Kerry, A Winning Liberal

Consider these facts. John Kerry received "F" from the NRA, and 100% from The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. He received a 100% score from Planned Parenthood and 0% from the National Right to Life Committee. John Kerry received 92% from the League of Conservation Voters and a 100% score from the NAACP. The Children's Defense Fund gave him a score of 91%. All this support from groups on the left and he is a decorated veteran, who can generate support among vets in the South and around the country. Winning is what matters. Kerry will win, Dean will not. If you really support liberal causes and are not just talk, support John Kerry, a liberal, who will win! We must take back the White House, its too important to take chances on others who will not get the job done. You know it is!

Kerry/Clark 2004 :kick:

Those are good scores. Where is the website that rates the candidates? I used to have it bookmarked but have formatted since then.

Check out: http://selectsmart.com/president/Kerry.html

Also look at Kerry's web site: http://www.johnkerry.com

I don't know exacly how I feel about that.

like most senators and reps...

But he has said in previous speeches that if it sunsets he won't bring it back and if Bush gets it renewed, he will work to end it.

I don't know exacly how I feel about that.

1000%. Kerry has a very similar voting record to Senator Kennedy.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:


I love them both!

Teddy Kennedy supports John Kerry!!!!!!! Teddy knows what is going on and who can win!

But haven’t you heard, he was in the Skull and Bones? LMAO////

Kerry has the record Howard Dean wishes he had.

"Kerry has the record Howard Dean wishes he had."


When did kerry...

Balance a budget?

Bring health care to almost every child in his state?

Sign a bill legalizing civil unions even though it was at 30% favorability?

Stand against an invasion of a non-threatening sovereign nation without security council approval nor in self-defense, classified by the UN as a "crime against peace", the very crime Hitlers henchemen were convicted of at nuremberg? (Don't give me crap about Dean didn't have to vote on it... Dean took a stand, its out there and its no secret. it has the same effect as if he had actually cast a vote)

Oppose tax cuts for the weatlhy because they would increase the federal defecit?

Tell me. Has Kerry done anything to oppose Bush and his agenda? If so what? Dont give me stuff that happened 16 years ago...

Kerry helped craft the CHIPS bill that helped bring healthcare to children nationwide, which helped Dean expand healthcare to children in Vermont.

Kerry advocated for gays to serve openly in the military back in the mid 80s and testified in front of the Armed Services Committee supporting that position. He also helped draft the Hate Crimes bill and voted against the GOP led antigay DOMA bill.

Dean said last fall he would have voted for the Biden-Lugar bill authorizing military force in Iraq. B-L was the better bill but was not that far off the Iraq resolution.

If you want to see how Kerry has opposed Bush, go to his site and look at the news section. www.johnkerry.com

Kerry sounds like a better guy all he time. I must admit I have a negative view of him. However it does sound like he has been on the right side of a lot of issues.

I personally thought biden was right on message all the way up untill like a week before the war started. The Biden Lugar bill worked for me. The farce that got passed didnt.

I dont know that I will ever forgive anyone that voted for it. I am not in congress but I knew the whole wmd thing was crap...They certainly should have!

Coming out now speaking against this war at this point after voting for it rings hollow to me.

Another thing that bothers me with Kerry is the fact that he missed a few recent controversial votes. Abortion and medicare I believe? Even though these votes weren't close they were important issues and the peoples stance should be on the record. It apears to me as an attempt to avoid being pigeonholed on the topics. No matter where they stood before. Edwards did the same thing and it bothers me with him too.

Gun control is another thing that doesnt stand out for me as a pluss. I dont believe in the whole big bad gun theory. Guns are tools I dont own a gun but that doesnt man I dont want to be able to go get one if I think I need one. Listening to the stuff coming out of the white house lately that may be sooner than I might have thought. I like Deans stance on guns. I think the democratic party sheds a lot of votes over this one stance alone. Kucinich for example worries me when it comes to guns. I believe in an armed citizenry. Hell theres an asault weapon in every persons home in switzerland and they have very little problem with gun violence.

Anyway I will run to the polls as soon as they will let me for any of our field against the shrub they all have qualities I like but Deans line up best with mine

"It apears to me as an attempt to avoid being pigeonholed on the topics."

Kerry said that he would ONLY appoint judges who believed in Roe v.Wade and a woman's full right to reproduction choices as SETTLED Constitutional law. So there is NO way he avoided being pigeonholed.

Frist scheduled that vote unnecessarily because he KNEW Kerry and Edwards were to be in California for the state convention. Pissing off the Dem base is part of the GOP bag of tricks.

I dont care if frist schedules votes every day till the election. Kerry's and all congressmens jobs is first representing the people who sent them into office. Tough luck that it conflicts with thier campaign schedules. The fact that they take campaigning more seriously than thier job to represent thier people even in a no chance vote does not sit well with me at all.

Tell him to get out of the race.

Deqn didnt sign the "Civil Union " bill in December of 1999, when the idea of gay marriage was the only thing on the table (The December opll with the thirty five percent approval, was about the Vt. Supremem Court decision making gay "Marriage" legal" Dena wited until almost 5 months later, the end of April, after the Supremem Court offered a "Civil Union" Alternative. By then in polls. 44 percent of the public supported the new "Civil Union" concept offered to Dean by the court. 52 percnt was against it, but the polls had a nine percent margin of error, meaning statistically, there was a dead heat in support and non support. Plus Dean only had five weeks left to do something, or be found to be in contempt of court, regarding their order to him to allow gays to marry, as the case they decided this on made it unconstitutional to not allow them to marry.

Dena had no choice in this, but waited as long as possible to see how he wind blew. If support dropped, he would face the Supremem Court in a case that would have been called The State of Vermont v. Howard Dean ( a case to remove him from office for failure to uphold the law) Or if support rose high enough for him to be comfortable with taking a chance, sign the bill.

Second. Balancing a budget in Vermont is not all thqt difficult. They always have a large lacked box fund. All he needed to do was to keep cutting the income taxes, cut programs, and ask the legislature to allow him to raid the "Rainy Day fund" to balance the budget, which is how Dean balanced it. It was like moving money from a savings account to a checking account. The money was there, just in different accounts.

Finally Dean did not bring health care to almost every child in his state. The Kennedy/Hatch bill, originally written by John Kerry, brought health care to almost every child in the state, under the CLinton sponsored KidCare program. Vermont has NEVER exceeded the amount of funding of health care that exceeded maximum medicaid mandates. Vermont simply asked for a subsection 1115 exemption to use federal funds that they received for other mandates, that was unspent, to use to insure uninsured children. If Vermont sat had been given 20 million for prison expansion, but only spent 10 million, the new exemprion created under the new medicaid legislation, allowed the state to move the funds from the corrections budget, to the medicais budget/ All states can and do this, ut Vermont is so small, that it can use the thie exemption more easily. Dean had nothing to do with thatr fact.

Dean loves to take credit, where no credit is due.

Yes, Kerry receives very high marks in traditional liberal causes like reproductive rights, civil rights, education, labor, and such. But he is also more progressive than that. Even Nader grudgingly admitted on Crossfire that Kerry was second only to Kucinich, and certainly the most viable progressive.

Without the wimp/eccentric taint, Kerry supports such core progressive issues like media democracy, renewable energy, nuclear reduction, fuel efficiency, ecological protection, corporate crime, election reform, internationalism, family farms over agribusiness, fighting urban sprawl, environmental and labor standards in trade agreements, living wages, whistleblower protection, and rebuilding our infrastructure.

If you liked Nader, but thought he was a little, well, flakey, then Kerry is the man. His war record and foreign policy chops will play well with the general public, but his record is stunningly progressive. And ask Bill Weld, Kerry knows how to put up a fight!

Nader will sit out. Maybe even if it's Edwards. All of them sided with the people, labor or small businesses over large corporations throughout their careers.

Is John Kerry like everybody's #2? National polls, state polls, the moveon poll, the vibe here at DU. Very few people dislike him. His positions are generally popular. He could get enthusiastic support.

But. How's that a winning strategy? I want to say, if you want to engage in this little debate, that I don't buy the arguments that *only* Kerry can win against Bush, that he's the most liberal candidate after Kucinich, or that other candidates wouldn't be able to implement important progressive agenda items. What I'm asking for is a reason why people should choose John Kerry first. What makes his candidacy excellent?

I've got my own ideas, but I want to hear from Kerry supporters. What makes your guy special?

And his progressive foreign policy. He also has a sterling record on core Dem issues like the environment, labor, reproductive rights, gun control (shhh), and education. I don't think I need to bother about the war-hero thing, but he also has a record of several major Congressional investigations under his belt. Plus, he has a fantastic plan for capping costs on (nearly) universal health coverage, and would roll back the Bush rich-bitch giveaway in favor of a payroll tax holiday to stimulate the economy.

But check out the other threads:

Corporate Watchdog
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=536&mesg_id=536&page=

Foreign Policy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=963&mesg_id=963&page=

Kerry's foreign policy ideas are the best in my mind, no question. And I think he's been a leader in energy, the environment, support for small business, VA and some other areas. His NAACP rating and support for women's rights have not gone unnoticed. But still I have misgivings about what he really means as a presidential candidate. And in a way it comes down to that war-hero thing.

What he did in Vietnam was heroic. What he did to protest the war in Vietnam was courageous and honorable. So what happened in respect to Iraq? I expect you will note that his fundamental thinking has not changed. There is a lot of consistency there, I'll concede that. But where is the outrage over the atrocity that is war, the cruelty and racism and criminality and vanity and deception, the dehumanization of the victims and victors alike, the diminshment of the nation it brings. Outrage! And not for the sake of giving voice to anger, or any other purpose except to lead the country on the course he knows in his heart is right. It was his duty to oppose this phony war, because of all the Senators he was most qualified to criticize, most fit to lead, best positioned to fight the neocons.

You know what I think. I'm not convinced he was mislead, or rather not convinced that he didn't allow himself to be mislead, or mislead himself, or just plain mislead. Didn't he know that the Shrub was a phony? Of course he did. Alcee Hastings and the Congressional Black Caucus told him so. Oh there's this reason and that reason, and all the usual electioneering calculus that passes for pragmatism in the DNC. Well, they've got their King Midas, but the account that holds their collective wisdom on political leadership is leading them to bankruptcy. That Midas touch is pretty worthless when it comes to the intangibles.

So what's Kerry's place in all this mess? What's his responsibility for the situation he's in? Man, I don't know. I do know that I don't want to hear about the way things are, about political realities, the popular sentiment. I especially do not want to hear about such things from those who, when called upon by the voters who have never let them down, pretend they're not at home. Hah.

That's my irateness, and my discomfort. I can get over it, but as of yet John Kerry isn't doing or saying a whole lot to get me there. He could easily be the best President this country has seen in my lifetime. Easily. But I'm keeping him from the top of my list until I see some more of John Kerry the war hero, John Kerry the anti-war hero.

This is a main reason I'm not supporting Kerry in the primaries. He fully supports No Child Left Behind, which is proving to be one of the worst bits of legislation on education. NCLB is ruining education...it's trying to force out special ed students and anyone not college bound by requiring 100% of students pass standardized test on their grade level. That means that ESL and special ed students, who may read on a 3rd grade level, must take these tests at their current enrolled grade, be it 3rd or 12th. A Sped kid who has an IQ of 75 will never pass a test on grade level, so s/he is doomed to remain in the 3rd grade forever. It takes an average of 5 years to learn English, but ESL students are required to take the standardized tests every year, and will be retained if they don't pass. NCLB mandates that if you can't pass the test, you automatically get retained. It's a ludicrious (sp?) law and needs to be completely thrown out. Dean recognizes that. Kerry supports its continuation.

Being a teacher, this is a big issue for me, almost as important as the Iraq war. I really wish Kerry would rethink his position on NCLB.

If what you write about Kerry is true, I would have a hard time supporting him. I struggled through middle-school (dyslexia, ADHD), before overcoming these problems, and going on to business & law school. But revisiting John Kerry's website education page, I don't think that you correctly have stated his policy.

http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer?JServSessionIdr008=jnhed8ku63.app5a&pagename=edu_main

I'm still struggling with how we best get rid of Bush. There is an article in today’s Washington Post which outlines this struggle between pragmatism and idealism:

By David Von Drehle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 10, 2003; Page A01

Ten years after Bill Clinton proclaimed a centrist "New Democrat" revolution, the left is once again a driving force in the party.

They do not call themselves "liberals" anymore; the preferred term today is "progressives." But in other ways, they are much the same slice of the electorate that dominated the Democratic Party from 1972 to the late 1980s: antiwar, pro-environment, suspicious of corporations and supportive of federal social services.

In recent weeks, the progressive left has: lifted a one-time dark-horse presidential candidate, former Vermont governor Howard Dean, into near-front-runner status; dominated the first serious Internet "primary"; and convened the largest gathering of liberal activists in decades.

The liberal MoveOn.org is the fastest-growing political action committee in the Democratic Party. Left-leaning labor leaders, such as Andrew L. Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, are taking a more assertive part in mapping the all-important union role in party operations.

In a sense, it was all foreshadowed by the shake-up of the House leadership after the Democrats' dismal showing at the polls last November. Liberal Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) easily defeated several more conservative Democrats to become the new minority leader.

"There is a coming together of forces to try to resurrect the Democratic Party in the progressive realm," said political strategist Eric Hauser, who helped to organize the recent Take Back America conference of left-leaning activists. "What the Democratic Party stands for hasn't really been looked at for a while. The issues that people care about seem pretty clearly to be solid progressive issues."

