Inside Politics: Dean says something strange.

:wtf:

This is not flame bait.

Dean says voters should sweep out all democrats in D.C. because they have not accomplished prescription drug coverage in so long. Is he kidding? He probably did not mean to say this in this way, but he said the words. It was something like "they ought to sweep them out for not getting anything done in washington. It is one thing to say that you are better qualified, but to go further and say that they should be swept out of their Senate jobs is another. I'm sure that he does not mean that, does he? He was defending against remarks by Kerry, but why go that far? Is it okay to say anything in defense?

This is not flame bait. I just want to know if he says this in his stump speeches.

I'd provide a link, but it was just said.

Edited to add quote:

"The truth is a third of all the seniors in Vermont have prescription drug benefits. The people who are running, have served in Washington together for almost a century. Tell me what seniors have to show for their stay in Washington and compare to what Seniors have with prescription benefits. If you want change in Washington you had better get rid of all the democrats and the republicans who have sat on prescription drug benefits for all these years and support somebody who's actually delivered them to seniors. I've delivered it. Those guys can say whatever they want about my approach to medicare. oh course I support Medicare, but I want health insurance for every single man, woman and child in america and I've come closer to delivering that than any of my washington opponents."

that isn't part of his stump speech.

All honesty.

fine then, lets see it then I should make my judgement. I will support him if hes the nominee rma but it confused me honest and if I cant get confused, then what should I do, because I dont wanna be judgemental but looking at it and giving it an analysis it weirded me out.

I was, it was not out of context and lucky for me, I have Replay.

Asked about Kerry criticizing him for supporting a cut in medicare Dean said:

"The truth is a third of all the seniors in Vermont have prescription drug benefits. The people who are running, have served in Washington together for almost a century. Tell me what seniors have to show for their stay in Washington and compare to what Seniors have with prescription benefits. If you want change in Washington you had better get rid of all the democrats and the republicans who have sat on prescription drug benefits for all these years and support somebody who's actually delivered them to seniors. I've delivered it. Those guys can say whatever they want about my approach to medicare. oh course I support Medicare, but I want health insurance for every single man, woman and child in america and I've come closer to delivering that than any of my washington opponents."

Why say that thing on getting rid of "all democrats and republicans". He may not have meant it, but why say it. Off the cuff remarks tend to be what you think. I he advocating an independent campaign or just pandering to their rhetoric. I've heard countless Repubs and Indeps say this about Davis and the Dems in Calif congress, lately.

specifically targets those people who have sat on prescription drug benefits and haven't done anything about it.

I don't see anything about sweeping out all the Democrats. My faith in Dean is restored.

Who did he mean. If you you say "all the democrats" then tell me who he meant.

the key phrase is "who have sat on prescription drug benefits for all these years"

He is saying, no matter who, Democrat or Republican, if they have sat on prescription drug benefits for all these years and have done nothing about it, they need to be removed. It is clear and concise. It is a reasonable sentiment if prescription drug benefits is an important issue for you.

but as far as I know, they haven't, so no.


edited subject to make sense

broke the bottle and everything. burn the bastard at the stake!@#~

No one wants Kerry ass on his/her meds.

:wtf: Oh and I guess he's on board with Arnie "sweeping" out California. :eyes:

To me he's a little fat man with no kneck. I'm sick of him going after any Dem with a reputation and a voting record. He can eat dirt.
This:
"If you want change in Washington you had better get rid of all the democrats..."

is an outrage. I wish Dean would go away.

What a breath of fresh air.

out of context. I saw the interview and he didn't say get rid of all the democrats. He was speaking in generalities and not specifically about any one person. The point he was trying to make is that the Dem and Repukes have never enacted a prescription drug plan. They have had missed opportunities to improve drug coverage but they have never worked a good plan because of political wrangling.

It's called deadlock. So, he compared that to his own record in Vermont which shows that he did endorse a prescription drug benefit to seniors.

Also, calling him a "fat man with no neck" isn't even mildly amusing. It's one thing to not like a candidates policies but when you resort to name calling and cutting down someone's physical appearance you nullify your argument.

that is what he said. "Sweep them all out".

especially after seeing so many of the Dems stare lovingly at *their* president, George W. Bush in the year following 9-11.

But Kucinich sure wasnt a bush ass kisser after 9/11, I am only speaking about him because hes my candiate, I will let the candiates of others defend theirs, so yes after 9/11 a lot kissed Bush ass, but during the immense pressure on the patriot act, Kucinich said NO as did Feingold among others, they were basically told if you dont vote on this and another attack happens you will be blamed.

I was careful not to imply all Democrats, because I know Kucinich and several others have been very courageous through it all.

I know that. I understand his frustrations honest but I do realize one thing well some of the congress dems havent been fighting as hard as lets say Kucinich or McDermott or Barbara Lee or others, they do fight Bush. After all that pressure the bastards put on them after 9/11, Kucinich said NO to the patriot act and now is trying to repeal it and I keep on hearing he doesnt have a chance could it be because some dont want to give him one. Your welcome, I just dont want Dean thinking that all the house dems are scum in fact many if not all of them I think are good people who for sure have made some flaws in the recent years with Bush but overall, I think they have been ok.

but that kinda talk in practice is reeeeally dangerous. When that has a link to it I'll go from being alarmed to pissed.

If no one reports it though, it will be like he never said it. Hopefully he won't say it again.

...of whats wrong with the current crop of Beltway Democratic leadership. They obstruct the GOP agenda from time to time (like judicial nominations and ANWR), and the rest of the time they're eagerly following the GOP lead and collecting their share of the corporate payola.

THEY need to get an agenda of their own.

You can do an archive search on DU (or on Google) on "Al From" and "DLC" and that may explain some things.

What will happen to our party if we elect this man as it's leader?

.

:)

:shrug:

And don't give me that Dean isn't a liberal BS, yea he isn't the more progressive, but compared to MOST of Congress Dean is Stalin.

throughout the 90s. Now you want to reward a centrist like Dean and throw out the liberal Kerry?

