For Deanies That Criticize Roaches Missing Votes (Yet Another Hypocrisy)

I was fartin' around the website that shows why Kucinich is better than Dean...

http://www.bobharris.com/kucinichdean.html

...when I came across this interesting little tidbit. I had always thought that it was BS to criticize candidates with a real chance of winning for missing non-decisive votes, but I hadn't realized that it was hypocritical, as well. Hardly a first for the Deanies, but I thought it was worth pointing out as a demonstration of character. You can also pick up traces of familiar stump lines, criticism without alternative proposals, and even a familiar sense of temperment.

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

Governor's absences cause strife

MONTPELIER — Howard Dean’s presidential ambitions are beginning to sour his relations with the Legislature, particularly among his fellow Democrats.

Dean dropped by the State House on Wednesday to blister Democratic leaders in the Senate for their spending priorities, describing the budget as “out of control,” telling senators they “did not have spine,” and accusing lawmakers of playing politics when they should be headed for home.

Senators appear to be quickly losing patience with the governor. All year Dean has been on the road, visiting Iowa, New Hampshire and other key early presidential primary states as he weighs his chances for the White House.

They’re none too happy that his return to Vermont after weeks where he’s on the road four or five days out of a week is highlighted by his harsh criticism of the work they’ve been doing while he’s been gone.

Dean has been out of state campaigning, vacationing, leading a trade mission and visiting what is presumed to be his brother’s burial site in Laos.

Dean reacted angrily when it was suggested during a news conference that some of his problems with the budget might have been addressed if he were around more often.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/46487.html

<>

<>

<>

Dean, Dean, Dean! It'd be funny if it wasn't 4 more years of Bush down the road...

Since we're talking about the early stage of Dean's Presidential Campaign:


"When Gov. Howard Dean wanted to raise money for a possible presidential bid, he followed the example of a former governor of Texas and called on his friends in the energy industry.

Nearly a fifth of the roughly $111,000 collected in its first months by Dean’s presidential political action committee, the Fund for a Healthy America, came from people with ties to Vermont’s electric utilities, according to a recent Federal Elections Commission filing. "


"A top Dean aide emphatically denied that the governor has ever let campaign contributions influence state policy. Kate O’Connor, secretary of civil and military affairs, used the word absurd to describe that notion more than a half-dozen times in a recent interview.

But the governor himself has said the donations buy access. “People who think they’re going to buy a contract or buy some influence are mistaken,” Dean famously said during the debate over a campaign finance reform bill in 1996. “But they do get access — there’s no question about that. ...They get me to return their phone calls.” "

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/43125.html

I mean, so what if he made backroom deals with both Ariel Sharon and the energy industry? Did you see how well the bat is doing?

If Bush stops doing it then Dean will too.

for today. Seemed like a slow one!

"I can't promise every word is correct; this is just one guy's best effort. I'm also not saying that Kucinich's positions are "right" on every issue; I just personally agree with most of them, and I think other progressives will, too."


"Full disclosure: I have friends on the Kucinich campaign, which I support, and almost joined up with full-blast at one point. I also seriously considered supporting Dean for a while, around February and March, until I decided to support Kucinich."


This is from the top of the page of ol Bob Harris' site.

Forgive me if I place the veracity of Bob's comments about on par with the letters to the editor in Gumville RI.

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

1. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include profanity, excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation. Inflammatory rhetoric should also be avoided.

3. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

4. If you wish to start a vanity thread (ie: a discussion thread in which the sole purpose is to share your personal opinion) you must state your opinion in a non-inflammatory manner which respects differences in opinion and facilitates actual discussion.

5. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
DU moderator