Questions for Dean supporters

I'm reposting these -- they come from http://www.vermontindymedia.org/newswire/display/1422/index.p --because I'm seriously interested in knowing (a) whether they're even true and (b) if true, what your answers are. (I've clipped 2 that were, I think, already answered, and I'd appreciate it if you'll respond substantively rather than by trying to kill the messenger)


2. Why did the Dean administration increase funding for Vermont's state colleges by only 7% while you increased funding for prisons by 150%?

3. Why did IBM, the leading polluter in Vermont, receive your Environmental Achievement Award nine times?

4. What did you mean when you said, "I've had 40 or 45 private meetings with IBM since I've been governor. And IBM has gotten pretty much everything they've asked for"?

6. Why did you wait for the courts and legislature to bring about the civil union bill before you supported it?

7. Why do you oppose the Israeli Labour Party candidate for prime minister Amram Mitzna's call for unconditional peace talks with the Palestinians?

8. While you acknowledge that you "haven't condemned Congress for passing the Patriot Act," Bernie Sanders from your own state of Vermont is leading efforts in Congress to overturn the Act. Why are you not supporting Bernie Sanders' efforts and condemning Congress for its attack on civil liberties?

9. How do you respond to Annette Smith of Vermonters of a Clean Environment who says: "Dean's attempt to run for president as an environmentalist is nothing but a fraud. He's destroyed the Agency of Natural Resources, he's refused to meet with environmentalists while constantly meeting with developers, and he's made the permitting process one, big dysfunctional joke. EP under Governor Dean meant Expedite Permits, not Environmental Protection"?

10. Since you pride yourself on your "fiscal responsibility" who do you refuse to even consider any decreases in the bloated Pentagon budget?

This is what I like about DU-people bring out issues to discuss. I am supporting Dean for his stand against the war, his health care plan, and his fiscal policies. I didn't know about these other matters. It will be important to find out how these questions are answered by Dean-because the answers have to come from him, not his supporters. Anyone know if Dean has answered these or explained his actions in these areas?

Dean spin gets addressed pretty quickly around here with a unified voice. So, sit back, and watch the rapid response team go to work.

I just pick up the red phone.

aimed at media sources, not personal questions. When individuals say things Dean Nation tries to feed the "goal not the troll".

A lot of accusations. Zero context. Zero linkage to data.

E.g., the 'since you're now claiming credit, why didn't you support civil unions til you were forced to' (that's a paraphrase, of course)

:eyes:

push for civil unions before the VSC put him on the spot?!?

Are you trying to imply that Dean is not a viable liberal candidate equally worthy of the Democratic nomination as all the others?

Yep.



On edit: And why is that, exactly?

Supported adoption rights for gays/lesbians
Supported benefits for partners
supported non-discrimiation policies in the workplace
After the court decision went barnstorming around the state defending the decision in passionate terms.

This is why so many gay/lesbian Vermonters support Dean. He's long been a friend of the community.


I appreciate the civil manner in which you posted this, Mairead, but honestly I don't understand how anyone could take it seriously. This guy doesn't back up anything he says.

I'd like to further address some of these points, but I have a lakeside end of summer party to go to! Brrr. It suddenly go cool here in Northern Vermont. We may even have a frost tonight.

you are understating the case here. Dean signed a civil rights bill which eliminated discrimination in housing, employment, public accomadations, and education. He also signed a bill permitting same sex adoption as couples. The first made him one of three states at the time and now 10 the second is either one of four or five.

look... on that issue, I've seen him take the heat for signing it... and handle it in a very straightforward mannor, just 2 weeks ago or so. I'm given to understand he did so a great deal back when he signed it as well. As a lesbian...the way he handled that warmed my heart. I will NEVER question him on this particular issue.

But I've got some questions too.

1. How can you claim to have always opposed the Iraq war when your timetable FOR going to war was essentially the same as Bush's?

2. How high is it you actually want to raise the age for elegibility to Social Security?

3. What is it, exactly, about the Patriot Act that you think we need to keep?

4. Given the job situation here in America, and the loss of wages of the middle class, how can you justify supporting NAFTA?

If you take a look here http://soli.inav.net/~njohnson/kucinich/dkorhd.html you might find some questions of your own. Actions speak much louder than words, and I have changed my initial support from Mr. Dean to the man I hope will be the next president of the United States, Dennis Kucinich.

1. How can you claim to have always opposed the Iraq war when your timetable FOR going to war was essentially the same as Bush's?
…
Speaking at a fundraising dinner filled with activists wary about going to war again in the Persian Gulf again, Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and John Edwards (N.C.), and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean highlight the spectrum of opinion within the Democratic Party as lawmakers in Washington prepare to vote on a resolution authorizing war.
…
Dean, whose advocacy of liberal domestic policies has struck a chord among grass-roots activists here, offered the sharpest dissent. He contended that Bush has yet to make a compelling case to justify going to war.

"The greatest fear I have about Iraq is not just that we will engage in unwise conduct and send our children to die without having an adequate explanation from the president of the United States," he said. "The greater fear I have is the president has never said what the truth is, which is if we go into Iraq we will be there for 10 years to build that democracy and the president must tell us that before we go."
…
http://www.dre-mfa.gov.ir/eng/iraq/iraqanalysis_27.html

2. How high is it you actually want to raise the age for elegibility to Social Security?
…
As President, I will be committed to preserving the integrity and long-term stability of the Social Security Trust Fund. I will oppose privatizing the Social Security System. And I will pursue a responsible economic agenda, and under my plan we will never have to consider raising the retirement age.