Geez, Dean's nine month old conversion to populism really snowed alot of people.

btw...Does Dean even ACKNOWLEDGE that the CHIPS bill crafted by Sens. Kerry and Kennedy helped extend the healthcare coverage for the children in his state and every state?

i heard him on wnyc on the brian lehrer show i think it was last week (go to the wnyc website lehrer show archives; the only show with a dean interview)... he said that the dems have been in there "for years and years and years and haven't really accomplished anything". which, i might add, is total farce. defending your positions based on your own resume is one thing, but this is ridiculous. so, while clinton was president and the dems were in power they were busy, but now that pukes run everything they are expected to get MORE done? wtf?

i don't know if it's part of his stump speech, but he repeats that to the media a lot. i think he'll go with this one for as long as he can because it takes all the focus off his own record... which i guess is good marketing strategy.

raised the hairs on my neck. Was it a boo-boo?

Especially when the party leadership has been leg-humping a GOP crook for almost three years.

Whoever is elected, they will have enormous pull in setting the election strategies for the rest of the party.

Don't go overboard on the quote. It was merely an incisive attack against the Senator.

Just admit it was a boo-boo. If it was a Kerry attack he would be hard pressed to find an example where Kerry has not made every effort to get a prescription drug benefit for seniors. his stand against Bush fake plan, strikes out the idea of him going along with Repubs all the time. The facts are that as a Senator, he is one 100 in a Congress of two houses. Every man should have to answer for the stands they have taken. Dean is not exception. I just don't get the reason why he said this.

and not done anything about it? If so, then yes, time to get rid of him (if that is your main concern).

Define it for me. I'll try to answer then. What Dean said was obviously unanswerable. It is an attempt to say something vague, but serious. Cheap shot.

Those Senators who are in the committees that keep that sort of legislation tied up.

Name a Democrat that has kept prescription drug benefits in committee.

so I don't have to name specific Democrats. The statement was a generic "if your congressman is an obstacle, you need to vote him out."

I understand that in Vermont he had better success working with the Repubs in the legislature than the Dems. Is that what he plans on doing once he's President?

The President will have to work with Republicans in congress...and in case you didn't notice John Kerry's negotiating on Iraq with Republicans failed.

Like Ted Kennedy's concentration on working for universal health care for decades.

If a particular issue is a key one for you, and someone in congress puts it as low priority...if you have an alternative with different priorities, why not promote them?

I didn't see anything to indicate that Dean thought those seats shouldn't be Democratic in the Senate...just that perhaps the current occupants should move on.

Are those people running for president? If not, why is he saying it, except to pull a Bush and intimate that it is his opponents. Like Bush did with Iraq and 9/11

lately?

Of course there are a few good men and women. For the most part, they do nothing but make sure they say the right thing and dont offend anybody. And to put it in perspective, cut the man some slack and dont take it so literally. Hes not on some rampage to be rid of the Democrats, on the contrary, hes more worried about the other side of the aisle certainly more than Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry, or even Edwards are. What makes more sense to me is that he was insinuating that our Democratic leaders need to learn to be accountable and take responsibility for the role that has been given them by their constituents.

This is precisely the reason I hope he is our next prez. He tells the truth, while everyone else waltzes around it.

Don't jump on that bandwagon just yet. We don't know the quote within context. We don't even know if it was actually said. If he did make a statement about removing all the Democrats from Washington, he will have made a major mistake.

I see confirmation before making further comments.

Like the war in Iraq.

We had plenty of leadership there from Kennedy, Levin, Durbin, Pelosi, Kucinich and others...but not from the other presidential candidates serving in congress. Expedience seemed the order of the day. Thanks, DK and Dr. Dean, for reminding us we need leaders, not expedient followers!

or were in this case.

A number of us have issues that are very important to us...that is one.

Kerry seems to be doing a good job these days talking about everything but Iraq...and in particular medicare...where he senses a weakness in Dean.

Kerry's supporters provide us with endless quotations from Kerry seemingly opposed to war, but can't seem to answer his opposition to his own liberal colleagues. Were these liberal leaders wrong on their votes?

I see Dean supporting some of these key liberal champions in Congress and opposing others...I appreciate that.

on 99% of the issues, then Iraq matters more? If Dean sides with other liberals (I don't know a percentage) and then doesn't medicare, that doesn't matter? Are you saying that for you the Iraq issue is the most important in deciding how someone is a liberal?

I just have a problem with Dean 1) Acting like his position was different than Kerry's at the time of the Iraq vote and, leaving Iraq aside, 2) Using that one issue to act like he is more progressive on other issues.

with the White House on Iraq. Kerry was one of the negotiating Dems. It cost him his vote to contain Bush where they could. Stop the invasion of Syria and Iran, and get Bush to present evidence to the UN and Congress. That last act forced Bush to over reach on the evidence and NOW his credibility problem is finally being noticed.

You use a mantra that John Kerry single-handedly prevented invasions of Syria and Iran...where's the reference???

John Kerry's negotiating failed...and the overreach on evidence had occurred before the vote, not after.

and Bush did the 16 words in his Jan. State of the Union. Both, well after the Oct. resolution vote.

I NEVER said that Kerry negotiated single-handedly. That is YOUR spin that you use to create a deceptive argument.

Informed people know that Kerry was part of a team of Dem lawmakers that also included Gephardt and Biden.

In some key instances, certain Senators choose to listen to Bush instead of Byrd. What would cause a Senator to eschew the advice of a party elder statesman over Bush?

I don't know Kerry's position on presciption drug benefits, but since that was what Dean was referring to, I don't fear Dean destroying the party, just lighting some fire under some of the laggards.

Obviously that is who he was referring to. It is not lighting a fire to say people should lose their jobs. edited for grammer

Truman did a similar thing. You are either part of the solution or part of the problem. A senator is either pushing presciption drug benefit legislatior or a senator isn't.

If you don't like what he said, don't vote for him.

In particular, Truman's support for universal health care.

