Myths About Howard Dean

I thought I'd share with my fellow DUers what I think are myths about Governor Howard Dean, M.D., the Democratic candidate for President of the United States. Here are the ones I seem to run across most often:

1. Dean is "anti-war." False. Dean was consistently, clearly, and contemporaneously opposed to President Bush's largely unilateral and pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, and he is the only leading Democratic candidate in that category. (Braun, Kucinich, and Sharpton also had the same position.) But he is not "anti-war." He supported both the first Gulf War and the Afghanistan campaign, for example. Dean's foreign policy positions are moderate. You can read more about Dean's foreign policy approach in this Washington Post article.

Dean was opposed to that war because it would harm U.S. national security and cost lives and treasure.

2. Dean is "unelectable." False. There are no polling data to support this assertion. In "trial heat" matchups against President Bush, all Democrats are statistically equivalent to one another in terms of competitiveness. This argument is commonly made by losing candidates for the nomination, both now and in past campaigns.

Wesley Clark happened to poll the weakest against President Bush -- and outside the margin of error -- in a recent Marist College national poll, for example. In contrast, when WMUR polled New Hampshire voters, they found that they rate Dean as the most likely to beat President Bush in November, 2004.

There's plenty of expert opinion that candidates who cannot raise enough money to compete with President Bush during the critical March through July time period will indeed be unelectable. Dean opted out of the federal matching funds system, and he is uniquely able to respond to any advertising attacks Bush may make. Bob Dole, for example, says that much of the reason he lost against Clinton in 1996 was because he had no money available to respond to Clinton's advertising campaign before the Republican Convention.

In short, there just aren't any data to support this hypothesis, and there might even be data to the contrary.

3. Dean is anti-free trade. False. Dean supports free trade agreements, but he believes there ought to be improvements to them in areas such as environmental protection, union organizing rights, and child labor prevention.

I personally believe progressives ought to open their history books to the chapter on 1930, when Herbert Hoover and the Republicans passed the Smoot-Hawley anti-free trade tariffs that drove the United States deeper into the Great Depression. Free trade, with a few safeguards, is the progressive policy.

4. Dean is "hot tempered." False. Dean is passionate in his approach to politics, but he does not lose his temper, and he respects others' opinions. There have been no instances in numerous televised Democratic debates when Dean has lost his temper. "Where's the beef?"

5. Dean is "angry," and only "hope" will win. False -- and it's a false dichotomy anyway. Of course voters who are angry help change their elected officials. Ask Newt Gingrich (and Bill Clinton) about 1994, for example. Dean's entire platform is built on positive change, however. "Throw the bums out," yes, but there are plenty of Dean-delivered reasons to do so. (Note that this argument is again made mostly by Democratic candidates who largely haven't been able to energize voters.)

6. Since Dean opted out of the federal matching funds system, he's against campaign finance reform. False again. Dean is one of the candidates who signed the Democracy 21 pledge to work to reform the campaign finance system once in office. Dean opted out to be in a position to effectively compete against President Bush. Bush was the first candidate to opt out in the 2004 election cycle, not Dean.

Moreover, Dean's average contribution (at last report) was $77, and his campaign has a policy against accepting PAC contributions. Dean practices what he preaches even while fighting against a Republican opponent who has thousands of "fat cat" corporate contributors. On the Democratic side, Kerry and Edwards, among others, have three times as many $2,000 contributors as Dean. John Kerry opted out of the system not because of strength in competing against George Bush but because he wanted the option to bypass state spending limits, particularly in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

7. Dean's supporters are dominated by white, fairly wealthy, liberal, Internet-connected computer geeks (or some other narrow demographic group). Dean cannot attract another demographic groups. False. Polling data show that Dean has the demographically broadest support among all the Democratic candidates. We know this fact by looking at Zogby's New Hampshire demographic data, for example. Or by looking at national polls. Dean has more support in the South, for example, than any other Democratic candidate according to one recent poll. There was another recent poll that showed Dean's support among African Americans second only to Reverend Al Sharpton's. Moreover, Dean recently received enthusiastic and locally-originated endorsements from SEIU, AFSCME, IUPAT, and both the California and Vermont Teachers Associations. SEIU is perhaps the most ethnically diverse union in the country -- at least among large unions -- and the other unions aren't far behind.

Dean's support also crosses party lines. There's considerable polling evidence that Dean is attracting independents and even some Republicans into the Democratic Party tent.

8. The Clintons hate Dean. False. The same press that keeps repeating falsehoods about how Senator Hillary Clinton is actually running for President continues to print these stories, to manufacture conflict where none exists. Plenty of the Clintons' friends, supporters, and colleagues favor Dean for the Democratic nomination. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves have had nothing but kind words to say about Howard Dean. Bill Clinton's remarks at Senator Tom Harkin's Iowa Steak Fry and Hillary Clinton's introduction at the Iowa Jefferson Jackson Dinner were both praiseful, as examples.

9. Dean supporters don't know their chosen candidate's stands on the issues. False. Dean supporters are well-informed and, while many may or may not disagree with Dean on one or more particular issues, they absolutely do know his positions. There's also considerable recent polling data to suggest that Dean supporters are "firmest" in their support -- they say they're the least likely to change their minds compared to supporters of other Democratic candidates. These data may reveal why opponents who have "gone negative" against Dean have not prospered.

10. Dean is McGovern. False. Let's start with the obvious differences: McGovern ran in 1972, and Dean didn't. McGovern was a Senator; Dean was a Governor.

