Mean, Mean Howard Dean He's Regressive, Not Progressive

Media pundits have been rattling their cages over Howard Dean's so-called progressive agenda, but how wrong they've been. Dean's back seat criticism of the Bush Administration's case for war should enlighten us to the fact that this ex-Vermont Governor's leadership skills are lacking. Prior to the dubious war on Iraq, Dean exclaimed he supported a multi-lateral invasion, but hardly questioned the disinformation spewed from the White House about Iraq's threat to our national security. And to top it off, Dean may well be a Zionist. His unwavering support for the Sharon regime in Israel calls into question his quest for peace in the Middle East. Dean's alignment with the pro-Sharon lobbying firm, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is a stark indicator that this Presidential hopeful's vision for the Arab world is glaringly similar to that of team Bush.

Some Democrats have even been comparing Dean to George McGovern--who back in 1972 lost the Presidential race by a landslide to incumbent Richard Nixon. McGovern was a true liberal Democrat, and many claim that his progressive policies cost him the election.

But what progressive policies could cost Dean the 2004 election? Could it be his support for the death penalty? Maybe it will be his praise of the outlandish Welfare Reform program Clinton and Gore mustered through Congress. Or perhaps it'll have to do with his recent remarks that Iraq simply needs more troops for the ongoing occupation. He sounds a lot like some prominent Republican spinsters on that one. Someone should ask Howard Dean if he remembers a little country called Vietnam.

How in the heck did he get labeled a progressive anyway? What radical changes is he proposing? His rhetoric is simplistic, and his populist mantra is reminiscent of Gore in 2000--passionate, but toothless. For example, he'll say he's for 'grassroots democracy,' but won't support campaign finance reform. He will also beat his chest over 'universal healthcare,' but he won't back any 'sweeping reforms.' How can we have universal healthcare without drastically changing our for-profit medical industry? Who is he kidding?

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank08092003.html

When you stop calling people ASS in their threads. Or DUDE...

I havn;t heard that term used since, well I was an adult already when children were using it,

but then...

....you're not yet an adult dude.

HEY BTW, have you got anything CONSTRUCTIVE about kerry? Or more troll-like Dean-bashing behavior?

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

I've noticed that most supporters of other candidates know how to go out and look up information. They don't swear and demand that the Dean people repost items already posted. In general, I think that the non-Dean people are very respectful in their postings.

Are you trying to tell me that there aren't a select few here who post more anti-Dean posts than posts that support their chosen candidate?

since January 2003.

No snide remarks about how Bush didn't really win the 2000 election. The fact is is that he became president.

Howard Dean suggests that, just like George Bush*, Dean will make a hard right turn if elected. He went far right enough in Vermont that people left the Democratic Party because of him and formed a Preogressive Party.

It would bother me a lot if a Democrat got in the White House and continued governing from the right. I think everyone deserves to know the truth about what Howard Dean did as governor of Vermont, not just what he puts on his resume.

We didn't get the truth about Bush* so we should demand it about all our candidates.

Always has been. Always will be.

As much as the DLC tries to make him a liberal, he's a moderate. He's always stated that. What don't you understand about that?

Hmm, you sure you didn't mean Lieberman instead, because that's a perfect description for him, other than repuke-lite!

Lieberman's not perfect, and he's a very moderate liberal, but he's a liberal. He has always been good on stuff like the environment. He has just recently blasted Bush on it. Nobody's a regressive in the Democratic 9, that's a hyperbole.

In my opinion.

It is my intention to being annoying. So are all of the Dean is Great posts with no content I have to look at every three minutes.

If you want to argue the positive aspects of Deans candidacy without using posts from his mindless, sycophantic Dean for America Website or his Stepford blog, fine.

But since you cant, dont bother me.

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

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

but mine are deleted? Come on....

don't fret, I bet it'll be gone soon and only the rightwing/extreme leftwing slander against Democrats will remain...

he means Nick.

not yours

Just as annoying as the Dean who post, "My best friends pet parrot said Howard Dean is Great Today".

Sorry, that Garbage is REALLY annoying.

...and I don't mean somebody ELSE'S statements with an occasional Clark quote. I mean explanations directly from Clark that state where he stands and how he plans to make his agenda work.