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

I knew the comment reminded me of someone, now I know why it bothered me. It sounds like Bush.

You are allowed to interpret and perceive the quote in any fashion you want. The core of the matter is, you are either working to pass prescription drug benefits or you aren't.

If that sounds bad to you, great, exercise your right and don't vote for Dean. If that sounds like no big deal to you, as it does to me, then this won't alter your support one way or another.

Medicare, Medicaid, Family Leave Act, Portability of Employment Insurance Act, Kid Care (thats how Dean accomplished the 96 percent coverage for children in Vermont, not one bit of state legialtion was involved), Hate Crimes Legislation, opposition of ANWR, Opposition of legisslation that wqould take away overtime pay. And that is nly one tenth of on percent of the legislation the existing Democrats have given us.

Deans own record in Vermont for passing legislation that favored businesses at the expense of people is well known among legislators in the Vermont Democratic Party and even Business Week praises Dean for favoring business over environment:

Business leaders were especially impressed with the way Dean went to bat for them if they got snarled in the state's stringent environmental regulations. When Canada's Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd. wanted to build a new manufacturing plant on 700 acres of Vermont farmland in the mid-'90s, for instance, Dean greased the wheels. Husky obtained the necessary permits in near-record time. "He was very hands-on," says an appreciative Dirk Schlimm, the Husky executive in charge of the project.

And when environmentalists tried to limit expansion of snowmaking at ski resorts, "Dean had to show his true colors, and he did -- by insisting on a solution that allowed expanding snowmaking," says Stenger. IBM (IBM ) by far the state's largest private employer, says it got kid-gloves treatment. "We would meet privately with him three to four times a year to discuss our issues," says John O'Kane, manager for government relations at IBM's Essex Junction plant, "and his secretary of commerce would call me once a week just to see how things were going."


http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_32/b3845084.htm

Deans record on nearly EVERYTHING is attrocious.

But because he comes from a small , not well covered state, Dean can reinvent Dean. Little is available on his record through Vermont News Sources, as the newspapers do not archive online back to 1991, and Dean treid to negociate a 20 year sealing of his record in fear of what would turn up if the public had access. He onlt got ten years, but that is long enough for this petty, ultraconservative to fool the public to feed his ambition.

So when did the people of Vermont wise-up and throw is 'attrocious' butt out of office?

...people will vote ABB even if they don't trust the eventual dem nominee's policies?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atrocious
1. Extremely evil or cruel; monstrous: an atrocious crime.
2. Exceptionally bad; abominable: atrocious decor; atrocious behavior.


Dean isn't perfect. He has taken some bad positions in his career, he has said some stupid things. He has offended some people he shouldn't have and befriended others who he shouldn't have. I am responding to the extreme language. It is like the anti-Dean folk feel like if they can only find the right adjective to describe Dean, Dean's support would just fall away.

It is the hyperbolization that is ludicrous and absurd.

you come up with some firey words for dean! too bad for you i didn't say them first?

seriously, dean isn't my guy because i don't trust him and i think there are others who are far more capable. chill; chill. i do not have a contract out on generation dean, 'k.

You were the one who called him atrocious... she only asked you to back it up... or tone it down.

...check the names after the posts?

he has been known to compare Dean to Hitler in previous threads.

You might not have noticed, but they are not in the majority. They have kept choice alive in America. They have kept drilling out of ANWAR. They have kept some of the worst judges off the federal bench.
It is absolutely, totally impossible for the Democrats in Congress to have passed a prescription drug benefit. So they didn't and "Honest Howard" acts like they just did not want to. And supporters here say, "Yea! He's being honest." He is NOT being honest. Again.

As someone said "Great answer in response to Kerry's attack. The Dr. did everything he needed to do: brush off the attack as politics as usual, lump Kerry together with the rest of his opponents, and juxtapose his record in Vermont with their records in D.C."

I'm sure it'll give the Kerry blog more Dean to talk about though. :)

I've been commenting on it. He keeps talking about those D.C. insiders who don't get anything done. That's been his pat answer for about a month now. I've been talking about how hypocritical it is when his own health programs only exist because of those do-nothing Demcoratic Congressmen. Nobody ever argued it before.

Zell Miller, for one, really should go...I would rather keep Lincoln Chaffee in office even with the Republican label than keep Zell.

You know, sometimes I get caught up in the rhetoric that I fail to see the trees for the forest. You are absolutely correct. Who would choose Zell over Lincoln? We can't forget that while party is important, what is more important is good governance and leadership.

I agree with this statement. Not all Democrats truly embody Democratic principals and those who don't and are just Republican lite and are blocks to reform should be treated in the same way as the Republicans. The fact of the matter is that our party has let us down(like in 2002) and it is time we stand up for ourselves again and push true Democratic principals.

that means that is one "Democratic seat" that isn't really filled with a Democratic congressman. It is one thing to caucus with a party, quite another thing to consistently vote against the party line.

I admire independent congresspeople, but some votes should be guided by the elderstatesman of the party (ahem, Byrd) instead of the wishes of the President (*cough*Bush*cough*)

but he was responding to a comment by Kerry, so he was implying that at least kerry is one of them. It really bothers me. Fox news talks like this. They mention Iraq and 9/11 together. We have seen how this has affected Fox watchers.

Dean should admit who he meant or his comments will hang in the air and bite him in butt on Thursday night. it will give another candidate the opportunity to say that they have not done this. Dean used Gephardts comments on Gingrich to say that no one should be compared to Gingrich. Dean will be lucky if someone does not use this to make him say who or eat his words.

I trust his campaign knows what it is doing. They are confident it won't bite him in the butt and so am I. I am certain your advice is appreciated though. I'm glad to see you care enough about Dean's campaign to help out like this.

Stats show that during Deans tenure, more people were without health care than before he came to office.

Also, Dean was active at cutting programs during jis entire tenure 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.

http://premium1.fosters.com/2003/news/may%5F03/may%5F19/news/reg%5Fvt0519a.asp

ANd his final budget proposal was made in order to make Dean look like a fiscal wonder worker, while cutting programs that effected the powerless:

Even the governor’s closest allies in the Senate ignored him. Sen. Nancy Chard, D-Windham, recommended restoring $440,000 to one of the pharmaceutical assistance programs and the Senate voted 22-7 to go along with her.