Slate has a great article describing all the silly comparisons. (My personal favorite is the comparison with Reagan. I do see lots of parallels there, with Dean as the "Democratic Reagan." That makes McGovern the Democratic Goldwater, by the way.) But, first and foremost, Dean is Dean. Comparisons with past candidates really don't go too far.

Anybody else got some favorite Dean myths they'd like to share?

Newt Gingrich didn't run on an anti-Clinton platform. He rean on the contract on america. His motivation was hatred for Clinton. However, he cloaked that hatred in a platfor that was driven by the insipid principles in that stupid contract.

People fell for it.

In any event, Gingrich was running a hyper "pro" campaign, rather than an "anti" campaign. And, what was in that contract was not anger. It was principle. It was reactionary. But it was reactionary principle.

That's what it sounds like to me.

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

Do you suggest Dean should do something that the people will "fall for?"

I prefer straightforward honesty, thank you...

Which the people are attracted to...

You think that meme is being spread HONESTLY by the Dean camp?

Kerry? The ONE lawmaker who has uncovered MORE government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history? More than ALL of the other candidates put together? That's a DISGUSTING rewrite of history to be spread by a campaign. Let's see the Dean campaign correct THAT myth they are spreading.

Northwind (605 posts)

Response to Reply #26
29. Issues are irrelevant in a political campign.

Only the perception matters. Kerry is a Bush enabler and corrupt Washington insider. In case you had not noticed, that is the current great sin in politics. Being an insider, "typical politician." By 2008, it may be something else, but right now that is THE worst thing a candidate can be seen as. Kerry is seen as such, and therefore his campaign is dead. Finito. Belly up. Pushing up daises. Out to pasture. Passed on. The Kerry campaign's inability to recognize this trend and adapt to it only shows that he would be equally rigid and uncreative as President, which is why he will never BE President.

get it?

Let's see the Dean campaign correct THAT myth they are spreading.

So an anonymous Internet post is what passes as evidence that the Dean campaign is spreading the word that Kerry is "corrupt"?

Please. That's just so absurd.

If John Kerry can't handle what some anonymous person says on an Internet message board, how the heck is he going to handle Karl Rove?

Good for me, not for ye?

Kerry's flip-flopped so much I can't tell which direction he's pointing.

You really wouldn't want to go there would you?

Kerry's record holds up to close scrutiny and Dean's campaign rhetoric is hardly backed up by his record of governance.

btw...want to address this supposed Washington corruption of Kerry meme that is being spread?

versus his present candidacy?

Or didn't you notice?

I have read much of his famous advice pieces for Rs to win office. Always fascinated to read the list of names he urged all candidates to call their opponents. Didn't matter who opponent was, terms were pretty generalized: scum-bag, sleaze-bag, stuff like that. Hatred played into those elections on a near-frenzy basis.

Julie

No, he's no different.

J/K. :) No hard feelings.

In fact, Dean the centrist had "mixed feelings" on Reagan/Bush's little wars in Central America which patriots like Kerry saw as ILLEGAL wars and worked to EXPOSE them.

You used quotation marks, now back it up. Where's the link?

And yes, I do think Dean would have done the same.

"Such sentiments have been misinterpreted by assorted Beltway savants as a leftward lurch by Democratic Party activists; it seems more a reaction to the rightward lurch of the Republicans. Dean, who has been mischaracterized as the reincarnation of George McGovern, is certainly no traditional liberal or even a traditional dove. "I told the peace people not to fall in love with me," he told me over breakfast in Manchester, N.H., last week. He said he had opposed Vietnam, but he had supported the first Gulf War, the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, and the war in Afghanistan. In the 1980s he had "mixed feelings" about Ronald Reagan's support for the contras in Nicaragua and opposed a unilateral nuclear freeze. "I'm not a pacifist. I believe there are times when pre-emptive force is justified, but there has to be an immediate threat, and there just wasn't in this case."

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,464429,00.html


Now, please back up why YOU think Dean would have investigated BCCI, IranContra and CIA drugrunning just as vigorously as Kerry.

Dean's record shows he never even replaced most of the GOP officials and workers when he took over as governor, he was THAT close to their belief system.

You posted a link to a Time article by Joe Klein in which he's got two words quoted: "mixed feelings." So where's the quote? Don't I get even a whole sentence?

Hell, I had mixed feelings about support for the Contras. Most Democrats did. It's not like I loved the Nicaraguan communists. Did you?

Why pretend it wasn't? Haven't you read Robert Parry or Howard Zinn?

BushInc. MANUFACTURED most of the problems there to use it as an excuse to take control for the fascists.

Did Joe Klein say "war" or "illegal war" in that (still imperfect and incomplete) quote? No! He said "Contras." What are you trying to invent here?

Of course it was an illegal war that Ronald Reagan was involved in. (Oliver North, Iran-Contra, etc.) We all remember.

But to say that most Democrats didn't have mixed feelings about the Contras is just plain historical revisionism. As I said, are you suggesting that Democrats loved (or even liked) the Nicaraguan communists? The Nicaraguan communists were awful. Supported by many people, but they committed their share of human rights violations and were anti-democratic in their rule (until the very end). Absolutely Democrats had mixed feelings about the Contras -- and they should have.

I am not inventing anything, and people who are aware of what occurred at the time KNOW it is not an invention.

And many of those human rights violations pushed by the US were planted propaganda by guys like Michael Ledeen.