In a party that seemed almost comatose after November's poor showing at the polls, any energy at all might be welcome by Democrats, no matter where it comes from. And the progressives themselves certainly do not feel as though they are weighing in from the margin. "We are the base," said veteran organizer Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future.

But for Democrats who remember the Republican landslides of 1972 and 1984, when liberal Democrats George McGovern and Walter F. Mondale led the party to humiliating defeats, the prominence of the left this year is an omen.

"We can't just talk to the true believers; we can't just stoke their anger at George Bush," said Will Marshall, director of the Progressive Policy Institute, a moderate think tank. "We have to persuade swing voters who right now may not be planning to vote for a Democrat."

Whether the invigorated left is a good or bad thing depends, for many Democratic leaders, on how recent history is interpreted. Indeed, the issue can be boiled down to a single question: What actually happened in the 2000 presidential election?

One school of thought says that former president Bill Clinton, by supporting welfare reform, the death penalty and deficit-cutting economics, had set the stage for Democrats to reclaim their status as America's majority party. Unfortunately, the theory goes, former vice president Al Gore squandered a huge advantage by not bragging enough about the accomplishments of the Clinton years -- instead, he ran on a populist theme of "the people versus the powerful."

The left looks at the same result and sees things quite differently: Gore won the popular vote with his populist, environmentalist campaign, and would have been elected easily if he had been stronger on those themes. As it was, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader challenged Gore from the left and kept the election close enough for it to be decided (the left says "stolen") by the U.S. Supreme Court.

If Gore had gotten his votes and Nader's votes, he would have won with "the largest number of progressive votes since 1964," said Borosage -- a clear majority of the electorate. The lesson he draws: Democrats do not need to silence the left to win; they need to energize it.

Much of the credit for the left's revival goes to President Bush, whose policies and personality seem to touch the nerves of hard-core Democrats like a dental drill. The war in Iraq was a catalytic event, drawing hundreds of thousands of readers to anti-Bush Web sites and filling the sails of the Dean campaign. But this is not just about the war.

Senate Democrats, led by Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), have rallied behind an unprecedented filibuster of Bush judicial nominees. Civil liberties groups are up in arms about the Bush administration's domestic war on terrorism. Environmentalists are rallying against Bush policies on logging in national forests.

The result: Activists who are normally prone to infighting -- "the Democratic Party is Yugoslavia," in the words of one party veteran, recalling years of internecine squabbles -- are instead trying to pool their energy to present a clear alternative to the man they despise.

But the left's energy is also a reflection of discontent with the party's Clinton-era leadership. Off the record, many on the left agree with one Democratic organizer who mused recently: "In some ways, Bill Clinton was the worst thing that could have happened to the Democratic Party" because he largely silenced the party's left and enervated efforts to build the party's base.

That sentiment is manifesting itself in a barrage of criticism aimed at the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, which was closely associated with Clinton's 1992 election. For years, DLC founder Al From and his associates have preached that "Old Democrat" liberalism equals landslide defeats. "The New Democrat formula is the only one to win in three decades," From said recently. Earlier this year, he and DLC President Bruce Reed -- who served as Clinton's chief domestic policy adviser for eight years -- fired off a broadside accusing Dean of being an "elitist" from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the party and warning that he would lead the party to disaster if he wins the nomination.

Instead of sinking, Dean surged.

On leftward Web sites, and in the most liberal campaigns, the DLC has become Democratic enemy number two, trailing only Bush. "The DLC strategy of waffling GOP-lite centrism has been a near total failure for the Democratic Party," said Jeff Cohen, a longtime media critic and spokesman for Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), whose long-shot presidential campaign is gaining strength on the left. "I say 'near' total because of Clinton. Take away the unique charisma of that one politician, and the DLC strategy is a total failure."

"We have this debate almost every election cycle," the DLC's Reed said. "There is always going to be someone who wants to preach the old-time religion." But later in the same interview, he said that Clinton's "New Democrat" approach was "the most successful political and governing strategy in our lifetime. We shouldn't even be having this argument over basic party principles."

Riled-up Democrats on the left blame the sail-trimming and poll-watching of the Clinton years for the party's recent lassitude. Clinton could win this way because he was a skilled campaigner, they say, but subtract his skills, and the party is left with mush. The energized left faults centrist Democrats for caving in to conservatives on welfare, health care, civil liberties, taxes -- and, worst of all, war.

This is the attitude that has fueled the emergence of Howard Dean.

Dean's record as governor is hard to categorize: liberal on such issues as gay civil unions, conservative on guns and fiscal matters. But the juice in his campaign -- the reason he has thousands of volunteers nationwide gathering for monthly "meetups" and millions of dollars in small contributions pouring in to his Web site -- is that he has aggressively criticized Bush and heaped scorn on Democrats who have gone along with Bush's war plans and tax cuts.

Borrowing from the left's most recent fallen hero, the late senator Paul D. Wellstone (D-Minn.), Dean said he speaks for "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" -- in other words, not the "New Democrats." Writing on Buzzflash.com, a Web site for the Democratic left, Stuart Finkel of Austin said Dean's supporters "have been energized by the willingness of Howard Dean to do what the DLC and the Democratic leaders in Washington have been so unwilling to do: match George W. Bush word for word, and call every lie he tells a lie."

And while Dean surges, the two candidates in the race most closely associated with the DLC -- Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and John Edwards (N.C.) -- are struggling to avoid the perception that their campaigns have stalled.

Jeff Blodgett is a Minnesota Democrat who managed Wellstone's campaigns. Now he serves as director of Wellstone Action, a nonprofit group created by Wellstone's two sons to train a new generation of liberal activists. "The reaction has been extraordinary," he said. The first two "Camp Wellstone" training sessions filled immediately -- 110 people in each session. "We've had 10,000 people either become founding members or sign up for our e-mail action list since mid-March.

"The Democratic Party," Blodgett said, "is perceived as having lost its moorings, as being disconnected from the big values and the big vision of where to take this country and hasn't been projecting that. It turns out there is a large number of people around the country who are looking for ways to participate in the rebuilding of progressive politics."

All students need to take the test for the district to qualify for funding, but an individual' retention is a power still in the hands of the local principal. And do you think that Ted Kennedy would really help write a bill that said mentally handicapped students would be kept back for eternity? Come on, give it a rest.

I'll leave it to Kerry's website to set this stratight:

Keep the Promises of "Leave No Child Behind:" John Kerry voted for the Leave No Child Behind education reform law. The plan gave states flexibility in using federal funds to address local needs and promised extra aid to help students from low-income families reach high standards. However, unless schools receive the resources they were promised and respect they deserve, the new law will fail and inequality will persist. Where the Bush Administration sought to cut funding for school reform and issued restrictive guidelines, John Kerry will fund the new effort and ensure states have the flexibility to meet the goals of the law.

http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer?pagename=edu_main

Try these on for size, Teacher 4 Dean, and you'll see who is committed to quality education for our young.


Modernize and Rebuild Crumbling Schools: John Kerry has been at the forefront of the fight to obtain federal funding for school construction. There are $127 billion worth of school construction and emergency repair needs nationally. 14 million children are learning in substandard schools in need of major renovation. Half of all schools have at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition, such as polluted drinking water or soot-filled ventilation. At the same time the schools are getting older, the number of students is growing, up nine percent since 1990. John Kerry responded to these challenges by introducing legislation that would allow the federal government to issue $24.8 billion in school modernization bonds in order to help states and school districts repair and build modern schools.

Reduce Class Size: Smaller classes promote student achievement, improve discipline and classroom order, and expand quality learning time. Rather than terminate successful programs to reduce class size, John Kerry will champion initiatives that ensure children are not forced to learn in overcrowded classrooms, particularly in the early grades.


Early Education for All: John Kerry works hard to strengthen early childhood education. High quality early childhood education programs get kids ready for school and in later years cut crime and increase job productivity by giving young children the opportunity to learn skills early on that put them on the path to success. Kerry has supported increases in quality early childhood programs like Head Start and child care. His Early Learning Opportunities Act, which became law in 2000, helps families by expanding and coordinating early childhood development efforts. He believes we must continue to expand quality programs so that children can get off to a good start in life.

Encourage Parental Involvement: John Kerry supports increased parental involvement in their children's education and measures that make it easier for parents to take time off to attend parent-teacher conferences. Kerry also would expand public school choice programs and support for pilot schools to empower parents and students and provide more options to fill specific needs without draining funds from public education.

Oppose Vouchers: John Kerry opposes private school vouchers that will drain scarce funds from public schools. Instead, he supports efforts to increase resources to public schools to ensure all students have quality teachers, high standards, smaller classes, and safe, modern schools.

Support and Respect Professional Teachers: Schools serving low-income and minority children are four to five times more likely as other schools to have unqualified teachers. The new education reform law would have dedicated funds to helping teachers gain skills to help their students succeed. John Kerry would provide the necessary support for teacher development, treat teachers with the respect they deserve and encourage talented young people who want to become teachers.

Encourage School Leadership: John Kerry was the first to bring the attention of Congress to the importance of leadership of the public schools, recognizing the critical role that principals and other administrators play in school reform efforts. A good leader is in a vital position to affect educational change and improvement. Many of today's principals are reaching the age at which they could choose to retire, and evidence has pointed to a decline in the number of candidates for each opening. If the flow of retirees is not stemmed and the numbers of aspiring principals buoyed, we will face a crucial school leadership crisis - one that could debilitate meaningful education reform. Kerry wrote legislation, which was signed into law, to ensure that these important educational leaders have the resources that they need to serve our school communities.

Fully Fund Special Education: The federal government has never met its funding obligation for special education. John Kerry has worked with many of his colleagues to ensure that the federal government becomes a true partner of state and local governments in the provision of special education. When Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, it agreed to fund 40% of the cost of special education. However, the federal government is only actually proving a mere 18%. Kerry has consistently supported efforts to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and will continue working toward full funding.

Open the Doors of College: John Kerry believes that every child who is willing to aim high and work hard should have access to college. Kerry has worked to expand and protect federal student loan programs and federal scholarships. He supports increasing the maximum Pell Grant, and would back "super" Pell Grants, which provides additional assistance for eligible students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their high school class.

He stands behind NCLB. I know a lot about that law, as I deal with it in my profession. Sure, districts can opt to not follow that law and kiss their federal money goodbye (something I greatly wish my state would do, as we have a ridiculous budget crisis going on right now and can't get any teachers, let alone "highly qualified" ones, as outlined by NCLB). But the fact is that ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of children must take and pass the state mandated tests in order to comply with NCLB. At my school, all students (SPED and ESL, including students who had just moved here from Mexico) were required to take the test in order for us to get qualified as a title 1 school and receive additional funding. Because it was a baseline test, no one was retained based on it. But by (I think) 2012 all students must take and pass their mandated tests, many of which are inadequate in assessing actual ability.

Now, I don't fault Kerry, or anyone, for wanting NCLB to help increase the level of education our kids are receiving by holding teachers (and kids) accountable, but the law as it's written just won't work, in more ways than just the retention part. If a school does not improve its scores, broken down by all demographics, every year, it can be labeled as a failing school. That means if a school has, for example, 90% of students passing the test, and the next year they only have 89% passing, they can be labeled as failing because their numbers didn't increase. If a school gets such a label <b>all</b> the faculty can be fired. It has already happened.

Put this into perspective. Fifty percent of all new teachers quit and change professions in their first 5 years of teaching. Many senior teachers are getting ready to retire. We need more teachers! The teachers we have, if they are not "highly qualified", need HELP in getting that status. But the threat of being fired, in an already thankless and low-paying job, isn't going to motivate anyone to pay thousands of dollars for continued education just to keep a job they may lose, even if they are a good teacher. I can tell you, if I weren't considered a "highly qualified" teacher according to NCLB I'd quit the profession simply because I cannot afford to go back to school and get another Masters degree when I have $25k in student loans to pay back as it is, and I earn barely enough money as it is to pay my mortgage and bills.

I align with Kerry on many issues, but not this one.

Dean was not education friendly.

His lack of support to the university system of Vermont is well known.

And in his last budget, in order to balance it, Dean hit education VERY hard.

National security is going to be a baseline issue in 2004. It won't be the most important issue that people consider, but for any candidate to be credible as a candidate, they have to meet a minimum level of credibility on National Security and Foreign Policy. Kerry has these things in spades. A general election with Dean as the candidate would have National Security regain the forefront in issues, and Dean would spend all of his time defending that he would be able to defend the US. It doesn't matter that he probably could, what will matter is if he can convince the mushy middle that he could.

For instance, the Globe's Brian Mooney uncovers an internal memo that, though Kerry denies it, strongly suggests, as a first-time Senate candidate in 1984, Kerry changed his answer on a nuclear-freeze group's questionnaire to ensure a rival candidate did not outscore him. The question at issue dealt with funding for nuclear Trident submarines, which Kerry apparently learned to oppose after his initial hedging upset the anti-nuke crowd. Which leads to the next unflattering section of Mooney's article: As a candidate in 1984, Kerry doubted what seems to have been nearly every significant weapons system that our military now relies upon. Kerry outright opposed the B-2 stealth bomber, the Apache helicopter, the F-15 fighter jet, and the Patriot missile; he also wanted to cut spending for such modern mainstays as the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the F-16 fighter jet, and even the almighty Tomahawk cruise missile. Kerry himself conceded to the Globe that some of those positions now look rather "stupid."

http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=491

There are Air Force Vets out here, so be careful when you link up various fighters and dates. The first Eagles flew in July 1972 and the first Falcons flew in August 1978, both long before 1984.
John Kerry is a Navy veteran, and he can be trusted to provide the best possible equipment for our current fighting men & women, and he is widely supported by the veterans, e.g., John McCain, Max Cleland and many others.

