads you've started.


As for the other stuff, it's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

Your concerns are reasonable, and I can understand where you’re coming from. I’ll touch on your points and try to explain why I have a different perception.

You state: “While the other candidates (all of them) took Dean's hits with class, Dean immediately went off the handle, even as he was inventing new slams for Wes Clark.”

Honestly, I wasn’t really comfortable with negative statements Dean has made about other Democratic candidates. Negative campaigning sucks, from whatever angle you look at it. The difference I see in the jabs being made between candidates boils down to this: Dean’s criticisms of other candidates have, to my knowledge, focused on their voting record. It’s based on fairly straightforward, factual information. It requires no interpretation. Gephardt, Kerry, Lieberman….when all is said and done, they did in fact vote to allow Bush the authority to invade Iraq.

Much of the criticism being aimed at Dean from other candidates, as I see it, focuses on willfully misinterpreting his statements or policies. Kerry, for example, tried painting Dean as being in the pocket of the NRA last week based on his stance on regulating firearms in Vermont. Dean’s stance there is pretty clear, common sense dictates requirements for regulating guns in Vermont aren’t going to be the same in Vermont as they are in New York. This whole confederate flag thing revolves entirely around willfully misinterpreting his intent. It wasn’t about supporting or condoning the confederate flag, it was about reaching out to voters who have been voting Republican for the last several decades AGAINST their self interest.

I’m left asking “is it mudslinging to criticize a person over factual information that isn’t open to interpretation?” If anyone has a clear example of Dean just out and out mudslinging, I would love to see it, honestly. I would appreciate it.

You also said: “The fact that Dean makes a very, very, very easy target for the GOP makes me very, very, very anxious.”

Look at the state of American popular media. Tell me exactly who won’t be an easy target for the GOP? In my mind, it doesn’t matter who gets the nomination, by the time the administration is finished with them, they will be kitten-eating sodomites who only impregnate welfare mothers so they may abort the fetus and dine on the stem cells sucked through its partially born brain.

Whoever gets the nomination, I’ll vote for at the very least. At the moment, Dean is the horse I’m betting on and I think we could do much, much worse.

edited for grammar.

It's respectful and tought-out discussions like this that make it worth coming back to DU.

I have to disagree with you about Dean's attacks. The only voting record I can see is the IWR (other than that, Dean's stated positions mirrored Kerry's record pretty closely). Dean was free to disagree, but not in the nasty name-calling way he had. He also made a point of willfully - and hypocritically distorting the "misled" issue - as I've proved several times over (I can drag it back up if you haven't heard it yet).

Dean also suggested that Kerry was "pro-war." If that is true, then Dean is pro-war, as well, since their positions are virtually identical.

There is nothing factual or straightforward about these claims. He may have respectfully said Kerry was wrong to vote for the IWR, but he took it way, way over the line.

Legitimate: He was terribly wrong to vote for the IWR
Mudslinging: He is a Bush-lite insider cockroach.

On the other side of the coin, Kerry has attacked Dean, not for his statements, but for his record in Vermont. Or, perhaps more accurately, the wide gulf between the two.

The confederate flag issue, like the Palestinian "soldiers" issue, were comments that directly affect the Presidency. A President has 3 jobs, and one of them is acting as Chief Diplomat. Dean demonstrated a considerable lack of diplomacy on both issues. And being more diplomatic than Bush doesn't hold much weight in my book.

The Medicare issue is a good place to see the differences. Dean said no one deserves to be compared to Newt Gingrich. Only no one had - that's Dean's style, not Kerry's. Kerry and Gephardt said that Dean sided with Gingrich in 1995 - which has been since proven.

I think that being a war hero with 18 years on the foreign relations committee - including 15 on the committee against terrorism (8 years as chair, and a book on the subject) - gives Kerry a significant advantage over AWOL boy. In all honesty, Kerry has more problems against Dean than he does Bush. Plus, Kerry is a tremendously centered man, who only gets more collected as things heat up.

I don't expect to change the minds of anybody. I'm just giving the reasons why I oppose Dean's nomination during the primaries, just as I post why I support Kerry.