Please find me a Dean quote that says what you're suggesting.

I'll also note that you agree with me that the Nicaraguan communists committed human rights violations. That's a relief. I was afraid you were going to nominate Daniel Ortega for sainthood or something there for a minute.

by BFEE propagandists like Michael Ledeen. Some were not, but most were.

Dean would be the first physician-President if nominated and elected. That's unique. There are other doctor-politicians, such as Senator Bill Frist, but Dean would be the first President.

Just one example. Here's another: Dean would be the first President elected who signed into law full civil rights in his home state for the GLBT community.

Here's yet another: nobody named Howard Dean has ever been elected President of the United States. :-)

And a fourth: Dean would be the first President with a wife who would practice medicine professionally while he serves in office.

And a fifth: Dean would be the first President elected as a Democrat who opted out of the federal matching funds system during the primaries.

And so on. I'm sure I could come up with a list for each of the nine candidates running.

he's raised a heck of a lot of money with small donations from the internet - even his bashers must admit that. Also, he's compelled these people to roll up their sleeves and help him - not just the political junkies like us, but regular people.

it's like a curse. Dole. Dewey. Dukakis.

Buchanan and Bush #1 both defeated.

On edit: Lincoln beat Buchanan, and Clinton beat Bush #1. Whether Dean is the next Lincoln or the next Clinton, I'm happy.

Also, re: the only other father-son presidential team, John Adams and John Quincy Adams, both served only one term. John Quincy Adams was defeated by Andrew Jackson. If Dean is the next Jackson, that'd be just fine, too.

"Dean is the leader in the South with 13%, followed by an 8% tie of Edwards, Lieberman, and Sharpton. (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=755)

In addition to the polling data you mention, Dean is finding incredible financial support from NC, SC, TN, GA and FL.

http://www.fundrace.org/moneymap.php?cand=Dean&zoom=County

Edwards is way behind in the polls, and he's supposed to win the South?

Or LIEBERMAN, for goodness sakes?

And Kerry is a Yankee, too.

The only one I see who could rival him in the South is Clark - but Dean's appeal appears to be equal.

Carter just remarked on Dean's campaign in deep south Georgia. Said if they call a meeting, hundreds of people show up. And that this says something about Dean's appeal.

But said he thinks Bush will get elected - because of the war rallying around the chief factor and Bush having so much more money than the Democratic candidate.

That's cool except for the Bush getting elected part...

Okay, is it true that Dean has a 100% approval rating from the NRA?

Dean received an "A rating" from the NRA in select (not all) years of his service as Governor of Vermont. The NRA is quite clear in saying that they have not awarded Dean an A rating for his presidential campaign.

Which is a shame, but their loss.

The NRA does not have a "100% approval rating" to my knowledge.

The NRA doesn't score politicians numerically.

This brings up something I haven't seen discussed here yet. Who's more likely to get the NRA's endorsement, Bush or Dean?

I think they stay officially neutral if Dean happens to win the Democratic nomination. Which is just fine with me.

... against Bush, even one with an 'A' rating. I also don't see how the NRA could not endorse a Republican. Bush will get the endorsement.

Hillary Clinton called Howard Dean an "ally" of the Clinton White House in introducing him at the Iowa rally last week.

While she had to say something nice in introducing each candidate, she didn't have to call him an "ally."

but I wasn't aware Kucinich supported it, too. Do you have a link to back up your assertion? Thanks.

Would still have allowed for a full-scale military assault without UN approval, aka a blank check!

And has been pro-choice for longer than 18 months.

was willing to give the Bush Administration. The original post implies Kucinich supported it, too. This seems doubtful to me and I was hoping someone might post a link to back up the assertion.

Biden and Lugar are Senators, right? Kucinich is in the House of Representatives.

on the Iraq War. Dean embraced the Biden-Lugar blank check. Did Kucinich? I doubt it. So far, you've provided no evidence. By the way, I didn't ask whether Kucinich voted for it, so your reference to his status as a Representative is irrelevant. All I'd like is the evidence to back up your original claim.

listed (Dean, Kucinich, Braun and Sharpton) supported the IWR.

Dean was consistently, clearly, and contemporaneously opposed to President Bush's largely unilateral and pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, and he is the only leading Democratic candidate in that category. (Braun, Kucinich, and Sharpton also had the same position.)

The "same position" obviously refers to my statement that these four candidates "consistently, clearly, and contemporaneously opposed... Bush's largely unilateral and pre-emptive invasion of Iraq...."

How did I mistate Kucinich's position? Are you saying that Dennis didn't consistently, clearly, and contemporaneously oppose Bush's largely unilateral and pre-emptive invasion of Iraq?

I mean, I suppose I could have gotten silly and added the words "that I just stated" to the end of "the same position," but, like I just said, isn't that getting silly?

You're certainly welcome to make a point in amplification if you want -- that Dean favored Biden-Lugar and Dennis (apparently) expressed no opinion on it (so we don't know if he favored it or not, and he was in the House so it wasn't like he needed to take a position on a Senate proposal, not to mention that Biden and Lugar themselves changed their positions and voted YEA on the final resolution anyway). But why do you have to suggest that I somehow misrepresented Dennis's position? Wasn't that just gratuitous, especially when I bent over backwards to mention Dennis when I really didn't have to? It'd be so easy for people to ignore Dennis Kucinich in this race, and I don't.