The long-term future of Social Security and financial security for all of us in our retirement years depends on ensuring a healthy rate of economic growth over the next several decades. Even a modest increase in long-term growth rates will ease the burden on the Social Security Trust Fund. If we do need to bring more money into Social Security, then I'm prepared to look at reasonable options for expanding the ceiling on payroll taxes.

The best guarantee for our Social Security, therefore, is an economic plan with three basic principles:

First, we must create economic growth and jobs new jobs, more jobs, and better jobs for Americans;

Second, we must return to fiscal sanity, for the sake of future generations, yes but also for the sake of our very national security. We cannot be a world-class country if we are the world's largest debtor;

Finally, we must reform our tax system. When I am President, I will work to repeal the top heavy Bush tax cuts, and replace them with a system that is fairer, and simpler, and places less of a burden on working Americans who live off their paychecks.
…
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7343

3. What is it, exactly, about the Patriot Act that you think we need to keep?
Governor Dean: "Fighting terrorism does not mean compromising our freedoms"
…
I am also deeply troubled by some provisions in the USA Patriot Act, which was enacted in the wake of 9/11 without meaningful debate. The Act gives overly broad investigative and surveillance powers to the government and strips federal courts of their traditional authority to curb abuses of power by the executive branch. Many of the Act’s provisions have little or nothing to do with combating terrorism; in fact some had been previously rejected by Congress.
…
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_patriotact

4. Given the job situation here in America, and the loss of wages of the middle class, how can you justify supporting NAFTA?
…
While U.S. unemployment improved in June, Dean said it’s still at a nine-year high and ignores the underemployed, which he pegged at 6 percent.

“These are people who had $50,000 good jobs and now they are making $25,000 or $30,000, and they have two of them, in some cases,” Dean said. “I am tired of having an economy where our best jobs are shifted elsewhere in the world.’’

Dean fans made up a thick portion of the crowd, often turning Dean’s 25-minute stump speech into a rally of revival proportions with interrupted calls of “amen’’ and “yes, yes.’’
…
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/Main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=377&ArticleID=85948
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=11856&mesg_id=11856
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=124665&mesg_id=124665

…
HOWARD DEAN: No. What I said-- Well, I'll tell you what I said in a minute. But I'll follow my train of thought here, most briefly. Free trade has benefited Vermont a great deal. Here's the problem with free trade, and here's why I support fair trade, and why I want to change all our trade agreements to include human rights with trade, as Jimmy Carter included human rights with foreign policy. I still think NAFTA was a good thing. I think the president did the right thing. But the problem now is that, 10 years into NAFTA, here's what we've done. We have shipped a lot of our industrial capacity to other countries. And the ownership pattern, and the ratio of reward between capital and labor in those other countries is what it was 100 years ago in this country.

So the reason for NAFTA is not just trade. It's defense and foreign policy. That is, a middle class country where women fully participate in the economic and political decision making of that country is a country that doesn't harbor groups like Al-Qaeda, and it's a country that does not go to war. So that's in our intersect. That's why trade is really in our long term interest. What we've done so far in NAFTA is we've transferred industrial capacity, but we haven't transferred any of the elements that are needed to make a middle class. The truth is, the trade union movement in this country built America, not literally-- Well, they did do it literally with the Brooklyn Bridge and the Empire State Building, and things like that. But they built America because they allowed people who worked in factories and mines to become middle class people. And America was the strongest country on earth, and still is, because we have the largest middle class on earth, with democratic ideals. That is, working people in this country, by and large, feel that this is their country, and they have a piece of the pie, and it matters what they think.

Now, if you want trade to succeed, ultimately, we're going to have to create a climate in other countries that are beneficiaries of NAFTA where they can create a middle class with democratic ideals. That means we should not have any free trade agreements, and we should go back and tell the WTO that "you need also to include environmental standards and labor standards." Here's why. Today, if you run a factory in Iowa-- Let's suppose you spend a million dollars a year disposing of all the waste products that come out that are toxic. You can go to another country and dump all that stuff in the river and on the ground. So America, because we have environmental standards, and we're willing to trade, straight out, free trade, with countries that it's cheaper by a million dollars, before you even get to wages, to do business there, I think that's a big problem. We're essentially saying, "Our environmental laws are strict. It's cheaper for you to go into business someplace lese. Go ahead." That's the wrong thing to do.

The same with labor standards. I don't know why we should be shipping our jobs offshore when kids can work 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for a small amount of wages. And isn't that what America fought against 100 years go? Wasn't that the victory of the trade union movement? So it seems to me that my position makes sense. We've gone through 10 years of free trade. We've gotten to a position where we now need to change our trade agreements.
…
http://www.jfklibrary.org/forum_dean.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=46131&mesg_id=46131&page=

"And America was the strongest country on earth, and still is, because we have the largest middle class on earth, with democratic ideals. That is, working people in this country, by and large, feel that this is their country, and they have a piece of the pie, and it matters what they think."

What about the fact that American has the biggest gap between the rich and poor in the developed world? "That working people believe this is their country and they have a piece of the pie and it matters what they think" makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

If Dean thinks this is true, he is not the one to lead us out of this mess. Dennis Kucinich clearly knows the score and is the one and only candidate, imo, who will make the myth quoted above a reality for the middle class.

How exactly does Dean propose to get jobs back to America?

How will Dean help to relieve the growing burdens that drive family farms out of existence while corporate farms, especially ones that use the one-season GM seeds to produce crops?

How will Dean put an end to reducing the food supply that farmers must destroy when surplus crop seasons can help to feed the hungry too poor to afford to build a healthy supply of food?

What will Dean do to approach the growing anti-American sentiment that's circulating the globe as a result of co-operative dirty tricks between U.S. and International corporations and the US government, including the Pentagon and the CIA?

What does Dean propose to do to get the CIA out of the drug trade that helps to fund the unknown budget that the CIA refuses to expose for Congressional scrutiny?