John Kerry has taken an enormous risk by declaring that President Bush "misled every one of us" on the Iraq war. A new Harris poll shows that only 37 percent of the public agrees that Bush manipulated the evidence; only half the country would think that Bush lied even if the claims about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaeda ties are proven to be overblown. And, in the strange universe we inhabit, it is the Democrats who have to worry about appearing to politicize the query into how Bush sold the war, even after Vice President Cheney appears to have ordered the congressional GOP to squelch an open investigation. Basically, the issue is a minefield for a presidential candidate.

But Kerry--the frontrunner, remember--is putting the manipulated intelligence at the center of his candidacy, calling Bush's war lies "one reason I'm running to be president of the United States." That's breathtakingly brave. And it coheres with Kerry's "new patriotism" theme. Kerry framed the issue yesterday in terms of "America's credibility"--which, as Tony Blair is rapidly learning, is seriously diminishing with every passing WMD-less day. Furthermore, Kerry passed on an easy opportunity to pander to his dovish New Hampshire primary audience, telling them "I don't have the answer. I want the answer and the American people deserve the answer." If all Kerry wanted was to exploit the issue for an advantage in the primaries, he could easily have gone further in his accusations, pointing out all the evidence that indeed suggests an intelligence exaggeration.

Kerry is going to face a lot of challenges in the weeks ahead now that he's come to this position: In particular, he will need to eventually take a stand on whether or not the war was justified, and what the implications of that position are for our occupation of Iraq. These are not easy questions. Without a congressional investigation, a politician who supported the war--like Gephardt and Lieberman, for instance--could easily pretend the questions don't exist, or they're not pressing. But Kerry is proving that he will not take the easy road when it comes to a matter of war and peace, which is downright presidential.

http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=492

:thumbsup:

Dean actual record is the record of a staunch conservative, and nothinmg more.

Would a staunch conservative have approved same-sex civil unions when polls showed approval for the measure at around 35%? Just curious.

They might surprize you!

In December, 1999, when the Supreme Court said that gays would have to be given the same rights as non-gays, regarding marriage, under the law, 35 percent of the population was against it, Dean waited, he did nothing in December. By April when he signed the bill polls showed that those supporting the compromise concept suggested by the Vermont Supreme Court "Civil Unions", had gone up into the mid forty percent, while those against, in the low fifties, in polls with an 8-9 percent margin of error. During that nearly five month perion, support for Civil Union, as an alternative to letting gays marry like anyone else, continued to rise, with no indication that they would drop. With the polls being statistically even,and with the Supremem Court hovering over Dean, as the court decision mandated that he nake a decision to either tell the clerks of courts that they MUST issue standard marriage licenses regardless of th sexual preferences of the applicants, or accept the alternative solution THEY, not Dean offered. Dean signed.

Becasue national polls indicate that there is large support for civil union for gays, Dean holding himself up as champion of gay rights. but at the time, he was a wavering and wishy washy. Even Vermont gay organizations, who are grateful that he signed, are not happy with his wavering, waffling behavior, or that he did not take the stance of Vemront Progressives, who Vermont Gays believe are mot favorable to their cause, to just allow gays to marry ,which was what the court decision said was their right.

that's wrong

AS governor Dean never suggested or put forth one piece of progressive legislation. He was most noted for:

Those who know Dean say he’s no classic liberal
By ROSS SNEYD

Associated Press Writer

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — Howard Dean may be many things, say those who worked with him over nearly a dozen years as Vermont governor, but an elitist liberal is hardly one of them.

He’s actually a lot more moderate — many would say conservative — than the reputation he’s built during his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination...

Dean kept his distance from his party’s liberals during his governorship.

"He seemed to take glee in attacking us at every opportunity and using us as a way to form alliances with more conservative elements," said former state Sen. Cheryl Rivers, a leader of the state Democrats’ liberal wing and former chairwoman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee.

Dean fashioned himself a position in the political center of Vermont politics even as the state has moved steadily to the left.

"He’s socially progressive on issues of human rights and all the social issues and he’s fiscally very conservative. To me, that makes him a moderate," said former Sen. Nancy Chard, a member of the DLC who was chairwoman of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee during some of the years that Dean was pushing the Legislature to expand access to health care.

Many back in Vermont have shrugged their shoulders as they’ve watched Dean allow himself to be cast as a liberal. They know it’s not the first time politicians have miscalculated his political leanings.

Dean served in the Vermont House for four years and was in the midst of his third term as lieutenant governor in 1991 when the incumbent governor, a Republican, died.

The state was in a fiscal crisis at the time, working its way out of the biggest budget deficit in its history. Then-Gov. Richard Snelling had pushed a series of temporary tax increases and budget cuts through the Legislature and Dean took up that austerity plan as his own.

To the anger of more liberal members of his own party, he insisted that the tax increases be rolled back on schedule and then went on to work for additional tax cuts later in his tenure.

By the same token, though, he also supported raising taxes — as long as it wasn’t the income tax — when school funding crises and other issues arose that required it.

Throughout, he held a tight rein on state spending, repeatedly clashing with the Democrats who controlled the Legislature for most of his years as governor.

Dean trimmed spending or held down increases in areas held dear by the liberals. More than once, Dean went to battle over whether individual welfare benefits should rise under automatic cost of living adjustments. Liberals were particularly incensed when he tried that tactic on a program serving the blind, disabled and elderly, which he did several times.

Dean turned often to the bully pulpit to belittle and berate them.

Last year, in a news conference tirade that was typical of his budget feuds with the Legislature, Dean lambasted the Senate. "The Senate budget is in la-la land," Dean said last May. "They’re pretending there is no recession."

In the end, he got his way and proposed spending was cut before the budget was enacted.

"Certainly the Democratic caucus was never 100 percent behind him and where there were differences, it was around how progressive or how moderate he was," Chard said.

Rivers blames Dean for helping a third political party to flourish in Vermont that many say siphons votes from Democrats. "The Progressive Party gained some momentum during his years as governor because he was so conservative," Rivers said, although she said she still may support Dean for president...

http://www4.fosters.com/News2003/May2003/May_19/News/reg_vt0519a.asp


The opinions of many who had to deal with Dean in the Vermont legislature dugin his term as governor orive you wrong. THey know him, had to deal with his threats to veto all kinds of progressive legislation:

Michael Badamo, Vemrot Progressive Party member and candidates did an article analyzing, from a progressive stance. The sic Vermont Governors of the last fifties years, who's tenures he lived through, and who he had to deal with politically:

*Howard Dean:

Howard Dean is clearly the runt of this litter. Dean is shallow, glib, mean spirited and overly ambitious yet Vermonters continue to reward him with term after term. On issues that matter, Dean is regressive and responsive only to the needs of elite vested interests. Taking his lead from the new generation of grossly hypocritical, Bill Clinton type Democrats, Dean mouths the ancient words of Democratic Party idealism but then repudiates labor and the poor confidant that they have no where else to go. Big money motivates Howard Dean, a spoiled brat rich kid from Long Island who always gets his own way.

Dean has never had serious opposition in any election campaign. He slid into the Lieutenant Governor's office and took over the top job when Snelling died. He has won easily since because Republicans like to vote for him while their own Party candidates have been either little known or hopelessly right wing.

Of our six modern governors over the last thirty five years, Deane Davis gets my vote for number one, definitely a good guy. I'll rank Phil Hoff a not too shabby number two because Vermont really needed a good kick in the ass. From there, they go down fast. Dick Snelling gets a grudging number three because he represented stability and administrative competence. We'll give Madeline Kunin number four simply because she was less of a snake oil salesman than Tom Salmon, our choice for number five. Howard Dean, of course, is the worst in modern memory.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to plot the trend.

So what's happening here? Are Vermonters really getting dumber or do we just not care any more? If the past be any guide to the future then we got trouble down the road.


http://www.sover.net/~auc/6govs.htm

I have seen many articles in which Republicans talk of supporting Dean becasue he was conservative enough for their tastes, and Vermont Republicans were too nuts for them:


Some Republicans back Dean
By TRACY SCHMALER Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER - Democratic Gov. Howard Dean got a boost from the other side Thursday when a group of prominent Republicans turned out to support his re-election bid...

The group, known as "Republicans for Dean" represents the first organized GOP endorsement for Dean in any of his five campaigns.

Michael Bernhardt, a former House member and past gubernatorial candidate, publicly endorsed Dean in 1998, but he was not part of an organized effort. On Thursday, he said he did not want to risk the state's financial health by ousting the governor.

This campaign is by far Dean's most difficult. In addition to the polarizing and emotional issue of civil unions for homosexual couples, he is facing Dwyer from the right and Progressive challenger Anthony Pollina from the left...

Gilbert, a former member of the late Gov. Richard Snelling's administration, said he took the initiative to form the group, which boasts a membership of more than 30 moderate Republicans from around the state who back Dean.

He said the committee would support Dean's candidacy by reaching out to other moderates in the party as well as helping Dean with fund-raising.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/election2000/repbackdean.html


Top GOP will stick with Dwyer, but some back Dean
By TRACY SCHMALER Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER - As some Republicans prepare to come out in support of Democratic Gov. Howard Dean, leaders within the party have lined up behind GOP nominee Ruth Dwyer...

Gilbert was clearly breaking camp, however.

He said he started to organize the "Republicans for Dean" committee after learning that there were other Republicans who felt as he did.

"We're not a two-issue state, being governor means dealing with a lot of complicated issues," said Gilbert, who spent six years working as general counsel and later secretary of administration for the late Gov. Richard Snelling.

He said civil unions for homosexual couples and Act 60 were two polarizing issues in the gubernatorial campaign. "I know that a large number of businesses and moderate Republicans feel as I do."

Carl Spangler, another veteran of the Snelling administration who served as commissioner of housing and community affairs, is one of them.

Spangler, a vice president with the American Skiing Co., said he joined the committee because of Dean's record on issues such as travel and tourism.

"He has a much more of a collegial approach than Dwyer," Spangler said. "That's how you get laws made, that's how you create public policy."

Both Spangler and Gilbert said they opposed Act 60 and expressed confidence in Dean's pledge to make some changes to the controversial law that changed the way education was funded in the state. Gilbert said he supported the civil unions law, while Spangler said it didn't rate as an issue of concern for him.

What does concern Spangler is reforming Act 250. He said he believed the governor also would live up to promises to improve the regulatory process.

Neither would release the names of other members of the committee, saying they were waiting until Thursday when Dean is expected to announce the membership at a news conference. Dean's campaign also kept mum on the names.

Acknowledging that this election is shaping up to be the toughest political fight of his career, Dean did say he was making a concerted effort this election to reach out to moderate Republicans.

While Dean's moderate style and policies have always attracted some Republicans during his previous four campaigns, this committee marks the first organized effort by a group of them, Dean's campaign said.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/election2000/gop_dean.html


Dean is holding a news conference today to unveil a "Republicans for Dean" committee headed by William Gilbert, who worked in the administration of the late Gov. Richard Snelling.

Gilbert said he wasn't worried about the future of the Republican Party, noting that every election there are issues that polarize and disputes that erupt. But this time around Gilbert is breaking ranks because he doesn't believe his party's candidate can do it the job.

"In the end, people want the state to work well, even if they have a strong issue like civil unions," he said. "The fact is we need a qualified person to act as governor. I think he has the skills and the qualities to do that."


http://www.rutlandherald.com/election2000/fears.html

The unfavorable ratings for both Dean and Dwyer have increased since the last poll in April. More than a third (36 percent) said they now had an unfavorable opinion of Dean. That's up from 27 percent in April and 21 percent last November. In the latest poll, 47 percent said they had a favorable opinion of the Dean. That's a drop from the last two Research 2000 polls, when Dean's favorability rating was around 57 percent.

Pollina - and the fact that he qualified for nearly $300,000 in public funds for his campaign - also has changed the dynamics of the governor's race. Dean has warned that a vote for Pollina is a vote for Dwyer, meaning that if enough liberal Democrats split off to support Pollina, Dwyer could emerge the winner.

With the poll showing Pollina with just 5 percent of the vote, it appears that Dean's warning has had an effect. In fact, some of the governor's liberal critics who otherwise would be supporting Pollina have been working hard to help Dean win re-election.

But the general election campaign has just gotten under way, the first of the gubernatorial debate between Dean, Dwyer and Pollina was held last week and Pollina only recently received the bulk of his public campaign funds.

According to the poll, about a quarter of the voters surveyed (24 percent) said they didn't recognize Pollina, and another 46 percent said they were neutral toward him. Only 8 percent said they had an unfavorable opinion of Pollina, and 22 percent said they had a favorable opinion.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/election2000/polldean.html


By the end of the election. Pollina pulled in ten percent of the democratic vote in Vermong away from Dean who began losing Democrats to the Progressive Party. It was Deans appeal to moderate republicnas that kept him in office for so long.

It is the fact that Deans conservative leanings appeal to moderate Republicans that made and kept him in office for 11 years. He has NO progressive leanings, either fiscally or socially, and only signed socially progressive legislation when he had NO choice. Whether only one percent OR 100 percent of the Vermont public supported civil union, the declaration that the state could not discriminate against same sex couples regarding the issuance of marriage licenses, Dean HAD to sign. He had not legal choice.

It is much like saying that Dean discovered gravity when he jumped off of the top of the state house in Montpelior and happened to fall.