Kucinich didn't (when you find evidence he did, feel free to post it, but from his record, I feel fairly certain you're not going to find it). Given the huge difference in supporting the Biden-Lugar resolution and not supporting it, the two can hardly be characterized as having the same position.

I understand why the Dean contingent would like to align their candidate with Kucinich on this particular issue, but the facts do not support the attempt. Dean would have issued the Bush Administration a blank check. Kucinich wouldn't have.

Another Reagan, even if a bit more liberal? And he does have the fiscal conservative, governor thing in common with Reagan. Both have always liked to be portrayed as outdoorsmen, both avoided military service during wartime. What else?

You bet your sweet bippy!

.

.

Vietnam, Iran-Iraq (by exposing illegal US arms deals), and the illegal wars in Central America.

You aren't too current on your history, heh?

btw...supporting resolutions that result in war isn't warmongering. Just as it wouldn't be warmongering if the resolution w/ Biden-Lugar amendment supported by Dean had passed.

There is not a soul on earth who can predict the actual campaign dynamic which will transpire, but wisened political professionals know exactly what each candidate's potential areas of weaknesses are, and they are all saying, especially the DLC, that Dean is by far our weakest candidate. There are reasons for this. They are not imagined. All the campaign money in the world can't take off the record all the stupid things Dean has said to date. And the worst one of all- "We won't always have the strongest military" is a bonafide disqualifier post 9/11.

"We won't always have the strongest military because of what Bush is doing right now to the military by overstretching it all over the globe"

Defense: "Dean never said when the United States would lose its military supremacy. Nor did he condone this loss or propose defense cuts to hasten it. He simply said it was inevitable..." :eyes:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2088896

Quote: "We won't always have the strongest military" (Time, April 28, 2003).

Charge: "Howard Dean's stated belief that the United States won't always have the strongest military raises serious questions about his capacity to serve as Commander-in-Chief. No serious candidate for the Presidency has ever before suggested that he would compromise or tolerate an erosion of America's military supremacy" (statement by John Kerry campaign spokesman Chris Lehane, April 28, 2003).

Context: According to Time, Dean "suggested that America should be planning for a time when it is not the world's greatest superpower: 'We have to take a different approach . We won't always have the strongest military.' "

Defense: Dean never said when the United States would lose its military supremacy. Nor did he condone this loss or propose defense cuts to hasten it. He simply said it was inevitable. Dean's point was that President Bush's reluctance to join international treaties and organizations set a dangerous precedent, given the growth of countries such as China. That's not very different from what Kerry said in January 2003: "In a world growing more, not less interdependent, unilateralism is a formula for isolation and shrinking influence."

:eyes:

and God forbid, Dean wouldn't have looked evil.

.

the party of "we can't do health care" doesn't think Dean can win. Now I'm scared.

whats this obsession you have with the TRUTH Dean told, that we "won't always have the strongest military"? It's all you ever use against Dean.

Rove has more than enough ammo to attack all of the Dem candidates. Among our nine, Dean has been consistantly the best at explaining his positions. Having several hundred thousand people writing letters and e-mails on his behalf doesn't hurt either. Overall, Dean has shown that he is fully capable and prepared to defend his record, and counter intentional distortions.

.

I got this one issue that eats me alive...

It is a killer issue that the repukes will ram down the electorate's throat....

It is the tax thing. Forget the flag flap. Forget the angry man bull. Forget the anti-war conservative Dem stuff. Forget it all. I see all through most of that stuff.

Still, I know that the tax cuts for lower and the middle class should not be repealed till the economy gets better. I know that it is Gore like good thing to have targetted tax cuts.

Sure, I know those tax cuts were a smoke screen for a giveaway to the rich. Yes, those cuts for the rich should be repealed.

But Dean is going to get eaten alive on this issue.

Don't fool yourself one issue like this can turn an election is exploited correctly to make him look angry and un-bending and super-liberal.

That is my one prob with Dean. Yes, I will probably vote Dean in the primary but this thing is bothering me bad.

BTW, no I am not religious about Dean and like both Kerry and Clark.

It's now about whether we should get rid of them all or just the ones for the ultra-wealthy.

I have no problem with having a debate on this as long as folks don't try to misinterpret opponents' positions.

I haven't noticed anything different in my checks. They can take the few hundred I might have gotten but haven't noticed and put it back where it belongs - investing in my future.

At any rate, I thought I read that the middle class tax cuts were set to sunset AKA disappear after 2004 (while the tax cuts benefiting the wealthy are permanent.)

Yes, I got a tax cut. I'm married and have 3 kids. I am solidly in the middle class tax bracket. Now, I don't really need that $400 per child tax refund, (and I'd be happy to trade it for a new president) but I know plenty of parents in my neck of the woods who DO need it. And they are more than a little put off by the idea that a President Dean would try to take their meager tax break away from them.

You can explain to them until you're blue in the face about sunset provisions, and how the tax cuts hurt states, raise property taxes, etc., but the only thing they hear is that they're losing that $400 per child tax credit that shrub saw fit to throw them.

While I appreciate Dean's honesty about the issue, I just don't think it's going to fly with most Americans. I could be wrong, however, and if Dean gets the nomination, I hope and pray that I am.

You get to pay that $400 back... with interest. Don't you feel special?

By the way, did your bottom line after-tax income go up? How about your net worth?

Mine went down... "Big time" as the first President Bush would say.

Bangladesh has low taxes, mate.

It is about winning the election and a mandate from the people.