What does Dean propose to do to give elderly folks in Northern states enough reason to not need to buy cheaper medicine in Canada, where univerasal healthcare is, according to my Canadian friends, an excellent program that really isn't a burden on them?

SO far, his idea of approaching healthcare issues won't work for me.

I'd also like to know why Dean thinks I must wait until I'm over 65 to retire. My body is already damaged from working cheap labor jobs and heart disease runs in my family. My mother nearly died before she was 65 and able to retire. Does Dean have a plan so maybe I can earn more money without corporations and their political buddies screwing me out of every opportunity I've tried to take to get ahead in life?

Dennis Kucinich understands that we laborers are America's backbone. He also understands that NAFTA and the WTO have enabled employers here to take away our job opportunities (especially good ones) to set up shop in low wage, economically depressed countries where the corporate bosses aren't really making the positive difference that pro Nafta and pro WTO pundits claim. (They lie!)

I want to know what Dean's investment record is so that I can compare it to his voting record. I'd also like him to kindly submit his sealed records for public scrutiny, since some people are doing that to Kucinich and perverting facts with incomplete information, twisted versions of truth, and opinions in place of actual truths.

I'm all for a strong military, but how does the very expensive Pentagon fit in the picture? It seems, most military people I know that are well informed have a long list of gripes about the Pentagon, including how Pentagon brass profits from war related market investments and DARPA's recent stunt of turning assassinations and terror attacks into a market investment campaign.

I see no reason why Dennis K. should not unload the Total Information Awareness department (renamed to Terror Information Awarness to escape public criticism) as a measure for cutting the excessive fat in the military budget. I also see no reason why he shouldn't want to make cuts like setting standards on corporations with government contracts that gouge prices for profit and love Bush's idea to unload union presence while enforcing all sorts of anti-labor measures for them and federal employees.

There sure are more intelligence departments than I can keep up with and some of my Navy Intel friends tell me that some of those departments are mirrors to others... What a waste!

What did the numbers start with 2?

2. He has addressed this in stump speeches. He did not want to increase funding for prisons. He had to do it to get other things he wanted, the legislature gave him no choice.

3. Maybe the did clean up some aspect of their operation. Being "leading polluter of Vermont" is rhetorical and unquantified. I do not know the specifics.

4. I do not know what IBM got out of it, but he presumably means exactly what he said. He probably worked a deal with them to keep them in Vermont. If IBM were to leave Vermont, people would lose jobs. Environmental concerns must be balanced with other things. It does people in Vermont very little good to have a pristine environment if everyone is broke and out of work because of it.

6. He supported it by signing it into law. What else did he need to do? Perhaps he did not come out publicly in enthusiastic support, but so what? When it counted, he did the right thing. It is likely that nothing would have ben gained by his support. Politics is a lot about playing the odds.

7. No idea here. Maybe he simply did not agree with the unconditional peace talks. i do not know hi reasons if so.

8. He has said he will attempt to overturn those parts of the Patriot Act which are unconstitutional.

9. M. Smith's statement is without context and contains no real specifics, only a vague accusation. For all I know, she could be an extremist all-or-nothing fundamentalist environmentalist type who condemns anyone who does not return us to the Stone Age (but then again she might not).

10. A promise to decrease the Pentagon budget in the current political climate in America is a losing proposition, period. No one who says they are going to slash the military budget is going to win broad support.

I could actually have summed up the answered to all of these questions with one pharse:

Being a head of state (whether a Governor or a President) is about creating compromise and coalitions, not about ruling by ideological fiat.

that they made to get better legislation than would have passed without their efforts.

So, his attacks were disingenuous because he is quite a fan of compromise himself.

It's called primary politics. Just as Dean is being disingenuous in his attacks, those he atttacked made similar disingenuous political calculations when they cast their votes.

The only difference is that Dean's attacks only hurt the "victim" rhetorically. Those votes, however, are killing America's youth as we speak. What's more important to you?

First of all there is a difference between compromise and rolling over. The House and the Senate Democrats (Not all of them but a strong majority) rolled over and showed their belly to the Republicans when they gave a blank check to the President in regards to Iraq. The Patriot Act is a similar situation, although I, personally don't hold it against them as much because of the panicked state of their constituency in regards to terrorism.

As far as the environment in Vermont v. IBM goes: IBM is damn clean compared to many, many, companies in many, many, industries. I suggest looking at the record of the power plants and actually looking at the real pollution record in the state. After-all in a industrialized society _somebody_ is going to be the largest polluter, right? It doesn't mean that they aren't taking all the steps that they can can to mitigate the problem.

I'm not insisting that they are, but the way the question was asked, it made IBM out to be Exxon or Union Carbide (which they are not).

Bush's blank check was STOPPED.

Who negotiated to get Bush to the UN? To get the inspectors back in? To limit the action to Iraq and NOT invade Iran and Syria?

If you didn't want Dems to negotiate with Bush for these things than you wanted a REAL blank check for Bush.

And a "real" blank check would have been different how?

Bush wanted NO involvement of the UN and NO forced presentation od evidence to the UN and NO further weapons inspections and NO limit to what countries were invaded.

Do you prefer Bush have that REAL blank check? Do you prefer that Bush had never been forced to pinpoint evidence in front of the UN? (it forced him to overreach/fabricate) Do you prefer Bush had attacked Iraq earlier and be bombing Iran and Syria today?

Representatives that stood up in open oposition to the farce this was! I prefer denis kuciniches example. I prefer a Senate that stands openly in defense of justice. They could have stoped anything put in front of them if they wanted to. They chose not to in order to try to get it off the radar before the elections. Try to spin it any way you want to the truth is they voted for it for political gain or percieved political gain. Its clearly coming back to bite them in the ass.

