Dean lies...again.

Went to see Dean last night in Salem, New Hampshire. Lots of people showed up, too bad he kept everyone waiting for over an hour before he decided to show up.

When he finally did show, he made his way to the stage and proceeded to go into his stump speech. This is the first time I've been to see Dean so I don't know if this little section is part of his usual spiel, but when it came time to discuss Iraq, he let loose with this whopper, "In fact, I was the only candidate to oppose the war in Iraq."

I know I'm going to be called a basher and all sorts of crap about this, but this is ridiculous. The above quote was word for word from his speech. There's no slipping around that one. He made a blatantly false statement. Now it may be true that of the candidates opposed to the war, he is polling the highest, but poll numbers do not automatically turn Kucinich, Sharpton, and Mosley-Braun into war supporters, nor do they take them out of the race. It's things like this that keep me from supporting Dean. If I can't trust him to tell the truth about his opponents, why should I trust him to tell the truth about what he's going to do when he's president? It's funny, how he says he's the anti-Bush, yet when it comes to the thing I hate most about Bush, lies, he has no problem following in Bush's footsteps?

He also claimed that he was the only candidate to talk about race to a white audience. John Edwards corrected him about that, but unfortunatly Edwards didnt do it in the debate and waited till the next day.

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

Dean is not the only candidate who is supported here. It's the primaries, so for now it's a bumpy ride.

He's running against the other Democratic candidates. And this statement by Gov Dean is actually false.

BTW, welcome to DU!

While his opponents keep their focus on early-primary states, the front-runner has segued into general- election mode.

By Matea Gold, Times Staff Writer

HOUSTON — With the first presidential contests in Iowa and New Hampshire two months away, Democratic front-runner Howard Dean has been campaigning hard in some unexpected places.

The former Vermont governor has stumped in 14 states this month, including some with late primaries — Oregon, Idaho, Florida and Pennsylvania. This week alone, he is visiting seven states, including Texas, Michigan and New York.
…
The broad and ambitious nature of his schedule is similar to the tack adopted by presidential front-runners such as George W. Bush, Al Gore and Walter F. Mondale in previous primary campaigns, and underscores the relentlessness with which the onetime unknown candidate is seeking his party's top prize.

Of the top-tier Democratic candidates, Dean is in a singular position to pursue a strong national campaign, in part because of his financial resources and lack of spending constraints, now that he has opted out of public financing. But his strategy is not without risks.
…
http://www.latimes.com/la-na-dean21nov21,1,6870442.story
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=233016

Who he is talking about...ohh... silly me.

So he is referring to Dubya? I thought it was still before the first primary against FELLOW DEMS, especially some who were way more vocal against the war than Dean.

Sorry, I though Dean was being blatantly dishonest in reference to them.

I have to learn to 'read' Dean better.


TWL

he is not the best chance to beat Bush. The '04 election will be about national security, not balanced budgets, not civil unions, not anger.

And he shouldn't lie. At least two other candidaes opposed the war, and one of them is on record voting against it.

and Rove.

If Clark manages to win the nomination, he will be mute between the Primaries and the Dem Convention because he has taken FEC matching funds. That is when Bush & Rove will devour Clark with a massive blitzkrieg attack on the airwaves and television.

Clark is also a terrible campaign organizer, which shows in his decision to enter the race late, and pull out of Iowa thus losing any chance of winning AFSCME's endorsement. Only Kerry is a worse organizer than Clark.

Dean is our own George Bush. I can't wait to see them both sent home.

Clark, Edwards or Kerry all the way.

Its not "bashing" to report that someone repeated a comment that is clearly untrue.

If Bush claimed to have a heart, or a brain, would it be "bashing" him to point out he was lying?

Seriously, it is arrogant and disrespectful to flat out claim to be the only "anti-war" candidate when at least three other well known Democrats have taken similar, and in Dennis the K's situation, even more thorough stands.

At least the Doctor should add the simple words "leading candidate" rather than make an untrue and unnecessary claim that opens him up to legitimate criticism.

This kind of thing will come back to haunt him if he does get the nod.

Rather than a hypothetical one?

The point is not whether Kucinich is viable. The point is that -- yet again -- Dean is not a straight talker. He is the most political, most opportunistic of the candidates. AND he said he would have supported the Biden-Lugar IWR, which I don't think Kucinich would have supported, so he is not even the MOST anti-war candidate.

that he was the only official candidate against the war until Kucinich, et. al. entered the race?

Was = past tense
Am = present tense

While Dean was making statements, Kucinich was organizing opposition in the House and speaking out to groups against the war as far back as February 2002.

Dean favored a "waiting period" for the UN inspectors to find Saddam's weapons, and DID NOT rule out a unilateral strike if we could not get UN support to go after Saddam.

Dean once again distorts his position on the issues, and his supporters swarm to his defense when others call him on his "distortions".

Maybe Dean should work on telling the truth, rather than "looking ahead" to the general election.

At one point in time, Dean was the only declared candidate for President who had spoke out against the war?

Dean was not a declared candidate at that point, he didn't become a declared candidate until Sept. of 2003 so using semantics on this point won't work.

And on edit- Al Sharpton was running for president at that point and was quite vocally against the war. He even attended anti-war marches.

he officially declared in June 2003.

You are correct, though, that he should refine what he is saying. Kucinich, Sharpton and Mosley Braun all deserve respect for sticking their necks out too. Esp Dennis, since he had to cast a vote on this.

I say he is lying, but your argument is that it isn't a technical lie, just that people listening have been mislead by what he is saying.
That's terrific. Just what we want from a self-described "straight-talker".

Sorry, but I don't see where I wrote what you are alleging. I criticized him for heaven's sake! Was I just not strong enough for you? Should I have said Dean deserves to rot in hell for this? Would that have made you happy? Geez.


What was with the snotty response DemDogs? I've not done that to you or said bad things about Edwards. Are things getting that much worse on DU? :shrug:

it doesn't matter at all how a Dem votes....see they're the minority party and have absolutely no control over the agenda...that's the Majority party's playground....so talking about Gephardt and Kucinich's roles in the US House is meaningless...unless it was a bill that had significant Repug defections and the shot was there to defeat it....

However, in the Senate, what a Senator does there actually matters, no matter what their party is....

So for those who talk about how Dean could say whatever he wanted...he didn't have to vote...neither did Gep or Kucinich...in the real world...nothing on Earth was going to stop the House from passing anything, but the Senate is a different story....

Since we all like to read into things the candidates say...here's my take:

Dean was obviously talking about those candidates who actually have a shot of winning the nomination....

Besides...in a court of law....heresay is inadmissable as evidence! We have no idea if this is the actual words of Dean or just careful editing or paraphrasing of what he really said...cause no one has ever done that to Dean before....right?

Maybe it doesn't change anything because of the overwhelming numbers in opposition but it sure the hell does MATTER to me how my rep votes.

All of the Senators running for the nomination did vote for the IWR, so technically Dean is right. The Senate always has the final say on major issues. Congress has a Repug majority so Democratic votes don't mean diddley squat because they are so outnumbered in the House. Their votes are more sybollic in the spirit of the opposition party but not enough to pass anything.

Let's hope that changes next year.

No, you say?

Well well! Looks like the Dr. spoke the truth then!

Your explanation is just ridiculous.

If you watch the debate, you'll see that they didn't go back to Edwards until nearly twenty minutes later. By the time they got to him, they were several questions removed from Dean's comment. Had he said something then, it would have looked like he was just beating up on Dean.

So he addressed it the next day when he was asked about it. I think he did the right thing.

to stop using this untrue soundbite. I'd respect him a lot more if he'd stop it. That'll be the day...

that he's the only one who opposed the war who stands a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination and the general election?

that he was opposed to the war and why, and what he intends to do about the war, instead of LYING to make himself look better. If his support is so tenuous that the only way he can maintain it is to LIE then he truly will be in trouble when he runs against Bush.

He doesn't sit down and think, gee...how can I ignore Kucinich today? He doesn't use handlers so sometimes he says things like this a little bit sloppy. I guarantee you that what he meant is that he is the only candidate in the top tier, likely to win who opposed the war. He doesn't have speech writers either...he just gets up there and talks to people. Nothing that comes out of his mouth is prepared by anyone else and it's usually ad lib with Dean. That makes him much more personable to people, but it also makes it much more likely that he will use a choice of words that might not be the best ones. If you try to look at it understanding that about Dean then comments he makes like this will be less likely to work you up into a lather. People paying attention know Kucinich never supported the war and those who don't support him aren't not supporting him because they think he voted for the war. This doesn't hurt Kucinich and you can't expect one candidate to encourage those he's speaking in front of to look at another candidate. Kucinich has to work to get attention just like everyone else. There are no free rides available for other candidates on the back of Dean's coat tails.

ie the commercial he'd make a point of being correct. Whether he does it on purpose or not is besides the point, he does it and it's a BIG problem.

And for the record, I highly doubt his image of 'off the cuff, no handlers' is true. I seem to recall that that was the same excuse for Bush's misspeaks, but as we all know he has his handlers. Hell even DK has handlers, they all do and Dean is no different.

He is right that he is the only CANDIDATE who was against the war.


Kucinich is no more of a candidate for president than LaRouche.

Kucinich is a horrible speaker who can not get his message out. He has no chance of winning and has pretty much already been written off by everybody.

"He doesn't sit down and think, gee...how can I ignore Kucinich today?"

What they seem to want is for Dean to sit down and ask how he can focus more attention on Kucinich to help his dying campaign.

Instead Dean doesn't even waste time on the little piss fight that the non-top tier guys are trying to have with him. They want Dean to put his time and his money into making special note of their positions when he's talking about the other candidates on stage and in ads.

But Dean doesn't do it, and it pisses them off. Dean's not detailing kucinich's position on the war anymore than he worries about detailing LaRouche's position on the war when he speaks about "candidates".

You'd have to be half retarded to think that Dean is claiming Kucinich was for the war. Dean's talking about the other candidates who are actualy in this race... not the ones who just want to be.

No pissants allowed in the NEW Democratic party! At least none that make Dean look like the opportunist that he is.

The fact is that Kucinich isn't a candidate anymore than LaRouche is a candidate.

That's not to say he's not allowed in the party, rather that there's no reason to pretend he has any shot of winning the primary, so why bother to waste time and energy coddling him and making special note of his positions?

Get real.

Dean '04...

What would you say if Clark or Kerry went around saying, "I'm the only candidate against making America a dictatorship"?

That is just as much a lie as Dean saying he's the only candidate that was against the war.

"What would you say if Clark or Kerry went around saying, "I'm the only candidate against making America a dictatorship"?

That is just as much a lie as Dean saying he's the only candidate that was against the war."


Lame try... Sincce none of the candidates want to make america a dictatorship, then Kerry or Clark would be lying about all the top tier guys. Whereas Dean's comment is simply disregarding the folks who are effectivly out of the race at this point.

which Dean considers to be anti-Iraq-war, so in your mind is Clark a unviable and therefore worthy of non-existance?

Dean says he would not.


Clark made some very pro-war statements on CNN, and his only problem with the war was the timing.


But hey, don't let that stop you from grasping at straws.

that he would wait 60 to 90 days before invading unilaterally so it sounds like he thought it was a problem with timing as well.

But hey don't let it get in the way of your spinning.

"that he would wait 60 to 90 days before invading unilaterally "

IF there was an imminant threat to the US and IF the UN refused to act... and since that didn't happen, you're being very dishonest by trying to act as if this was Dean's position based on the current circumstances.

Here is the quote in context with the preface...

"Hence, today's phone calls. It's Thursday, Feb. 6, the day after Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations of evidence of Iraq's noncompliance with Resolution 1441. Edwards calls it "a powerful case." Kerry says it's "compelling." Lieberman, of course, is already in his fatigues.

Dean isn't sold. It doesn't indicate that Iraq is an imminent threat, he says.

From Washington come the barbs -- The New Republic calls it proof he's "not serious." ABC News' "The Note" wonders if he's backed himself into a corner. Dean has opposed the pending war because he didn't think President Bush had made his case. If he doesn't support military action now, the thinking goes, then he's just contradicting himself. Or, at the very least, he's been put in an untenable and -- for the moment, at least inside war-ready Washington, unpopular -- position.

He gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice. "

Rather than keep saying "I was right and they were wrong!"

Sorry, but I don't see Dean's opposition to the war as some sort of amazing foresight. I think he gambled and won. And he's probably the frontrunner because of it (along with his excellent campaign). I'd vote for him if he gets the nod, but he'd better surround himself with some credible military and foreign policy experts right quick.

You'll also see him very quickly become an expert on the military and foreign policy himself. That's how he does things. He's already learning as much as his schedule permits. He works harder than any other candidate, that's for sure. WHy do you think he'd approach those topics any differently?

if that's his point. It's a lie to say he's the only one who opposed the war.

I find Dean dishonest, too right-wing, too angry, and unappealing. And that is the first bad thing I've ever said about him here. But I've reached the point where I'm sick and tired of his opportunistic lies.

I will come out publicly today, and change my avatar, and say that Dean will lose in a race against Bush. This race is about national security and a small-state governor of a white northeastern state will not win.

Bush's approval ratings weren't going down like they are until Dean started telling people just how rotten Bush is. Even the media has become more critical of Bush because of this. There is no way Bush can beat Dean, even if Jeb helps him cheat in Florida. Dean won't let it be close enough for Bush to cheat and win by a squeaker. He's going to humiliate Bush politically. Clark might end up heading the military in the Dean White House, though.

Why not just say that he opposed the war? Voters aren't stupid - they know how to comparison shop and don't need Dean to characterize every other candidates' actions for them. He especially shouldn't go out of his way to distort the other candidates' records, as he seems to consistently do.

Does he not trust that his own record will stand on its own without embellishment or mischaracterization?

and most of the other candidates have gone to great lengths to distort his record. Why aren't you criticizing the others? Apparently is't only wrong if Dean does it. Love the double standards, really I do.

:eyes:

He's running as a populist and he governed as a compromising centrist who often aligned with the Republicans AGAINST the Democrats.

Dean COULDN'T win the primary if he actually ran as he governed.

People are blinded right now by his FAUX populism that he converted to THIS YEAR.

I'll stick to a TRUSTED Democrat whose record matches their Dem principles.

Not only is it hypocritical for you to attack Dean for compromising to achieve progressive goals, then turn around and defend Kerry's war support by saying it was a compromise, but also, you have not been able to explain this massive change around you claim Dean made.

You say it, but you never provide any specific examples, because your claim is based not on truth, but on the fact Dean is beating Kerry.


As Gov Dean fought for civil unions, healthcare, programs for kids like success by six, made insurance providers cover mental health, instituted strict land use, clean air, and clean water standards, protected fully 8% of VT total land mass from development, provided work training, daycare, and healthcare to folks who wanted to get off welfare, integrated %80 of special education, moved resources from nursing homes to in-home care programs for the elderly, expanded Medicare, and did so all while balancing the state budget.

Sounds like he was a moderate dem in VT, and he's still one now.

In fact with his position on guns and the Death penalty... how can you say he's somehow pretending to be something other than a moderate?

In fact the "aligned with the Republicans AGAINST the Democrats" BS you keep shoveling was based on Dean being against the handful of zero development nuts who wanted to prevent any new business development in VT at all, and the republicans wanted a lot more than Dean did... so Dean found a balance between the two that boosted the VT economy while minimizing environmental impact.

That’s called a progressive compromise. Unlike what Kerry did on the war which was more of a capitulation than a compromise.

Dean is running exactly as he governed in VT, as a moderate who knows how to put progress ahead of lockstep ideology and who is as willing to stand up to the far left when they are wrong as he is the far right when they are wrong.

That's why he scraping chunks of Kerry off his shoes.

Keep trying to tell folks in VT how awful Dean was to them and how conservative and how he fought against the dems in VT and was against progressive goals.

The people in VT point out over and over that these claims are based on half a dozen far left wackos who Dean wouldn't cave into on their demand for zero development, yet they ignore it and continue to tell you folks how bad Dean was in your state.

Nevermind that every Vermonter that I've seen post on DU has nothing but good things to say about Dean. Never mind that they re-elected dean 5 freaken times in a row... nope the Kerry supporter from half way across the country know better than you what kind of job Dean did in your state.

It's pointless for anyone to try to tell me that Dean is bad...I know better. He's a great leader and a great person. Vermonters don't keep politicians who suck around very long. If Dean were as bad as some here would have you believe he never would have gotten a second term here. Vermonters know what our politicians are up to and we hold them to a much higher standard than most other constituencies hold their politicians to. How often has a Vermont representative in DC done the wrong thing? Even our Republicans have a damn good level of integrity not common in politicians anymore. They have that because Vermonters won't tolerate anything less from them. Vermont puts out a lot of damn good, dependable politicians, regardless of what party they belong to. Howard Dean is no different.

This discussion is about Dean.

It hardly speaks well of Dean when the supporters of the "straight shooting" candidate whine that "everybody else is doing it, tooooo!" whenever Dean is criticized.

If your supporter has done this and you didn't complain about it then, to criticize someone else for the same thing is hypocritical and not to be taken seriously.

Clark is tied with Dean, just behind, or leading all the polls. He also polls better vs. Bush.

I remember when it used to be, 'Gore lies...again.' Not very creative, Mr. Rove.

I don't know about you, but I vote for Democrats over Republicans because I prefer to hear the truth. But I guess if you don't mind lies you should go ahead and vote fore Dean. Notice you had nothing to add on whether or not Dean did in fact lie, because I think even Dean supporters can see that those words are in fact A LIE!

eom

If he ends up being the nom?

Which many of us are not but don't jump to that conclusion.

That I can really get behind. He is going to stumble here and there, but his message and character are stong. We'll see.

Sorry, I'm looking for so much more in a candidate.

Go Clark/Edwards/Kerry!

but if my choice is between a republican liar and a pseudo-republican liar, I may look elsewhere.

I've been a solid Democrat for 24 voting years, but if Dean gets the nomination and continues his right-wing campaign, I will not vote for him.

I believe in reasonable gun control. I believe in campaign finance reform. I believe in Medicare. And most importantly, I believe in defeating George W. Bush. I don't think Dean can do it.

"I believe in reasonable gun control. I believe in campaign finance reform. I believe in Medicare."

Sorry to have to point out that Clark and Dean have very similar positions on gun control. I see this criticism leveled at Dean from various Clark supporters, and it't ironic given the 2 candidates' stands on the issue. In fact, it's one of the things I actually like about Clark.

And ALL of our candidates support public financing- they just recognize that they can't be strapped for cash if the other side isn't as well. (I wish Clark had been able to opt out as well, btw). And, like ALL of our candidates, Dean supports Medicare and Medicaid- he'd just llike to see the systems reformed. So would my liberal nurse aunt who has to deal with the morass of red tape which oftentimes prevents patients from getting the care they need. Reforming the system doesn't mean breaking it- that's what the repubs want to do.

Clark is way to the left of Dean on many issues of importance to me. But most importantly, he has the credentials to beat Bush.

I'll put my money where my mouth is - $300 says if Dean is the nominee, he loses to Bush. If Clark is the nominee, he wins. Wanna take that bet?

America will not elect a northeastern governor of a small, white state during a time of war. They WILL elect a 4-star General, even though he's more liberal than the governor.

Dean's anger is appealing to hardcore democrats who are inclined to vote in primaries. It's a big turn-off to the general electorate. Dean can come out as an angry opponent of the President. Clark can talk about real solutions and how he'd use his experience to implement them. Clark is widely respected worldwide. Dean is widely respected among angry democrats in the US.

The next election will be about security. Clark can wage that fight. And as an added bonus, he's more liberal than Dean. That's a combo I can really get behind.

I'd like to hear it.

,,,,,,,,

http://clark04.com/issues/gunsafety/

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


Can you point out the huge differences between their positions on guns? Because I just don't see it. :shrug:

And again, I am not being critical of Clark on this- I agree with him and Dean on the gun issues. I just get frustrated with *some* Clark supporters who think that Clark = Sarah Brady on gun control, when thankfully he doesn't. But it should make it hard for them to criticize Dean for having basically the same stand, though it obviously hasn't thus far.

Clark supports ballistic fingerprinting firearms, requiring gun manufactures it design safety into their products, and retaining gun purchase background checks for use in criminal investigation.

Clark clearly believes the Federal Government has a greater role to play in Gun control than Dean.

you to support Dean. I am just pointing out that they have very similar positions on a number of issues. In fact, in another thread it's been pointed out that Clark has joined the chorus of dissent over NCLB- good for him for coming out with a great stand!

Like Sean, I'd like to know where you think that their positions diverge so dramatically? Sorry, but I haven't seen it.

I'm glad you think Clark can beat Shrub. I think many of our people could with a good campaign, so we'll just have to wait for the primaries.

I just don't buy into the repub propaganda that fear of terrorism will determine the next election. BTW- some of the the best applause that both Clark and Dean get, even from general audiences, is when they criticize Shrub on Iraq. I'm sorry that you don't think people are seeing through this administration's war.

FWIW, Kerry has been my #2 for the entire campaign, but I am starting to change my mind on that. I think that this election may indeed be a referendum on national security, though not in the way many Clark supporters suggest (as in trying to be the bigger tough guy than the repubs). I think it will be decided by people who have seen the emperor has no clothes and are waking up to the realities of Iraq. Those people are going to want someone who clearly disagrees with Shrub on Iraq, and at this point, their strongest options seem to be Clark and Dean. I think either men stand a very good chance of beating Shrub, esp with a good campaign. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Dookus (1000+ posts) Thu Nov-20-03 07:10 PM
Response to Original message

3. Agreed....


but I think it's beating your head against a wall. I have a preferred candidate, but I have NEVER attacked any other candidate here. Not once.

Some people, however, feel the only way to boost their candidate is to tear down the others. I think it's stupid, but they don't let me imprison all the stupid people, at least not until my revolution.... bwahahahahaha
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=748342&mesg_id=748367&page=




"Pseudo-republican liar" seems to fit the description of an attack. Am I missing something? :shrug:

I have NEVER attacked any other candidate here. Not once.
If you can excuse Dean saying he "was" the only anti-war candidate, then certainly you can excuse the poster in question.
I now apologize to all of DU and myself for wasting time on this thread.

Ig.

and he didn't use that line in the stump speech I heard. Not saying he didn't because I wasn't there. I think if he was doing this continually that the press would pick up on it and admonish him for it, as they have on other matters.
p.s.
As far as him being late, it happens in politics. Bill Clinton was notorious for keeping his crowds waiting. I saw Clinton twice and both times he was an hour late or more--but he was so great when he did appear that we forgave him.

i don't think any of the current candidates will be forgiven of such things as bill clinton was/is. but it doesn't seem to be a common problem for them as it was for clinton so i don't think it will be an issue.

I knew he was in Manchester at 7 and that he was supposed to be in salem at 7:30, that it wasn't going to happen, but it bugged some people. I was just really pissed about that statement. I've had my problems with Dean, but I was really in the process of reconsidering him as a candidate. That statement though, did a lot to reaffirm my previous views.

about his punctuality.

We're complaining about his lying.

Dean had the luxury of NOT having to take a recorded stand on the Iraq war. For him to claim that he was the ONLY one to oppose it in the face of Kucinich's vote, Mosely-Braun's, Sharptons, and Clark's stated opposition is just a lie. And a very blatant one. the record is easily checked, and it shows a certain cravenness that I don't want in the Dem nominee.

I think Clark could whoop Bush. I think Kerry might beat him. I think Gephardt has a 50/50 shot. I think Dean will lose.

WE are fighting TWO FUCKING WARS right now.... and perhaps a third to come. This is not the time to offer a small-state governor with no experience in foreign affairs, no matter how angry he is.

Carter didn't win on anger. Clinton didn't win on anger. Hell, even Reagan didn't win on anger. They all won on hope and optimism.

Dean may be a great President in the future. But 2004 is not his year. It's going to be about war,and that brings us down to Bush, Kerry and Clark.

I'm picking Clark.

the press will take him to task for it. They have been scrutinizing him.

I think all of our candidates can beat Bush and the polls seem to indicate this as well.

There is a snotty reference to "he kept us waiting..." and "When he finally showed up...." Are those not complaints about his punctuality?

Go ahead and support them in the primaries, but do so understanding that they have no real chance of getting the nomination and what you are doing with your vote is giving them more sway during the convention. That is a good thing.

At the end of the day the Democratic nominee will be Dean, Edwards, Kerry, Gephardt, or Lieberman.

he was the only one of the current crop of Dem Prez candidates, who did oppose the war. Dean stared opposing it back in September last year.

Kucinich was not a Prez candidate at the time, neither was Braun. I don't remember when Sharpton got into the race.

What I want to know is how Dean proposes to get us out of this mess. I've been to his site and his plan is sketchy to say the very least.

Nice smear of Clark up above, by the way. I'd like to see Clark and Dean debate the Iraq issue... Clark would politely mop the floor with Dean.

" repeatedly declined to say whether he thinks the United States should withdraw its troops immediately from Iraq, as some vocal war opponents urge. Responding to questions before and during the event, Dean declined to call for the troops’ return, saying he didn’t know the implications for geopolitics and soldiers’ safety and wasn’t privy to intelligence on the ground in Iraq. ‘I didn’t get us into this,’ Dean said. ‘Unfortunately, I’m not president now and I can’t get us out of this.’" (Joanna Weiss, "Dean Ducks Prescription For Quitting Iraq," The Boston Globe, 3/27/03)

Dean Berated Bush For Suggesting American Troops Could Come In 18 Months. "If the President thinks our troops will be out in 18 months, he is smoking something he forgot about when he was at Yale." (Rebecca Cook, "Howard Dean Rallies Supporters In Seattle," The Associated Press, 5/15/03)

Dean Said U.S. Should Not Pull Troops Out Of Iraq. "We can’t leave Iraq. We can’t pull out, because if we do that, chaos ensues or else a fundamentalist Shiite regime may arise with undo Iranian influence, both of which would be more dangerous than Saddam Hussein." (Howard Dean On CNN’s "Crossfire Goes Inside Politics," 9/1/03)

Only Three Days Later: In Debate, Dean Said Our Troops Should Come Home From Iraq. "We need more troops. They’re going to be foreign troops, as they should have been in the first place, not American troops. Ours need to come home." (Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Albuquerque, NM, 9/4/03)

Now Dean Says Just Some Troops Should Come Home. "Ultimately, over a period of time, assuming you can get the cooperation of the Europeans and others, I would like to reduce by half the number of troops the Americans have in Iraq and increase dramatically so that we get up to a troop strength of between 170,000 and 200,000 in Iraq." (NBC’s "Today Show," 9/8/03)

Debate? Why? If Dean said something stupid, he'd just change it a few days later and our glorious media would continue reporting on Michael because that's SOOOOO much more important than who leads the country and, really, the world.

while other candidates get to live in a world of gray.

Dean on Iraq

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Governor Howard Dean, M.D. called for United Nations cooperation in helping rebuild Iraq.

"We knew from the outset we could win this war without much help from others. But we cannot win the peace by continuing to go it alone," Governor Dean said. "Our goal should be what the Administration has promised-an Iraq that is stable, self-sufficient, whole and free. Our strategy to achieve that goal should be based on a partnership with three sides-U.S., international and Iraqi-and a program that begins with seven basic points."

Those points are:

* A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament.
* Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council.
* The U.N.'s Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program, to pay part of the costs of reconstruction and transition.
* The U.S. should convene an international donor's conference to help finance the financial burden of paying for Iraq's recovery.
* Women should participate in every aspect of the decision-making process.
* A means should be established to prosecute crimes committed against the Iraqi people by individuals associated with Saddam Hussein's regime.
* A democratic transition will take between 18 to 24 months, although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period.
* "We must hold the Administration to its promises before the war, and create a world after the war that is safer, more democratic, and more united in winning the larger struggle against terrorism and the forces that breed it," Governor Dean said.

"That is, after all, now much more than a national security objective," he added. "It is a declaration of national purpose, written in the blood of our troops, and of the innocent on all sides who have perished."
===

He has been consistent with this. Troops need to get out of Iraq, but on a time table that doesn't leave a power vacuum. We broke it, we have to fix it or else Iraq will become a destabilizing force in the entire region.

he is the one making the issue black and white, and therefore opening himself up to criticism.

Yes, I know Dean opposed the war, and he opposes the war, and he has his plan to get out of it. I personally don't care if all of his soundbites are consistent. I just think he's being arrogant.

Which is true.

Was = past tense
Am = present tense

directly said that Saddam planned 9/11.

Give me a break, this parsing of Dean's dishonesty is ridiculous. He lied. "WAS" When he "WAS" opposing the war, Kucinich had been opposing the war over 1 year before it started.

Just about anything anyone says can be 'understood' any way it best fits your defense.


Here's a poorly constructed story that I just made up! Yay storytime!
*******
So like 8 of my friends and I were having a party and we were eating pizza. I like pizza, so I ate a lot really fast. Like 8 SLICES!!! WOW! But a few of my friends ate even more than I did by the end of the party. My friends and I were discussing the party and I declared, "I WAS the one who ate the most pizza!" My friend Johnny said, "No way you ate 8 slices, but I had 12!". I responded, "NO! I had 8 slices before any of you even ate 5! So I was being truthful."
*******

Stories are fun.

Truth is also fun.


TWL

Not what he writes down on a piece of paper. If he doesn't know his own policy well enough to be consistent about it, then why in the world would anybody vote for him.

They wouldn't. Which means if they do, then he must be consistent.

And if he isn't consistent, you don't have to worry, because he won't get the nomination.

Dean is slowly but surely being exposed. He won't be the nominee. Dems know better than to do Karl Rove's bidding.

It's about the fact the Dean 1) DOES NOT have a plan to get us out of Iraq, and 2) LIES ABOUT IT continually in debates, in the press, and to his supporters.

If there's one thing Howard has mastered, it's the art of Triangulation. His positions change depending on who he's speaking to at the time. I've SEEN it happen myself too often to even take him SERIOUSLY as a candidate anymore.

Because all these things that fellow Dems are bringing up now are jack compared to what the Mighty Rove Machine will unleash on the hapless Doctor from Vermont. He'll try to wage their fight, using their rules and tactics, and will end up losing in Mondale-like proportions.

And this once great party will take another step down the road of irrelevance.

Dean wasn't a candidate either, in fact there weren't ANY Democratic candidates, because none of them had annouced they were running yet.

He clearly meant in his tier. DK is not in his tier.

You're right. DK is worlds ahead of Howard Dean.

Not in his tier. :eyes:

Before the invention of TV and radio, DK may have had a chance.

Dean is electable Kucinich isn't.

and is only ahead of Braun and Sharpton in fundraising.

Is he a viable candidate? Does he oppose the war? Plus whether they're viable or not they're still CANDIDATES. Let me repeat Dean's words. "I was the only CANDIDATE to oppose the Iraq war."

Spin it how you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a lie.

I believe Clark has a Kerry problem.

to please some people.

Clark's Plan for Success in Iraq:
http://clark04.com/issues/iraqstrategy/
Kerry's "Winning the Peace" in Iraq:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/

When it comes down to what a candidate said about the war in 2002, and what they plan to do about the war in 2004... which would you pick?

I don't trust anyone who has a "plan" for Iraq, because we don't know what the situation in Iraq is going to be come January 2005. So I trust a philosophy and a methodology.

I look for someone who has proven to be adaptable, not dogmatic, able to seperate ego from policy. If something isn't working, something else needs to be tried. That is a medical mentality - the only failure is not fixing the problem. If option A doesn't fix the problem, you attempt option B.

Dean has laid out the components he wishes to use to address the Iraq issue.

# A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament.
# Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council.
# The U.N.'s Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program, to pay part of the costs of reconstruction and transition.
# The U.S. should convene an international donor's conference to help finance the financial burden of paying for Iraq's recovery.
# Women should participate in every aspect of the decision-making process.
# A means should be established to prosecute crimes committed against the Iraqi people by individuals associated with Saddam Hussein's regime.
# A democratic transition will take between 18 to 24 months, although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period.
# "We must hold the Administration to its promises before the war, and create a world after the war that is safer, more democratic, and more united in winning the larger struggle against terrorism and the forces that breed it," Governor Dean said.

I may not agree that he is selecting all the right tools for the job, but I'm an opinionated asshole who criticizes everything. In this case, I trust the man.

so I guess that is where we differ. Did you actually read Clark and Kerry's documents, or do you just assume they are "dogmatic" and "ego-driven"?

Seems to me that part of the "medical mentality" is never admitting one is wrong... that explains a lot...

I've kept abreast of the main candidates... the little graphic in my sig indicates all the candidates I am seriously considering voting for.

I lean strongly in favor of Dean but I've admired Kerry for a long time.

I remember the "best and the brightest" under Kennedy and Johnson. Real stunning success that was.

If my house was on fire, I wouldn't call a doctor (for example, heh heh) and hope for the best. "Well, he went to college for eight years, I'm sure be able to figure out how to put it out. I trust him."

Some people here just trust Dean to do the best thing no matter what. That's great that you believe in your candidate to that extent, but sorry, I'm just not one of those people.

And will continue healthy criticism when necessary if, and when, he is elected.

I also used the "black and white" phrase further down (see the post starting with "I am not saying".

It is just my opinion but very few issues will fit the black and white stamp. There are just too may pieces of any issue to be considered to make any of them that easy.

That's another reason I like General Clark. I haven't seen him take any issue and try to simplify it into a black and white (yes or no) type of thing.

General Clark is "anti-war" as the term is being used today. I believe the media made this an "black and white" issue (meaning there is no middle ground) which it is not. That being said, I would like to point out that General Clark expressed his concerns several times before the war, including in a speech before the House Armed Services Committee in September of 2002.

Here is the link: http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

Here are some excerpts:
"I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President’s clear determination to act if the United Nations can’t provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts."

"If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear."

"Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied to assume their responsibilities. This includes requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance, and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps including a new constitution. Ideally, international and multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post-conflict operations, including the UN, NATO, and other regional and Islamic organizations.

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as “preemptive.” "

oh, hey, and he was right seeing Graham was the first one to drop out.

Hmmm, perhaps people should listen to the Dr.

I haven't had my morning coffee and I am feeling grouchy.

I was once a resident of the state of Montana.
I am a resident of the state of Montana.

One of those statements is a lie. Seeing that I am currently in Illinois, you can pick which one is false.

I was the only candidate to oppose the war in Iraq.
I am the only candidate to oppose thte war in Iraq.

Again, you decide which statement is false. I think the efforts to sink Dean's ship are getting rather pathetic. If this is all the ammo Dean's opposition has, it is time to pack bags and go home.

If Dean is to be stopped, he needs to be stopped in December. If he makes it into January without a blistering debilitating attack from key opposition, he will be able to ride the good will through the primaries. He doesn't have it locked up but he certainly will be able to weather any other attacks against him. Voters will be deciding on virtue of the candidates themselves, not that attacks made against the candidates.

Some of us would just prefer he stop saying things that aren't so.

saying something that isn't so. He WAS at one point in time, the only declared candidate for President opposed to the war.

It's also outright falsehood.

The 'spin' I see here on every Dean misstep is reminiscent of the Freeper's defenses of Bush.

Dean has a nasty habit of talking out of his ass, and every time he gets called on it, his supporters pretend it didn't happen. I would suggest they instead spend their energy writing the Governor and encouraging to think for a second before he opens his yap.

maybe that wouldn't happen. These defenses of Dean are getting more and more ludicrous. Ask yourselves, Dean supporters, if you would accept these kinds of responses about other candidates. I hope you would not. (Rove is going to eat this boy for a snack -- he's not even enough for lunch.)

Come on. The way these guys campaign they are bound to be late. They stay after to talk with people who came to see thme and answer questions of voters. They all do it so why do you complain? It seems you had your mind made up on Dean, then included this point. Its a very shaky criticism that you will now be forced to level against any candidate late for anything.

If you want to post about the war comment, just do that.

Yes, the title and focus indicates Dean lies. What's with the garbage in front of it? Make the point and let people post. Post other points and expect responses.

Perhaps this person was less inclined to listen to Dean and allow persuasion due to frustration over his tardiness as noted in the post.

This nitpicking of EVERY SINGLE WORD of every candidate said on the campaign trail has got to stop!! Dean his human; he goofs from time to time. The fact is that he's doing very well right now, and he could be the man we have to beat Bush, and we're going to have to live with him, and we can't do that if we are so full of bitterness from this endless bitchy nitpicking!!!

For God's sake, let's not forget who the enemy is, and it's not Dean!!

Lying politicians (Bush) got us into Iraq and the myriad other problems we face. I prefer candidates that tell the truth. Dean has shown a problem in this area. As I said earlier in this thread, I went to this meeting to give Dean another chance, and he blew it by lying.

No politician is lily-white when it comes to lying, bending the truth, misrepresenting, omission, whatever. We must consider the good with the bad, however, and if I were a Dean person, I would not get caught up over a friggin' goof like this one.

even using the semantic approach that is a lie since Al Sharpton was a candidate at the time and he was adamantly opposed to the war.

it might come true.

:roll:

:eyes:

i am trying to fix it.

quite ironic though, dont you think?

Why is this even an issue?

Is there a difference between was and am?

i dont know what happened

All of these guys have. Stop the nitpicking. I didn't jump all over Kerry when he said "One poll showed me fifteen points ahead of her(HRC)" when that was a blatant lie.

but if you know of one please tell me, I don't blind myself to the truth about the candidates I support, so if DK has lied about his positions or actions I'd like to know.

Like the ones about DK getting 50% of the Republican vote when runnning against a Republican incumbent.

I do know he currently gets 50% Republican votes, and he beat a Republican incumbent, but I don't recall anyone saying it happened at the same time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=88674#88692

Here's the thread and it's post #8

When DK ran against an incumbent in 1996, he only received 49% of the overall vote against 46% for the incumbent Republican.

It is not unusual at all for Democratic incumbents to receive 70% of the vote, particularly in U.S. House races.

John Kerry received over 80% of the statwide vote for re-election in Massachusetts, and Dick Durbin received about 69% in my state of Illinois.

I am much more interested in what happens when the candidate runs against a strong Republican candidate...and in that case Kucinich does not poll anywhere close to 50% of Republicans.

This was all part of the argument that somehow if Dennis Kucinich were nominated he would obviously win the national election. It's not obvious to me that any candidate would have a lock on winning the national election.

Of course, I'm still annoyed that this thread carried accusations that esteemed African-American colleagues of Dennis were acting as "token blacks" in support of Howard Dean to hide racist policies.

If this type of hyperbole showed up in a thread I saw and was uttered by a Dean suppoter...I would call them on it instead of allowing them to spread unfettered blatant disrespectful lies about other candidates.

misrepresentational thread about misrepresentation.

He won with 49% against the incumbent, then had nearly 75% of the vote 4 years later.

TWL

Note my referenced responses in that thread.

According to news reports, he defeated an unpopular Republican incumbent.

Then he defeated a county legislator with no campaign web site who had lost a previous race for congress with only 26% of the vote.

Actions matter. His words don't match the actions he took in Vermont. His words aren't consistent over time. I don't know how people are able to choose a candidate when they can't possibly know what he stands for. Except they do know he's against those Bush-lite cockroaches who act like Republicans because that's half his campaign. I think Dean needs to be reminded who the enemy is. Or maybe we can learn something from Vermont since berating liberal Democrats was the way he 'built concensus'. I guess since he's moved left in the primaries, he's changed his strategy to beating up on right-leaning Democrats, never mind that he used to be one.

I've seen plenty of nitpicky exchange between Kerry and Dean and their supporters here on DU recently, myself included, and I don't think any of us are blameless. But regardless of all these little inconsistencies and whatever, both of us may have to live with Dean as the Democratic nominee, and we are not going to be useful in that contest against Bush if we are completely hung up and bitter over every little thing.

if he was such a conservative and so mean to the democrats in VT?

As Gov Dean fought for civil unions, healthcare, programs for kids like success by six, made insurance providers cover mental health, instituted strict land use, clean air, and clean water standards, protected fully 8% of VT total land mass from development, provided work training, daycare, and healthcare to folks who wanted to get off welfare, integrated %80 of special education, moved resources from nursing homes to in-home care programs for the elderly, expanded Medicare, and did so all while balancing the state budget.

Sounds like he was a moderate dem in VT, and he's still one now.

In fact with his position on guns and the Death penalty... how can you say he's somehow pretending to be something other than a moderate?

In fact the "berating liberal Democrats " BS you bashers keep shoveling was based on Dean being against the handful of zero development nuts who wanted to prevent any new business development in VT at all, and the republicans wanted a lot more than Dean did... so Dean found a balance between the two that boosted the VT economy while minimizing environmental impact.

That’s called a progressive compromise.

Dean is running exactly as he governed in VT, as a moderate who knows how to put progress ahead of lockstep ideology and who is as willing to stand up to the far left when they are wrong as he is the far right when they are wrong.

Like being forced to sign them into law because the Vermont Supreme Court made it impossible for him not to do so?

Or signing the bill behind closed doors, out of the eyes of the public and GLBT community? Where was he when the bill was in the legislature? Was he "fighting" for it then?

If that's "fighting" to Dean, then I'm sure glad he's not "fighting" for me. :eyes:

I'm not saying you're lying, but without a link to me it's just word of mouth. For all I know you didn't hear Dean right, which I've done many times.

believe me or not it's your perogitive. But I know what I heard, and considering his other similar statements on this matter it's not too far fetched.

which is not admissable....

So too is previous bad acts....

We should at least apply the rules of law here since these candidates are not here to defend themselves...especially when you have people who are going to give anicdoltal evidence with no way of checking out your information....

smootches, baby!

/thread hijack

maybe I will start a thread that says I saw kucinich last night and he said he couldnt wait to outlaw abortion.

Then we can all circle jerk arround it and try to prove its bullshit.

If Dean said that he is wrong.

He would outlaw abortion he would be wrong too whats your point?

then he is a lying POS. Is there a video of this anywhere? I think people would be interested. You should have challenged him on it.

but I haven't found it. And I would have liked to challenge him on it, but I had to leave before the question and answer part began.

You are responsible for the proof.

hes got this great habit of speaking before thinking.

And it's perfectly fine with me that he's not trying to have handlers write a script down for every word uttered by him, like some other campaigns are doing.

I'd rather him not try to be perfect, because then only fools expect him to be perfect.

When confronted with the FACT that his N.H. TV ad was a lie or dishonesty at best. He still let it run.

Responsibility.

TWL

You're lying or exaggerating at best. I read the text of the ad and I would have run it too.

New Hampshire Ad: DEAN: A hundred and thirty thousand troops in Iraq, with no end in sight and a price tag that goes up daily and the best my opponents can do is ask questions today that they should have asked before they supported the war. I opposed the war from the start because I want a foreign policy consistent with American values and I want to reclaim our rights and our liberties that were taken away in the name of patriotism. I'm Howard Dean and I approved this message because only you have the power to restore the dignity and respect that our country deserves. (10/22)
http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=883

I am lying or exaggerating?

"the best my opponents can do is ask questions today that they should have asked before they supported the war."

"My opponents" is the subject, which is referenced in "they supported the war".

This parsing of what Dean 'really' meant is getting silly.

The ad was at best either dishonest or arrogant. He was confronted with this during the next debate and the ad still ran.

Where is my lie?
He said his opponents supported the war. The only exaggeration is the defense of his statement.

TWL

I'm not the one parsing.

I am done after this post.

Dean says in his ad, right out of his own mouth.

"the best my opponents can do is ask questions today that they should have asked before they supported the war."

You can 'read' it however you like. The simple TRUTH is that it is dishonest. You can say he was referring to what you may like to call 'top tier' candidates. That does not change what he said.

To the undecided primary voter, who is not as informed as we are on DU, this is a lie. They see 9 candidates. Deans says "My opponents". That means the other 8. No other meaning.

TWL

Kucinich, Sharpton, CMB, are not opponents at this point. They are simply remaining in the campaign insted of dropping out because they want to milk the media attention for every second they can before they lose.

Face it, they are out of the race. At worst Dean is being rude to them by not pretending they are still in the running.

That makes him a mis-leader.

Here's another mis-leader:

http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df11212003.html

I don't want to change one for another.

he was talking about the top tier guys... not Kucinich, CMB, or sharpton or graham.

But Kucinch has nothing else to jump start his dying campaign than running on "Dean won't pretend I have a chance Whhaaaaa!"

As far as the "lie" reported here we only have hearsay and the word of a supporter of an opposing candidate.

And that candidate's supporters have attempted, this week, to use American Spectator rumors to smear Dean, called esteemed African-American members of congress "token blacks" trying to cover up Dean's racist policies....why would I question this thread, too?

Nor is sharpton, nor is CMB, nor is Edwards or Lieberman at this point.

They are in the race only in the sense they've not officially dropped out yet. But to be a candidate you have to at least have a chance at wining at least one primary.

This is now a race between Dean, Clark, Kerry, and Gephardt... and Kerry and Gephardt will soon be out of the running as well. And of them, Dean is the only one who was against the war and against the IWR.

They are all candidates and valuable voices in the party.

however they are not all candidates. To be a candidate you have to have at least a chance at winning and they do not.

It is silly to expet Dean, or any of the top tier guys, to waste time and energy pretending that CMB, Sharpton, and Kucinich have a chance at all.

Dean's opponants are Kerry, Clark, Gephardt and Lieberman and maybe Edwards. They are the ones he is campaigning against. He shouldn;t be expected to have to footnote everystatement about them with some special mention of how Kucinich or Sharpton or CMB differ in their positions.

Should Dean also have to make special note of LaRouche's positions?

let's just cancel the primaries right now so our savior Dean won't have to waste his precious money and he can smite the foul Bush and reign as America's annointed one. Ave Dean, morituri te salutant!

Honestly, I do not mean do you hope or dream he'll win. I mean do you seriously think he has enough of a chance to be given the consideration of a contender?

Do you really believe that? Or are you just frustrated at the reality of Kucinich’s situation and angry that Dean is basically acknowledging that reality?

Because that's exactly what you're saying. Poll numbers or not Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, and Carol Mosley-Braun, are in fact CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. And for Howard Dean to say he is the only candidate running for president that opposed the war in Iraq is a lie.

A lie is a lies is a lie. I don't give a fuck if ABCNNBCBS says 199 million Americans worship the TP Howard Dean wipes his ass with or not, it still a fucking lie.

Here it is again for you...

Do you seriously think Kucinich has enough of a chance to be given the consideration of a contender?

Do you really believe that? Or are you just frustrated at the reality of Kucinich’s situation and angry that Dean is basically acknowledging that reality?



"Poll numbers or not Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, and Carol Mosley-Braun, are in fact CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."

Then so is LaRouche and every write in candidate as well. So is Kucinich a liar for not specificaly noting all of those "candidate's" positions when he speaks? Or is this just a standard that applies to Dean to prop up your attacks?

Kucinich's chances have NOTHING TO DO with whether Dean's statement that he was the only candidate to oppose the war.

As for your other red-herring, I don't here Kucinich saying he's the only candidate for anything, he might says he's the only candidate "on this stage" to support something at a debate, but as LaRouche has been at any of the debates it is fully factual.

I know it's hard to grasp since you've already given over reason to that scion of liberalism Howard Dean, but some of us actually enjoy politicians that are honest.

"business as usual" politician than many of the others.
The worse thing about it is that he tries to act like the
"straight-talkin' non-politician". So now he has both
deceptiveness and hypocracy as two of his traits. I have to admit,
he is seductive on the stump, but I think that's all he
has going for him. I met him once and I really liked him.
But I can't let myself confuse charm for character.

Or is just empty attacks?

saying he was the only Dem to oppose the war....

It's not true because:

1.)He wasn't the only one
2.)He voiced support for military action in Iraq after waiting
"60 days".

So, what part of that don't you understand?

What more proof do you need?

"saying he was the only Dem to oppose the war...."

No he said he was the only candidate who was against the war... not the only democrat. If Dean's comment is such an obvious lie, why then must you edit what he said and lie about it?


"It's not true because:

1.)He wasn't the only one"


He was the only one of the current top tier candiates, including your guy.



"2.)He voiced support for military action in Iraq after waiting
"60 days"."

Oh another dishonest lie. Dean voiced support for action IF weapons were found, and IF the UN refused to act, then and only then would he support action and would give Iraq 60 days to destory the weapons before taking action to the end of destorying weapons, not taking over the country.

You folks ignore the requierments Dean set that would justfy this action which never took place, and then try to act as if this position was based on what had taken place.

take you pick.

I meant candidate, Dean meant candidate. Dean
mislead when he said what he said I just made an
honest mistake.

It's so similar to something Bush would do it is creepy.

I use 'em too when I'm over-emotional and somehow seem to think people can't read on their own.

an arbitrary "60 day waiting period".

So he is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

But that's ok, he is the media's annointed one and according
to one poster on this thread Kucinich, CMB, and Sharpton "aren't
candidates" anyway so what does it matter if he knowingly mis-leads
the public about their positions.

Remember, I, another Dean supporter, was the first to call that post unnecessary.

attitude that Kucinich and the others don't count,
that doesn't spell well for Dean in my book.

Either he lied willfully or he thinks the others don't
count.

What other interpretation can you take?

posted...there is absolutely no proof here.

"Either he lied willfully or he thinks the others don't
count."

Nobody said they do not count or that they are not members of the party or their voice is unimportant or any of the BS spin you're trying to put on it.

I simply said that Dean is talking about the top tier guys. Because Kucinich and CMB and Sharpton are not in the running. There is no point in campaigning against the folks who have no chance of winning. Dean is campaigning against the top tier guys.

Makes you look like a hypocrite.



"Dean also fails to mention he would have authorized force after..."
an arbitrary "60 day waiting period"."


Nothing arbitrary about it. Dean was very clear that he's only support unilaterial action against Iraq IF there was a direct threat to the US (weapons found or real terrorist ties found) and then IF that happened, and IF the UN refused to act, Dean would support giving Iraq 30-60 days to destroy the weapons, then would support an atttack to the end of destorying the weapons, not taking over Iraq.

Why do you folks continue to ignore the preface Dean set, and act as if Dean was making this 60 day statement about current circumstances?


Oh and again Dean was NOT distorting anybody's position. He simply wasn't talking about the folks not in the top tier. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

I've known supporters of other candidates to actually Lie about other candidates even *gasp* right here at DU. Maybe it happened as you say or perhaps you heard incorrectly. Regardless, with no proof this a rather old and wimpy criticism.

Watching the supporters of other candidates pile on Dean from what may or may not be a spurious charge, did provide some mild amusement though. So thanks for the cheap entertainment. :)

the notion that he is different from the other candidates, that he's not politics as usual?

If so, isn't it a little disingenuous for Dean supporters to claim, whenever he is criticized, that everyone else is doing the same thing?

That's the point and if it's unfounded and without proof it's not disingenuous at all for Dean supporters to cackle at the appearance of desperation by other candidate supporters for jumping into silly crap, imo.

my post as with any other bit of 'news' should be believed at the readers discretion. I heard what I heard and that's what matters to me. I won't be offended if it matters less to other people, I'm weary of psuedo-anonymous assertions myself, but I did feel it my duty to at least report what I heard.

Remember the debate where he got the number of homicides for Detroit wrong. When corrected he said he misspoke. It happens to all candidates and not worth starting a thread "Kucinich lies at debate". It's possible that might not have heard one word and it's possible Dean could have left out one word like the only "leading" candidate, but for it to be a lie it would have to be proven to be intentional. To suggest that Dean is intentionally trying to distort DK's, Braun's or Sharpton's position on Iraq is a big stretch, imo, but you've done your "duty".

He's said it in TV commercials and I wouldn't doubt that he's said it at other rallies. Not to mention that when Kucinich pointed out that Dean said he would consider raising the retirement age at a debate he lied and said he hadn't.

check you email once in a while 'kay?

/hijack

and he hasnt continued to misstate the detroit numbers.

dean continues to act as if he is the only one who was, is, will be, against the iraq war.

to see the spin and waffling and parsing and "semantics" dances being done by some Dean supporters on this thread is really pathetic.

For the sake of clarity, let me repeat what Dean said:

"In fact, I was the only candidate to oppose the war in Iraq."

* THAT is what he said.

* What he said was FALSE.

* Not only was what he said FALSE, he KNEW it was FALSE WHEN HE SAID IT.

That, my friends, is what those of us outside of spinland refer to as A LIE. And the person who told it is, therefore, A LIAR.

You may parse this, filter it, quantify it, conditionalize it, or fry it in a pan and serve it up hot, but it is still a flat-out LIE.

If "our" candidate is doing this and the first primary has NOT EVEN STARTED, how the hell do you expect him to stand up to the scrutiny of the hostile media and/or Karl Rove Smear Machine™?

Seriously, I'm getting dizzy from the amount of grease some of the rabid Deanites are using to spin/"rationalize" this statement.

Seriously, it's this kind of machination that makes me respect Dean (and some of his operatives) less and less each day. Even though I don't care much for Clark or Kerry or Lieberman or Gephardt, I have NEVER witnessed this level of "rationalization" about an out-and-out falsehood since the days of Ollie North before the Senate.

To as untrue??

They ARE politicians...

Geez...

Let's tear 'em all down, then, since they're all a lousy pack of liars!!!!


I do happen to think we've got 9 good candidates.

and NOT continued to lie over and over and over again.

OTOH, Dean seems to think he's the Teflon Candidate, and that his lies are different from everyone else's.

I hear this over and over again from Dean supporters: "Dr. D. was always against the war."

Now wait just a darn minute!

"If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice." --Howard Dean, Feb. 2003

"As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action." --John Kerry, Jan. 2003

Hmmm. This is their own words guys, and that, in my opinion, is that. We won't beat Bush by hammering him on the war issue, we beat him by hammering him on ALL the issues. John Kerry has the experience AND the message that will get GWB and his neocon cronies out of the WH.

:hi:

I really supported Paul Wellstone (I'm from MN) and Dennis's speech at the JJ dinner made me cry. We miss Paul and Sheila!

who had representatives in the crowd and it wasn't Dennis Kucinich. I was aware at the time that Kucinich and Dean were the only Dems who opposed the war. (Up until that time, I was a Kerry supporter.) I really didn't know all that much about either of them, so I did the reasearch and checked them out.

What I found on Kucinich disturbed me. (I'm a rationalist.)

What I found on Dean surprised and intrigued me, so, thinking of it only as an extension of my protest, I joined the Dean campaign. I thought that ultimately I'd have to go back to Kerry, in hopes of actually defeating Bush, but I just wanted to feel I'd done something against the criminal war. Since then, well, the rest is history... Dean's campaign surged and well, Kucinich is just about where he's always been.

I don't think there is any thing to gain by Dean kissing Kucinich's ass on this point. Kucinich supporters are going to bolt the Democratic campaign as soon as they don't get their way and vote as they did in the last election: For Nader. They have a history of Bushian "my way or the highway" thinking.

It is true that Dean is not acknowledging Kucinich's stand against the war. It's not the end of the world. Kucinich is still a candidate, but only because he says he is. He's crying very loudly, "I opposed the war! I opposed the war! If no one's listening, maybe the rest of Kucinich's stuff has something to do with it. He has yet to show a lead anywhere in any primary state. In fact, I can't find a state where he is polling numbers that indicate he can come in second, or even third. (If you can correct me, I challenge you to do so!) Kucinich then still has to prove that he is a viable candidate. He doesn't have much more time to do this. Most people who oppose Bush can't wait until after November 2004 for the Kucinich campaign to catch fire. Some people, myself included, don't want the Kucinich campaign to catch fire.

Maybe Dean should have qualified the statement with "I am the only viable candidate..." He hasn't done so but it doesn't mean all that much. Dean is the only one of the candidates polling percentages above the lowest positive integers who opposed the war.

Of course the Kucinich crowd wants to bash Dean by microscopic inspection of every single remark, and make mountains out of molehills, as if every remark that Kucinich makes is spot on. This is because they confuse winning with losing and claim that losing is winning. This was the same crap that Naderites pulled in 2000 against a fine candidate. (They avoided criticizing the monstrous candidate; in fact, they promoting him by claiming he was as good as the fine candidate.)

I note that the Kucinich people actually hate it though, when the same microscoping is done to them. Does anyone want to discuss Kucinich's 1998 vote against contraception aid to poor women? Why is Dean's claim less of a lie than the claim that Kucinich supports Roe vs. Wade? Which is more important, Kucinich's prestige or women's control over their internal organs? Never mind, I already know the answer to that question.

As for the whole conception of needing a saint as the nominee, I note that the saint-demanders are particularly skillful at ignoring the demons in our government.

like the ones who pretend to be most philosophically in tune with them prefer to piss them off.

It's not like the Kucinich/Nader crowd is going to put anyone over the top. I believe that the Kucinich folks will not vote Democratic in the next election in any case. Their raison d'etre is simply to make a big sulking noise and inform everyone of their self declared nobility. The last thing they would do would be to vote for a winner, because that would imply to taking responsibility for real events in the real world.

For the record, I don't think that Kucinich and Dean are philosophically in tune. If I thought that, I would be supporting someone other than Dean in the primaries. Kucinich has exactly one positive. He voted against the war. Other than that he's a turkey, something reflected in his poll numbers.

Now for some contrasts:

Kucinich supporters don't give a rats ass about women's issues. Dean supporters do.

Kucinich plays fast and loose with the insertion of his religion into politics. I don't even know what Dean's religion is.

Kucinich doesn't know how to balance a budget. Dean does.

Dean cares about practical governance. Kucinich doesn't.

Dean has been reelected 4 times to a high administrative office. Kucinich narrowly avoided recall in his first administrative office, was defeated in the next general election and his misadministration created the carreer of Voinovich, now Ohio's repuke Senator.

Dean has run a brilliant campaign. Kucinich is exactly where he was a year ago: Nowhere.

Kucinich spends most of his time these days talking about the "evils" of Dean. Dean spends most of his time talking about the evils of Bush.

There are many other differences, but I think I've wasted enough time on it...

Where was Dean? I'll tell you where we was. He was carefully tailoring his message depending on his audience. For instance, on Feb. 20, Dean told Salon.com that "if the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

Sound like an anti-war candidate to you? Not to me.

I know, the truth hurts. But Dean is lying through his teeth every bit as much as Dubya is.

It's easy to take a sentence by itself and paint a monster with it. Let's see why he said he "was" the only candidate to oppose the war; what period was he talking about? Was he qualifying that statement with another clause? We can't tell with your single dangling line.

Please provide a full transcript of that particular speech to back up your position.