Once again, the poster before was right. Even if I thought all of the tax cuts were wrong (Actually I kind of think targetted tax cuts would have been a nice relief for some in the middle of this economic crisis), Dean is giving ammunition to the Repukes to call him a tax and spend liberal. I know the Repukes are borrow and spend neocons but that does not matter many times in the shrill world of electoral politics.

I like Dean and I will vote for him but I do not have to worship at his feet and I can say that he is pulling a boner on this issue.

I like Dean and I agree with you. But there are a couple of ways Dean's tax position might work out okay.

1) He sticks to his guns and pursuades people it's actually to their benefit. Hey, it could happen.

2) He makes it about health care. 80% of Americans say they would pay higher taxes if it meant universal health care.

3) He focuses on, as he has been saying, the BUSH tax cuts. The last round of cuts, included democratic ideas, such as lowering of the bottom tax bracket. Dean may end up deliniating between the BUSH tax cuts and the more progressive DEMOCRATIC tax cuts.

4) Bush may propose more tax cuts next year. Depending on who they benefit, Dean may

I think we should all start to refer to the portion of the recent tax changes which really DID benefit some middle class people (primarily the Child Tax Credit increase) as the Democratic tax cut, as you suggested. And if Bush wants to call rolling back his tax cuts a tax increase, then we need to ask is Bush for raising taxes (which will happen automatically if they are not made permanent) or is he for ever increasing deficits (since his budget projections whcih show the deficits disappearing in ten years depend on the tax cuts disappearing due to the sunset provisions.) We can't let the press let Bush get away with having it both ways.

And here's Myth #11 about Howard Dean (from another thread)
Some Australian newspaper in reporting about the discovery of his brother's remains said that Howard Dean's father is Nixon advisor John Dean.

Some of those myths do not even exist, except in your post.

To point:

#2. Even his biggest detractors (like me) don't float that canard around. He is electable, as is everyone, right now. I have heard the "unelectable" charge thrown at the single-percentage polling candidates like Braun and Sharpton, but not Dean. Though I do not want Dean elected, I think he is as electable as the next person. A myth about the anti-Dean people: We "fear" Dean. No, we just don't think he is fit to be president. Employers generally don't hire people because they do not think they are the best qualified, not because they fear them, lol.

#4. Clinton was hot-tempered, and it occasionally surfaced, such as the infamous satellite feed broadcast of his swipes at Jesse Jackson, or the occasional scolding (well-deserved) of the press corps. Dean has had no such similar gaffe, but he is a slow burner, rather than an explosive type. It is no myth that people perceive Dean as being a flamehead, and perception is everything in politics. Even if the perception could be proven false, as long as the perception lingers, it will hurt him. It will turn off more voters than it attracts among the rank and file, rather than the diehards.

#5. No such dichotomy has been offered. His supporters take pride in him being angry, often relating how their own anger helps them relate to Dean. They actually put their hopes in his anger, so the two are intertwined in quite the deathgrip. Good luck to him. Hope can come in two vessels, either through anger or optimism. Dean uses anger as his vessel. The false dichotomy you offer is in itself, false, and non-existent.

#9. I love this one. I would like any Dean supporter on DU to tell me if they truly have ANY issues with which they disagree with Dean. Any. *crickets chirping* As for the "firm" support, well, yeah, we all know that. I get a similar obstinacy and refusal to listen to the facts from dittoheads, which is why I quit arguing with them years ago, maybe I should wise up with the Dean camp too.

#10. I have never heard this myth except when Dean people are telling us that this is a myth, lol. I certainly don't think he is McGovern - a decorated war hero and man of integrity. Dean IS Dean, and that is a problem enough for the Democrats.

Point 2, unelectablity is raised in this very thread. It has been raised, repeatedly by several supporters of several other candidates. Again, it is even in this very thread.

Point 4, you seem to be arguing that the 'myth' is actually true here. Hence he didn't make up the myth.

Point 5, Again I have seen several posts saying Dean offers no hopeful or positive message. I think there are a couple in this thread.

Point 9 I, and several other posters, have outlined places where we disagree with him. For me it is on abortion (I am pro life), gun control (I am strongly in favor), the death penalty (I don't favor it in any case), and the IP issue (I think he tilts too much toward Israel for my taste). I am hardly the only one who has done this. I have done this on more than one occasion when his position on these issues have come up.

Point 10 Do a google on Dean McGovern and come back to me. It has been raised in the press on several occasions.

Here is the results of my google on those terms.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Dean+McGovern

I won't quote any of it but a simple look at the results show that more than one person was writing on exactly that idea. It has pages of results and the first page was about evenly divided between proponents of and opponents of that theory.

One final edit The unelectability myth is advanced in post 15 of this thread. The lack of positive message is sort of advanced in post 5 of this thread. I have seen more blatant advancements of it but post 5 is close enough.

If someone like you doesn't think he is "fit to be president", then what do you think more moderate and centrist Americans will feel?

Well, I hope I am on the right track in understanding your question.

My feeling about Dean is only that, my feeling. I can't speak for Americans who are moderate or just left-of-center on what their ideological comfort zone is. I am solidly on the Left, not socialist, but not a moderate either. As far as my ideologocal litmus test goes, Dean fails the worst with his economic plans. He might as well be Bush-lite there. He will only slightly less favor the wealthy at the expense of the poor. I am confounded on why so many unions have gotten behind him, so I suspect they will regret it if he gets in. I also think he will be in over his head with withdrawing from Iraq (Bush's mess, but look how Clinton got smeared over Bush Sr's Somalia policy), and the I/P issue. I also have major problems with his pro-gun stance. Everyone's mileage may, no it does, vary.