Some of them had to be the lawmakers stuck biting the bullet and negotiating with the thugs. That's how it works. If you don't like it, change the process. Kucinich would never blame those stuck negotiating because he knows how it works.

They got better than Bush wanted. And the world is better for it. Imagine if Bush had used the initial perception of success in Iraq to start bombing Iran and Syria.

I realize you want to excuse the vote of many of these congressmen on this thing but just how exactly is the world better for it?

Far as changing how it works. The only way to do that is to get those that make it work that way out. Which is exactly why none of them will get my support.

to negotiate and refused to do so.

You would be derelict of your duty to get a better bill than the one Bush wanted.

How is the world better for the forced presentation of evidence and UN involvement? Bush lost much credibility here at home which will likely cost him election in 2004. And we didn't invade Iran and Syria right after Baghdad fell.

and the Patriot Act.

I've seen the arguement that you and Nick use to support the IWR vote (though I think it's total BS). What's your defense of the "yea" votes for the Patriot act. Please don't try to say that they didn't read it...that's not a valid excuse in my book.

Dean is more like Bush than any other candidate. If anyone can be called Bushlite..............

There is no excuse for them failing to stand up to the Bush administration and telling them, "You boys and girl will wait for us to examine this thing before we vote on it. We owe America that consideration." I greatly respect Kucinich for not being that weak and gullable. It wasn't the first time that he dismissed upcoming elections, like the others that were too frightened to do the right thing for fear of being smeared as unpatriotic by the neocon spinmasters so soon before the elections. In that, I don't know if Dean and the others were being stupid, or selfish and weak. If he can be that easily duped into voting away our civil rights, what other blunders might he make if he's elected U.S. President?

I can see where your argument has merit toward Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt and Edwards but how the hell do you put Dean in the mix? Dean has NEVER had a vote in congress.

I am really not sure -- it's interesting though.

Some of the questions use the word "you" -- I'm Jason Bowden, not Howard Dean. I do concede that Kucinich is the most liberal candidate. No contest. Game over. You win.

Some of the environmental charges against Dean are new to me. Others are not. Given the baseless attacks that have been made against Dean in the past, I'll be patient and see if any hard information bubbles up. I will add that Dean's environmental record is pretty good. http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_record_environment

What we need is a repeal of the Bush tax cuts, parts of universal health care put in place, a complete 180 from Bush's unilateralist foreign policy, and most importantly, no more Scalias on the big bench. As the stones put it,

You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you might find
You get what you need

Sticking one's neck out on a controversial bill that a majority opposes before it is even passed is politically pure stupidity. To Dean's credit, Vermont now is the only state with civil unions. This criticism unequivocally is tacky bullshit.

Demanding a complete repeal of the Patriot Act without examining items on a case by case basis indicates a reckless opposition for opposition's sake. Again, more aimless I'm more liberal than you-ism.

A party with a perception of being "weak" on defense should not be asking for budget cuts in that department. Now is the not the time to fight that battle. If Dean were going to cut it, doing it quietly *after* the election is the wise path of behavior. Again, intelligence is exhibited by Dean, and stupidity shown by Kucinich.

Think about it. Kucinich consistently polls at 0-1% because he is concerned about being superliberal, not winning. And if we don't win, we not only do not get what we want, we don't even get what we need.

But you can embarass yourself all you want to trying to answer them. I like the idea of this, instead of addressing any of the questions, you show yourself off as a hypocrit by attacking the questioner and making fun of someone's post. I can easily find who to ignore that way :)

That's basically who you're listening to. You need to understand something about Vermont's "left"...it's basically off the map. Seriously. I live here and am telling you that Dean is not anything at all like these nuts portray him as. He wasn't bad on the environment, he just wouldn't pander to radicals who try to force their own choices down the throats of the rest of us. IBM causing pollution? That's absurd. They made electronics. I've worked at several electronics companies and they don't cause any pollution. People that work with solder in an enclosed space over a long period of time could have minor health repurcussions...but a car with a bad exhaust causes more pollution than building electronics does. I'll address your questions as a middle of the road Vermonter:


"2. Why did the Dean administration increase funding for Vermont's state colleges by only 7% while you increased funding for prisons by 150%?"

Are you aware that we don't have many state colleges? When you don't have a lot of them you don't need to make huge increases. As for the prison issue...the state has needed a new prison for a very long time. Overcrowding has been so bad that the state was having to ship prisoners to other states at a huge cost. Most small time offenders get house arrest, and the state prison programs are very big on rehabilitation and preparing prisoners to be able to get jobs and do okay on the street. The budget was so high because the state is in the process of building a new prison so we can bring inmates back home to be closer to their families and community ties.

"3. Why did IBM, the leading polluter in Vermont, receive your Environmental Achievement Award nine times?"

I already covered this one...and the Vermont radicals on the far left would love to see all businesses out of the state and have everyone grow mushrooms and be high all day. Dean has good balance and has done a lot to protect the environment while still allowing for progress.

"4. What did you mean when you said, "I've had 40 or 45 private meetings with IBM since I've been governor. And IBM has gotten pretty much everything they've asked for"?"

I suspect this quote is either an outright lie or has been butchered to appear to say something Dean never actually said. The radicals here are good for that...and anything you get from them is highly suspect. Take that on advisement and check it out thoroughly before spreading it. Eventually the truth will come out and it'll save yourself from looking foolish.

"6. Why did you wait for the courts and legislature to bring about the civil union bill before you supported it?"