“I’ve become convinced that we have a philosophical difference between the governor, the Republican House and this Senate,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham.

“The governor and the Republican House want to balance this budget on the backs of our most vulnerable Vermonters. The Senate wants to balance this budget on the backs of the pharmaceutical companies who are charging too much for drugs.”

http://timesargus.com/Legislature/Story/46513.html

The programs Dean was going to CUT:

Governor’s Budget Cuts Medicaid Programs

Governor Howard Dean, in his eleventh and last budget address, cut several Medicaid programs including prescription drugs, dental care and vision services. Dean told lawmakers times a tough and sacrifices had to be made.

The Dean budget for FY 2003 is $891 million in state spending, one percent more than the state expects to spend this fiscal year but nearly 3% less than the budget passed last year ($916 million). Revenues this year are expected to be $50 million below budget. Dean wants to use the "Rainy Day" fund to cover some of the $50 million shortfall but does not want to tap that fund for FY 2003. Next year’s budget is based on revenue estimates of $893 million.

If passed as presented, Dean’s budget would:

Eliminate the VScript Expanded Program.

Reduce the Vermont Health Access Plan pharmacy benefit.

Increase the co-pay up to $750/year for medicines under both the VScript and VHAP pharmacy programs. (Those eligible now pay only a few dollars for each filled prescription).

Eliminate the Medicaid dentures, chiropractic and podiatry programs.

Reduce the adult dental programs (cover pain and suffering only, not preventative care).

Add a 50% co-pay to adult vision programs.

Add a $250 co-pay per admission to VHAP inpatient hospital benefit.

Reduce the hospital outpatient payment by 10%.

Establish a hospital outpatient co-pay of $25.

These cuts would save about $27 million, $11 million in state money. Few advocates for the elderly are happy with the budget and have vowed to restore the money lost to these programs. A coalition of over a dozen advocacy groups held a rally and press conference at the Capitol building to denounce the budget cuts.

http://vnavt.com/vahhavoicewinter2002.htm

This last list of cuts are not ancient history, but from late 2002.

They are exactly in keeping with Deans statements supporting Newt Gincrich's statements about cuts to Medicare in 1995.

Deans suggested budget could be said to have been copying the Gingrich model for Vermont.

.

And don't say because they re-elected him. I'm from California. People here do not like Davis. But they vote for him, over and over again because of the alternative. We fall in line here (ignore today, my state is star crazy). I like Davis, but can you prove that people from Vermont really like Dean? What were his approval ratings while governor? I'd really like to know.

...

Yep, 5 times.

He must have at least not been pissing the people off. That's good enough for me.

How long are terms in Vermont 1.25 years? Again I remind you, people often choose party and not the man.

and he was governor for 11. Try buying a calculator Cindy.

2003-11=1992

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean.html

He took office in August 1991. He served through to January 2003. He was elected to Governor five times.

He was re-elected as governor in 92, 94, 96, 98 and 00. He would have continued to win had he not retired.

I'm scared.

Clinton said at Harkin's Steak Fry that Dean has done more than anyone for health care and that there is NO ONE better than Dean on the issue.

So, people can either believe Vermonters like me who know what is true in my own state and they can believe Bill Clinton or they can believe a very bitter Kerry supporter with an axe to grind. It doesn't seem to be a very difficult choice to make.

You've been dismissed...

If anyone has a link, please post it. Lots of people from this site watched Clinton speak at the Steak Fry, and plenty of people heard him say it.

So you can see it highlighted in yellow near the bottom.

http://216.239.41.104/custom?q=cache:-B55Y-lGx_8J:www.msnbc.com/news/924508.asp%3F0dm%3DC27FN+%22Clinton+praised+Dean%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

“Nobody did a better job on health care than he did.”

Some of us actually do real research to find out about a candidate's past. Others rely on the candidate's own campaign (wha?) or worse, assume that because they were re-elected that they must love him.

I just hope that the people of the world don't look at Bush II / Bush I, Reagan and think that we just luuuuuurve right wing corporate whores.

Other posts here have hit the nail on the head... in a two-party system, your choices are severely limited. The people of Vermont should be commended for at least trying to stay away from the Greedy Old Party, but as many issues have borne out...

Dean's record in Vermont is not good.

I hope we don't have to wait until after he's nominated to find out from the mainstream media.

Can you say '2002 redux'?

Thanks for implying that I've done no research of Dean on my own and only relied upon the Dean campaign. Oh, wait, you didn't imply that you directly said it with no proof.

And it's about time someone did. He says these things to "inspire" those who haven't gotten the job done to get on task and get it done. I'm quite confident you'll see them start talking about the subject again pretty soon, too. And who knows, maybe they will actually get something accomplished. Nothing is more effective in getting something done than to complain loudly that it hasn't been done. Dean's voice is influential and he's using it to help those who need the help.

The 'Bush-lite' (or was it Republican Lite) comment was the same thing. After he started saying that, suddenly several of the other candidates stopped trying to be Bush's shadow and struck out talking about their progressive records.

It works. It upsets the opposition, but it at least gets them talking about the correct things.

Democratic party. Thanks Dean for reminding Kennedy what it means to be a progressive. Thanks for making a real effort to overturn the tax cuts for the rich in the Senate...oh that was Kerry last week. Oh, Oh, maybe Kerry should call Dean and thank him for that fire under ass.

Or maybe I'm wrong and Kerry really will thank Dean for that fire under his ass in his acceptance speech for the nomination of the Democratic party.

You can't insult the party and then ask for their support.

By the way I agree that some Dems are repubs in sheeps clothing. Dean, however, was inferring that Kerry is one of them. That was wrong.

Dean did not 'single-handedly' do anything.

