Excellent comparison of Dean vs. Kucinich

Clearly demonstrates that Dean is not a Progressive:

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

good comparisson.

Kucinich is a liberal.
Dean is a centrist.

Who do we want to be the democratic nominee? Bush-lite or someone who has a constructive vision for America?

How about someone who has a snowball's chance in hell of winning?

Clark manages to have the most Progressive Platform along with the most "Moderate" image with a good chance of winning with enough of a plurality that he would be seen as having a mandate to actually ENACT his platform.

I've always been careful of what I call "excellent". For instance, I would refrain from using it in this case due to the bias. It's coimpelling if you're a Kucinich fan or a Dean critic. But it's not all that accurate or objective. And it's editorial in nature.

Fun to pass around amongst yourselves, but excellent? The bar would have to be pretty low, to be honest.

I've never met him.

let us know oh mighty one.

Really conducive to reasoned debate.

Lemme ask, were you under the impression that the author of that website was giving an unbiased juxtaposition of the two candidates for the edification of the people? Or was it more a graphic editorial on why he prefers Kucinich.

Help me out here. Try to flip that objectivity switch. I know it's rusty...

Sorry to break in on your little dust up... but...

"Mighty" :)

Thanks for reminding of The Tick!

:eyes:

http://dennisthemenace.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_dennisthemenace_archive.html#105958945157225661

Its insightful, objective analyses completely sunk the Dean campaign, didn't it? :evilgrin:

Another eye opener.


Here's that doggone Roe v. Wade issue again...

Kucinich....

Roe v. Wade Consistently pro-life until early 2002 (source: Clevelandrighttolife.com); now the only candidate pledging to make Roe v. Wade a litmus test for federal judges
(source: Kucinich.us)

Dean.....

Pro-choice (source: DeanforAmerica.com), but refuses to set litmus tests, demurring that his nominees will have "outstanding legal credentials" (source: DeanforAmerica.com) and otherwise implying -- while refusing to say, for some reason -- that he would appoint pro-choice judges (source: DeanforAmerica.com)


Why does he refuse to state that he WOULD appoint pro-choice judges? Women, BEWARE!!! JMCPO

it's an old fashioned idea. That's what we used to expect in this country before the judicial appointments got so politicized.

and no one would or could answer it. What happens if a judge is very Liberal in every respect EXCEPT is ANTI-CHOICE...will they be nominated? It's a fair question and a question that EVERY female pro-choice Dean supporter should want answered...not ignored.


on edit..

I googled this subject and found this....

Former Governor Howard Dean
>
>Pro-choice, but refuses to promise not to appoint pro-life federal judges

http://mailman.efn.org/pipermail/knet-oregon/2003-July/000074.html

HE REFUSES TO NOT APPOINT PRO-LIFE JUDGES. Come on. You have GOT to be kidding here. He cannot not be elected if he refuses to PROMISE NOT TO APPOINT PRO-LIFE judges.

WHY will he not promise to not do that? I suspect it's because HE WILL appoint pro-life judges. Oy Vey. This is unreal.

It will be, though, should Dean win the nomination.

and I did not know this tidbit of information about him and the appointment of pro-life judges being a "possibility". I wouldn't care if I had donated $2000 to his campaign and worked 100's of hours for him...he WOULD NOT get my vote unless he says..."I PROMISE NOT TO APPOINT PRO-LIFE JUDGES." Period. THIS is a very, very important issue to me. I am amazed that he has so many female pro-choice supporters. How can they trust that he won't appoint ANTI-CHOICE judges? This makes my blood pressure go sky high! :(

There's even more that could be compared, but these are the exact kinds of things I think we should be talking about. If we want to elect a centrist, fine, but we ought not kid ourselves into thinking we're headed in some new direction. Thanks for posting!

A centrist is a radical departure from the current administration.

But I do agree that anyone who expects a liberal utopia from Dean isn't doing their homework. (I doubt anyone here expects that.)

Many of his supporters aren't here. One wonders what they'll do if they don't find this kind of stuff out until he's in the real fight against Bush.

I don't think many people here want to hurt Dean. I think a lot of people are genuinely concerned that all the ammo that for some reason the media is not using will be used in the GE, and that it will matter more, then.