I agree with those arguments, especially after reading Charlie Cook's recent analysis, which argues that much of Dean's popularity among liberal democrats has alienated many independent voters who we need in order to win. Charlie Cook's analysis, in part

". . . The rub is that while a candidate like Dean can certainly score points by venting Democrats' frustration and contempt for Bush, these views bear little resemblance to those of the independent and other swing voters who, by and large, determine who wins and loses in general elections.
In those same two June Ipsos/Cook surveys, 55 percent of all independent registered voters approved of Bush's overall performance, while 25 percent strongly approved. Thirty-seven percent disapproved, but only 17 percent strongly disapproved. . ."

http://nationaljournal.com/about/cookcolumn.htm

I'm supporting Dean, but I do like a lot of what Kerry has to say. It's positive posts like these that made me take a look at him in the first place.

Dean will win, Kerry will not. :P

If he winns the nomination, he will loose the general election!! See above,"Kerry, a winning liberal. One more reason"

To suggest Dukakis...umm... I mean Kerry, has a better chance of winning the general election then Dean is the politics of Miss Cleo and probably less accurate. Democrats win elections historically based more on domestic policies and on the issues that appeal to independents and on those issues such as balanced budgets, gun control and healthcare, Dean is stronger, imo. Both Dean and Kerry should be able to win California and New York, and if Graham can deliver Florida, then the Democratic nominee should be able to carry enough other states to put a Democrat in the WH. It is always more difficult against an incumbent and so you'll have to run a better campaign then was run in 2000. Frankly, Kerry using Gore's campaign staff doesn't give me as much confidence as those trying to spin "electable" for a "Massachusetts liberal". A progressive's votes from a more conservative state like Ohio, impress me more when throwing out labels like "liberal". If you're nostalgic for the 60's you're welcome to dream of Camelot but your crystal ball is no better than mine and imo, a populist candidate like Dean is our best choice.

If there's a Dukakis in this race it's Dean. He's to the left of the general public, he's from a liberal state in the Northeast, he appears uncomfortable dealing with military affairs (see Meet the Press transcript), and he's small in stature (i.e. not very tall). You have to admit that the Bush team will paint Dean as an unpatriotic "liberal" because of his stand on the war and civil unions, etc. That's what the elder Bush did to Dukakis. Kerry's Viet Nam experience guarantees that he cannot be called unpatrotic or a softy liberal.

GDK is right! Kerry is what the RNC and Rove are really worried about. They wanted to paint him as too liberal (a Mass liberal out of touch, etc.) from the start, but Bush, Rove, and the RNC can't do it! It is true that Kerry has a strong progressive record - womens issues, gay rights, the environment, etc. However, since Kerry is a veteran, has been a tough on crime as a state prosecutor, has helped small business in a big way as Senator, favors targeted tax cuts to create good jobs for working Americans, and is supported by Senators John McCain, Max Cleland, and well-respected moderates, Rove Inc. can not paint Kerry as too far to the left! Rove loves Dean and hates Kerry, don't let anybody fool you!

Kerry supporters have claimed their guy is more liberal than Dean and you can be sure Kerry's liberal voting record will be brought up. Saying "I'm a Vietnam war veteran" nine times (see Kerry's MTP transcript) will only carry you so far. Images of Kerry on his anti-war book cover and if they pull out a photo of John throwing war medals in a trash can, they can paint an unpatriotic image. Not one I personally agree with but when you add in some veterans on both sides of the political spectrum that feel Kerry has betrayed them, I think the war hero thing is a wash. McGovern was also a war hero and what state was Dukakis from?

But what the hey, if you think Gore ran a great campaign then "get over it" you've got no worries.

I am amazed when the Republican arguments are made by supposed Dems on this board. Makes me wonder who is making them. The beauty of Kerry is that he is a progressive's progress, but still has also taken sensible moderate positions and actions. Look at what Kerry has done on the Senate Small Business Committee, for example. Also, Kerry strongly supports American men and women serving in the military today, in maintaining a strong U.S. military, and in providing decent benefits for all veterans. Wow, that is way too liberal for the folks in Kansas and probably John McCain too!!

P.S. Once you get shot at in a foreign country as a member of the U.S. military, you are allowed to talk about it as much as you want, especially when it changed your life and when your service really means something to you. That is as true for a U.S. Senator as it is for any American.

Had we been talking Dem issues I would have brought up this article from The Center For Public Integrity:

Kerry Carries Water for Top Donor
Presidential Candidate Intervened on Behalf of Firm’s Clients Multiple Times
By M. Asif Ismail


WASHINGTON, May 7, 2003 -- Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., whose largest campaign contributor lobbies on behalf of telecommunication interests, pushed the legislative priorities of its clients in the wireless industry on several occasions, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of campaign, lobbying and congressional records has found. That analysis is part of the Center’s research for The Buying of the President 2004 (to be published by HarperCollins), which tracks the financial backers and interests of the major candidates for the White House.

Kerry, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, has sponsored or co-sponsored a number of bills favorable to the industry and has written letters to government agencies on behalf of the clientele of his largest donor.

Boston-based Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo P.C. has been the biggest financial backer of the Massachusetts Democrat’s two decades-long political career in elected office, with its employees contributing nearly $187,000 to various Kerry races, including his current presidential campaign.

Kerry’s ties to the firm go beyond campaign contributions. His brother Cameron F. Kerry is an attorney at the firm’s Boston office, and David Leiter, who was the Senator’s chief of staff for six years, is a lobbyist for ML Strategies LLC, a Mintz, Levin affiliate that provides consulting and lobbying services.

More...

http://www.publici.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=521&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0

Interesting and quick research. Did you have it on hand in your office in the RNC or did they loan it to you? It is pretty weak considering the future and direction of the United States and world are at stake.

How about you? Could it be the reason for dissing Dean in order to promote Kerry?

Hmmm...

and I am not from Mass. either. I just think Kerry is a good guy and our best shot. Hopefully, there are a few other people that feel the same way. I respect Dean and share some of his progressive views, but don't think Dean can make it. I am really concerned about the future and that is why I am giving my all for John Kerry. I think Kerry will fight hard (I know Dean fights hard too), and that Kerry will really be able to pull it off. Who knows, let's see how things go, maybe Kerry will promise to take Dean into his future cabinet and they could run as part of the same team to get rid of Bush for the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, the other wings, and the rest of the country. What about a Kerry/McCain/Dean ticket - that would be something to get Fox News talking!

that during Dean's last campaign, there was a LARGE "Republicans for Dean" orgainzaiotn, set up by prominant republicans. Dean Dean lost 10 percent of the Democratic vote in Vermont to the Leftist Progressive Party. But pulled 12 percent of the REPUBLICAN vote away from the Republican candidate.

Most Vermont pollsters state that if was Deans appeal to REPUBLICANS and not Demcrats, that gave him five terms as Governor.

To look at the corporate endorsements:

Howard Dean

Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix based in Los Gatos, California

Gary Hirshberg, CEO Stoneyfield Farms Yogurt, Liberal fundraiser

***********************************************

John Kerry

Kenny 'Babyface' Edmunds, Music Producer

Mark Gorenberg, San Francisco Venture Capitalist

Irwin Jacobs, Co-founder/CEO of Qualcomm, San Diego, California

Nancy Morgan, Managing Director of JP Morgan Chase & Company

Richard Ziman, Los Angeles Real Estate Developer

Dean raises money from energy sources
February 27, 2002

By David Gram

ASSOCIATED PRESS

MONTPELIER — 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.

It should be no surprise. Dean and utility executives have had a long and friendly relationship.

One donor who gave Dean’s PAC the maximum amount allowed — $5,000 — said he did so because he and his wife “agree with many of the things the fund is talking about — fiscal conservatism, education, health care.”

That donor is Robert Young of Proctor, who also is a top official at two utility companies that have had a lot of important business before state government during Dean’s nearly 11 years in office. Young is chief executive at Central Vermont Public Service Corp. and chairman of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.

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.”

Advocates of public financing for campaigns complain about the message conveyed by the contributions.

“Administration actions going back some years betray an inappropriate coziness with the utilities,” said Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Service Research Group. “I am not prepared to say it’s a result of contributions given. But these contributions present the appearance of impropriety or appearance of influence that it probably would have been better to avoid.”

Dean’s close relationship with utility representatives dates back to the day he became governor in 1991. A lobbyist for Green Mountain Power and a GMP employee were among the first people Dean called in to help his transition.


All of Kerry' money is coming from INDIVIDUAL contributors, But Deans PAC allows fo much SOFT money to come in. And also makes break doewn of WHO is supporting Dean impossible to tell. Because anyone can contribute ANY sum of money to a PAC.















Governor Howard Dean Pulls the Plug on Democracy

Governor Howard Dean has proposed to permanently gut Vermont's campaign finance reform law eliminating our landmark public financing option for governor and lieutenant governor. VPIRG opposes removing any money from the Fund because it sets a dangerous precedent for undermining democracy in Vermont and limits the legislature's options to strengthen the law in the future.

The Governor's move will simply open another door for access by corporations and other wealthy donors seeking generous tax breaks, permission to pollute our air and water, boondoggle electric rate contracts and other special interest perks. As Lieutenant Governor Doug Racine said at a public forum on December 11th "I do believe money is corrupting the political process."

The Campaign Finance Fund was created by the state Legislature in 1997 to allow ordinary Vermonters, those without personal fortunes or wealthy connections, to run credible campaigns for office without becoming indebted to large donors or special interest lobbyists. Specifically, the law allows qualified candidates, regardless of political party affiliation, to run for governor or lieutenant governor using only clean, public dollars. The funding comes from voluntary contributions and corporate fees. There is no cost to Vermont taxpayers.

Opponents of campaign finance reform falsely say that Vermont's public financing system does not work because there are no limits on how much a candidate can spend to run for office. VPIRG supports two simple measures to fix the campaign finance reform law: closing the loophole allowing unlimited donations by a political party to a candidate and creating a matching fund system similar to the one in place in Maine.

With reasonable limits on how much a party can give to a candidate, special interest donors will not be able to evade Vermont's lowest in the nation limits on contributions by individuals and PACs. In other states, courts have upheld such limits; for example, in Missouri, limits on political party contributions ranging from $2,500 for legislative races up to $10,000 for statewide races have been upheld.

The second key to improving Vermont's law is creating a matching fund system to allow candidates using public funding to remain competitive with a privately funded opponent. This system would provide limited matching funds for the publicly funded candidate above the original grant amount equal to the spending of the privately funded candidate.

The 2000 elections were the first year public financing was available and it worked plain and simple. Lieutenant Governor Doug Racine raised the necessary 750 contributions of $50 or less and was limited to spending $100,000 in his successful re- election campaign. In addition, public financing helped expand democracy in Vermont by allowing a third party candidate to run a credible gubernatorial race. Progressive Party gubernatorial candidate Anthony Pollina qualified to receive public financing and won about 10% of the vote. A Burlington Free Press editorial noted, "Regardless of the ballot box results, Pollina made a genuine contribution this year."

http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/deangutcfr.html

Vermont’s Governor Howard Dean is emulating boss Finneran in wanting to de-fund Vermont’s own Clean Money law. This law, passed in 1997, allows the option of public financing for statewide candidates who raise the required qualifying contributions and who agree to take no additional private money. Facing a budget deficit, Dean wants to take 99 percent of the $1.3 million set aside for public funding and put it back into the general state budget. What’s left, the $8,000 collected in taxpayer check-offs, is not enough to provide any public funding in the 2002 elections.

The rhetoric behind this is cheap and easy. Instead of giving money to politicians, the governor is going to fund programs that help people. That sounds good but it misrepresents the options. Campaign finance reform is not just another issue. It’s a process issue, a democratic reform that makes other reforms possible. As long as candidates are enabled to take special-interest money, the make up of government will continue to be tilted towards politicians who know how to raise money but aren’t necessarily good legislators. And the legislative agenda will reflect the agenda of those who give the money. The great majority of people who can’t afford to ply their legislators with gifts of money will forever be shortchanged when it comes to the fine print of legislative directives.

The Clean Money candidate gets additional money to match what their opponents privately raise. At first glance this looks like an invitation to raid the treasury. In actuality, however, it represents a disincentive for special-interest fundraising.

The Vermont bill is flawed, but instead of gutting it -- as Dean proposes to do -- it should be tightened. Certain aspects of the bill, but not the public financing component, are under constitutional challenge. The amount of money a political party can give to a candidate is under appeal in federal court. The existing Clean Money law may be too skimpy in this regard. The Vermont Public Interest Group and the Vermont Citizens Coalition for Clean Elections, backers of the bill, are willing to raise the limit to satisfy the courts.

The limit on the amount of money candidates can spend during the campaign is also under appeal. Without a limit on expenditure, privately-funded candidates can raise as much money as they want and seriously outspend their Clean Money opponents. One way around this, as proposed by VPIRG and VCCCE, is to do what Clean Money legislation provides for in Maine: there the Clean Money candidate gets additional money to match what their opponents privately raise. At first glance this looks like an invitation to raid the treasury. In actuality, however, it represents a disincentive for special-interest fundraising. Every extra dollar privately-funded candidates raise through compromising and time-consuming fundraising, Clean Money candidates get for free.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/4945

Kerry supports Campaign finance reforms....Dean first voted for a loophole ridden law, then opted out in order to raise private money, and then gutted the fund entirely.

John Kerry anymore eh?

http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/gc_senate.asp

He shouldn't need it...

Senate millionaires
1. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts: $163,626,399

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/senators.finances/

Kerry, like Kennedy, cannot be easily bought.