I have heard alot of talk about Dean-hating lately, which I believe is in part due to the mindset of many Dean supporters with a black and white worldview. You either love Dean or hate him, they believe. My point is that neither fit my position (I'm too "nuanced!").

"Mudslinging: He is a Bush-lite insider cockroach."

But it is a mischaracterization. Dean said we won't beat Bush by being Bush lite. He never has said "he is Bush lite" about any candidate (that I am aware of) If you have a source for that I'd like to see it. Likewise "insider" and "cockroach". They have been generic critiques of those promoting the horrid things coming out of Congress- things we ALL find to be horrid.

I'm surprised to find anyone who doesn't think Congress should be shaken just about now. A "some" would have made that remark clearer but at least he doesn't talk on and on in endless platitudes.

Your perception may vary.

“Legitimate: He was terribly wrong to vote for the IWR
Mudslinging: He is a Bush-lite insider cockroach.”

Ok, a question…has Dean referred to Kerry specifically as an “insider cockroach?” I’m relying on memory here, and may be misremembering, but what I recall is a statement by Dean to the effect that if he achieved the office of the President he expected to see congressmen scurrying like roaches when the light is turned on. Did he refer to Kerry by name as a “cockroach?” If not, do you think it’s so very wrong to imply there is a LOT which needs to change in Washington?

”On the other side of the coin, Kerry has attacked Dean, not for his statements, but for his record in Vermont. Or, perhaps more accurately, the wide gulf between the two.”

Would you mind clarifying? One of the aspects of Dean’s record in Vermont which has been attacked is his laxity in terms of gun control in Vermont. This was used to imply he is in the NRA’s pocket and would be weak on gun control nationwide, which completely and totally ignores everything Dean has said on the subject. The requirements for gun control in Vermont are distinct from those in New York. Attacking there, again, seems to me like willfully misunderstanding what Dean proposes to do. Could you provide a better example of a recent blunder in Dean’s policies, something that reflects really badly upon him? Something within the last 5 years, not a decade ago would be even better.

For the record, I’m not saying I think Kerry would make a bad nominee. I just think Dean is building the momentum to defeat Bush next year, and has the best chance of doing so under the present circumstances. I would vote for Ah-nold over Bush next year if it came to it, my vote is for the person I think who has the best chance of kicking the neo-cons out even if it’s only for 4 years. This country cannot take another 4 years of BushCo.

1) Earlier you said that Dean's criticisms were based on his opponents records with no interpretation. I have to strongly disagree. Dean's argument is basically "A vote for IWR was a vote for war". I seem to remember the IWR having a lot more to it, as well as having some promises from Bush* attached to it. So I would argue that there is a good deal of interpretation in Dean's criticisms of his opponents on the IWR votes, and even more coming from some of his supporters.

2) I think you're dismissing some of the criticism lobbed at Dean as "distortions" a bit too quickly. Certainly, there has been some of that, but some of the criticisms are nothing of sort. For example, at one time, Dean supported a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the Constitution. During this campaign, Dean has said he no longer supports a BBA and explained that the economic situationhas changed. However, if you think about that, it doesn't make sense.

If Dean thinks that an unbalanced budget is good under certain circumstances, then why did he at one time support an amendment that would have prohibited an unbalanced budget NO MATTER WHAT the circumstances?

Another example would be his position on the sanctions on Cuba. He had opposed them, but recently switched to supporting a strengthening of the sanctions. When asked about the change, he responded that his opinion changed in response to Castro's recent crackdown on dissidents. Once again, if you think about it, this doesn't make sense.

Opposition to the sanctions is based on the idea that the sanction don't punish Castro, they punish the Cuban people. If anything, the sanctions help prop up Castro by making it easier for him to make the US a scapegoat, and blame the US for his own failures. Is Dean trying to punish Castro for his repression by making it easier for Castro to use the US as a scapegoat?