Whether or not that will happen is anyone's guess.

think Dean supporters don't know what he's about? I don't get it.

It's just not. If we could count on supporters to be media savvy and do research, there would be less concern.

This was news to me... did you know he hadn't committed to refusing to nominate a pro-life judge? This is astounding. Pro-life is fine for a politician. They make and change laws. But judges? They're supposed to uphold them. This is very bad.

But because we know most people get their news from mainstream publications and TV, this will be 'news' to them once it is out there.

And the DLC.

Dean IS the DLC and is part of the Establishment that was pushing the Party to the Right.

Dean switched positions on MANY key Liberal issues just before entering the race. And seeded his campaign with money from the Koch Brothers.

So Dean is a Corporate and CATO friendly Insider responsible for moving us to the Right, where many of his supporters on DU have been bitching we were headed...

Furthermore, many Dean supporters object to the Military Industrial Complex and the PNAC'ers and yet they don't object to the fact that Dean won't cut Pentagon Funding.

If you don't see the disconnect here then it's just really too bad.

but I don't think "Dean's not as liberal as you think he is" will be among them (unless Nader or some other prominent Green/3rd party person runs, I guess). If anything, that will be the Dean campaign message.

In my own experience (YMMV), more of Dean's liberal supporters than his centrist supporters know he's not a liberal.

It is valid, I agree, to get all of the ammo out in the open.

The problem with this analysis, or any analysis of its type, is that it was written by a supporter of one candidate who didn't much care for the other. It's accurate, but by no means objective (And this Dean supporter agrees he's not a progressive on many issues.)

I could have easily written that same list to favor Dean. For instance, I could say, in the "Star Wars" section, that Kucinich "strangely supports legislation that would ban mind control weapons in space." 100% accurate, but it makes him look odd. (Harris used "strangely" in his description of Dean's positions.) I could re-write the Kyoto section for Dean to say, "Supports worldwide environmental standards, and would return to the negotiating table to add emissions-control standards for developing countries and make Kyoto more equitable."

I could do a Dean vs. Bush comparison that actually made Bush look good, by using loaded language on both sides.

The Harris chart isn't a bad thing, but I've had it used, one too many times, by some well meaning, local DK supporters to point out why I'm absolutely being misled for supporting HD. (So sorry that I jump to criticize the chart -- like I said, it's not a bad thing, but I get annoyed when I'm told I'm being duped. I did my homework. I'm not stupid.)

An itemized list of why I like Dean better than Kucinich. Thanks.

http://dennisthemenace.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_dennisthemenace_archive.html#105958945157225661

EEK, and another.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020527&s=pollitt

These 'games' are counter productive IMHO.

of the democratic party" people wouldn't be hooting and hollering as much.

Dean obviously wants to give the impression he is like Wellstone but in fact he is not. Dennis Kucinich is like Wellstone...Howard Dean is a centrist...as these lists show and are needed to get out the point to show the actions behind Howard Dean's lies of preachiness of liberalism.

The only one playing games is Howard Dean who says he isn't a liberal and then says he is the democratic wing of the democratic party.

Please Howard...play time is over...you're not 2 anymore.

voting record? Give it up.

C'mon... even another Dean supporter had the guts to admit that while slanted, at least Bob Harris' comparison site was accurate.

Let's at least compare apples to apples.

And all the Katha Politt hatchet job does is rake him over the coals for being pro-life at one point.

Single issue voters, beware! :eyes:

but it is a good illustration of what loaded language can do.

"Says he's a vegan but praises kielbasa" is true. Wording it like this makes him look like a hypocrite. Truth is, his district is very Polish/eastern European. Kielbasa is probably a big part of culture (like polka, another thing he praises).

They also had a slur at his parents for not using birth control. BTW I havent seen the Harris comparsion yet. Both seem to be bs though.

As they say, what's good for the goose.

That site you linked is just common trash, just like kucinich.com. I am sorry about all this, we have our reasons for supporting who we support and I dont like fighting, drives me insane.