Outside of those policy specifics, I don't think his demeanor is right for the job either, and I admit that is the most subjective of all my criteria. Chimpy's arrogant B&W lens has served us poorly, and Dean's arrogance, although of a different stripe (a more learned person), is also rigid and doctrinaire in its own way. He will most likely be stomewalled by an uncooperative GOP congress, and even worse, the fallout from Bush's trickle-down policies. Dean is alsmot assuredly a doomed one-termer because he will not have enough rhetoric in his bag to talk his way out.

Dean is no McGovern. He is no Carter, or Mondale, or any other of his predecessors in the party. He is Dean, and that is reason enough to hope he does not ever hold an office higher than the governor of Vermont ever again.

when he was nowhere near liberal.

It's been 11 months and few in the media are even trying to correct that perception, so there must be a greater purpose to it because I don't believe the media whores have the best interests of the Democrats in mind.

the unions supported Dean because he was the only one who did what they asked......and they were impressed with Dean's organizational structure and long-term plans and not so terribly impressed with Clark's organizational structure...

portraying him as an antiwar liberal. He inherited some of the organization of the antiwar movement. Too bad Dean was neither antiwar or liberal. That was Kucinich...you know...the guy who spoke out in front of MILLIONS at antiwar rallies but got ZERO press while Dean stayed on the trail collecting antiwar $$$ and support thanks to the media.

oh.....you provided me with a lot of laughter....

All gungho on process and disdain for substance and facts.

Chalk me up as someone who doesn't FEAR Dean. Just don't want to "hire" him for the job of POTUS. Unfortunately this is considered a bashing statement by some Dean supporters. LOLOL

:scared: I tell scary stories about Dean 'round the campfire every night, holding a flashlight under my chin! Shriiiieeek!

You really haven't seen these charges thrown at Dean? Or maybe you've just been lucky and have been able to avoid the anti-Dean threads. :shrug:

In answer to what was hopefully an honest query for infomration, I am a Dean supporter who disagrees with him on a few issues. I am against the death penalty in all situations while Dean favors it in select cases. I also would like to see the decriminalization of marijuana (at the very least, possibly even other drugs a la certain European countries), while Dean favors treatment over incarceration. I also would like to see either cuts in the Pentagon budget or a redirecting of where that money is spent (I am not opposed to giving our service men and women pay raises, for example), while Dean would merely like to reduce the rate of growth. Those are the main points on which I disagree with him.

However, I agree with him that we should not have supported Shrub's invasion of Iraq, that further gun control measures are unnecessary, that fiscal responsibility must be returned to the federal gov't (otherwise debt servicing fees, interest payments, etc. will bankrupt us), and that we should implement a workable solution to healthcare issues in this country.

I am not sure who you support, but you are very lucky if you can say that you agree with your favorite on every single issue. Unfortunatley, there is not a candidate running for whom I can make that statement, so I'll just have to go with the one who best fits me.

I also want to dispel the myth that just because I do not like Dean, I have it in for everyone who supports him. No, I prefer to get along with my fellow Dems, but some make it very very hard. :-)

I ultimately judge each candidate's supporters on a case-by-case basis. But sometimes my sense of humor goes over the heads of the less humorous among us.

Anyway, thanks for a sincere reply!

And I would just add this, let's not play into the right wing's hands. Question where these myths are originating at all times.

Fact: No solid evidence exists of Dean harming, harrasing or showing disrespect to any member of the rodentia family. Also, he has never been accused of or arrested for suspected mastication of feline feotae.

:kick:

Now the Democratic party has truly screwed us. The only leading candidate that has been firmly against "free trade" agreements, and the first and only candidate to push for truly fair trade, is Richard Gephardt.

He'll probably win Iowa too. It's too bad, if Dean hadn't been a NAFTA whore, he would have been nearly perfect.

Clark is no better, nor worse, than Dean on NAFTA.

say that Iowa is automatically Gephardt's since Dean IS a very, very close second....

Dick has the big mo, right now.

:eyes:

John Edwards had a bigger presence at the Iowa Jefferson Jackson Dinner. Dennis Kucinich was at least tied with Gephardt in effort he put into Saturday night's event.

I was shocked. I thought Gephardt would at least put some effort into that night. Boy was I wrong.

More like a big lo.

Loser.

Dean has the SEIU and AFSCME endorsements, and with more larger unions on the way (including a national teacher's union and carpeneter's union)... Gepdick has the little union's support. Sure, he's a labor guy, but he still has to answer for his stupidity in the past four years.

Hawkeye-X

The ignorance of your post is really astounding. Do you understand the difference in the bargaining positions of unions like SEIU and AFSCME compared to the "little unions" by which you must mean the private sector unions?

Here's another question - consdering Gephardt did everything the SEIU wanted for 20 years, and they gave their support to the pro-NAFTA Dean, is there going to be another Democratic politician that will ally with SEIU again? Knowing that they won't return the solidarity?

but he BLEW it. REPEATEDLY. REPEATEDLY. REPEATEDLY. REPEATEDLY.

Want more? Nominate Gephardt and watch him BLOW IT again.

And what's more, that disgusting photo-op with Gephardt w/ Bush is going to bite back hard. Not even one Gephardt supporters can't dispute this photo-op.