He waffles like hell on the Iraq war vote. Plus, his advisers need to advise him to please stop answering questions with "well when Clinton and Gore were in the White House" blah blah. He needs to start answering questions directly when asked, and stop the stories about Vietnam, the Clinton years, etc. My question for him is can he answer direct questions from the American people without sounding so much like a inside the beltway politician?

I think Kerry is a likeable candidate, but he drives me crazy with his answer first Clinton history lessons than answering any questions directly from voters.

but c'mon... this is the third thread you've started on Dean in the last hour or so that depicts him as a big ole meanie - jailing moms, etc.
If you're trying to convince DU Dean fans that he's really an unexposed raging asshole, fooling the masses, you're going about it the wrong way.

If you really hate him so much vote for someone else in the primary.

:shrug:

I'm convinced!

Dean called said that all there was was innuendo during the lead up to war, and said Powell's presentation did not justify a unilateral attack.

Dean is not aligned with AIPAC.

Dean wants to get the UN involved and have less US troops in Iraq, he just doesn't think it would be wise to abandon the place since we have a responsibility to rebuild it, thanks to Bush.

How can we have sweeping healthcare reforms if they'll get killed by special interests?

What the hell is the innuendo of Dean not supporting environmental or workers rights? That's nonsense.

Dean said he would pull out of the WTO if they are unwilling to pass labor or environmental standards.

And of course, anyone who supports Dean is a fool. :eyes:

This is a bunch of tripe.

he just trickled on my party.

Dean has been know to say one thing before geeting elected, and then do another afterwards...

Just like his statements on Social Security, he has been saying he woould raise the age since 1995, and now apologizes because he realized he may have cost himself 90 percent of the baby boomer vote.

Then magically, one can expenctv Howie to return to his budget slashing self, and do exactly what he has been saying most often if he gets into office.

Say this. Do that. Gotta love it.

Every new term was a surprise!

...and predictable? :-)

not living up to his campaign promises? Are you saying that you LIKE Dean because he waffles and misrepresents?

...several posts chain of sarcasm? :-)

People are living longer now then they were when the age limit was set. Nothing wrong with having people work a little longer...I plan on working until I am 70 at least.

As the Poet said, the best laid plans....

"he has been saying he woould raise the age since 1995"

He said that IN 1995, not SINCE 1995. There is a distinct difference. Being 50, I'd bet that you wore diapers IN 1954. Are you telling me that it's the same thing to say that you've worn diapers SINCE 1954?

Using the word "since" implies that raising the SS age is still his position. Gov. Dean has stated clearly that it's not.

:nopity:

Your attacks are a dime a dozen. They've lost their effectiveness, if they ever had any to begin with. Do you have anything new in your arsenal? Anything at all?

Actually, you claim to be a kerry supporter. I dare you to put-up a post telling us why you support Kerry. So far, we've pretty much only heard hit-pieces from you. Do you have anything positive?

being that Kerry voted for it, where as Dean is on the record saying he wouldn't have voted for it if in that position. If counter punch doesn't like Dean for this reason, than clearly Kerry is much worse.

I thought the welfare reform law was one of the cheapest panders to the Contract With America gang while pissing on the people that are most vulnerable in society. I like Kerry for many reasons, but I'm not so enamored that I would let this trashy vote pass. I realize that every voting record has blemishes, but this happens to be a big fat pimple in my book. I have less problems with his Patriot Act vote, given its historical context (although I have MUCH bigger problems with the Act itself).

I do understand that it gives him "centrist" credentials, and almost everyone in my family agrees wholeheartedly with the vote, but it still makes me sick.

<>

Doesn't seem like nearly as much as Dean...what's wrong - can't find enough good things to say about Kerry?

about Gore and Clark? Yes or no. No document dumps. No crap. A straight yes or no answer.

sing along...

He is gaining unprecedented grassroots appeal. You cannot minimize that no matter how much you may disagree with his policies. Plus, your Dean bashing is getting old and I going to have to give more money to his campaign to compensate. Thanks!