3) Re: the "cockroach" remark :

You are right that it was used to describe members of Congress. I would just like to remind you that Kerry, Lieberman, etc are members of Congress. Though the statement wasn't directed at them specifically, it does apply to them, and it's not the kind of talk you'd expect from someone who expects to someday work with those "cockroaches"

4) Re: Dean's gun position

In 1992 Dean answered an NRA questionaire question about a ban on assault weapons (AWB) by ssaying he opposed AWB. During the campaign, Dean has said that he would support renewing the Federal AWB. When asked about the descrepancy, Dean said the NRA question was about a state AWB which he opposed, but he did and does support a Federal one. When it was pointed out that the question the NRA asked specified both a state and Federal ban, Dean repeated that he supported the renewal of the Fed ban and opposed a state one in VT. No further explanation was given.

5) Dean's reactions

Dean has a tendency to deny making a mistake while accusing his critic for acting in bad faith. When Gephardt pointed out how his position was once similar to Newt's, which is true, instead of explaining how and why he changed his position on Medicare since then, he got all huffy and complained that Gephardt was saying he was just like Gingrich. The only problem was that Gephardt didn't say that.

It's not the only time. With the recent flare-up, Dean's critics blamed him for using irresponsible language. Nome of the candidates said he was a racist, or that his statement was racist. Even Sharpton said that. But instead of acknowledging the "clumsy" language, he reacted as if he had been called a racist.

Even Dean himself has admitted he has a tendency to "get in people's face" when they get in his. Is that how you would want our President to act in a crisis?

You raise really good points, thanks you.

“1) Earlier you said that Dean's criticisms were based on his opponents records with no interpretation. I have to strongly disagree. Dean's argument is basically "A vote for IWR was a vote for war". I seem to remember the IWR having a lot more to it, as well as having some promises from Bush* attached to it. So I would argue that there is a good deal of interpretation in Dean's criticisms of his opponents on the IWR votes, and even more coming from some of his supporters.”

The promises from Bush related primarily to WMD, and those promises have turned into very clear lies. Rumsfeld said, on national TV, we KNOW where the WMD are, they’re to the north, east, south and west of Tikrit.” They argued Iraq was getting yellow-cake from Niger. This was so obviously bs to anyone who cared to investigate. Dean spoke against the IW in part because the intelligence was so messed up. It sounds like you’re saying the issue wasn’t very clear, and it’s easy to understand how a person with access to information from the most powerful intelligence agencies on the face of the planet might think there were WMD in Iraq. Even though the CIA flatly stated they didn’t think Iraq had WMD?

”2) I think you're dismissing some of the criticism lobbed at Dean as "distortions" a bit too quickly. Certainly, there has been some of that, but some of the criticisms are nothing of sort. For example, at one time, Dean supported a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the Constitution. During this campaign, Dean has said he no longer supports a BBA and explained that the economic situationhas changed. However, if you think about that, it doesn't make sense. If Dean thinks that an unbalanced budget is good under certain circumstances, then why did he at one time support an amendment that would have prohibited an unbalanced budget NO MATTER WHAT the circumstances?”

No dodging issues, you’re right, as far as I can see, on this point.

”3) Re: the "cockroach" remark :

You are right that it was used to describe members of Congress. I would just like to remind you that Kerry, Lieberman, etc are members of Congress. Though the statement wasn't directed at them specifically, it does apply to them, and it's not the kind of talk you'd expect from someone who expects to someday work with those "cockroaches"”

Yes and no. Personally, I am disgusted with Washington politicians. Wtf is this with Jeb Bush sticking a feeding tube down a vegetable’s throat, against a court order to the contrary? I am truly disgusted with America’s politicians, and I think they need to get the message: shape up or ship out. Politicians should not feel free to run roughshod over their constituents. In my book, every republican in Texas is likely to run like a cockroach on the issue of redistricting. Wrong things have happened in the US, I want a president who calls “bs” when he sees it.

”4) Re: Dean's gun position

In 1992 Dean answered an NRA questionaire question about a ban on assault weapons (AWB) by ssaying he opposed AWB. During the campaign, Dean has said that he would support renewing the Federal AWB. When asked about the descrepancy, Dean said the NRA question was about a state AWB which he opposed, but he did and does support a Federal one. When it was pointed out that the question the NRA asked specified both a state and Federal ban, Dean repeated that he supported the renewal of the Fed ban and opposed a state one in VT. No further explanation was given.”

Clarification should be asked for. I don’t know the answer, but you are right, it is a valid, important question.