But the old saying in Vermont is, that Howard Dena NEVer met a corporation he didnt like:


Incumbent Governor Howard Dean is a DLC-type Democrat who never met a corporation he didn't like or a mountaintop he wasn't willing to sell to a ski-resort developer. Pollina, who had led Vermont's successful fight for public financing of statewide elections, became the first to benefit from it. As required by law, he raised $35,000 (from donations averaging $22), then qualified for $265,000 in public money, the only funds he can spend. Pollina was on an equal money footing with Dean. But not for long. A court threw out the law's spending limit, and immediately Dean inoperated years of pious blather about campaign finance reform. Five days after lauding such reform at the Democratic convention, he rejected public financing and put himself back on the block for corporate contributions and soft money from the Democratic Party.


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political_Reform/VoteHopes_NotFears.html

Kerry, like Kennedy, cannot be easily bought.

But the old saying in Vermont is, that Howard Dean NEVER met a corporation he didnt like:


Incumbent Governor Howard Dean is a DLC-type Democrat who never met a corporation he didn't like or a mountaintop he wasn't willing to sell to a ski-resort developer. Pollina, who had led Vermont's successful fight for public financing of statewide elections, became the first to benefit from it. As required by law, he raised $35,000 (from donations averaging $22), then qualified for $265,000 in public money, the only funds he can spend. Pollina was on an equal money footing with Dean. But not for long. A court threw out the law's spending limit, and immediately Dean inoperated years of pious blather about campaign finance reform. Five days after lauding such reform at the Democratic convention, he rejected public financing and put himself back on the block for corporate contributions and soft money from the Democratic Party.



http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political_Reform/VoteHopes_NotFears.html

AS a matter of fact, Dean was owned by Vermont corporation, more than even the Republicans.

But the point is that you can't dis the independents like Dean has been doing, and then later on think that they will vote for you in November 2004. That is what happened in '72 & '84.
Now Gore is a different story. He did not run a great campaign. The election was his to loose, and there were mistakes made all the way through the legal battle the resulted in Bush being appointed by five Supremes.:hangover:

On most issue's the public is a bit further to the LEFT on many issues. Most of the public supports the right to abortion, gay rights, most of the public wants STRONGER gun control.

Most of the public WANTS what rthe denmocratic party WANTS.

Even in Vermont, Dean CONSISTANTLY opposed the publics will. IN things like wanting to pass medical marijuana legislation that was submitted with overwhelming bi-partisan support, nad with 70 percent of the public wanting it, Dean killed such legislation NUMEROUS times. As a matter of fact, in most social areas, if ANYONE's platform resembles what the public seems to want a polls indicate, it is Dennis Kucinich, not Howard Dean. AND I DONT SUPPORT KUCINICH as my first choice, not because of his platform, but on electability.


Gun Control:

But Poll Also Find Lack of Confidence in Lawmakers
By Gary Langer


N E W Y O R K, May 18 — Public support for gun-control legislation is broad and strong, but no more so than it has been for years. And despite the political buzz, an ABCNEWS/ Washington Post poll finds the Democratic Party failing to capitalize on the issue.


Just 39 percent of Americans trust the Democrats more to handle gun control, while 31 percent prefer the Republicans — hardly a great advantage, given the Democrats’ closer proximity to public preferences. Instead, an unusually large number, 22 percent, volunteer that they don’t trust either party to deal with the issue.
This skepticism may stem from a broad disconnect between public opinion and the substance of the gun-control debates in Washington. While Congress debates the capacity of imported clips and the legal age of ownership for assault weapons, for instance, eight in 10 Americans say such guns should be banned. Sentiment was the same five years ago.

Support Stronger Among Women
More broadly, 67 percent of Americans favor “stricter gun-control laws,” the same as in a 1993 poll. Support is much higher among women (80 percent) than men (54 percent), though it does include majorities of both sexes. Even most Republicans, and most people in gun-owning households, support tougher gun-control laws.
Several specific proposals draw very broad support: Eighty-nine percent of Americans favor background checks on people buying guns at gun shows; 75 percent favor mandatory trigger locks on all stored guns; and 70 percent support a ban on selling guns by mail order or via the Internet.
Intensity of feeling, moreover, is stronger on the gun-control side. Among people who support gun control, 82 percent feel “strongly” about it; among those who oppose it, a smaller share, 68 percent, feel that way “strongly.” It’s about the same on each proposal tested.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/guns_poll990518.html


Zogby Poll: Public Support For Treating Marijuana Like Beer At All Time High

41 Percent Say Pot Should Be Taxed, Regulated.

June 26, 2003

Washington, DC: A growing percentage of Americans believe the government should regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol, according to a national poll of 1,204 likely voters by Zogby International and commissioned by the Drug Policy Alliance.

Forty-one percent of respondents agree that "the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol: it should regulate
marijuana, control it, tax it, and only make it illegal for children." That figure is up significantly from the 34 percent of Americans who said they supported legalizing marijuana in a 2001 USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll, and is almost three times as high as the percentage who supported
legalization in 1972.

Hispanics (65 percent) are most likely to agree that the government should tax and regulate marijuana. Also agreeing are approximately half of Democrats, Independents, residents of the East and West, Catholics, those with some college education, adults with household incomes over $75,000 or more, and men.

A separate Time Magazine/CNN poll released last October found that 72 percent of Americans favored marijuana decriminalization, a policy whereby marijuana offenders are fined but not jailed, and 40 percent favored outright legalization. The latter figure was more than double the percentage that backed marijuana legalization in 1986.

"The American public are gradually coming around to the understanding that a legally regulated market for marijuana, with age and quality controls, is far better than the unregulated black market we have today," said NORML Executive Director Keith Stroup. "It's the same lesson we learned with alcohol during the 1920s. Criminal prohibition is a failed public policy that does not work."

http://www.changetheclimate.org/news/norml_030626.php


ON Civil Unions:

The Gallup Organization has been polling the public since 1996 about same-sex marriages and civil unions. For most polls, they asked the question: "Suppose that on election day this year you could vote on key issues as well as candidates. Please tell me whether you would vote for or against each one of the following propositions. Would you vote...For or against a law that would allow homosexual couples to legally form civil unions, giving them some of the legal rights of married couples." In 2001 they asked a slightly different question: "Would you favor or oppose a law that would allow homosexual couples to legally form civil unions, giving them some of the legal rights of married couples?" Their 2003 survey involved 1,005 randomly selected adults. The margin of error was within 3 percentage points. 1 Results were:

Date Favor unions Oppose unions No opinion
1996-APR 28% 67% 5%

2000-OCT 42 54 4

2001-MAY 44 52 4

2002-FEB 41 53 6

2002-APR 45 46 9

2002-MAY 46 51 3

2003-MAY 49 49 2

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll5.htm

ON the Death Penalty:


Death Penalty Ambivalence
Poll Points to Support for Execution Moratorium in U.S.
Analysis
By Gary Langer


May 2 — The pending execution of Timothy McVeigh comes at a time of deep and growing ambivalence about the death penalty, to the point that bare majorities of Americans favor a moratorium on executions — or even a law replacing them with mandatory life in prison.

Most people, 63 percent, support the death penalty when no other option is presented. But that's down from a high of 80 percent seven years ago, and it's weakly held: Support for executions drops to 46 percent when life without parole is offered as an alternative.


Which penalty do you prefer for murderers

Death penalty
46%
Life without parole
45


While support for the death penalty is widely known, polls less frequently delve into the public's ambivalence about it, and the support for alternatives. One reason for these views is a growing sense that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent to murder; a majority now holds this view, up 20 points in the last 15 years.


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010504_deathpenalty.html

On Abortion Rights:

American Views on Abortion

Situation

Should Be Legal Should Be Illegal
All or Most Cases
57% 42

To Save Woman's Life
88 10

To Save Woman's Health
82 14

In Cases of Rape/Incest

81 17

Physically Impaired Baby
54 40

To End Unwanted Pregnancy
42 57


D&X/Partial-Birth Abortions
23 69
Pregnancy is 6 Months+
11 86


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.html


As a matter of fact even a poll on that right wing idiot Bill' O'Reilly's programs shows support for decriminalizing marijuana.

Dean's own personal stance on these most social issues places him squarely to the RIGHT of the public, To the right of the other candidates (who, themselves are to the right of most of thre public).

Another unproven statement by a supporter of Dean in order to try to indicate that somehow, Dean's ideas are more in line with the general public.

No the public is not MORE conservative than the public. Even Democratic candidates are more conservative than the public.

Howard Dean, most of all.

After the ABC poll and elections...

Democrats tone down gun-control stance

After years of pushing restrictions, they're on a new quest to capture southern votes.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0510/p02s02-uspo.html

I agree. My point is, that in the political arena with conservatives on the right and progressives/liberals on the left, most democrats are on the progressive side.
If you want to win a general election, you must reach to the middle for support and not offend these people in order to get nominated!

To appeal to the general public, you must appeal to those whose opinions most matches that of th general public, which is much more liberal than all of the candidtes.

On all of those issues, more want gun control than do not want it, there is a fifty fifty split between those who want the dealth penaty and those who want life without parole, a VERY VERY large majority of those who want not only medical marijuana, but its complete decriminalization, and a large majoreity who want te right to choose abortion.

Meaning that the democratic party, in order to tap into the mood of the general public MUST choose the MOST liberal candidates, not the most centrist. What offends the public about the DLC IS that it is becoming TOO centrist, moving towards the conservative, rather than staying where the the public is, towards the liberal.

Dean complaint that the party is giving in to mauch to the REpublicans is corret. But Dean sat in that seat as a conservative, for his entire career as governor. Dean attacking the DLC IS the pot calling the kettle black.

Fortunately, yesterday, on a major cable network, I saw a rather long setion talking about people beginning to pay attention to what Dean's record as governor was,and how it is very doffernt than the slick campign specches he is spouting. The DLC strikes back, they are going to begin to draw attention to Dean's record. But they will wait5 until a few months before the first primaries, so it will take a lkot of Deans effort to counter what is said, at a time when all of his energies will be needed campaigning.

Deans treachery will not go unchecked. It was the DLC and the DNC who supported Dean financially in ALL his runs for governor. Dean was a DLC boy, and now his ungratefulness is being duelly noted.

Neither party can win a general election drawing only on its own base, but must attract the majority of the independents in the middle. Therefore, don’t antagonize the voters in the middle in order to get a majority of your own party to nominate you.

.

except when he gives Bush the power to invade iraq and then tries to criticize him for it. Kerry has had a great career as a law maker, no doubt, but president, no way. Bush will run him over, unfortunately. I hate bush's tactics, but he's dirty. Look at what he did to McCain, look at what all of the repubs did to the dems in the midterm!

What we need is a candidate that offers a completely different vision of America, has a record of standing up for what they believe in no matter what, and has a crazy die hard support system to back him up. bush has all three and so does Dean. Now that will be a great race!

I am going to address the Iraq vote in a separate post within the next few days, because clearly it is a big issue for people. Today, I want to point out that Kerry is really great because when challenged he stands tall and fights back. Earlier this year in New Hampshire, Kerry made the comment that the United States needed a "regime change." The conservative commentators on Fox, on the Internet, at the RNC, etc., went crazy! They sent out blast emails against Kerry, they called out their troops to bring him down! I think I read that at one point some White House officials even started saying Kerry "looks French!" How did Kerry respond? He went on CNN, said it is a free country, he stands by what he said, and that he will not be "bullied." Kerry's wife responded to the White House, that people in Bush's staff likely don't even speak French! It was very cool. You can tell Kerry has already seen combat in Vietnam and is ready to rumble!

That Dean actually has a record for ever standing up for ANYTHING but fiscal conservatism.

He did not support any universal health insurance system in Vermont except one that simply forced all employers into buying insurance for their employees, without giving small mom and pop businesses any help to do this.

He stood up for turning a tax system in Vermont from a progressive system into one that favored the wealthy.

He bought some land for conservation, but did not enforce environmental regulations on business, an weakened some in the favor of business. He ordered the Vermont Prison system to stop treating addicted prisoners with a methadone program, after the courts said he had to offer such treatment.

HE would not allow methadone treatment clinics.

He killed medical marijuana legislations that was the most popular of any legislation offered in any other state.

He reinstituted the death penalty.

He did not seek out civil unions and only signed it because the courts ordered something entirely different, which was to allow gays the right to marriage, like any other citizen.

And lot of other conservative things.

I am wrong, perhaps Dean does stand up for what he beleives in.

But what he stands up for does not significantly differ from what Bush stands up for, so why vbother having an election at all?

...but somehow it came around back to Dean, so that we could be reminded of his evil dictator-ness. LOL. (Not suggesting Nic that you brought up Dean, but only that you so gleefully jumped in and ranted about the "small arrogant little tyrant.")

ps) Last I checked, Vermont does not have a death penalty. And yes I know Dean's position. But "reinstituted"? Bah.

Meanwhile, back to Kerry...

"What we need is a candidate that offers a completely different vision of America, has a record of standing up for what they believe in no matter what, and has a crazy die hard support system to back him up. bush has all three and so does Dean. Now that will be a great race!"

Who Bbought up Dean on a thread about Kerry first.

When he became governor in 1991, Howard Dean opposed the death penalty in all cases. In 1997, after a number of brutal crimes involving the murder of children, including the abduction, rape and murder of 12-year old Polly Klass in California, Dean spoke publicly about his reconsideration of his position on the death penalty.

After careful deliberation, Dean concluded that the death penalty may be an appropriate punishment in limited circumstances such as the murder of a child or a police officer. Finally, as a result of the mass murder that took place on September 11, 2001, he concluded that the death penalty should also be available in cases of terrorists who take human life.

http://www.boomundo.com/dean/deathpenalty.htm


Death penalty violates law, judge decides

By Matt Sutkoski

A federal judge on Tuesday ruled key parts of federal death penalty statutes unconstitutional, stalling the capital trial of accused killer Donald Fell and possibly affecting federal cases nationwide.