Probably because he just hadn't thought about it or had anyone put the idea on the table before. He could have avoided addressing it entirely if he wanted to. The state was so divided over the issue, and it was very ugly. He signed it in private for that reason. He wanted the state to heal, not to add pomp and circumstance to a lot of hard feelings. He made his entire 2000 campaign about dignity, equal rights and respect for each other. The man went through a lot of horrible things over signing that bill. Death threats, harassment, he was spat on and called disgusting names by the far right up here. He put on a bullet proof vest and faced it head on and talked about it. It worked and he won. To imply he didn't do much for gay rights is insulting for anyone who saw things play out up here. He should be commended for doing the right thing.

"7. Why do you oppose the Israeli Labour Party candidate for prime minister Amram Mitzna's call for unconditional peace talks with the Palestinians?"

Is there a quote to back this up? Another thing I suspect is an outright lie. It's not Dean's style to do that. He also took a trip to Israel to check the situation out for himself. His stand is based on what he saw. He sees a two state solution, but thinks that as long as Arafat has any influence it's probably not going to go anywhere. He would be fair to both sides and I think he'd actually make more progress than anyone else could. He's solution motivated, and gets things done. His goal is peace and a two state solution with Democracy for Palestinians. Is that goal any different than yours? His vision to get there may differ from yours, and that's okay...but how different are the actual goals? Not very I would guess.

"8. While you acknowledge that you "haven't condemned Congress for passing the Patriot Act," Bernie Sanders from your own state of Vermont is leading efforts in Congress to overturn the Act. Why are you not supporting Bernie Sanders' efforts and condemning Congress for its attack on civil liberties?"

Well, I've heard Dean speak in person and he condemned the Patriot Act then. I've heard him do it on TV, the radio, and in print. If Dean were in Congress I'm sure he would be fighting the good fight as well, but he's not in Congress. At least he didn't vote for it like a few others did. More baseless whining, IMO.

"9. How do you respond to Annette Smith of Vermonters of a Clean Environment who says: "Dean's attempt to run for president as an environmentalist is nothing but a fraud. He's destroyed the Agency of Natural Resources, he's refused to meet with environmentalists while constantly meeting with developers, and he's made the permitting process one, big dysfunctional joke. EP under Governor Dean meant Expedite Permits, not Environmental Protection"?"

Do a Google Search on Annette Smith. Better yet, go to the online newspapers from Vermont and do a search in their archives about this woman. Read what her neighbors think of her. She's one of the loudest nuts we have up here. She's not very popular among her neighbors seeing as she thinks they should all go off the power grid and live like she does. If it's the woman I'm thinking off...she's about as reputable as Ruth Dwyer on criticism of Dean. Best ignored and essentially baseless.

"10. Since you pride yourself on your "fiscal responsibility" who do you refuse to even consider any decreases in the bloated Pentagon budget?"

I don't recall Dean ever saying he'd refuse to consider any decreases. He'd obviously have to look at things closely. You can guarantee he would adjust things to make the spending less wasteful, more effective and prune it where he could. He won't risk security of our nation, and I'm glad of that. People need to realize that our military does more than just drop bombs and make war. It does a lot of good throughout the world too. It could probably be cut if someone makes it more cost effective...and if anyone does that, it will be Dean. It's one of his hallmarks.

With that being said...most of the negative stuff coming out about Dean is coming from two groups of Vermonters...the radical left and the radical right. Those are the only two groups that hate him. The people that fall in between those two groups, as a whole, like him. Democrats, Independents and Republicans alike...Vermont respects Howard Dean. No one ever agreed with him on everything, but we respect him and know he's a good man.

It all comes down to:

"I sure wish my candidate had the support that Dean does. And since my candidate seems incapable of achieving Dean's success, I'll try to drag him down to where my candidate is."

Pretty pathetic.

But then that's the only criticism his opponents are going to find. I read one paper citing Ruth Dwyer's criticism. The woman is so rotten she got thrown off a school board for her toxic, hateful personality. She was involved with the take back Vermont crowd who were harassing school kids trying to make them hate gay people. This Annette Smith person is just as bad, but from the opposite side of the fence. She opposes everything, and I mean everything. Here's an example of a company who has a good record of being concerned for the enviornment. They've bent over backwards to do things the right way, and this woman still treats them like the devil.

http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article/0,9171,1110021104-384802,00.html

It's really easy for wealthy out of staters who buy a second home here in Vermont or who retire here to try to drive out good employers for their own selfish purposes. But the natives who live and work here have an entirely different perspective on things. Dean always understood that and did a good job.

Rummy can bash every effing candidate running and we're all supposed to kiss his ass. Heaven help anyone who opposes his view. Bye, Rummy. That was it for me.

Sorry.

:hi:



On edit: Deleted dictionary definition of, and lecture on, "flamebait."

I know I'm on ignore but I'm still shaking my head.

Where did I bash every candidate? I've always been supportive of Kucinich. I've even sent him a couple of donations. In case you didn't notice, this thread is flamebait and that's why I'm giving the poster grief, not because I disrespect Kucinich. Oh well. Btw, you might want to get that hair-trigger adjusted, the pull is a little on the light side.

For a good laugh, check out this thread, a perfect example of the "radical off-the-map" folk out here on the left coast:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/08/270433.shtml

How they love to merrily promote their misguided version of anarchy, how they revel in cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Personally, I'm a pragmatist when it comes to politics, and a committed liberal Democrat in a conservative western town. But I remember what it was like to be surrounded by "true believers" on the left too. Here's an exchange from that Portland site:

>>if left wing activists spend all their time focusing on Dean, then >>bush will have been succesful at taking a huge blow at the progress >>of the movement.

>what progress is that? look around you.... since bush entered >office, with a republican legislature to boot, there's been no damn >progress. he's already successfully taken a huge blow.

I'm with the second person. The time for ideological purism and party lines is NOT 2004. Maybe we can get our country back from Bush & Co., but it won't be by refusing to compromise, or refusing to vote. It's called coalition-building!