Get a life, dude. If you put 1/2 the energy into supporting whoeverthehell you like as you do coming up with anti-Dean stuff, you might actually convince someone.

eileeeeen from OH

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

*yawn*

Redundancy and dogmatic hatred are not signs of good intellectual discourse. It is possible to discuss an article, an article that wasn't vitriolic at all, without the juvenile name calling.

Be that as it may, the poster is making the same mistake he has made over and over: assuming Dean supporters don't already know Dean's positions on things.

I'm not sure if there is an Ultimate Authority on Progressiveness, but Dean is certainly more progressive that Bush, just pragmatically progressive.

I have upped my Drinking Game/Eats Puppies contributions to Dean to $5 for every thread or post from you. It remains at only $1 for others. I hope you appreciate the amount of (monetary) support you will be generating for Dean. Thank you for your support.

I hope you have lots of cash stashed away!

Think you could add all of VoteForTheGuyWhosNotRunning's threads as well?

It'll probably cost me an arm and a leg to just honor one of them. :-) Maybe someone else could take up the other guy's posts?

"I passionately supported the Greens in 2000 and 2002. I traveled 125 miles to see Dennis Kucinich speak when he came to Los Angeles in May, and had the pleasure of introducing him to a crowd of several hundred when he visited Santa Barbara recently. Kucinich is a guiding light in Congress and, of the nine Democratic presidential contenders, his views most closely mirror my own.Yet I won't be voting for Kucinich in the Democratic primaries, nor will I vote Green in the general elections. My support will go to Howard Dean.

Yes, I've read the unfavorable commentaries on Howard Dean by writers whose opinions I greatly respect, like Norman Solomon and Alexander Cockburn. And yes, I know that I disagree with some critical components of Dean's platform. Progressives should be well aware that they're going to disagree on a range of issues with every individual who has a chance at being in the White House two years from now. Our choice is not between Howard Dean and the-even-better-candidate-who-has-a-shot-at-winning-the-Democratic-nomination-and-defeating-George-Bush; that other candidate doesn't exist. Neither Kucinich nor Al Sharpton nor Carol Moseley Braun nor any Green will be President. Progressives should incorporate these realities into their electoral strategy, however disappointing they may be...

..."Patience and fortitude conquer all things," wrote Ralph Waldo Emerson. In pressing times, progressives have demonstrated great fortitude by committing themselves to institutions and social movements that addressed injustices theretofore neglected. Howard Dean is no holy grail, but amidst a trend in our country toward widespread political ignorance and a sort of corporatized proto-fascist nationalism, perhaps it is our patience that is needed now. What we have in Dean is a man who can articulate liberal positions intelligently, passionately, and commandingly, and who has the grassroots/netroots support and an appeal to diverse constituencies that will allow him to defeat George Bush. Let's join Dean's campaign, get on his e-mail lists, and spread the word. "


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0811-09.htm

(Oooo! how dreadful, a Zionist! ) by the anti-Semitic Counterpunch, is not something Dean should be worrying about. When you prefer to let us know what you like about Kerry's positions, please feel free to comment.

++ Israel/Palestine: As Mid East analysts Ahmed Nassef and Stephen Zunes have pointed out, Dean's positions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are very disappointing for those who seek a just and sustainable peace in the region. Unfortunately, they're also standard amongst the Democratic presidential hopefuls. All nine candidates essentially tow the same line: they support a vague "two-state solution," the removal of settlements (without details as to how many or when), and the cessation of terrorism, and they concede that further details will have to be worked out by the relevant parties. JTA, a Jewish news service, recently had a piece focusing on a hawkish Democratic fundraiser named Peter Buttenwieser, who notes that the "litmus test for me is a candidate has to be good on Israel. ... But all of these candidates are good on Israel." This pattern is hardly new. Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair wrote that Paul Wellstone, "in common with ninety-eight other senators, craven on Israel." Even Kucinich chose not to join nearly two dozen fellow representatives in voting against a strongly worded May 2003 House resolution that "supported Israel's incursions into Palestinian territories, and apparently endorsed as justifiable the brutality and bloodshed the Israeli Army inflicted on the unarmed civilians there," according to prominent English-language daily Arab News.


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0811-09.htm