The law does not give criminal defendants sufficient rights to question witnesses or sufficiently guarantee due process rights, U.S. District Court Judge William Sessions wrote.

Fell faces the death penalty for allegedly kidnapping Teresa King of North Clarendon from a Rutland parking lot in November 2000 and later killing her. His codefendant hanged himself in jail last year. U.S. Attorney Peter Hall said his office is reviewing options, but said an appeal is likely. "The government has every right to appeal the court decision," Hall said. "We have not decided yet what next steps the government would take."

An appeal would go to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and would surely delay Fell's trial, which has been scheduled for November.

http://www.vermontlaw.edu/media/emp_mednew_template.cfm?doc_id=545

Dean aligns with Bush on death penalty

June 14, 2003

By TRACY SCHMALER Vermont Press Bureau

Former Gov. Howard Dean appears to be shedding some of the liberal tendencies that have won him national attention as he now expands his support for the death penalty.

In his 11 years as Vermont’s governor, his position on capital punishment “evolved” from staunch opposition to limited support, Dean acknowledges.

Now, on the stump for the Democratic nomination for president, Dean has extended his endorsement of a death sentence for those who kill children or police officers to include those who commit terrorist acts.

“As governor, I came to believe that the death penalty would be a just punishment for certain, especially heinous crimes, such as the murder of a child or the murder of a police officer. The events of September 11 convinced me that terrorists also deserve the ultimate punishment,” Dean said in a statement released by his campaign last week.

Dean, who was unavailable for an interview, did not define a terrorist act in his statement. He elaborated only to say the punishment would be sought in “very serious cases” and he would do his best to avoid any “unjust imposition of the death penalty.”

“If elected president, I would apply the federal death penalty with great care. I would instruct my attorney general to seek capital punishment only in very serious cases, including those involving vulnerable victims and those involving terrorism.”

A political decision?

It is a curious contradiction for Dean, who has emerged in the field of nine Democratic contenders as the liberal maverick. The leftist designation has amused political observers in Vermont, who have known Dean as a solidly moderate Democrat for years.

But as a presidential candidate, Dean has planted himself on the left and gotten a great deal of attention for it, particularly his early, outspoken criticism of President Bush and the Iraq war.

His shift on the death penalty — his second in his political career — has some questioning his motives.

“This doesn’t surprise me. I think Dean’s willing to do what he has to do to win,” said Frank Bryan, a political science professor at the University of Vermont and longtime observer of Dean. “I really believe he’s very ambitious and he wants to win badly. He has to get to the final plateau, and I think he will take risks with his inconsistencies being discovered in order to get to the next step.”

Dean’s support of the death penalty for terrorists puts him in agreement with President Bush. Attorney General John Ashcroft told lawmakers last week that the Justice Department is working on an addendum to the USA PATRIOT Act that includes imposing the death penalty for some terrorist activities.

Dean needs “to get back to the middle. That’s where he lives,” said Garrison Nelson, a political science professor at the University of Vermont. “And he’s going to have real trouble getting back there because A, it’s clogged and B, any feeling of a lack of agenda commitment is going to undermine him with the ideologues. These are issue voters, these are people who work like crazy, but they are fundamentally suspicious and critical. If he starts to burn them on issues, they’ll be ferocious.”

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Story/67135.html

VERMONT:

Senator John Bloomer knows his death penalty bill is not likely to change
the law overnight in a state that was recently ranked the most liberal in
the nation.

But Bloomer hopes the measure he is sponsoring this year will get the
issue out of the closet, at least, and onto the table for discussion.

Bloomer, R-Rutland, said that "it is appropriate for Vermont to be at
least considering it." The bill calls for death as a sentencing option
for people convicted of killing a law enforcement officer.

Bloomer is 1 of 2 lawmakers introducing death penalty legislation in
Vermont this year. The other is Senator Jullius Canns, R-Caledonia,
whose measure goes further, calling for death for the crimes of killing a
law enforcement officer; killing a person after escaping from confinement
or police custody; and aggravated murder.

Bloomer took up the issue after last summer's shooting spree by Carl
Drega, the New Hampshire who shot and killed 2 New Hampshire state
troopers and 2 other people before fleeing to Vermont and wounding 4 law
enforcement officers.

Bloomer believes a death penalty could serve as a deterrent.

He added that "our police officers put their life on the line every day.
Hopefully if we have a death penalty, hopefully people will think twice
about killing a police officer. If it keeps 1 police officer from being
killed because people have thought twice about it, it's worth passing.
I'm convinced you can come to Vermont and get away with murder. I'd say
that if a person is really angry enough with someone here, they could
come to Vermont and commit that murder and sooner or later they will be
out of jail."

Canns said that the death penalty "is to make darn sure that that perosn
doesn't come back and commit again."

Bloomer and Canns know their measures have a slim chance of passing this
year's legislature, where both chambers are controlled by Democrats.

Bloomer has not spoken to any of his colleagues about his bill yet, and
has not received a single piece of mail on the issue. He just hopes the
bill gets a hearing in committtee.

Opponents of the death penalty say it costs much more than life
imprisonment to exercise, and does not deter criminals from committing
violent crimes.

Michael Mello, a Vermont Law School professor and death penalty opponent
who recently wrote a book about his experiences representing death row
inmates in Florida, said that "supporters of capital punishment -- and
here I include Governor Dean -- don't seem to appreciate the pretty
lousy track record and pretty lousy experience that other states that
have had capital punishment statutes have had." He added that when
exercised, the death penalty system ends up displeasing opponents and
proponents alike.

Mello said that "people in favor think the appeals porcess drags out too
long; there are too many appeals, too many lawyers, it's too expensive.
And opponents are troubled by the inevitability of innocent people being
sentenced to death."

Bloomer and Canns say they do believe the threat of the death penalty
will deter violent crime.

Canns said that "I do not believe all their studies, and as far as I am
concerned, if you take a life, and your life is going to be taken, it is
a deterrent. I don't care how much they study."

Vermont is 1 of only 12 states in the USA without a death penalty law,
according to Amnesty International, which opposes the death penalty.

Between 1778 and 1954, Vermont executed 26 people, 1st by hanging and in
later years with the electric chair, said Gregory Sanford, the state
archivist.

In 1987, the Vermont legislature formally abolished capital punishment
altogether.

In October, Governor Howard Dean briefly brought ther issue to public
attention when he said his position on the death penalty had evolved over
recent years toward accepting the penalty, and he would now support it
for certain heinous crimes.

Dean has not worked to promote the death penalty since that announcement.
He said last week that he hadn't looked at Bloomers' and Canns' bills and
did not want to comment on them.

Exit polling data from the 1996 elections in Vermont found 29 % of
Vermonters identifying themselves as liberal, a higher percentage than
was found in any other state.

For that reason, most death penalty opponents in the state do not think
the bills introduced by Bloomer and Canns have much chance of going
anywhere this spring in the 2nd session of the biennium.

Robert Sand, the Windsor County state's attorney and a death penalty
opponent, said that "I think that most people in the state recognize that
the life without parole, which is an available sanction used in Vermont...
is an appropriate way to resolve the most heinous cases that arise in
Vermont."

But like Bloomer and Canns, death penalty opponents welcome the
discussion the 2 bills might provoke.

Mello said that "what I would very much like to see happen in Vermont is
if Governor Dean's epiphany and these 2 bills generate public discourse
about capital punishment. I think that is a very good thing."

(source: Associated Press)

http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/deathpenalty/msg00485.html

You are correct, Dean did not reinstate the Death Penalty. He tried to have it reinstated and supported the bill to reinstate it, but he was defeated.

P.S.


If you don't want Dean being brought up in thread that are about other candidates, Tell the Blue Deanies to not bring him up first

Where does it say that Dean tried to reinstate the death penalty? I don't see that. In fact it says that Dean did NOT work to support Bloomer and Canns. I do know that his position changed and that he has come to support it for certain crimes, which by the way I DON'T agree with, so I'm not trying to start a "no he didn't" "yes he did" volley. I know what his position is. Just don't lie about what he did as Gov.

Also I realize that Keek brought Dean up first, and I said that in my post, I just think it's hilarious that we can so predictably expect 1000s of words of Dean-related text from you on just about ANY post in this forum. And recently it's been not just text, we also get some commentary like "Dean is tryant" and Dean is "in some ways worse than Bush." It's just funny, that's all.

Indicates Deans support of the legislation to reinstitute the death penalty.

Dean stated to the people that he supported the Death penalty in certain circumstance. And then to another group that he thought it was not right for Vermont, waffling around the issue, as usual, he refused to take a stance, or even look at the legislation.

Dean's very amusing stance on a number of issues, like the Death penalty, or his stance on methadone treatment (based on no medical opinions, but his main quote, that he saw what happened to neighborhoods in which clinics were, smacled of concern for one's property valued going down if blacks were to move into the neighborhood).

It still does not change the point. Out of ALL of the candidates, Deans history of flip plopping on all sorts of issues is greater than ALL of the other candidates combined. Even Kucinich has only changed his mind on right to life issue.

Dean has flippedcon virtually EVERYTHING he represented and supported as governor.

Now all that remains, is for Dean to turn against civil unions, and he will be George Bush's evil twin on social issues.

Now that's rich.

Dean never ever ever tried to "reinstitute the death penalty and was defeated" in Vermont. That's just a lie. Also all you've stated are opinions about his stance on the issues. You are welcome to your opinions.

And of course, since he is an evil tyrant, a monster, etc. as you've said, of course you can paint every nuance as a flipflop. Whatever.

Texas Moritorium Network says this about the candidates and their death penalty views:

"Kerry not too long ago amended his previous total opposition to say he supports the death penalty for terrorists, but not for anyone else. Kerry supports a moratorium. Kerry and Dean are both very critical of the way in which the death penalty is carried out."

It goes on about the other candidates as well, here's the link:
http://www.texasmoratorium.org/mod.php?mod=userpage&menu=401&page_id=75&group=5&PHPSESSID=3a680a71c40b0d5f7c0ffe6ee2ba0360

Oh my gosh, did Kerry "amend his previous total opposition"?? Did he flipflop?? See, I wouldn't call it that. But then, I don't think Kerry is a monster, so I'm willing to accept his position has evolved.

Kerry has ALWAY, completetly opposed the death penalty for criminal cases nad bases the case for terrorist alone, as I have repeated on the status of their being active combattants in a WAR on American citizens, rather than them being considered as criminals. His postion is base on the fact that as such, terrorists are then subject to MILITARY and not civil law. As would be spies during time of war. His arguments are quite legally sound, Deans were not.As a matter of fact. Dean positions on reinstating the death penalty were completely vague, and changed, depending on who he was speaking to, as is ususal for Dean.

So Kerry has not changed his stance at all, on Death penalty at all.

This is what the RNC say about Kerry. As the most liberal candidate, their view of Kerry is mot appropriate:

John Kerry

Experience: Lawyer; U.S. senator from Massachusetts (1985-present); lieutenant governor under Gov. Michael Dukakis (1983-85)
What he doesn’t want you to know. Sen. Kerry voted with liberal icon, Sen. Ted Kennedy, 100 percent of the time for 10 years.
What others are saying. “Kerry is…a man who opposes the death penalty, wants to restrict access to guns and voted against the resolution approving the start of ground operations against Saddam Hussein in 1991—just what you would expect from Ted Kennedy’s partner and Michael Dukakis’ running mate, the Republicans will surely say.” (David S. Broder, “Testing The ‘04 Waters,” The Washington Post, 6/5/02)

http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/risingtide/spring2003/04watch.htm

However, lkets check Vermont Newpapers on Dean:

Times-Argus (Barre/Montpelier, Vermont) - June 14, 2003

Dean aligns with Bush on death penalty

By TRACY SCHMALER Vermont Press Bureau

Former Gov. Howard Dean appears to be shedding some of the liberal
tendencies that have won him national attention as he now expands his
support for the death penalty.

In his 11 years as Vermont's governor, his position on capital punishment
"evolved" from staunch opposition to limited support, Dean acknowledges.

Now, on the stump for the Democratic nomination for president, Dean has
extended his endorsement of a death sentence for those who kill children
or police officers to include those who commit terrorist acts.

"As governor, I came to believe that the death penalty would be a just
punishment for certain, especially heinous crimes, such as the murder of a
child or the murder of a police officer. The events of September 11
convinced me that terrorists also deserve the ultimate punishment," Dean
said in a statement released by his campaign last week.

Dean, who was unavailable for an interview, did not define a terrorist act
in his statement. He elaborated only to say the punishment would be sought
in "very serious cases" and he would do his best to avoid any "unjust
imposition of the death penalty."

"If elected president, I would apply the federal death penalty with great
care. I would instruct my attorney general to seek capital punishment only
in very serious cases, including those involving vulnerable victims and
those involving terrorism."

A political decision?

It is a curious contradiction for Dean, who has emerged in the field of
nine Democratic contenders as the liberal maverick. The leftist
designation has amused political observers in Vermont, who have known Dean
as a solidly moderate Democrat for years.

But as a presidential candidate, Dean has planted himself on the left and
gotten a great deal of attention for it, particularly his early, outspoken
criticism of President Bush and the Iraq war.

His shift on the death penalty - his second in his political career - has
some questioning his motives.

"This doesn't surprise me. I think Dean's willing to do what he has to do
to win," said Frank Bryan, a political science professor at the University
of Vermont and longtime observer of Dean. "I really believe he's very
ambitious and he wants to win badly. He has to get to the final plateau,
and I think he will take risks with his inconsistencies being discovered
in order to get to the next step."