”5) Dean's reactions

Dean has a tendency to deny making a mistake while accusing his critic for acting in bad faith. When Gephardt pointed out how his position was once similar to Newt's, which is true, instead of explaining how and why he changed his position on Medicare since then, he got all huffy and complained that Gephardt was saying he was just like Gingrich. The only problem was that Gephardt didn't say that.

It's not the only time. With the recent flare-up, Dean's critics blamed him for using irresponsible language. Nome of the candidates said he was a racist, or that his statement was racist. Even Sharpton said that. But instead of acknowledging the "clumsy" language, he reacted as if he had been called a racist.

Even Dean himself has admitted he has a tendency to "get in people's face" when they get in his. Is that how you would want our President to act in a crisis?”

I see your point and agree with it somewhat. I will offer some counterpoints.

Dean hasn’t declared war on a sovereign nation because that nation offended his “daddy.”

Dean has stated publicly he has a temper.

Dean has halted his temper in public and taken time to calm down and objectively THINK about what was right. And he came out and apologized.

Yeah, I can accept and accolade a man who makes mistakes. I can especially do that with a man who knows when he is reacting from the gut vs. the head, when he recognizes his own weaknesses. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I like a man who sees his own limitations and is willing to admit them in public and try and fix them.

I'll try to do my best (although it's late and I'm fading).

Here's a good take on the roach comment (no direct reference to Kerry):

I realize that Howard Dean is running as an outsider, taking on "Washington politicians," and promising to "shake things up" in DC.

That being said, Dean has also surrounded himself with key Washington insiders such as Joe Trippi and Steve Grossman, and all the while, has been reaching out to Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill for support and endorsements.

It's a fine line to walk. This week, it's a line Dean stumbled over clumsily.

In Iowa on Tuesday, a potential voter asked Dean how he would handle entrenched Beltway bureaucracy. As the New York Times reported, the Iowan "mentioned Republicans and Democrats alike, and Dr. Dean made no distinction."

Dean responded that if he won the presidency, lawmakers in Congress were "going to be scurrying for shelter, just like a giant flashlight on a bunch of cockroaches."

Cockroaches? Running as an outsider is one thing, comparing members of Congress -- including his fellow Democrats -- to cockroaches is something else entirely.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000763.html

A former Dean blogger on the gun control credibility gap:

Dean is trying to play it both ways. He endorses the entire package of gun control legislation on the table right now while claiming he's standing up for the rights of gun owners.

Of course, there are major holes in the new Dean gun position. Such as the fact that he said in a 1992 NRA survey that he opposed the assault weapons ban. And the fact that in his 10 year tenure in office he never once supported a Vermont law to require background checks for guns purchased at gun shows. And the fact that when a gun manufacturer liability law started winding its way through the Vermont legislature two years ago, Dean never took a position on it.

So you can judge Dean by his words or you can look at the facts -- such as the fact that Vermont allows anyone to carry a concealed weapon. Like the fact that Vermont is the only state in the union that does not bar felons from possessing firearms. Or the fact that Vermont has no law banning the straw purchases of weapons -- and does not cooperate in federal programs where local and state governments coordinate their efforts with the feds to stop gun running.

Yes, there are few homicides in Vermont, but how many Vermont bought guns end up sold in New York, Boston or Philadelphia and in the hands of criminals? We'll never know, because Vermont makes no effort to collect such data.

You don't get an A rating from the NRA by supporting the entire gun control agenda on the table in Washington. You get that kind of grade by standing in the way of all gun control.

If Howard Dean wants to support his record and have a real debate on gun control, maybe it's time we had such a debate in the Democratic Party. But Dean isn't being straight with the American people, he's trying to fool all of the people all of the time.

http://www.danconley.com/

It seems to me that either Dean is pandering to his audiences, telling them what they want to hear, or he has undergone a radical transformation. Neither speaks well of him, IMHO.

I agree with you about electability. I want Bush OUT. Obviously, we disagree about who is best for the job, but that is totally cool. If you had presented your case against Kerry in a sincere way, I would respectfully give you my reasons for supporting him. And I am sure you would be cool with me, too.