Hawkeye-X

That's true. When the DLC, along with Dean, sold out every middle class American for corporate profits, Gephardt couldn't reconcile that with his base of American workers. Gephardt could have united the Democrats with populism, instead most Dem leaders were pimping Republican ideas on Medicare and privatizing Social Security.

Gephardt blew it, so now I guess it's Dean's turn to blow it? Rhetorical populism might win an election, but most people will stay home, like they always do.

The photo-op? Just as disgusting as Dean ass-kissing CATO.

While Dean is not a DLC member (he can't be, since he's not elected to anything) but supports their economic policies.

Open your history books to 1930 Republicans. Read. Discuss.

Free trade, with some safeguards, is the right policy and it's the progressive policy. Anti-free trade is just plain wrong.

I had no idea. You probably know this, but those of us against "free trade" aren't for slapping tariffs on everything - we are for bilateral trade agreements that demand human rights and labor protections.

Yes, I know Dean says he wants them too - that why he spent his years pimping for a Nafta WITHOUT them. Why would I believe him when he gives lip service now? Labor and environmental protections are called "trade barriers" along with tariffs.

Most of the "free trade" supporters are against tariffs, and they are against labor and environmental protections too.

That's what the Republicans said, too, that they were enacting protectionism for "labor protections."

You say Dean "spent his years pimping" for NAFTA. Would you care to prove it? Dean wrote a letter to President Clinton (note: the Democratic Party leader) saying that he (Dean) favored NAFTA (with some safeguards). (No surprise there, because the Governor of Vermont has a job to represent the people of Vermont who overwhelmingly stood to benefit from NAFTA thanks to open markets with Canada immediately to the north.) I assert that that is hardly spending years "pimping" for NAFTA. Do you have anything else?

It just amazes me that so-called progressives think protectionism is just swell. I am a progressive, and free trade is absolutely the right policy. Please tell me why consumers ought to be taxed disproportionately by government when they buy Mexican blankets, Canadian paper, French wine, British biscuits, etc. I'd really like to know.

I couldn't disagree more with Richard Gephardt or Dennis Kucinich, to pick two examples, on this issue. They're just totally wrong, and they'd hurt both American export industries (and their workers) and American consumers. They both go way too far, and I believe history has already proven them wrong, both in 1930 and with the 1990s boom.

The Bush steel tariffs are already killing workers at places like Hoffman Enclosures (in Minnesota), Waterloo Industries (in Iowa), and Maytag (in Iowa). These companies are encouraged to ship jobs abroad because of this stupid protectionism. Same with sugar tariffs that are driving candy makers out of Chicago and other U.S. cities. And I can't for the life of me figure out why some Democrats think it's a great idea to have free agricultural trade with totalitarian Cuba -- which I also support -- and protectionism with democratic Mexico.

It's about whether the state can charter corporations and require they provide no benefit to American society. It's about whether corporations, chartered, subsidized, and protected by our tax money, can lay us all off to hire near-slave labor in authoritarian regimes.

But then again, you probably know that.

"Please tell me why consumers ought to be taxed disproportionately by government when they buy Mexican blankets, Canadian paper, French wine, British biscuits, etc. I'd really like to know."

Tell me why GM should be allowed to lay off entire towns full of workers and set up shop across the border to lower wages, then get a tax break? Why should GE be allowed to sue other countries to overturn their labor rights. As usual, your side just argues about money and taxes, and it's a whole lot more than that.

I for one wouldn't want any tariffs on goods coming from Canada. We need bilateral trade agreements (like Kucinich has called for) and for countries who share our values, I would want free trade.

Now letting US corporations collaborate with Communist Chinese officials, I'd have to say no. That makes me not a progressive?

Now that's news.

Tell me why GM should be allowed to lay off entire towns full of workers and set up shop across the border to lower wages, then get a tax break?

They shouldn't get a tax break. Neither Dean nor I favor that. They do now, though -- thanks to steel tariffs (i.e. protectionism).

I for one wouldn't want any tariffs on goods coming from Canada.

That's a relief. You've just described 100% of Dean's gubernatorial position, by the way.

Now letting US corporations collaborate with Communist Chinese officials, I'd have to say no. That makes me not a progressive?

It doesn't make you a progressive or not a progressive, in my opinion. But, yes, a general disposition against free trade is anti-progressive, in my opinion.

Do you favor or oppose, as you put it, letting U.S. agricultural corporations collaborate with Communist Cuban officials? I favor that. I think even communists ought to eat, and I think U.S. farmers ought to help.

Do you favor or oppose, as you put it, letting U.S. entertainment and information corporations collaborate with Communist Chinese officials? I favor that. I think the more cultural exchange we can provide to Chinese citizens the better. (That a huge and growing percentage of U.S. exports to China. So are Seattle-built aircraft, by the way.)

We have trade embargoes against the communist-run North Korea and Cuba. How is that policy helping anyone?

Tell me why GM should be allowed to lay off entire towns full of workers and set up shop across the border to lower wages, then get a tax break?

They shouldn't get a tax break. Neither Dean nor I favor that. They do now, though -- thanks to steel tariffs (i.e. protectionism).

....

Yes, Dean does favor it. As part of "free trade agreements" not allowing US corporations to get a tax break for the costs of overseas operations, Dean supports letting corporations write off their expenses in shifting jobs overseas.

If Dean had wanted no tariffs on goods from Canada, why did he support trade agreements which allows corporations to sue to overturn labor protections and environmental laws? No tariffs are one thing, ending democracy is another.