My soapbox aside, I'm glad people are getting their questions about candidates out in the open, and I'm even gladder when people provide sources. May the best Dem win the primaries! :)

And that is that Dean must be doing something right, because the extremist fundamentalists on BOTH sides hate him.

IBM causing pollution? That's absurd. They made electronics. I've worked at several electronics companies and they don't cause any pollution.

I've worked at a very large computer manufacturer too, and the acids, solvents, resins, adhesives, and waste in multi-layer PWB manufacture are quite obnoxious. And a semiconductor fab? Oy!

I haven't looked at what IBM does in Vermont, but if it's anything at a lower level than the manual board assembly you're talking about, then it's more toxic than you suggest.

You really need to familiarize yourself with Vermont's environmental rules. They are some of the most environmentally friendly in the country. These people who are complaining just complain about EVERYTHING. They'd stage a freaking protest if their neighbor passed gas. I'm serious. IBM worked very hard to be kind to the enviornment while producing enviornment friendly products (as cited in another post). I've seen the same kind of people attack Dean over "toxic waste" being sent to Texas. Do you know what the bulk of that waste was? low level X-rays. Yep, they were X-rays. Yet the rabidly radically goofs would have you thinking Dean was shipping glow in the dark toxic sludge and pouring it in the drinking water. You would serve yourself well to always do as you did this time when it comes to criticism of Dean by Vermonters. Question it and look for other takes on the story. The only genuine criticism that would come from Vermont about Dean would be some problems with ACT 60...which he always acknowledged was a work in progress that needed tweaking...and is still being tweaked as I type. Also, Vermont is actually sometimes TOO enviornmentally tough for business. Dean also isn't one to be wasteful with tax dollars. If a social program isn't working he WILL get rid of it and find a program that works. So if you hear he has cut services, he probably has, but only because the services needed to be overhauled and applied differently to actually do what they were intended to do. No, he's not a liberal, but he does genuinely care about his constituents. Vermont has great and effective social programs.

How do they do that? Or do you mean the radioactive material used to emit xray radiation? Because that stuff, unshielded, is quite toxic even in very tiny quantities. It will definitely cook various parts of your body for which spares are hard to come by.

I wish I remembered where I read that from, but it was a long time ago. Nothing was ever sent, though, because Bush's team essentially lied about the site. Even though we never sent anything there the community actually tried to sue Vermont for the money we were going to be paying for the disposal. They lost, obviously. I am positive that the waste was ALL low-level stuff, that much I'm certain of. And I'm pretty sure it was mostly actual Xrays. I'll look around when I get a chance, though.

I suspect this quote is either an outright lie or has been butchered to appear to say something Dean never actually said. The radicals here are good for that...and anything you get from them is highly suspect. Take that on advisement and check it out thoroughly before spreading it. Eventually the truth will come out and it'll save yourself from looking foolish.

Are you kidding or what?!? Wingnuts of all stripes fabricate "quotes" by their chosen enemies and already the second wingnut in the chain right after the original liar repeats the lie quite "innocently", babbling something like "I didn't make it up, I'm just reporting it, you prove it wrong if you don't believe!".

Even when the "quote" is proven to be a lie, e.g. if it's twisted from something the "enemy" really said and the original version is found and shown, it only stops some of the liars for a little while after which they are at it again. Some of them simply deny or ignore the proof and continue lying without a second's pause.

Since you are from Vermont, I figure you know what has gone on there. What you have said makes the most sense of the posts I've read here.

And you're welcome. The fact is that if Dean were as bad as some try to portray him to be, we would not have re-elected him 5 times. Personally, when I see that the fringe groups on both sides don't like a politician it's a very good indicator that they do a good job representing everyone in between. That's definitely been the case with Howard Dean. The few critics he has in Vermont are going to be loud not because they are trying to protect the country from someone they think is a horrible leader, but because they want attention. People need to keep that in mind. These people have alterior motives. Annette Smith and her organization are not free from scandal, either. They got into trouble for their financial dealings at some point. I'm not sure of the details, but I believe it had something to do with them running things to make a profit rather than operate as a genuine community charity organization. Perhaps that is why Ms. Smith didn't need good, environmental friendly businesses like the rest of us do. Sorry, but I really don't like these people who move here from other states and then interfere in what we want for our state. It's VERY annoying.

Thanks for that tip. From everything I googled Annette Smith of Vermonters for a Clean Environment appears to be a genuine homespun environmentalist and a model citizen.

But the reason I thank you is that I had no clear sense of the lameness of Howard Dean's record on environmental issues. Now I do. And the sources I read weren't exclusively quoting Ms. Smith, so get on out of here with those ad hominems.

You wouldn't happen to believe that the Concord Monitor is a radical publication do you? Or, maybe your contention is that they don't do good background on sources. I suppose you'd extend that criticism to the New York Times and Wall Street Journal as well? Now the Burlington Free Press--that's a Vermont rag, right?

One curious tidbit I did find was that Dean Defense Forces have been looking for dirt on Ms. Smith. In response to Michael Colby's article for Counter Punch, one Dejected Deanie said:

"I couldn't find much on Annette Smith other than she seems like a person with the right motives, but perhaps maybe not taking into consideration the whole picture. Truthfully I am feeling out of league with how to respond to the above article, but my biggest concern is that it doesn't paint Dean as a very Green minded person which could turn away some Green party voters."

Well, it looks like somebody finally found some dirt, eh? Some of her neighbors disagree with her. Oooh. She's one of those radicals. Oooh. She's an environmentalist. Ooo--uh, wait a minute.