I was rereading one of my favorite Dean speeches, his farewell address and saw that he clearly believed even then that the ideas and actions he took didn't come from him but came from the people-at-large. http://www.election.rhetorica.net/dean/farewell.htm

He isn't single-handedly doing anything, he is doing it with the help of all his supporters.

:puke:

...need "help" from dean. you sound as if you haven't taken a look at any of their records... are you content to receive all your information from dean soundbites? there are plenty dems around who don't share his same feelings; aren't you at least curious as to why they object? or is everyone who questions dean a traitor to democracy?

We should have had a prescription drug benefit under Clinton. Why don't we? Because folks in Washington are constantly trying to slip totally unrelated things into bills like these which ends up killing them before they get anywhere. It's ridiculous. Dean is right in his criticism. Sure, he was very blunt and a bit harsh, but pussy footing doesn't have the same effect. A gentle comment doesn't inspire those sitting on their duff to do anything, but coming out strong and firm makes all the difference in the world.

Unless you can point to an example of this, you should not make broad statement. I think maybe you are confused. Republicans slip things in to kill prescription drug bills. Why must you always confuse the Democrats with the enemy in this case. I'm sure Dean doesn't agree with you or he would be running as an Independent and not asking the DNC for their support (remember his speech last week).

if by "folks" you mean "republicans" then i think your anger is misdirected and you are buying into campaign rhetoric. perhaps there are other issues dean should focus on where he might possibly have the upper-hand. like money.

and I bet anything good that happens from now on is because of his "fire". Why not go further. I bet he inspired the democrats in the Senate to block right-wing judges and stop ANWR drilling and and ....never mind. Please.

I haven't heard anyone make these claims.

"Politics is a business where we need to go out and convince people that they ought to vote for us, and so we tend to emphasize all the things that we have done as individuals that require people now to vote for us in exchange. But the truth is that not one of us, not me, not you, not any elected official, ever accomplishes anything by themselves." Howard Dean

That would make a little more sense here - get rid of the incumbents and bring me in because I've delivered.

Other posters may be correct, though - you'd think that he meant to refer to his opponents, including Bush.

again. I can't say I'm surprised, all along Dean has been running a phony campaign as if he is the only true Dem out there. If he doesn't win, maybe Dean should start a new party called "The Dean party" since he is sooo important.

that if Dean doesn't win, the Dean supporters will carry on doing the good works they have been doing for quite some time.

As for the Dean ego thing and phony campaign... uh, you are entitled to your perceptions and we will let the voters decide.

This guy's ego is bigger than smirk's. He's calling the deanie-babies, "generation Dean." What more can I add to that?

Did Dean create that label or did they give it to themselves?

The eagerness to attribute negative qualities to Dean is astounding. So now he has a big ego? Wow, you don't think anyone willing to run for President doesn't?

:grr:

he is PURE EVIL!!!

:loveya:

I didn't start it as flame bait, but it's my birthday and when people started defending Dean so shamelessly, I felt like having some fun.

If Dean is the nominee I will fall in line, but my vote is not earned easily and it bothers me when a dem candidate starts sounding like Bush at his worst. What is this a threat or just some flippant remark? Bush does that. Look where his stupid comment get us.

Happy Birthday
:party: :toast:
:bounce:

cindyw's original post:

"This is not flame bait."

(chuckle) Right.

#1. The author of the thread types "This is not flamebait" in their post.

#2. Do you really *need* a number 2?

:eyes:

The Bush enablers must go!

:puke:

Isn't it? No wonder the internal polling shows the Dems lower on the ticket lose seats with Dean at the top.

Before certain board nannies go ballistic, I have been referring to this since early Sept. and it comes from Dem insider talk in SC.

Ether comments it seems to me.

Who can possibly defend him saying this for any reason? Because, thanks to him, if he's nominated not only will we lose the WH but lose considerably more congressional seats.

I hope a transcript becomes available. So that I can print it out and mail it to all of the representatives who have endorsed him.

I transcribed it from a replay recording. You can reprint the quote in the original thread and be safe.

:kick:

I'm so disgusted by this thread that I can't even comment.

shame on them. Why do you support them?

sheesh. does anybody research anymore?

so Dean's statement doesn't affect them.

...because if he ends up in the white house he ain't gonna get shizza done; not after he trashed EVERYONE he's supposed to work with. and he still has months to burn even more bridges.

While it was only an attempt at humor, the fact that Kerry tried it and thought it funny tells a lot about where the Democratic Party is today.

JOHN KERRY: Five thousand years ago, Moses said, "Hitch up your camel. Pick up your shovel. Mount your ass. I will lead you to the promised land." Five thousand years later, Franklin Roosevelt said, "Light up a Camel. Lay down your shovel. Sit on your ass. This is the promised land." Today, George Bush will lay off your camel, tax your shovel, kick your ass and tell you there is no promised land.

The quote makes sense when broken up into the three paragraphs he used to address the DNC last weekend:

Five thousand years ago, Moses said, "Hitch up your camel. Pick up your shovel. Mount your ass. I will lead you to the promised land."

Five thousand years later, Franklin Roosevelt said, "Light up a Camel. Lay down your shovel. Sit on your ass. This is the promised land."

Today, George Bush will lay off your camel, tax your shovel, kick your ass and tell you there is no promised land.

BTFW: Kerry is a Liberal Democrat who's ACCOMPLISHED more through government service than most candidates have TALKED about doing in their wildest imagination. Don't believe me, check out his ratings by the Americans for Democratic Action, the NAACP, the Sierra Club, the ACLU, and the NRA, to name a few.

The only ones who took offense at what Kerry said were the headline writer and you and maybe the other Dean supporters. How many of them know what the New Deal is, I don't know.

They just don't care. And they'll never bother to look into exactly who they slam with such utter disregard.

The Hoard of Ecumenical Yodelers?

...i just got their new cd!

actually, i downloaded it. i'm a criminal.

who he really is or his actual record of service and advocacy of progressive policies.

To them, John Kerry is Howard Dean's opponent. Beginning and end of story.


You know the difference. I'm sure you have witnessed it here yourself.

but that 'They' used in that way seems to be an awfully large brush. When I hear such things, I begin to regret all the times I defended Kerry against baseless attacks from those loopy Dean supporters who do think he is some sort of messiah.

I clearly support Dean. I admire Kerry. I get tired of having to constantly state that in view of broadbased attackes against all Dean supporters. You hate Dean. That's great for you. Your hatred has no affect on me and my support. Your villification of him is beginning to look shrill and absurd.

and his record of centrism. I point to Dean's own words and actions. Centrist/libertarian leaning voters should be impressed by Dean's centrism.

If you take Dean's own words and actions as vilification of him, then take it up with Dean.

Yes, "They" is not all.

"Your guy uses GOP tactics!"

It was invented by Lee Atwater, and its absolutely appropriate to point that out in the political arena. If Dean didn't do it, then I wouldn't point to it, would I?

eom

"First phone attack

Straight-talking Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean is testing his attack message in Iowa. Political operatives say Dean's phone polling is probing for weaknesses in support for Sens. John Edwards and John Kerry and Rep. Dick Gephardt. For rookie pol Edwards, it's about experience. For Gephardt, it's his alliance with Bush on key issues. Questions about Kerry test Iowans' reaction to his vote backing the war in Iraq."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/archive/030512/12whisplead.php


http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/2003/september/10_8pp.shtml

By JAMES W. PINDELL
PoliticsNH.com
Oct. 8-- Retired General Wesley Clark may have only entered the presidential race three weeks ago, but he he may already be the victim of campaign tactics intended to damage a political career still being written.

According to the Clark campaign at least three people, all located in vicinity of the Seacoast area, received telephone calls Sunday and Monday that appeared to be 'push polling', a method of asking how a potential voter might react about a candidate, in this case Clark, had they known some negative, possibly untrue fact, about the candidate.

Sue Mayer, a 53-year-old former Ph.D. student from Lee, said that around 5pm Monday she received a call from a female identifying herself as Shannon working for NH Opinion Research, a group that appears to be bogus.
Mayer said she had been slightly interested in Clark at the time of the call. At first she confirmed she was a Democrat that votes regularly in in elections. Then she was asked her preferences of candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination.

In the next series of questions she said she was asked whether she thought candidate "A", which had the background similar to Gov. Howard Dean's, was best prepared for the presidency or candidate "B", who had a military and non-political background like Clark.
>>>>>>

Excuse me...I do know a great deal about John Kerry, and I do appreciate his past work in congress.

I really don't appreciate the "cute" tactics of his campaign - John Kerry as motorcyle riding, extreme sport wild boy...the frozen waffles...the "cute" jokes about New Deal Democracy...promoting militarism by announcing the campaign on a battleship. I detect an elitist "holier than thou" attitude in his campaign...an opinion that has been cited by opponents many times in his career. The comments of his supporters about height of candidates. Smears from his supporters that those who do not support his campaign are obviously not intellectual enough to make an educated choice...that they should be called "lazyminded."

Frankly, John Kerry's presidential campaign looks like it is taking a lot of cues from past Republican campaigns.

Also, his supporters and his campaign clearly claim that he must look strong on defense and foreign policy...which Bill Clinton didn't need, but Republicans chant as mantra.

It is high time for new campaigns, creativity, and staunch support of the Democratic Party...if you're going to call yourself a liberal, vote with the liberals when it's something as important as war.

In hindsight, no WMDs. At the time of the vote, the White House, CIA and Pentagon said the nation was in danger. FDR, HST and JF Kennedy, all Liberals, put the security of the nation FIRST.

BTW: Dean and his supporters don't want to talk about this because during Vietnam he crapped out and got a doctor's note stating he had a bad back. I wouldn't mind Dean avoiding the draft if he had, like Clinton, stood up and opposed the war.

Kerry did the difficult thing. He volunteered to serve the country. He fought gallantly. He resigned his commission and opposed the war publicly. That takes courage.

And you are wrong in painting with the broad brush.

I am so tired of a "holier than thou" we are just stupid attitude toward Dean supporters. And you wonder why some respond angrily? I don't know many people who are pleased to have their intelligence questioned simply because they disagree. John Kerry supporters seem to raise a question of intelligence over and over and over again.

Once in a great while this seems relevant about me - valedictorian, Phi Beta Kappa, honor societies in my field...sorry, but this Dean supporter is NOT stupid and is well read, and I do believe Howard Dean is the best choice for Democratic nominee for President.

I also know more than you seem to about Dean's condition (plenty of posts have explained that already - if he didn't report the condition he would have been lying to the military)

A smart person like you would want to know:

1. John Kerry wants to take out Bush Organized Crime Family as much as I do, which is almost as much as ANYONE who can remember back to November 22, 1963.

2. Kerry is able to do it, willing to do it and in a position to do it. He's also said he's going to go after them, saying he will appoint an honest Attorney General. Kenny Boy Lay is going to look good in prison jumpsuit orange. So will George W. Bush.

3. Kerry has a track record of going after the BFEE — from BCCI to Iran-Contra to Ollie North & Contra Drug Running — while in the US Senate.

4. From Day 1, Kerry would know what to do as President and as Commander-in-Chief. Remember, as far as combat goes: Kerry’s been-there, done-that. He received the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts for bravery in combat.

5. Kerry’s the last real Liberal since Bobby Kennedy who has the “Credentials” needed to attract voters from the middle and, thus, win the Presidency. Who knows what he can do, given the chance. I think the majority of all voters would feel the same way.

GOOGLE Kerry and Ollie North or Iran-Contra or BCCI or CIA drugs, you’ll see the guy is a fighter on the side of good. The answer might convince you, as well as your cousin, that Kerry is a candidate who would be qualified for the job.

Most of all, as a Liberal Democrat , Kerry would use the office of President to make this a better country for ALL citizens, doing all possible to improve public education, make higher education accessible to all who want to go to college, improve the economy and protect the environment. His entire career, Kerry has seen and demonstrated what government can do to protect the environment, improve the quality of life of all citizens, and made the world a better place through public service.