Dean's support of the death penalty for terrorists puts him in agreement
with President Bush. Attorney General John Ashcroft told lawmakers last
week that the Justice Department is working on an addendum to the USA
PATRIOT Act that includes imposing the death penalty for some terrorist
activities.

Dean needs "to get back to the middle. That's where he lives," said
Garrison Nelson, a political science professor at the University of
Vermont. "And he's going to have real trouble getting back there because
A, it's clogged and B, any feeling of a lack of agenda commitment is going
to undermine him with the ideologues. These are issue voters, these are
people who work like crazy, but they are fundamentally suspicious and
critical. If he starts to burn them on issues, they'll be ferocious."

Eric Davis, a Middlebury College political science professor, summed up
Dean's change in two words: South Carolina.

It is home to the first primary election in the South and, like most of
its neighbors, a conservative state.

"I think what's going on here is Dean is trying to appeal to electorates
in more conservative states, probably South Carolina being the most
obvious example," Davis said. "I think this is an example where in many
states the opinion on this is more supportive. Perhaps Dean feels he
needs to appeal to a more law-and-order constituency."

A change

The first time Dean softened on the death penalty was in 1997. He had been
governor for six years, and the political speculation was that he was
eyeing a bid for the presidency in 2000.

In interviews with reporters at the time, Dean said he realized some
crimes warranted death as the ultimate punishment.

"I really just became so convinced that some acts are so incredibly
depraved that the death penalty is an appropriate redress," he had said in reports published in the Rutland Herald and Times Argus. "When someone gets put to death for a heinous crime, I don't feel the least bit
conflicted about that."

That position was starkly different from the one Dean projected to a group
of students at Springfield High School five years earlier.

In the infancy of his governorship, Dean was an outspoken opponent of the death penalty.

"I don't support the death penalty for two reasons. One, you might have the wrong guy, and two, the state is like a parent. Parents who smoke cigarettes can't really tell their children not to smoke and be taken seriously. If a state tells you not to murder people, a state shouldn't be in the business of taking people's lives," he said in 1992.

But Dean did not act in 1997, or later when the issue resurfaced, to get any legislation passed in Vermont, where the death penalty was abolished in 1965. His lack of action prompted some to charge that his softening was politically motivated.

He dismissed those claims, saying the chances of getting a death penalty bill passed in Vermont were slim.

"If I thought the death penalty was going to stop the next depraved murder that might occur in Vermont, I would ask the Legislature to enact it. truly don't believe it's a deterrent," he said in 1997 after the father of a girl who was murdered in 1986 publicly charged Dean with changing his stance for political reasons.

In defending his switch, Dean attributed some of the impetus to a weak
judicial system that allowed murderers to go free, and in some cases kill again.

"Until life without parole means life without parole, the public is not safe without a death penalty," Dean said in 1997. "Until we have a
judicial system that can adequately protect us, the only thing that will is the death penalty."

Ron Weich, Dean's senior policy adviser, said Dean is now broaching the issue from a different perspective.

"What's happening is he was governor at the time. He necessarily has to broaden his view now," Weich said. "A governor is looking at ordinary, street-level homicide. A president has to look at national security."

Weich acknowledged that Dean and Bush may stand on common political ground on this issue, but said a Dean administration would employ the federal death penalty in a much different way.

"It's true he and President Bush share the view that the death penalty
should be available in some cases of terrorism," he said. "But (Dean)
would not apply the death penalty in the kind of wanton and reckless
manner Attorney General Ashcroft has used."

http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/2003-June/004326.html

Deans statemnt on the Death penalty place him as far to the e right as Bush on virtually ALL issues.

Dean is a politically unscrupulous Bozo, who's opinion changes with every shift of pubic opinion.

That's a new one. You are outdoing yourself.

And I just realized that you keep posting the SAME article each time. Too funny.

"Deans statemnt on the Death penalty place him as far to the e right as Bush on virtually ALL issues." Whatever that means. How does a position on the DP translate to ALL issues?

And you can't really be suggesting that Dean is the furthest right of the candidates on this issue:

Graham, Lieberman, Gephardt and Edwards all support the death penalty. (Lieberman even voted in favor of the DP for under 18. Graham supports the DP, including for drug kingpins.)

Kucinich, Sharpton and Braun are all for abolishing the DP.

Kerry is for the death penalty only for terrorists, as is Dean but Dean also is in favor of DP for murderers of police officers and children. Kerry's is the better position than Dean's, in my opinion, but only slightly. Personally I don't think the DP should be used at all, but it's not my #1 issue.

And if you are looking for the most liberal candidate, it's not Kerry -- not on this issue anyway.

Dean, entire record, as governor, with the addition of him aligning with Bush on the death penalty, might him the candidate fartther to the right ofall of the others at this point...



All of Deans supporters rave about him balancing the budget. But exactly HOW did he do this. Not the same way Clinton did, by raising the top tax rate on the wealthy,m in order to pay down the defict. Dean tried to do it it by CUTTING programs to the blind, handlcapped, elderly. And Dean supporters beleive that this is the correct way to balance the budget.

Deans balancing act,being done in this way, is nothing to boast about, but shameful, from the standpoint of progressive democratic politics.

When Vermont began to face another budget crisis in 2000-2002, what was Deans solution. To cut even the few advances in health care that were advanced in Vermont under Clinton Medicaid legislation. His budget recommendations would have cut services to almost EVERYONE reciveing health care in Vermont through Medicaid.

That sounds like Free Republic government budget philosophy, not Democrat. You can spin it all you want, but Deans solutions to being fiscally resoinsible have ALWAYS been to cut programs. He ALWAYS threatened to veto any attemt to raise taxes on the rich, who got the best deal under the Vermont tax laws after Dean came to office.

How do you, as a democrat, justify taxing the poor more of their total income, and the rich less, as Howard Dean did.

Deans record has been of REPUBLICAN type fiscal conservatism.ALWAYS.

HE did not sponsor ONE piece of legislation that was "SOCIALLY PRORESSIVE" either. Dean initiated NOTHING. He was a cautious, DO nothing politician, who faveord big business, and ALL of the legislation that Dean requested, was in this area alone. To bring Big Business to Vermont. Deans goal as governor was to completely carry out the agenda of Governor Snelling, his Republican predecessor.

Dean did not seek out "Civil Union" he was not out in front of the vanguard of candidates fighting for civil liberty for all. He signed a bill he was TOLD he had to sign. Or be held in contempt of the Supreme Court's decision in Vermont.

Did Dean ASK, the legislature to allow gay civil right? Did he suggest legislation?

Dean is a BOZO. A slick, glib, clever politician who has never done, of his own volition, one thing that was not very conservative, in his entire career. Ever. Any relatively liberal legislation that he signed was not a result of his own deciding HE wanted it.

Deans statements of what he is promising to do as PRESIDENT, cannot be backed up by ANYTHING he ever DID as governor. HE did not do one thing that helped improve heath care availability in Vermont. His own last comission on Health Care indicated that under a decade of Deanism, the health care system was collapsing.

He has NEVER raised income taxes, always cut them , and threatened to veto ANY increase to them on the rich.

His opposition to methadone treatment, which he stated was based his scientific opinions, was really based on his ideas of how such clinics would effect the neighborhood. Much like stating that if you let blacks into the neighborhood, your property values would go down. He never provided documented fact to back up his "SCIENTIFIC" stance, but his opposition did.

Much the same on medical marijuana, Dean gave his opinions, in opposition to others who gave hundred of medical reports and studies. Even the Vemront Medical Association supported it. Dean stood pretty much alone in his opinion.


Dean has pretty much hornswoggles a bunch of people with glib, loud, nasty talk. It says a lot about his supporters, that it is this, and not the reality of Howard Deans record, his continual flip flops in order to match what seem to be public opinion, rather than any real principals, is what persuades them. Changing his stance on the Death penalty not ONCE, but now three times, in the last five years, each time at a particular stage in his campaigning, that is another indication that Dean's true principals, lie unseen, waiting to be sprung, if he gets iinto a position, which like Goerge Bush is in. little can be done to oppose him, once he decides to show his true colors.

Your trying to glibly indicate that one positions is breing used to describe Deans being closer to Bush. It is not ONE position. it is ONE MORE position, that is every more brining Howard Dena closer to Bush.

We seen his stance on the war with Iraq was not one of a PEACE candidate, but of one who attacked the choices of others, without really ever telling anyone else what his own stance was. It kept changing. He attackers their war stance. letting others ASSUME he was against it. This is Deans entire campagn. Attack others, and be vague about his own stance. Ever shifting.

You will not find ONE piece of progressive legislation that DEAN requested as part of his own political platform as governor. you will find MUCH that he opposed.

Dean set the tome for his terms as governor in Vemront. These terms were totally conservative. Not progressive, not liberal. Adn of the political promises Dean made to progressivism, he kept NOT ONE.

by caving to polling data suggesting Rambo-like ravings would win the day. It's a new world and Kerry is using old pol techniques.

Dean '04

Kerry union endorsement already in Massachusetts ALONE guarantee twenty time as many votes as Dean has supporters according to Deans owbn list of supporters. Dena will gain some more support, but cannot get the nomination unless more thna a few DLC leaders give him the nod.

Dean support, for the most part comes from the very young, who have no political clout or influence. Sorry, Dean is a flash in the pan, no matter how much Internewt support he has, there is NO evidence that he is gaining ANY more support across tha nation that at all, and ALL of his polling data this level has remained flat. it staying flat, and going nowhere.

You can pat each other on the back for all of the illusion you create in the garden of silicon snakeoil, But where it is real very few people even know who Howard Dean is, and most of those who do, dont like him. For the last eight months I have heard from Deans supporters "when they get to know his position" "when they hear him speak" "when he gets name recognition", and month by month, off of the Internet, little changes for Dean. He goes nowhere. And for every supporter Dean has on the Internet, there are thousands who do not know who he is, or have decided hie is not their candidate. Dean has gone NOWHERE, outside of places loke MoveOn.com, and meetup.com.

The other candidates have raised far more money, from far fewer people, and THOSE figures for them are going aup. Per person, Dean has the lowerst rate of donation pervperson donating.

Sorry, no matter what, Dean will eventually peter out, because as a percentage of his total supporters, every increase to his support on a minthly basis, is a SMALLER percentage of his total support, indincating failing support, not increasing support. The best indication of this was his inability to win the MoveOn endorsements, because of his drop from the more than 50 percent support he had only weeks before. It took the opther candidates a FEW days of email writing to be a serious dent in Deans support and cost him the endorsement. A few days.

AS a function of total percentage, Deans trajectory is flattening

Tee hee.

A candidate generates $7.5M in 3 months, with an average donation of less than $200 (indicating an impressive number of individual supporters) and that's BAD? Your assertion would only be valid if Dean's individual contriburor numbers were declining or flattening; they're not. The added benefit is that many financial supporters will also contribute time to the campaign. That being the case, having 35,000 $200-dollar contributors is of much more value to a campaign than having 3,500 $2000 contributors. It's also notable that those $2000 contributors are now unable to give more until the general election cycle. The $200 contributors can (and frequently DO) continue to send money.

I'm in total agreement that it's too early to project final fundraising totals or trends, but I'm much more comfortable with a candidate that went from $2.6M to $7.5m with tens of thousands of new supporters that continued to make small contributions than I would be with one who slid from $7.1M to $6M with a few thousand contributors, most of whom could no longer donate.

...but that's just me...

october doubled, the next month a 90 percent increase, next a seventy, next fifty, after that 40...This is a drop as a function of the total.

Deans support, raising money, is not coming totally from NEW contributors. AS a matter of fact, there is not way of telling who gave what with Deans PAC.

Again average donation can easily be skewed by having a number of a thousand peopledonationg the maximum other donating less. ANd average tells almost nothing.

The bottom line is that Deans support is not doubling from motn to month, but each increase is growing smaller as when compared to the totals at prior month...

In standard statistical calculations, this is a flattening of a curve, and no, as you put it, a "SKYROCKETING" trajectory.
Dean supporters clevery switch from ONE set of data, to another set of Data. Even the 35,000 who donated, is a DROP in people donating, from his past donations. They donated less money previously. But more donations occured.

More indicative is Dean's support on thre Deanies beloved "MoveOn" site.

You were always crowing about his OVER fifty percent support there. Now I see NO posts about Dean on MoveOn, sincve hs trajectory there started moving DOWN from that over fifty percent, to 43 percent in ess than two months.

The other candidates are moving UP in all the areas you can point to, even if only small increases. Dena is the only candidate showing decreases in the area claimed as his fortress. The Internet.

Dream on Mrcutio.

Kerry, $6m. Increase in donations Q1-Q2 Dean $4.9M or 188%, Kerry -a decrease of $1.1M or a decrease of 18%.

You posted "Again average donation can easily be skewed by having a number of a thousand peopledonationg the maximum other donating less. ANd average tells almost nothing." Of COURSE it says something...it says something important. It says that with an AVERAGE contribution under $200, Dean has more individual supporters. The more people who donate the max, the more people who have to make smaller contributions. That's a LOT of people.

You stated "You were always crowing about his OVER fifty percent support there." Find ONE post from me that does that. I never said any such thing. I, personally, am not posting about MeetUp.org because the vote is over. Dean failed to get above the 50% threshold, but he was still far and away the front-runner and we all know it. What's the sense of rehashing things? I don't feel the need to alienate any of the other candidates' supporters over it'

And, lastly, you said "The other candidates are moving UP in all the areas you can point to, even if only small increases." I believe I spoke of fundraising (Dean is up, most of the others are down).