JUST STOP THE LYING. We aren't talking about allowing countries to trade goods and services, we're talking about whether US corporations should be allowed to lay off US workers and hire workers in authoritarian regimes. If you want to end tariffs, FINE. Now explain why you want corporations to overturn our environmental laws? Explain why you want US corporations hiring thugs who beat their workers?

You don't think Mexico is an authoritarian regime? Have you ever been to Mexico? Fox may have opened things up a bit, but Mexico is hardly the land of freedom.

Wow -- I can't believe we're at 503,000 people signed up. That's amazing. Added 3K in just a day or two. It's beginning to really build now, as Trippi knew it would.

Eloriel

I understand the frustration felt by those that support other candidates. We have a number of solid candidates who, in any other year, might well be leading the way, and deservedly so.

In another time, Dean could have been an 'also ran'.

Apparently many of our leaders did not predict the current political atmosphere very well. Many believed that the politically safest vote was for approval of IWR. They underestimated Bush*/Rove in so many ways. Thus they got gamed in 2002.

Curiously, they may have been right politically. It could well be that the vote for IWR saved the political careers of many democrats in 2002. The social / political context was very different then.

Unfortunately for them, the political winds have changed abruptly. The sails, once so perfectly set, have capsized the boat. Dr. Dean had something to do with this change, but his success is more an artifact of the change, than he the creator of it. He was in the right position and bright enough to capitalize on it.

The myths and attacks have done nothing to dull his luster to his supporters. The candidates propounding them have not prospered because of it. Most have lost ground. Most notably Edwards in recent polling. It seems the 'rock the vote' bit cost him critical support.

The DLC architects of the Gore campaign call Dean unelectable. Their latest forays into prognostication and electoral strategy were none too successful. They have little credibility.

I do not blame supporters of other candidates for finding or attempting to create faults and myths about the Dean campaign. He has come out of virtually nowhere, and in any other climate, probably would not be this successful. It must seem like Dean is doing every thing wrong, and still he runs well, it should not make sense.

I would suggest that your critiques of Dean are based on misinformation and your predictions are run on rather dated models of political reality. A classic bit of wisdom about predictive models: when reality renders an unpredicted result, believe reality and check your assumptions, when that fails to correct the prediction discard the model.

:hi:

You really know how to explain Dean's attraction and viability at this critical turning point.

outside the favorable breezes of the Democratic primary lies quite a maelstrom should Dean get that far.

:kick:

Well this life long politician has been working magic convincing people he is their Liberal candidate. His record shows to be down the middle of the road thru out his career.

so please stop acting like Dean supporters think Dean is liberal-----go to the Dean blog and ask them if they think Dean's liberal and you'll get a resounding NO....

I guess his life just started 12 years ago...

1. Myth: Dean was consistently, clearly, and contemporaneously opposed to President Bush's largely unilateral and pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, and he is the only leading Democratic candidate in that category. (Braun, Kucinich, and Sharpton also had the same position.) But he is not "anti-war." He supported both the first Gulf War and the Afghanistan campaign, for example.

False: Huh? Clark and Graham are/were in that category.

2. Myth: Wesley Clark happened to poll the weakest against President Bush --and outside the margin of error -- in a recent Marist College national poll, for example. In contrast, when WMUR polled New Hampshire voters, they found that they rate Dean as the most likely to beat President Bush in November, 2004.

False: the Marist poll is an outlyer. Agree, statiscally, most polls show head to head. But the more trustworthy gallup actually finds the opposite to be true: Clark highest, Dean lowest against Bush.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031114.asp#rm

"As can be seen from the right-hand columns above, Clark clearly has the most favorable image of any of the candidates, with a net positive of 26 percentage points among the group of Americans who know enough about him to give an opinion. Clark is followed by Lieberman, Kerry, and Edwards, with net favorables in the +10 to +16 range, and then Gephardt and Dean. The remaining three candidates have net unfavorable images, with Sharpton in possession of the most negative image of all.

Bush 50 Wesley Clark 47
Bush 53 Howard Dean 44
Bush 52 Dick Gephardt 46
Bush 52 John Kerry 46
Bush 52 Joe Lieberman 46

Clark does best of the five leading Democrats; Bush beats Clark by only three percentage points among registered voters nationwide. Dean does the worst; Bush beats him by nine percentage points."

3. Myth: Dean's support also crosses party lines. There's considerable polling evidence that Dean is attracting independents and even some Republicans into the Democratic Party tent.

False: considerable polling evidence? please provide :)

4. Myth: Hillary Clinton's introduction at the Iowa Jefferson Jackson Dinner was praiseful, evidence of Clinton support.

False: Of course they were, intros are provided by campaign! They may, but this is not evidence. ;)

1) Clark is not in that category because he did support the vote in Congress to go to war with Iraq----he told a congressional candidate that she should vote for the war resolution, so Clark wasn't against the war.

2)Your putting forth the poll where Clark does the best against Bush is biased because the unnamed Democratic candidate does better than Clark in beating Bush. Also, Dean has a higher name recognition than Clark does.

3) A general who voted for Bush in 2000, just endorsed Dean, and the NH Chairwoman who used to hold fundraisers for Bush, is now holding fundraisers for Dean because she's also disgusted with Bush.

4) Hillary Clinton could've chosen not to read that intro-----but she did, so that implies that she was praiseful of Dean's healthcare expertisse.

:kick: