My moderate Republican manager is torn between Bush and

Howard Dean. He told me at work today that he met Dean 3 weeks ago. His father is a Democratic mayor in NH. He likes Dean's candid talk and thinks Dean makes a lot of sense. I'm guessing his father must support Howard Dean, too. I've met a lot of NH moderate Republicans who like Dean, and not because they think Bush can beat him, they really like Dean.

Democrats voting for Dean in the general election, all the new voters Dean has attracted, scads of Independents and swing voters and EVEN moderate Republicans will vote for Howard Dean. Bush NEEDS the swing voters and all Republicans to win in 2004. Howard Dean is BEST poised to prevent Bush from getting the supporters he NEEDS to win.

I'm at a wait and see before I support one Democrats over the others

Dean is saying a lot of good things, and it is heartening that 2 of 3 Americans in a recent poll support a single payer universal health coverage plan. (The effect of the 1993 insurance industry ad campaign against Hillary has finally worn off.)
But the moderate Republicans are not the key to victory in 2004.
The working people of this country are suffering and will respond enthusiastically to a real alternative, clearly stated. Awhole new approach, not just a laundry list of "Republican-lite!" teasers. This is where the DLC is missing the boat. Its time for the new NEW DEAL. People are ready!

I haven't decided who I will support, but so far Dean, Kucinich, Edwards, and Sharpton all sound good. I don't think Kucinich or especially Sharpton can get past the GOP Smear Machine as well though.
To me Leiberman is a Republicrat, although I would get out my atomic clothespin, clamp it firmly on my nose, and vote for him, or almost anyone, to get that Neo-ConArtist Bush and his cronies out of Washington.

And out of all of the candidates, Dean can take the most from Bush and mobilize the most never-before voters and disillusioned voters. I honestly don't believe Democrats can afford NOT to support Dean.

Based on his record, they must wonder why he's got that D next to his name.

is a Godsend in an election so important. And now that Kerry is talking gun control, he's dead in NH. He's going to do so badly there he'll have to drop out shortly afterwards. I can't wait!

will he attract them for long?

and his supporters are NOT under the false impression that Dean is a "liberal". Kerry is too liberal to win in the general, but he's so ashamed of his liberalism that he's been trying to hide it for several years just because he thinks it will help him become president. He's a sell out to power and status. He didn't vote for the first war in Iraq, and THAT one WAS justified. Yet he votes for one that isn't?

"Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.): I've said many times that I think we should raise the retirement age about the year 2015--raise it by that time to about age 70.

"Howard Dean: I am very pleased to hear Bob Packwood because I absolutely agree we need to reduce the--I mean, to increase the retirement age. There will be cuts and losses of some benefits, but I believe that Sen. Packwood is on exactly the right track."
--CNN's Crossfire, Feb. 28, 1995
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804/

Here we have Dean on the record as supporting raising the retirement age.

Russert: ...calling for that, and this is what Howard Dean said. "The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. 'It would be tough but we could do it,' he said."
Dean: Well, we fortunately don't have to do that now.
Russert: We have a $500 billion deficit.
Dean: But you don't have to cut Social Security to do that.
Russert: But why did you have to do it back then?
Dean: Well, because that was the middle of--I mean, I don't recall saying that, but I'm sure I did
--Meet the Press, June 22, 2003
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp

Here we have Dean being reminded, and acknowledging, on national TV on June 22 that he did hold this position.

"I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68."
--AFL-CIO Democratic presidential candidate forum, Aug. 5, 2003
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804/

Here we have Dean denying on national TV on August 5 that he ever held that position.

Now your Republican friend probably likes the idea of raising the retirement age but Dean knows to win the support of liberals he can't run on his real record, so he lied.

If Dean has to lie to attract liberals, will he attract them for long?

That's a question, and a valid one, considering the documented fact that Dean has lied and misrepresented his positions in order to attract liberals.

and imply the people who support him have had the wool pulled over their eyes.

It is the idea that you've pressed this point for a very long time and it doesn't get traction yet you keep pressing it to what end? If your goal is to prevent Dean to get the nomination, then you really need to find a different route. This one is very ineffective and offensive.

isn't a lie, I will stop posting it. If someone can show how all the false statements of Dean's that I've posted aren't lies, I won't call him a liar.


So: explain to me just how, when Dean said "I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68." - thirteen days after acknowledging on national TV that he did - how is that not a lie?

And you can stop giving me a hard time for posting what you say is the truth. :eyes:

Or don't stop. I don't really care one way or another.

So, no, since your statements/questions don't enrich the debate but only end up insulting a group of supporters - I won't stop.

I remember hearing that a lot -- from defenders of Nixon in '73 and '74.

NO, THEY AREN'T ALL LIARS. We can do better.

And do know that whoever you name, that person will have everything he has said scrutinized and if at anytime he made a misstatement or a legitimate error it will be catalogued as a lie. Why? Because in politics, the opposition isn't given the benefit of the doubt, that's why.

And how has this enriched the debate, it hasn't. It turns things into how fast can I tear down the candidate. Seeing that I despise the whole crop, we may as well tear them down to their feeble foundations and hope we can rebuild a better candidate by 2008.

I've lied, I'm sure every human has lied. But we all know that some people are more trustworthy than others. Some people when put into a corner, their first tendency is to lie. Others' first tendency is to tell the truth. And some lies are more relevant than others. For instance it is one thing to lie about whether or not you had sex with somebody and another thing to lie whether Saddam was behind 9/11.

My candidate is Kerry, and if you believe he is not an honest man you should say so and why.

I've seen him lie at every damn debate. I've seen him lie in interviews, in quotes I've seen in the news. Kerry lies more than he tells the truth and I think his plan to force kids to do community service in order to get their high school diploma is fascist and sucks.

lol

The Lie Kerry said is a speech to NARAL that his first speech as Senator was for Roe v Wade. It wasn't, it was about MX missiles.

REPHRASED TO SOUND STRONGLY ANTI-KERRY:
Kerry pandered to NARAL in a speech to them by lying and saying his first speech as a Senator was in support of Roe v. Wade.

Now, ask me if I think it matters. It doesn't. I do not live in a black and white universe. Most of the things you call lies I see within the shades of gray. I acknowledge the difference between phrases like "I support" "I considered" and "I looked at". I supported the now oft maligned phrase "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." My 'defense' of Kerry in this is the Roe v Wade speech was one of his first speeches and I don't think it was his intention to mislead. Much like I don't think it is Dean's intention to mislead, especially when the record (in both cases) is so clear.

My world is a subtle one.

edited: fixed links

There is a difference between lying and making a mistake.

When a Globe reporter told him that the news account from 1985 raised questions about the accuracy of his statement, Kerry paused and said he may have been misled by a former staff member. He also pledged that if he were mistaken, he would never make the comment again.

An aide said later that the campaign will remove a statement on Kerry's website declaring that ''Senator Kerry's first speech on the floor of the United States Senate was in strong support of Roe v. Wade.''

The Congressional Record shows that on Jan. 22, 1985, about three weeks after the former lieutenant governor of Massachusetts was sworn in as a senator, Kerry entered a written statement reiterating his support for the Roe v. Wade decision. His first spoken words on the floor were made on Feb. 7, 1985, when Kerry made brief remarks about civil rights. His first speech, which usually is a momentous occasion sometimes marked by applause from fellow senators, did not occur until more than a month later, when Kerry took up the topic of the MX missile.

''Certainly it would've been more precise to have referred to John Kerry's 1985 remarks on Roe as his `first statement as a United States senator' than as his first `speech,' '' said a statement issued yesterday by Kelley Benander, a spokeswoman for his campaign. ''The confusion was just that, confusion, and was unintentional. The record will be corrected, but will always reflect that John Kerry has throughout his 18 years in the Senate vigorously supported a woman's right to choose.''
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/romania-prolife-network/message/240
(sorry for the url but the Globe seems to have removed the original article)

Now if Kerry had kept saying that, after the error had been pointed out to him, like Dean did in the debate, that would have been lying. But he didn't. That is the difference between an honest man and a dishonest one.

From http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0121.html

"As I said 18 years ago in my maiden speech in the U.S. Senate: 'the right to choose is a fundamental right… neither the Government nor any person has the right to infringe on that freedom.'"

No footnote noting that this was a faulty statement. No other indication that the statement is false.


edited to add information

Now, I return to the fact that it doesn't matter.

anymore than your supposed 'uncommitted' status. lol

and when things are offensive to me. This continued harping on ANY candidate being a liar is pure bs and is done is some perverted hope of destroying the candidate. It isn't going to work.

I have defended Kerry more often since I renounced Dean than even before. I have learned more about Kucinich than I ever would have. My though experiment is going along great guns. I feel better informed than ever.

It is wonderful to have an open mind.

would be to lecture people about honesty, while at the same time being dishonest about what or who you really support.

Does that remind you of anyone you know?

when I've given you evidence that it is still there (as said in the original speech) without a footnote or statement indicating that it was not his maiden speech?

between Dean's lie and Kerry's mistake? Because that is a denial I would not believe.


"Are you denying that the statement still exists on Kerry's website?"
Are you saying they should edit the speech - revise history - make it look like Kerry did not misspeak -- basically lie? Would that convince you of Kerry's honesty? If he lied about what he previously said?

That's what Dean did. He was caught in (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt) a mistake by Russert, and then when challenged by DK 13 days later, instead of just saying the truth, that he'd previously held that position but changed his mind, he flat-out lied.

And one more time: I don't believe you can't see the distinction. I just don't believe it.

And I don't believe you when you say you are uncommitted either.

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

I'm not impressed.

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

I can't stand Kerry. I never really liked him much anyway. Since he's been lying his ass off about Howard Dean, some of Kerry's supporters doing the same and the fact that I despise Kerry's plan to force my kids to do community service in order to get a high school diploma I have a lot of animosity towards Kerry. If he's the nominee I flat out will NOT vote for him. I don't pretend that I feel this way. I don't say these things to Kerry supporters who don't act this way towards Dean. However, to the Kerry supporters who trash Dean all the time, I trash Kerry to them in response.

Oops...I thought that response was to me. Sorry about that.

Your boy is no less a centrist than Leiberman

calling fellow liberals "less than bright"... it just warms the heart.

but you already knew that

but you already knew that. As a liberal Dean supporter... forgive me if I take offense at your words.

"a liberal Dean supporter"

I'm a liberal....
WHO WANTS TO WIN

www.republicansfordean.com they have useful hints and tips for bringing people over from the dark side.