For instance, companies that have great environmental records and who bend over backwards to meet Vermont's VERY rigid environmental laws are still targetted by this woman and demonized. She expects 100% for everything to go how she wants. What she wants is not consistent with what Vermonters want. Dean has a damn good environmental record. How many states make laws that require car dealerships to offer environmentally friendly vehicles? How many states have laws that don't allow businesses to build in many areas? How many states buy the land from logging companies in acres by the hundreds of thousands to ensure they are never stripped clear and developed? As a Vermonter, I view this woman much in the way I view that guy who is currently claiming that he was wrongfully banned from Vermont courts for protesting. That guy got mad because he lost a frivolously filed lawsuit on a landlord issue. The court had to put a restraining order on him because he was harassing a female judge. They had to order him not to enter her home and everything. The guy is sue happy and mentally unstable. Smith might have good intentions, but she IS extreme in her views. That fact, combined with her very loud activism has hurt native Vermonters. With the laws we have in place there is no reason for the woman to attack EVERY business that wants to come to Vermont. That's what she does.

Look, I read these news stories and saw Annette Smith's views aligned with spokespeople for environmental groups that I recognize and trust. I saw evidence of the real work she has been doing in local government. I didn't see KaraokeKarlton mentioned, and to be honest, I saw quotes by Gov. Dean that respected Ms. Smith's advocacy--and if anybody would be in a position to speak for Vermonters, it would be the Governor--so, please, lay off the personal attacks against this woman.

When asked about OMYA and Act 250. said Dean:

"Um that was obviously a slight advocacy question and I think folks are entitled to advocacy but the Governor has to be I think fair and mindful of the process. For the Governor the right answer to that question is A {Sit back and wait until they file an Act 250 application, say it's a local issue and stay out of it}. Is to let the local people have their say, let them have a vote if they want to, to let the Select Board weigh in on it and then when they file the Act 250 process, that is the time for the state to weigh in on it. I already got it cross-wise with Annette on the gas pipeline. I don't plan on doing it again. This time they get to go first."

You get the point? Fine if you want to argue that Dean is fair and balanced, whereas Ms. Smith is biased by her advocacy. But when you stoop to smearing this woman you're not only misrepesenting her position, and your candidate's position, you're also poisoning the well of democracy.

As for Dean's evironmental record, I'm a little too pooped to go into it at the moment, having, at your direction, given my energies to investigating Ms. Smith. I am aware of Dean's few accomplishments in this area, and what he has to say for himself, but to be honest, having seen some of his warts, I now see why some environmentalists and progressives have voiced contrary views. I would expect a Democratic Governor of Vermont to have a good record on the environment. You are making an argument that Dean's record is exemplary, but a googling of "Annette Smith" shows that many other Vermonters and concerned New Englanders, among them knowledgable and repsected environmental advocates, do not share your view. Being neither a Vermont native nor an exhaustive source of information, I leave it to others to come to their own conclusions.

p.s. You want smear Ms. Smith by lumping her together with some other guy you attack for nebulous reasons I can't possibly agree with as I have no earthly clue what the facts are???--That's a long way from defending your candidate's environmental record, don't you think? Or is everybody who criticizes Dean a criminal, harrassing, frivolous, mentally unstable doesn't-own-a-house-and-raises-his-voice RADICAL?

2. Why did the Dean administration increase funding for Vermont's state colleges by only 7% while you increased funding for prisons by 150%?

I can't find these statistics. Anywhere I can find them? I do know (after talking with a Vermont prosecutor) that the state had chronic problems with early release of violent offenders, so that obviously needed fixing. Fortunately Vermont doesn't have too many violent criminals.

Another possibility is unfunded federal mandates. Unfortunately Washington often tells states who they should lock up.

Yet another possibility is relocation of Vermont's inmates from out-of-state prisons, and that could be reflected in one budget line item going up and the other (payments to other states) going down.

But, like I said, I haven't found this statistic yet to give you more insight, so I'm eager to take a look.

3. Why did IBM, the leading polluter in Vermont, receive your Environmental Achievement Award nine times?

(a) IBM is also the largest private employer in the state, and Dean calculated per-employee pollution. (If a one-person business generates half the pollution that IBM does, that's not a clean business!)

(b) Vermont ranks 52nd among the states (and District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, presumably) in pollution emissions according to the EPA's Vermont fact sheet.

(c) IBM's Essex Junction plant kept reducing even that low level of pollution though various positive steps, including serious energy conservation.

(d) See below for more information on what IBM makes there.

4. What did you mean when you said, "I've had 40 or 45 private meetings with IBM since I've been governor. And IBM has gotten pretty much everything they've asked for"?

Exactly that. Governor Dean is a big fan of IBM because the company provides high paying, high technology jobs in his state with little (and declining) environmental impact. In fact, the Essex Junction plant produces some of the world's most energy-efficient microelectronics, saving electricity (and cutting fossil fuel emissions) worldwide. That's because IBM microelectronics run faster with less power than products from other manufacturers. (They also run cooler, cutting building cooling costs and associated pollution.) IBM marketing touts these energy-saving benefits of its Essex Junction-produced products. Also, IBM is one of the few remaining domestic producers of microelectronics, thus far keeping jobs in America instead of shipping them overseas, almost always to countries with lax (or no) environmental standards.

6. Why did you wait for the courts and legislature to bring about the civil union bill before you supported it?

Because he wasn't maximally enthusiastic about the idea at the outset. (He didn't oppose civil unions either.) However, he signed the bill when approximately 30% of Vermonters favored it, so it wasn't exactly popular. He also signed the bill ahead of his next election and took the big political risk.

I would also argue that he understood how progressive change comes about. You can't bring about progressive change when only 5% of the population agrees with you. You have to warm enough people to the idea through persuasion and reflection. He helped do that in Vermont with civil unions, and, unlike a certain Alabama judge right now, he obviously did the right thing and took a courageous stand for a still unpopular bill.