It makes me so happy when I meet someone that can disgree with decency. Here's to Dean and Kerry. May the best man win!

:toast:

"If you had presented your case against Kerry in a sincere way, I would respectfully give you my reasons for supporting him."

My apologies if we have a miscommunication here, but I was sincere in what I said and I tried to avoid criticizing anyone.

Kerry would be fantastic against Bush, I wasn't saying otherwise. If your man gets the nod, he'll have my full support, and that of my wife and kids. Bush HAS to go.

I was just saying if you were going to argue against Kerry, I would return you the respect and sincerity you have shown here. Wasn't suggesting you already had.

I've had some pretty legendary debates (literally hundreds of posts) with some really cool Dean supporters over the IWR. I don't think we ever saw completely eye to eye, but there was mutual respect underlying our (sometimes fierce) debates. I didn't mind going toe to toe because they were sincere. I sense that same sincerity from you.

I'm glad that you remain positive towards Kerry. I really believe he is a decent, hardworking guy genuinely interested in helping Americans, and I think he has the abilities to do so.

Cockroaches? Running as an outsider is one thing, comparing members of Congress -- including his fellow Democrats -- to cockroaches is something else entirely.

That would be true if he had compared them to cockroaches in any way other than the image of scurrying.

The "I don't hate Dean, I just dislike him" crowd (as it has apparently evolved) has trouble with literary devices, that much is for certain. It's just a shame that discourse on this issue has to happen in such a "lowest common denominator" way, you know?

Although I usually reply verbosely, it's late and I am tired, But that was beautiful! Thanks.

glad you liked. :)

Brilliant.

Julie

Dean '04...

Dean, or maybe his supporters, has gotten me to hate him. Maybe I would qualify it as a strong dislike. But the future of the world is at stake, and I just can't notch it down to a strong dislike just yet. If he gets defeated in the primary maybe I can do that. A ton of democrats feel the way we feel.

Which is why I'm confident that when serious candidates do start dropping out, they'll rally to Dean's opponents and save the party from defeat

We're all pretty fond of your posts. :hurts:

Will be the strongest candidate to face off with Bush*.

If Dean is such a weak candidate, as you suggest, then another candidate will beat him.

If Dean is such a weak candidate, as you suggest, and none of the others can manage to beat him, then they surely aren't up to taking on Bush*.

It always is just that simple.

After all, Dean has been playing nice, by comparison to what Rove / Bush* will throw at the Dem nominee. Kerry, Gep, Edwards, and Lieberman, should just quit the bitching and get on with it. I will be suprised if they have what it takes.

If the elected Dem is unelectable, what does that make the unelected Dems?

That Kerry could match up better against the architect of the unnecessary war in the generals than to a guy who opposed it in the primaries?

Sorry, Rummy. I know it was a little much for one sitting.

Dean's frontrunner status proves exactly his strength as a candidate in the primary race---he'll come out of it being the strongest candidate to beat Bush.

I'm sick to death of rabid ideologues. I'm tired of the anger and the blame game that has swept our nation. I want our next president to be a reasonable, calm and intelligent person who will help this country heal and not continue to polarize it.

along with, what, about 500 anti-Dean posts now.

and YOU compain about Dean going negative? That's all you know.

See the 500 posts bashing Dean in every possible thread may not get enough coverage, so we can just do a little compilation and Voila!! New Dean bashing thread!! And look at the attention it garners! All the other Kerry supporters are sure bets to contribute and some Deanies in defense.

Of course none of this is actually Funkenstein's doing. No, it's the fault of those who have criticized Kerry that drove him to it.

Let's see, need lots of attention, will lie to provide cover for real motives, blame others for behavior....

I suspect Funkenstein and Narcissus enjoy many an hour together gazing into the reflecting pool. ;-) Classic case.

Julie

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's interesting.

I don't have any interest in doing the awesome job of "moderating" on DU! :)

Lol!

:toast:

:toast:

funnily :D

I did the same thing over the IWR, all without a complaint, going over the same arguments over and over.

Would you like to see?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=5695

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=913

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=7751

I have a ton more if you'd like.

I also started this one:

Kerry, Dean and Kucinich Supporters Must Stand Together

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=7282

That was back when the Bush-lite phenomenon was just a few months old.