It's too early to call the final numbers (or even a real trend) but I think ANY of the candidates would be happy to have Dean's Q2 situation. Dean IS gaining in popularity and he's doing it with a lot of small donators, not a few big ones.

All of the "researching skills" in the world can't change the facts, Nick.

Have you been sucked in? You can't win, you know.

Dean is a treacherous monster, don't even bother arguing about it. :)

A previous poster said:

"Dean's support, raising money, is not coming totally from NEW contributors. AS a matter of fact, there is not way of telling who gave what with Deans PAC."

The facts:
Over 62,000 donors gave for the first time to Dean for America this quarter, demonstrating the momentum and growth of the campaign.

Then he said:
"Again average donation can easily be skewed by having a number of a thousand peopledonationg the maximum other donating less. ANd average tells almost nothing."

Again, the facts:
Of the 83,041 donors overall, only 891 have maxed out, enabling over 82,000 of them to continue to contribute funds to the campaign in the future.

But like I said, we can't win this argument Mercutio. I just posted this because I just went to the blog and read these numbers. Cool, eh?

There are some things that Dean gets attacked for that make no sense to me. His fundraising is a great thing, and real cause for celebration amongst his camp. Beyond that, I think it points the way towards an altogether new way of tapping into the grassroots. Dean will never match the available resources of Kerry, but he has managed to make fundraising news.

A tyrant...a petty medicority...a BOZO. Might as well be Bush.

Nic has spoken. So be it.

One, Dean NEVER reinstituted the death penalty... VERMONT DOES NOT HAVE THE DEATH PENALTY AND HASN'T SINCE 1987!!!!!!!!!!!! That is one of the most blatant lies I have ever seen!!!

When looking at actual facts:

"Does Vermont Have Life Without Parole: Yes

Last Execution Information: The last person executed in Vermont was in 1954 by electrocution. The death penalty was effectively abolished in 1964, but lingering statutes were finally removed in 1987. " (my emphasis)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=11&did=276#vermont

Two, the Supreme Court of VT never ordered gay marriages, they only ordered that gay Vermonter couples be given the same benefits as heterosexual couples. Let's read from Baker v. State:

"We conclude that under the Common Benefits Clause of the Vermont Constitution , which, in pertinent part, reads, "That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community, and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family, or set of persons, who are a part only of that community", Vt. Const., ch. I, art 7., plaintiffs may not be deprived of the statutory benefits and protections afforded persons of the opposite sex who choose to marry. We hold that the State is constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law. Whether this ultimately takes the form of
inclusion within the marriage laws themselves or a parallel "domestic partnership" system or some equivalent statutory alternative, rests with the Legislature. Whatever system is chosen, however, must conform with the constitutional imperative to afford all Vermonters the common benefit, protection, and security of the law" (my emphasis)

When looking at acutal facts, we see that the Court ordered that all people be treated equally, so Dean signed civil unions. Instead of blaming the Supreme Court for "forcing" him to sign the bill while on the camapaign trail, Dean comes out and says he is proud of what he signed, and that it was the right thing to do.


Nicholas it's sad but kind of a compliment that you are so afraid of Dean that you have to tell these easily debunkable lies about him.

Quoting from Dean's website: "I believe the death penalty should be available for extreme and heinous crimes, such as terrorism or the killing of police officers or young children." I think he would have liked to reinstate the death penalty, or maybe he just changed his mind to better fit the national profile!

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=CapitalPunishment

you would know that I was not arguing that Dean was completely against the death penalty...

I was refuting the false assertion that dean had reinstated the DP in VT. He never even TRIED to my knowledge. I understand he is in favor of the DP under limited cirucmstances.

I know that Vermont has not had an execution since the mid '50s, and took it off the books in the '60s.
My point is, that the easy position in today’s political environment is to be pro-capital punishment, and the position that take some guts, and leadership, is to be against.:toast:

I corrected that reinstate. But Deans flip of opinions, and then his refusal to give an opinion on the bill to reinstate in Vermont is indicative of Howard Dean:

We need a pillar in the White House, not a person who has no opinion until he see which way the wind blows:

Death Penalty Tap Dance




Subscribe to The Post



By Richard Cohen
Thursday, July 3, 2003; Page A23

By now you have probably heard of Howard Dean's recent appearance on "Meet the Press," in which he may have set a record for saying, "I can't answer that question." The question that got the most attention involved the number of troops on active duty. But there was a question that Dean did answer -- and answered extensively -- that deserved as much attention. It involved why he switched his position on capital punishment. He said he changed his mind. A review of his remarks, however, suggests he actually lost it.

The issue is important because Dean is the self-proclaimed truth-teller on the campaign trail. "I'm going to say what I think," he told Tim Russert. This splendid candor has vaulted Dean into the top tier of Democratic candidates; he raised $7.5 million in the most recent reporting period. Suddenly the once-obscure former governor of Vermont is a contender.

So let us contend with capital punishment. I am not going to argue its pros or cons, because you probably believe what you believe -- and that's all there is to it. But as a political issue, it's a salient one, because opposition to the death penalty brings a presidential candidate nothing but trouble. The American people overwhelmingly support executions, and that is especially true in the South, the so-called Death Belt, where most executions -- as well as the early South Carolina primary -- take place.

Dean once opposed the death penalty, citing "two reasons. One you might have the wrong guy, and, two, the state is like a parent" -- it ought to set an example. He also said, "I truly don't believe it's a deterrent." That's three reasons, but never mind. Then, on account of two horrific crimes, Dean's thinking underwent an evolution. "I came to realize because of the Polly Klaas case and because of similar other cases that sometimes the state inadvertently has a hand in killing innocent people because they let people out who ought never to have been let out."

Granted, that was the case with Klaas, the 12-year-old California girl who was abducted, sexually attacked and murdered back in 1993. Her killer, Richard Allen Davis, had a long criminal record and was out on parole when he committed the crime. But none of his previous crimes were for death penalty offenses. Dean could argue that Davis should never have been free and deserved to die because of what he did to Klaas, but not for anything he did before. Davis didn't slip the noose. There was no noose for what he had done.

The second case Dean cited apparently took place in Vermont. "We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on . . . a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't . . . go through the second trial. And so the guy basically got time served, and he was the man who murdered a 15-year-old girl and raped her and then left her for dead. . . . So life without parole doesn't work, either."

Neither does Dean's logic. According to Dean's own account, the sex offender had never been convicted of a previous capital crime. And, in the eyes of the law, he wasn't even convicted of one of them -- one man's "technicality" being another's constitutional abuse. Whatever the case, the death penalty played no role.

It's not that Russert wasn't persistent. He went after Dean time and time again, finding only a bowl of fudge sitting opposite him -- a man so desperately in search of a rationale that ultimately he stood American jurisprudence on its head. Going on about felons getting out of jail and then killing, say, "15- and 12-year-old girls," he added, "That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime."

In all my years writing about the death penalty, I have never heard any politician admit that he would countenance the death of an innocent person in order to ensure that the guilty die. Dean is maybe the first to acknowledge the unacknowledgeable. For that, I suppose, he ought to be congratulated. But by equating the murder of one individual by another with the murder of an innocent person by the government -- the unpreventable with the preventable -- he has casually trashed several hundred years of legal safeguards.

I know that nothing a politician can say in favor of capital punishment can possibly hurt him. But Dean is supposed to be different. His supporters say so and so, repeatedly, does he. When it comes to the death penalty, however, he's as craven as they come. The straight-shooter aimed at South Carolina -- but shot himself in the foot.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1907-2003Jul2.html



The latest act of courage and leadership in pursuit of tolerance started last December, when the Vermont Supreme Court ordered equal marriage rights and benefits for gay Vermonters. Both houses of the Vermont Legislature responded quickly and by mid-April the governor signed the civil unions bill -- in private, of course. Reporters and cameras were not allowed in. But the secrecy of the signing didn't keep the controversy down.

For incumbent Governor Howard Brush Dean III, it was a fight he never asked for. The four-term governor (two-year terms in Vermont), had refused for years to publicly state his position on gay marriage. Dean is a Yale graduate (1971) and a medical doctor. Fiscal conservatism and universal health care are his issues. Dr. Dean describes his seat on the mandala of politics as that of a "passionate centrist." Again and again he told the public he would not comment on the same-sex marriage issue because it was a matter before the court.

Then, within one hour of the Vermont Supreme Court decision that declared gay marriage constitutional, Dean clumsily told reporters that when it comes to homosexual marriage, he was "uncomfortable about it, just like anybody else."

At least he was honest. Gay marriage simply was not his issue. It dropped into his lap like piping hot tomato soup. He was clearly relieved the Supreme Court had offered an out -- creation of a parallel system that would grant the rights and benefits without the "marriage" title. "Civil union" was born.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/3867

AS to his stance on Civil Union. Dean waited in terror until the last days left to him, but what he said within an hour of the court decision, without advisors, without speechriters, without his political machine says EVERYTHING about about Howard Dean:

Dean clumsily told reporters that when it comes to homosexual marriage, he was "uncomfortable about it, just like anybody else."


In all things Dean is as CRAVEN, as the Washington Post noted.

Problem is, tha DEANS ENTIRE career requires his supporters to make excuses for his behavior as governor, wheras all those who oppose him have to hit those who are running against Dean for the nomination with are voting for or against a few pieces of recent legislation.

Deans entire career is the career of a moderate Republican running as a democrat. HE will have a GREAT deal of explaining to do when it is all thrown up in his face, by many many more people than Tim Russert.

I KNOW what the game plan is for knocking Dean out of the race.

Hey,
I can't take credit for this (actually Robert Reich predicted it), but what about Kerry and Clark for a winning ticket. Imagine, we would have two top leaders who actually have, not only military backgrounds, but combat experience as well. Wouldn't that be reassuring to our troops, as well as the rest of the world?

During the BCCI banking scandal, Kerry investigated and blew open Osama's brother-in-law Bin Mahfouz, the same guy who financed W's pump and dump of Harken Energy in 1986 with $20 million and Enron type-loan shenanigans. Mahfouz was fined $225 million, put under house arrest and BCCI closed.

Kerry has the courage and experience to deal with the Saudis even--and he must know Mahfouz relationship with Harken and will bring that up in the debates with Bush.

The Freepers are obsessed with Kerry.

Kerry is too liberal for the south, blah blah blah, his anti-gun votes will haunt him, blah blah blah, stupid yankee, blah blah blah.

Try to explain why "Dean Will Win?" That might be a lot harder than "blah blah blah."

I don't even believe it, either.

and I will keep posting reasons why Kerry will win and reasons we should all support him from his foreign policies, support for human rights, civil rights, gay rights, the environment, womens issues, education, the economy, support for renewable energy, and Kerry's prior service in the military. It's going to take time to post all this, but I am going for it. Kerry is the one! He has my full support and deserves yours too.

Dean can't beat Kerry. SOmthing called superdelagates. The super delegates give a candidate up to 37% of the delegates they need to win the nomination. Super delegates are appointed by the Party leaders. The same party leaders that Dean attacked. So Dean would need to get more then 1/3 more votes than Kerry at least to beat him out. Most polls don't show that Dean has that large of lead, if any over Kerry.

J4Clark

Dean is a good old southern boy, whos Civil Union vote will cost him more than his pro-gun stance here in the good old south where I live. I live in one of the most conservative cities in my state. It ued to be one of the most liberal. and the Democrats support two candidates other than Dean. As a matter of fact, there are more MEET-Up groups in my city for Kerry, than for Dean. And outside of college kids, Dean is virtually unknown in the entire state. And it is a VERY large state.

And when the southern boys running drop out, they are going to support Kerry, as they will be prone to support another Senator, rathe than someone from the House. Niethe Graham or Edwards will throw their support to the man who attacked and insulted them.

And their supprt alone will double Kerry's lead over Dean.

Dean does not stand a chance. The DLC has decided to strangle his candidacy, but not by direct attack in so they they will not offend Dean supporters, but by growing the gap between Dean and Kerry so large, that Dean will simply be a distant second.

Huh?? Since when? Maybe you meant he's NOT a good old southern boy?

But nice fantasy all around.

Sorry,

But Clark is a SOutherner and will do better then Kerry or Dean in the Southern states. Georgia and Tennesse Democrats fall more to Clark than the other two. I do like Kerry. And I agree Dean is toast come Super Tuesday. I think Kerry may have to drop out of the race if he does not defeat Dean in the New Hampshire Primary. But good luck to the two parties. Clark will win though. He has deep connections in the Democratic party and the South.

J4Clark

We need to get back to a real discussion about issues and the candidates. I am going to post some other reasons to support Kerry and am going to stick to the issues. Otherwise, this discussion has become counter-productive. Kerry and other Dems have things to say that need to get out, they have plans that need to be put into action. That is the message we need to be sending the rest of the country, not that the Democratic Party is the former Yugoslavia.

I think Clark is the guy that people really want. He is not to radical and even Republicans like him. But I think Kerry is a good guy too.


J4Clark

If he wins the nomination, and I hope to heck he wins over Lieberman.

But I'm voting for Dean....

Kinda reminds me of that add "President Quayle" same effect, decent guy but not electable.

Which reminds me of the 1988 vice-presidential debate between Lloyd Bentsen and Quayle:
“I knew JFK, JFK was a friend of mine, and you, sir, are no JFK!”
John Forbes Kerry, on the other hand, has many of the positive traits that have made President Kennedy such an enduring legend, e.g., education, war hero and policies!

Kerry absolutely worshipped Kennedy, and modeled his life to follow in his foot steps.

<>

<>

<>

Can you imagine getting a chance to hang out with JFK like that? That would freak me out!