:eyes:

I admit that first site was wrong, and you were acting in defense of your candiate but to fight fire with fire isn't a good tactic. Defend the charges, not resort to using a site like that blog to insult another. Sorry about all this, I really do have my reasons for prefering Kucinich to Dean, if Dean is the nod he will have my support, not my vote because of my age but my support he will have. Redqueen also didnt post the original site.

http://soli.inav.net/~njohnson/kucinich/dkorhd.html

I saw the bobharris one a couple months back and engaged the Dean folk with it...

I'm repeating myself a little, but that thread's sinking like a stone, so I'll do it again.

-Dennis Kucinich is a better candidate than Howard Dean.
-Dennis Kucinich is much more progressive than Howard Dean.
-Dennis Kucinich's platform matches my personal views more than any other candidate's.
-Dennis Kucinich really is (or should be) the soul of this party.
-Howard Dean isn't the DLC-centerist some people think he is.
-At the same time, Dean isn't the most progressive candidate.
-Dennis Kucinich will not win the Democratic Party nomination next year.
-Unless the primary in my state is really close for Dean, I will vote for Kucinich in the primary because I want him to get as many votes as possible.

Mine is a choice based on pragmatism. I saw a Kucinich supporter stating that the vast majority of Kucinich voters will end up voting for the eventual nominee in the general election. I happen to think that is a correct assessment. I'm just being pragmatic. And if Kucinich voters end up voting for Dean (or whoever else) in the general, they're just being pragmatic too. You'll never hear me say that Howard Dean is perfect, and I won't defend each stance he's taken or each statement he's made.

But I will work to pull him to the left once he's President, and I expect the Kucinich supporters will too.

So, to the Dean supporters in this thread: let's don't be rude to Dennis Kucinich and his followers. They're good people with good ideas and good hearts.

And to the Kucinich supporters in this thread: please don't think all Dean supporters are duped into thinking that Howard Dean is a true progressive. We don't all believe that. But for some of us, he comes close enough to acceptability while having an excellent chance at winning the nomination and the Presidency.

I'm angered when I feel animosity coming from the right of Howard Dean (whether from centerist-DLC-types or Republicans). Conversely, I'm saddened when I feel animosity coming from the left of Dean; that's because the left is where I'm coming from. I'm just stepping out of my spot long enough to try to get this guy elected, then dragging him back over with me.

And before anyone calls me wishy-washy, or a whore, or similar, ask yourself who you will be voting for next November. Will it be different than the vote I'm casting on that day?

Thanks for listening.

a reasonable Dean supporter!

:toast:

Most of these are good points...

-Dennis Kucinich is a better candidate than Howard Dean.

I think so, but that is a matter of opinion.

-Dennis Kucinich is much more progressive than Howard Dean.

This is true. And I bet both of them would agree with you.

-Dennis Kucinich's platform matches my personal views more than any other candidate's.

Me too. "unelectable" or not (I've heard some people say the same about Dean) he represents me and my views in the primaries.

-Dennis Kucinich really is (or should be) the soul of this party.

He is one of the people we have for the future. Wellstone is gone, and we need to get some new blood to lead our side of the party.

-Howard Dean isn't the DLC-centerist some people think he is.

He is and he isn't. Socially, I think he's all over the map. Fiscally, he balanced budgets, but wants to repeal tax cuts. So he's not "conservative" or "moderate" but perhaps just responsible.

-At the same time, Dean isn't the most progressive candidate.
-Dennis Kucinich will not win the Democratic Party nomination next year.

Unfortunatley I think you are right. But DK will blow the roof off of the convention and be back in 08 to take on Hillary and Gore. And unless Russ Feingold runs, DK will be my man again.

-Unless the primary in my state is really close for Dean, I will vote for Kucinich in the primary because I want him to get as many votes as possible.

That's your choice. I say vote for whoever you believe in. Period. If that's Dean, go for it.

I really hate that I have to say this, but YES, I will vote for Dean when or if he is our nominee. And I personally believe he will be. But stop the DK hate, Dean folks. DK isn't your enemy - and you'll need their supporters later. Keep in mind, many of these people may vote Green!

thread? Reasonable???

forward. Also, posting things like "Holy Crap a reasonable Dean supporter" is not very 'reasonable'...

Thanks. I am sorry this had to happen. I dont believe in fighting fire with fire personally.