He doesn't hate him... he just likes to bash more often than people who DO hate him lol.

Lets see the primary complaints are 1)unelectable lolol. What ever that means. But even though he can't win the other candidates don't have what it takes to beat him. Total nonsense lacking any logic as several others have pointed out. And 2) "ooo he said mean things when my cadidate attacked him". Well no shit he did. Thats what you do when attacked in a politcal race. If they didn't want that they shouldn't have started it duh. They are just frustrated mostly I am sure, that they aren't cuttting mustard, but still sounds like the whinings of a 5 yr old.

On Edit: We should also keep in mind that there is a reasonable chance that two of these guys yelling at each other will likely be running together as P/VP when its over. So we shouldn;t take it too seriously.

Like me, most Dean supporters quit paying any mind to you long ago. All bad Dean. Bad, Bad, Dean. Never ends.

You really are way too fixated.

Kettle denies hating Pot. Film at 11.

Really, it's time to move on.;)

Tho that doesn't surprise me.

Shoulda been -- IF you wanted to be honest -- Why I Dislike Dean.

Eloriel

You said everything I have been feeling since
the Rock the Vote debacle.

While I feel very strongly about Kerry, Clark has run a very honorable campaign. It's not easy to keep your nose clean in these things, but he's done a pretty good job of it.

And he looks good in black!

(although I think Outkast is breaking up)

if he had a SHRED of experience and wasn't known to praise Bush and work on Republican campaigns in the past.....oh and if he had just come out at the beginning and said he was a Democrat until waiting till recently to conveniently proclaim his loyalty to our party.

I'm not really a Democrat-- I just play one in this presidential race.

I'm not really a Democrat-- I just play one in this presidential race.

That is really funny :)

haha

Something about Dean just sets them off the edge. I've never felt it that viscerally. That's not true of Bush. I HATE Bush. When the f*cker smirks, I want to bash the TV in.

The only thing that stops me is knowing that he would probably be smirking at me...

but seeing as how Bush and Co. are trying to
turn back Roe v. Wade and all the progress of the
20th Century, I don't want to take chances with the
guy that almost always finishes last head to head vs
Bush in polls (of the main candidates)

and I fear Dean would lead us to a slaughter.

I researched all the candidates (even Wes Clark before he ever entered the race) and I finally decided on the candidate I wanted at the end of July. I picked Howard Dean because he very rarely talked about the other candidates, but attacked Bush at every turn. In fact, I believe that one of the reasons Dean has gotten such a backing is that he typically did not, over the summer, even mention the other candidate's names. His campaign was all about taking back the White House and didn't have to do with stomping on other candidates.

It just surprises me when people say they saw Dean attacking. I weighed all of the candidates equally and I very rarely saw Dean in attack mode without being attacked first. And, of all the speeches I've seen Dean make, I don't remember him focusing on the other candidates-- just Bush.

After planting the seeds of discontent among Dems in the nation's internet blogs and media, he may have adopted a more "Holier than thou" attitude when it comes to attacking. But make no mistake, he blindsided everybody back in early 2003. Howard Dean is the last person you'd think of when you want to name a peaceful campaigner.

BTW, Kerry was critical of Bush since 2000. It's just that nobody listened or cared. Then comes Dean with his Bush-style black and white rhetoric and some handy internet and news help, and he's the first and only anti-Bush politician? Hahahahahahaha.

''A bunch of the people who voted for this war are now saying, `Well, we were misled,''' said Dean. ''The fact is you can't afford to be misled if you are running for president of the United States.''

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/206/oped/Dean_won_t_let_Kerry_off_the_hook+.shtml

I don't recall anyone asking for that one. It doesn't seem like he is referring to Bush, either.

And it is very odd, because less than a month earlier:

Russert: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president.

Russert: What did you think of Senator John Kerry's comments that President Bush misled the country.

Dean: Well, I thought it was Senator Bob Graham that said that and I agree with that. And Bob Graham is in a position to know. He's a senior senator on the Intelligence Committee and...

Russert: No, John Kerry said the president misled us and...