BTW: As far as Dean goes: He’s led a state smaller than Detroit with about one-one-hundredth the problems. Ask his supporters why the developers like Wal-Mart were able to spring up at the expense of opposing residents and environmental groups. Ask them why his health insurance system is basically an expansion of Medicaid coverage — the cheapest, lowest cost health care in America. He also would get clobbered by George W Bush, even with all the Phi Beta Kappas pulling for him 24/7.

Weakness on defense and security.

So I get to repeat my favorite litany of facts.

Kerry chose to listen to Bush instead of Byrd. Byrd was filibustering the IWR and Kerry helped shut it down (75 to 25).

Lincoln Chaffee, a Republican, opposed the resolution. Byrd opposed the resolution. Why would Kerry choose to listen to Bush over Byrd who spoke eloquently about the dangers of this resolution and now in hindsight, the man looks like a prophet predicting the future.

When Sen. Kerry voted to give Bush authority to use force, he stressed he did so to defend the national security of the United States. In his speech in the U.S. Senate on October 9, 2002, Sen. Kerry refered to a CIA report that stated Saddam Hussein's weapons program was ongoing. That matched the information the CIA and President Clinton provided the Senate in 1998, just after the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

This was just one year after 9-11. The badministration was creating images of mushroom clouds over Anytown, U.S.A. Kerry would rather be right, than rely on prophecy.

OTOH: Dean didn't have to vote. So he, and his supporters, can talk talk talk. That's typical. All talk. No action.

who strongly opposed the resolution.

And I agreed with Byrd at the time. And I'll still back Kerry now.

Dean? Dean's a draft dodger and a gas bag.

You are now ignored. If you can't contribute something reasonable to the discourse you are merely wasting my time.

And I thought today wasn't going to be any fun. Thanks, Luminous!

that it was the Dean campaign that put little plastic tufts of grass on the seats of his plane for the "Sleepless Summer Tour"? Among other "cute" stunts. Sorry, but you should be careful about pointing fingers like that.

How many Dean supporters have told me to do what works even if it does look like you're copying? Well it seems to me John Kerry's campaign has opted to do just that. Gimmicks and all. NOW you're griping about it. This is good, apparently it's lose/lose for any other candidate BUT Dean. Gimmicks are fine for him but heaven forbid anyone else should employ them. Slamming half the party is fine for Dean but heaven forbid anyone criticize him!-

Ok, shutting up now, and apologies if I've really angered anyone here. BAAAAD week and this just irritated me to no end.:-(

What irritates me - and I completely accept you may not agree with me - using "cute" gimmicks and name-calling for attack politics.

Using grass to represent grass roots, using Dean flash mobs, etc. - yep, I like that. And yes, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned the motorcycles and extreme sports for Kerry - since they aren't attacking others. It doesn't work for me, but it's fine if it works for others.

I don't like the waffles and such...partially because it's the way I've seen Republicans behave frequently. Attack with gimmicks...not in direct debate.

From what is posted here, I am apparently in a tiny minority of people willing to listen to criticisms about Howard Dean. I don't think he's perfect, and I don't think any of the candidates are. I simply think he is the best candidate, which is far from being above criticism.

I do get specifically tired of name-calling from John Kerry supporters and accusations of lack of knowledge on the part of Howard Dean supporters.

I really really liked Dennis Kucinich's stance against name-calling.

I do believe there should be more civility in politics, but that doesn't mean it can't be fun and can't employ gimmicks. I just don't think plain old nastiness, name-calling and rudeness are absolutely necessary. I like to think I've evolved since 3rd grade.

and demonizing his opponents by calling them "Bushlite" when his 11 year centrist record is closer to Bush's than ANY of the those he attacked.

You better be able to prove the push-polling, which you can't because to a certain degree it is a subjective thing. A survey looking for negative aspects to use against an opponent isn't push-polling. And by the way, it isn't a GOP tactic, it is a political tactic. Both parties are equally capable of stooping low.

Is your guy prepared to stoop low to beat Bush or is he just going to cower and believe everything Bush tells him?

while polling IS pushpolling, whether you acknowledge it or not.

And I have yet to hear of ANY other Democrat using that tactic developed by Atwater.

at least in Maine...



21A § 1014-B. Push polling

1. Push poll defined. For purposes of this section, "push poll" means any paid telephone survey or series of telephone surveys that are similar in nature that reference a candidate or group of candidates other than in a basic preference question, and when:

A. A list or directory is used, exclusively or in part, to select respondents belonging to a particular subset or combination of subsets of the population, based on demographic or political characteristics such as race, sex, age, ethnicity, party affiliation or like characteristics;

B. The survey fails to make demographic inquiries on factors such as age, household income or status as a likely voter sufficient to allow for the tabulation of results based on a relevant subset of the population consistent with standard polling industry practices;

C. The pollster or polling organization does not collect or tabulate survey results;

D. The survey prefaces a question regarding support for a candidate on the basis of an untrue statement; and

E. The survey is primarily for the purpose of suppressing or changing the voting position of the call recipient.

"Push poll" does not include any survey supporting a particular candidate that fails to reference another candidate or candidates other than in a basic preference question.

http://www.state.me.us/ethics/pushpollreqmts021302.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/02/14/politics/main160398.shtml

Not all questions that seem negative are part of push polls. Candidate organizations sometimes do actual polls that contain negative information about the opposing candidate. These polls, which are not push polls, are conducted for the same reasons market and advertising researchers do their work: to see what kinds of themes and packages move the public.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/dailynews/TheNote_Oct14.html

11. (You thought we'd forget?) Don't forget what distinguishes a push poll from real polling calls and from advocacy phone-banking: push polls are calls that pretend to be for the purpose of a survey but are, in fact, calls designed to "push" the respondent toward the candidate who is paying for the calls, or away from the opposition.

Call recipient said whether they were leaning Clark or not. The caller then gave Dean's resume and then Clark's, and added questions using negative perceptions of Clark.