Civil unions (and nondiscrimination in the military) will be tough enough sells nationally. Dean is arguably best equipped and most experienced to bring these progressive changes about. The GLBT community is overwhelmingly supportive of Dean.

7. Why do you oppose the Israeli Labour Party candidate for prime minister Amram Mitzna's call for unconditional peace talks with the Palestinians?

I haven't seen a reference to Dean's stand on this issue as stated. (Looking for one.) That said, sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It's hard to hold peace talks, much less successful ones, when each side is shooting at one another. There are also obvious conditions to resolve such as where to meet (and with whom) that are still major sticking points.

8. While you acknowledge that you "haven't condemned Congress for passing the Patriot Act," Bernie Sanders from your own state of Vermont is leading efforts in Congress to overturn the Act. Why are you not supporting Bernie Sanders' efforts and condemning Congress for its attack on civil liberties?

Because, oddly enough, there are small bits of the Patriot Act that are decent ideas. Even a horrible law can have a few good parts.

For example, the Patriot Act addressed certain legitimate problems that law enforcement had with suspects owning multiple cell phones, even with a legal wiretap from a properly authorized (non-FISA) court. The law went way too far on this issue as with many others, but there were some cell phone-related defects in the old law.

There are also some computer security-related provisions that are defensible, especially in light of recent cyber attacks. Again, most go too far.

The sunset provisions are obviously good and, if anything, should be accelerated.

9. How do you respond to Annette Smith of Vermonters of a Clean Environment who says: "Dean's attempt to run for president as an environmentalist is nothing but a fraud. He's destroyed the Agency of Natural Resources, he's refused to meet with environmentalists while constantly meeting with developers, and he's made the permitting process one, big dysfunctional joke. EP under Governor Dean meant Expedite Permits, not Environmental Protection"?

See reference to Vermont's EPA ranking above. Also, Dean claims that almost 8% of Vermont's lands were placed into conservation under his watch. Annette Smith's criticisms seem a little less numerical, shall we say.

10. Since you pride yourself on your "fiscal responsibility" who do you refuse to even consider any decreases in the bloated Pentagon budget?

Because a huge chunk of Pentagon spending goes toward military pay and family benefits and, if anything, those monies should be increased to help our men and women in the armed forces (along with veterans). Also because the United States has urgent security needs, and a strong military is essential to keeping the peace. Dean is not a dove nor is he a hawk -- he's what you'd call an eagle. There's the political equation: cutting military spending is not what the public wants. And it's not something any president could pass in Congress absent a dramatic change in world threats -- which Dean could help bring to pass by improving international relations and strengthening cooperation with allies.

Great answers!

:bounce:

Dean is not a dove nor is he a hawk -- he's what you'd call an eagle.

"Let the eagle sooaaaar...." Oops, bad choice.

One of the principal reasons is that it was part of the strategy that gay and lesbian activist had on this issue. The idea was to have a done deal in the courts before it became a public issue. Had politicians gone around speaking in favor of this issue the far right would have marshalled its forces sooner and the constitution could be amended on us. This stategy had been the stategy that activists on my side of this have used time and again. You won't find the governers of Alaska or Hawaii having issued public comments on this while it was in their courts. Nor will you find it in Canada while it was in theirs. It should be noted that your candidate supported DOMA in 96. You may not like our stategy on this but I think it is utimately our choice since it is our rights.

I wish you'd spend more time reading, though: that question is not mine. None of them are. I re-posted them. If that makes them 'mine', then there are a lot of people in trouble around here!

Not wanted to derail the thread, but: as to the DOMA allegation, I have yet to find--and I've looked!--a corroborating cite, which is interesting particularly in light of DK being one of the original co-sponsors of ENDA. Could the DOMA allegation be an error, perhaps, as for example the couple of claims that he actually voted for DOMA obviously are?

was an interview with him in the Plain Dealer (the paper of record up here) and also quoted the head of the Cleveland Stonewall Democrats. I am on his email list and I will, after asking him, give you his email and you can directly ask him. If that isn't good enough I don't know what else would be.

On edit Interview is probably an unfair word but the article clearly quoted him giving a reason for his change on this issue. BTW many, many, people who cosponsered ENDA did vote for DOMA. These would include but not be limited to, Paul Wellstone, Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham, and Tom Daschle.

I'm wondering why, when the candidates were in front of the HRC Forum, his change of mind wasn't raised. Certainly nobody has had a problem bringing up his change of mind on Choice -- throwing stones at him from both sides, in fact. So why not bring this one up too, if it's true? It bothers me a little, and I'd like to get it straightened out {npi}.

on the issue (due to not having been in Congress yet) that they either couldn't find an original citation (join the club) or felt that it wasn't relevant enough.

I sent you two links which both should lead to the Clevleand Stonewall Democrats. If those don't work let me know and I will try to find something with the email on it. I have had some problems lately with losing addresses and have lost that one.

Here is the House roll call for H.R.3396 (Defense of Marriage Act) final passage, and here is the Senate vote on final passage.

Kucinich wasn't in Congress yet. Gephardt, Graham, and Lieberman voted YEA on DOMA. Kerry and Moseley-Braun voted NEA. Edwards was not yet in the Senate.

that comes as a shock to me

Sen. Wellstone was not a saint. He has done some wonderful things and did stand up for what he believed in without wimping out, but he hasn't always voted in our (We The People's) best interest. Sorry, but he was quite human, prone to human weakness like everyone else.

I specificly stated the opposite and gave the reason. But he did publicly support DOMA during his campaign. I heard him do so myself and have provided a link to an article which talks about him doing so.