Dean: Well, I wasn't aware that Senator Kerry said it. I knew Senator Graham had said it in Iowa. But I believe that. I think we were misled.

http://www.deanrocks.com/page.cfm?p=1&c=9

If John Kerry's position is put directly to him TWICE, why does he "forget" that he AGREED with that position.

I'll give you a hint: for cheap political gain!

(well, that's not really a hint...)

How do you think Kerry people felt when we watched that happen? How do you think we felt when 200 Dean supporters at DU started parroting the charges?

I could also point out all the times Dean called the other (or real) anti-war candidates irrelevant. Or when he called Clark a Republican. It's not just Kerry.

However, Kerry is the only one meriting a dog trick out of Joe Trippi's pet terrier, Kasey. "Would you rather vote for Kerry or die?" "Good boy!"

Then there was the New Mexico debate, where Dean marched next to a sign that read Kerry=Bush. That was real classy.

And I'm speaking of Funkenstein, not Dean.

Why would somebody post incomplete quotes then provide a broken "link" to their source?

Dr. Funk is fond of posting parts of the Dean/Russert interview, but he edits heavily, without notation, even deleting portions of answers. Not very straight forward. This may be more instructive:

-------------------------------

MR. RUSSERT: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

DR. DEAN: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is. So...

MR. RUSSERT: But the Iraqi people are not better off without Saddam Hussein?

DR. DEAN: I think right now they are. Here's the problem. If we can't get our act together in Iraq, and if we can't build Iraq into a democracy, then the alternative is chaos or a fundamentalist regime. That is certainly not a safer situation for the United States of America. And we don't know for sure if it is or not. Saddam Hussein is a dreadful human being. He's a mass murderer. I think it's terrific that he's gone. But the fact is, that in the long term, we went into Iraq for reasons the president of the United States still has not made clear. And because of that, we really don't know what the outcome is going to be.

MR. RUSSERT: What did you think of Senator John Kerry's comments that President Bush misled the country.

DR. DEAN: Well, I thought it was Senator Bob Graham that said that and I agree with that. And Bob Graham is in a position to know. He's a senior senator on the Intelligence Committee and...

MR. RUSSERT: No, John Kerry said the president misled us and...

DR. DEAN: Well, I wasn't aware that Senator Kerry said it. I knew Senator Graham had said it in Iowa. But I believe that. I think we were misled. Now, the question is did the president do that on purpose? Was he misled by his own intelligence people? Was he misled by the people around us? Or did he, in fact, know what the truth was and tell us something different. I've called for an independent investigation headed by Republicans and Democrats who are well respected in the country to find out what the president did know and when he knew it. We essentially went to war, supported by Senator Kerry, Representative Gephardt, Senator Lieberman and Senator Edwards, based on facts that turned out not to be accurate. I think that's pretty serious and I think the American people are entitled to know why that was.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you something in April you had to say about your competitors. "I think we're going to beat the living daylights out of these other candidates because they need a backbone transplant."

Who?

DR. DEAN: Oh, you know I never would say on this show.

<snip>

DR. DEAN: But the fact is: Wouldn't it be nice to have a president who wasn't on the one hand or on the other hand who said, "Well, I voted for the war, but I only did it to send the thing to the U.N.," when, in fact, the resolution didn't require the president to go to the U.N.? I'm tired of hearing politicians that make--that do those things deliberately. I'm going to say what I think. Sometimes I'm going to be wrong, and when I'm wrong, I'm going to say so.

http://www.bankofknowledge.net/2004/archives/cat_dean_interviews.html

"The 1996 Senate campaign between John Kerry and William Weld was the rarest of events in latter-day American politics: a civil, closely contested, intelligent, and wildly entertaining brawl."

A debate between two committed progressives like Kerry and Kucinich would be super intense (and intensely interesting!), but it would also be respectful. Personally, the thought of these two progressive gladiators going at it sounds like a dream - the kind of stuff you'd see between the founding fathers.

To make a slightly ahistorical point - I can't see Jefferson calling Hamilton "Bush-lite."

This campaign could have been a great opportunity to flesh out serious progressive policy, and discuss things like race, class and progressive taxation in a really informative, interesting way. It hasn't been that at all.