That's pushpolling.

eom

and Clark's, then fed negative perceptions of Clark.

Since Dean pushpolled in Iowa over the summer against Gephardt, Edwards and Kerry, why should he spare Clark?

This is looking like a dirty trick to continue to stir up animosity between campaigns.

If he didn't ask for a retraction from a major national magazine, then there must be a reason. Now what do you suppose that reason could be...hmmmm?

And the term wasn't used because there wasn't any push polling happening.

I'm bored going around this mulberry bush.

"And I have yet to hear of ANY other Democrat using that tactic developed by Atwater."

I have. Gephardt was accused of it -

Federer now is suing Gephardt for slander because of alleged inaccurate polls or "push-polling" by the Gephardt campaign.
http://www.cavalierdaily.com:2001/.Archives/1998/November/3/nsgep.asp

But just like your lame allegations about Dean, it's usually impossible to prove the source. I've heard it alleged about Kerry as well, but since it could be a lie, I don't feel it serves any purpose to repeat it. Those are the antics of losers.

First phone attack

Straight-talking Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean is testing his attack message in Iowa. Political operatives say Dean's phone polling is probing for weaknesses in support for Sens. John Edwards and John Kerry and Rep. Dick Gephardt. For rookie pol Edwards, it's about experience. For Gephardt, it's his alliance with Bush on key issues. Questions about Kerry test Iowans' reaction to his vote backing the war in Iraq."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/archive/030512/12whisplead.php

http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/2003/september/10_8pp.shtml
By JAMES W. PINDELL
PoliticsNH.com

Oct. 8-- Retired General Wesley Clark may have only entered the presidential race three weeks ago, but he he may already be the victim of campaign tactics intended to damage a political career still being written.
According to the Clark campaign at least three people, all located in vicinity of the Seacoast area, received telephone calls Sunday and Monday that appeared to be 'push polling', a method of asking how a potential voter might react about a candidate, in this case Clark, had they known some negative, possibly untrue fact, about the candidate.
Sue Mayer, a 53-year-old former Ph.D. student from Lee, said that around 5pm Monday she received a call from a female identifying herself as Shannon working for NH Opinion Research, a group that appears to be bogus.
Mayer said she had been slightly interested in Clark at the time of the call. At first she confirmed she was a Democrat that votes regularly in in elections. Then she was asked her preferences of candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination.
In the next series of questions she said she was asked whether she thought candidate "A", which had the background similar to Gov. Howard Dean's, was best prepared for the presidency or candidate "B", who had a military and non-political background like Clark.
more

eskimo

and only someone desperate for SOMETHING to hang their hat on would pretend that what is described isn't pushpolling.

Interesting.

That's all.

Dean didn't deny the phone surveys in Iowa, he did the crap pulled against Clark. Why deny one and not the other? Because one is push polling and the other is just a survey probing for weaknesses in opponents, which by the legal definitions and the definitions different media sources use (which I posted) isn't push polling.

So, you can't continue chasing me around this mulberry bush or you can back off your claim Dean is push polling.

Goodnight, L_X.

I really, really doubt he means that. He probably just said it on the spur of the moment.

...But lieberman?


Everyone wants to whine here because the man said that anyone who hasn't moved on this issue causes an impediment to change in Washington. Well...thats stating the obvious. Centrist or submissive democrats and the right wing do not allow or work for progressive change in Washington, yet every year, there is more of them. Yes, he said that if people want real change, they have to get rid of people who are not doing anything about this issue...he didn't say he would get rid of all democrats, or some, or even any, but rather, suggested to the people that the only way to support a progressive domestic agenda is by having active progressive people fighting for a liberalistic social order. I'm sorry...you can bitch and moan about that but that is simply stating the obvious.


"If you want change in Washington you had better get rid of all the democrats and the republicans who have sat on prescription drug benefits for all these years"


Do you want change or do you all like the direction of our nation and the status quo? If your content, then why do you care at all and post on this forum? If you want change, doesn't it make sense to replace the people who do not participate in change for your agenda? This includes anyone who works against you, or not at all. These two classes are all both impediments of change. As a voter, it is our responsibility to vote for those who will work for the change that we envision. How is this concept, which is integral to many social orders, foreign in any way or controversial? Statement of fact.


Too many people have resentment around here about the Greens, with seething hatred from the last election mixed with vote pragmatism. But such attitudes as expressed in this thread suggest the need for such a party. The democrats created such a party, people and leaders, by being content with a more regressive/stagnent domestic agenda led by the right and center. You people who disagree with Dean, with the statment that in order to progress liberally and democratically you must support a legislature which will work for this, all share the responsibility for the direction (or lack thereof) of the democratic party. Just because someone is a "democrat" doesn't make them sacred, good, nor even benificial for the concept of liberalism, and republicans are not always the ones who have coorporations in their back pockets.


And I also think you people who think what Dean said, that these people impeding progression should be removed in order to progress, is sacreligous are out of touch with mainstream America (which in itself freaks me out). Im not sure if I remember correctly, but a total of 75% of one of the most progressive states in the nation voted republican, and a movie star running on a platform of change in government structure, removing the rich insiders, being an outsider, and having the biggest bicepts was elected. People in themselves are fed up with anyone in there who nt working for making their lives better, democrat or republican (plus they think hes sexy). But the point is people are going to connect with this. While you gasp that he would suggest not voting for an inactive "God" (aka anyone with a D besides thier name), and rather for any progressive person ("God" or normal person) devoted to progressive change, many people fully agree that this is the only way to true progress, or at least change when this nation is a complete mess and what is currently in there doesn't work.


Screw off the cuff, quick retorts, misspeak. This is a statement of fact most in touch people are probably going to connect with. If a bulldozer in front of you is heading down a road at 5 miles per hour, sometimes going backwords, wouldn't you get to work faster by replacing it with a race car? If you wanted to get to work faster, thats what youll have to do....if you dont, go home and wait, and maybe youll have a job in a few weeks when the road clears. Maybe not.