We would have a much less shallow campaign if about four of the candidates would walk away soon.

I certainly hope we're done to three or four by the second round of primaries. However, now, when nobody's really paying attention except the hard core political enthusiasts, it's nice to have a diversity of opinion. It encourages a discussion of a wide range of issues on the left. My favority political debate isn't left vs right (or, progress vs regress). It's "what degree of progress should we have?" It's the debate WITHIN the left that I think is the must fascinating (which is why I'd love it if the Republicans disappeared and we had a Dem vs Green public debate).

What we're getting in this primary seems to be shifting from an interesting debate within the left, to a left vs right debate. The last week has been dominated by, should we care about race? Before that, it was, maybe AA should drop race and switch to class. Before that we've had a debate about whether the tax code should be progressive. It's not exactly RvD, but it's getting a lot closer to that than I thought it would have been 2 years ago.

Critical "bashing", which is what Dr. Funk did, and simply character assassination. Funk never called Dean a drunk, a drug czar, or an infidel. He has outlined his objective reasons for opposing Dean, which is much more than a simple bash job, such as calling Kerry a war criminal or a child abuser.

who have called Kerry a babykiller, spineless, and a war criminal.

I never thought honest critique was bashing, and I asked around for clarity on the definition. The thing is this, when Dean was criticizing the policies of others early on, it was perceived and accepted by those on the defensive as BASHING. So either the definition sticks when it's applied to Dean critics or we have to go back at least four months and admit that Dean was simply CRITICIZING Kerry's IWR vote. It's up to you.

Saying Kerry needed a "backbone transplant" is a bash.

We disagree on the nature of the IWR vote. We both have valid positions in our approach to opposing the war. But I don't like Kerry's vote. I think spineless is going too far, and I'm willing to criticize Dean for saying it.

I really don't see a valid complaint from you, though, considering you are so willing to engage in the same tactic.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091014/

Though Dean tries, he can't stay above the fray...

I'm...sss

I'm...sss

I'm...ssssssf*ck you!!!

a bunch of self-deluding drivel to me. You eloquently glide from one assertion to another, but you're building a house of cards.

For example, you express a distaste for Dean flying "off the handle" and as a reason for your disdain you cite a rather mellow quote from his CAMPAIGN MANAGER. Got any better example of Dean going over the top, or would you just prefer to pretned that he has?

I was set to go through the rest of your post and point out inconsistencies and logic falacies, but there are just too many. Suffice it to say, that in general, you put something forth as if it is truth, with no substantiation other than your very strong feelings, and then use each preceeding "truth" to build up the next opinionated invention.

I applaud you for trying to figure out your dislike of Dean, but the reasons remain unkown to a careful reader, apparently because they are still unkown to you.

Sometimes you cheese me off, but who doesn't? I'm sure I cheese people off at times too.

But I do appreciate your explanation of your position.

I favor Dean, but I see every candidate as a mixed bag, including him. Personally I think if we could clone Kucinich's economic ideas into the persona of a John Kennedy we'd wipe the floor with the otehr side. Instead, we've got to gamble on a bunch of candidates who are a mix of pesonal strengths and weaknesses.

I was hoping to see the nomination process really be a debate about the "soul" of the party rather then a personality clash. Instead, Kucinich is ignored, Sharpron is treated as an amusement and the race is dominated by issues like whether Dean is too thin-skinned and arrogent or not.

But given all that, my gut instinct still leads me to Dean, because he is tough and combative. He is addressing the core concerns of many of us in ways that the "centrist" types don't. I don't see his waffling as anything otehr than typical politics. But Dean also has gone beyond usual politics in anotehr way.

Dean "gets it" about the underlying pool of frustration with the system. With how the real issues get glossed over and ignored. Whether he's exploiting that for political purposes, or is genuine -- or is somewhere in the middle -- I don't care. He is sending the message that many agree with.

I also see the potential for Dean to become one of those people like Clinton or Reagan who become clear leaders. And the clear leaders always have a polarizing effect.

Anyhow, this is rambling. I'll just leave it at saying that again, I am glad you wrote the post to explain your own thoughts and why.

His core Libertarian principles are not going to change.

:kick: