Do you think Dean's new grassroots org will keep Kerry on the issues?

Dean said that he'll unveil his new grassroots organization on March 18 in Seattle. He said part of the organization will be a Democratic watchdog for progressive values. So do you think the new Org will keep Kerry in check in putting a platform of progressives values? I like the role Dean is playing. I mean I think he hasn't lost his influence. He's like a player. Most of the other candidates are subservient to Kerry. They are helping kerry but are "under his wings." While Dean on the other Is helping the Democratic nominee but is not subservient to Kerry. Dean is basically his own man if you want to put it blunt.

It is intended to be a counterbalance to the DLC.

Anyway the DLC makes sure that it's politicians present a centrist viewpoint. So wouldn't it make sense that the Dean's grassroots org would do the same?

That is ABSURD.

You want the most liberal Dem nominee of our lifetime to be prodded by the most conservative 2004 primary candidate?

Thankfully, Kerry has plenty of experience pulling to the left AGAINST Dean for years while Dean and other centrist Dems were trying to pull the DLC further right for the years.

Pray tell, what issue is centrist Howard Dean more progressive than John Kerry, one of the most liberal Senators over 19 years?

Go deregulate some other country's electricity. Go promote the governor's bad civil liberties record in some other party.

Dean is WAY too centrist for me. I will rip a Kerry administration a new one if they DARE to move as far right as Howard Dean.

Your thoughtful, kind comments are just what we need to get Dean supporters to work as hard for Kerry as they did for Dean, who, as we all know, is worse than Hitler and Satan and Bush combined.

Besides, anyone who would decide what to do or who to support because their feelings were hurt by something blm posted on DU, has some seriously skewed priorities.

I have held myself back plenty on this subject over the last month but the persistence of some Dean supporters to press this FALSE portrayal of both Kerry and Dean is just getting too damn silly to ignore.

I'm not going to let the falsehoods continue without comment.

You want lies about Kerry to be fed and nurtured - I don't.

:P

Health care for everyone. A fully funded National Education Trust. Environmental and labor rights in trade laws, which he's always fought for. Equal protection for gays. A sane foreign and defense policy. Medical marijuana and real drug law reform. I know I'm supposed to kiss Dean ass, but I'm getting sick of this self-righteous attitude. Kerry has always been better on progressive issues than Dean.

This one has to many loopholes. Dean advocates in having the max limit of 2000 reduce so that politicians will have to depend on more people to donate if they want more money.

Like the ones Dean repeatedly opted out of?

Dean on the other hand was a campaign about campaign finance reform. He had about an average contribution of 70 dollars. That was what the purpose of campaign finance reform. So that campaigns could be funded from small donations and not large soft money from individuals and special interest groups.

That's what you said. You want a guy who has never respected campaign finance laws writing them. And I'm supposed to respect those kind of progressive values. I don't. I never have. I've also never been impressed with him asking a bunch of kids to go without food and electricity to pay for his campaign.

so i guess you would hate a person who took 6 million loan from his own money? That kind of deafeats the purpose of democracy. Idealistically any american citizen who hasn't commited a felon and is 35 or over can become president. What kerry did demonstrates that you have to be rich to become president. He killed many people's dreams. Take that

He put his money where his mouth was. He didn't ask his supporters do more for the campaign than he was willing to do himself. Unlike Howard Dean who left workers in the lurch and without a paycheck. He only had a million dollars left. Did you catch that in the CNN show over the weekend? It was far worse than anybody thought. If spending $40 million isn't trying to buy a Presidency, no matter where the money came from, I don't know what is. It defeats the entire purpose of campaign finance reform.

I never heard that once.

The one, and only, law Dean and later Kerry opted out of, was the post Watergate public financing. When that law was authored neither Kerry, nor Wellstone were in the Senate.

Dean's main concern is the plan of our country to remake the middle east, and he does not like it as a policy. His concern is the hold the Democrats on the far right have on this party.

Actually no one expects you to kiss any part of Dean at all. I am quite sure that is the least of his worries.

I will vote for the nominee.

Dean had no plan on the Middle East. One more example of how inept he really was.

remember, when a lot of people who were jewish were clamboring that he was anti-semetic because his plan for the middle east favored palestinians.

It was just stupidity. He didn't know what he was saying when he said it. As soon as he understood words like "even-handed" mean something in the Middle East, he changed his tune to protecting Israel's right to exist, just like everybody else.

First you said he had NO plan for the middle east. Now you're saying he had a plan but it was a stupid plan that he flip=flopped on. Make up your mind.

I said he didn't know what he was talking about so he had to correct his statements and say that he supports Israel's right to exist. That isn't anywhere near a plan. That's a thunk on head, duh.

The current goal of our government is to remake the map of the middle east. Dean addressed this on Saturday, referring to the neo-cons who used Iraq for this gateway to the middle east.

Dean does not approve of this.

I mean Kerry did vote for the patriot act didn't he. We have to make sure that people like kerry don't stray from the path.

Dean had no different plan on the Patriot Act than anybody else. Repeal the worst parts. That's it. Same as Kerry and the rest of the Democratic Party. Wellstone voted for it too, remember?

Dean's comments on civil liberties cause alarm



MONTPELIER — Gov. Howard Dean's call for a “re-evaluation” of some of America's civil liberties following this week's terrorist attacks was criticised Thursday by a Vermont Law School professor. “Good God,” Vermont Law School Professor Michael Mello said when read the remarks Dean made at a Wednesday news conference. “It's terribly irresponsible for the leader of our state to be saying stuff like that right now.”

Benson Scotch, the head of the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said it was simply too soon after the attacks to engage in the sort of debates Dean called for.

Dean said Wednesday he believed that the attacks and their aftermath would “require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street.”

Dean said he had not taken a position on these questions. Asked whether he meant that specific rights described in the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution — would have to be trimmed, the governor said: “I haven't gotten that far yet. I think that's unlikely, but I frankly haven't gotten that far. Again, I think that's a debate that we will have.”

Mello said Thursday, “the civil liberties Dean seems to be talking about so blithely, that's exactly what makes us different from the murderers who committed these acts. “It's why they attacked us,” he continued. “I think our freedom is what they find so threatening, our freedom and the power that I think results directly from that freedom.”

http://rutlandherald.com/News/Story/33681.html

Even Ashcrotf never suggested actually trimming the Bill of Rights (he'd rather just ignore it).

Where do you get the idea that his example should be followed?

Most of Dean's statements on civil liberties as governor sound like they could have come from Bush's mouth.

But different. A few things are coming out, but not really verified. Sounds interesting, and we are waiting eagerly. I think it will be impressive, I really do.

Dean is stubborn now about the way the party is going, and he will not back down. I am glad.

His speech on Saturday was very indicative of the changes he wants if you read it carefully. He thinks we are coming to a point of divisive change.
Read this excerpt sort of between the lines:

SNIP...."So I think we are going to have a change, but I think we have to have a
fundamental change, not just a change in party, and not just a change in who
controls the Congress - although, of course, as a loyal Democrat, I’m much
in favor of all of that. What this country wants real change. America is a
conservative country with a small “c” - they want change, but they don’t
want too much change too fast. I think we’re approaching a point, as we saw
under McKinley and under Herbert Hoover, where the stresses in society are
becoming so great, that change - at a faster rate, which is always more
difficult, more contentious and more divisive - is what’s going to be
necessary in order to put this country back on the path of being the
greatest country on the face of the earth, and being the moral leader of the
free world - a position which we held indisputably from World War I until we
went into Iraq unilaterally......"

I mean in reality, actual issues, not just perceptions or characterizations.

On what issue is Dean more progressive than Kerry?

Dean wants to have better campaign finance laws. He wants to reduce the 2000 limit so the politicians have to work harder to get more people involved.

Dean is against all these things. I don't know Kerry's exact stance, but these things all slipped through congress.

Dean feels the party does not want to include the ordinary people anymore. I know from experience here that we had to fight our way in.

not a contrast between Dean and Kerry's positions.

Too late tonight.

I am going to vote for Kerry in the fall. Do you think it is wrong a man to form an organization within a party to make sure the party does not shut out its base of ordinary people? I don't.

The DLC formed a group, and they make their voice heard. They have that right. Dean has a right to do it also.

They have already been passed. That makes them laws, not buzzwords.

Or in the case of SS, they are on the table quietly right now.

Kerry
Voted NO on allowing more foreign workers into the U.S. for farm work. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998)

Dean
No automated entry-exit control system; allow free flow. (Jul 2000)
If immigrants work & pay taxes, give them citizenship. (Nov 2003)

Don't abuse immigrants. A sane immigration policy. Does Dean support college for migrant kids? How exactly is Dean's policy more progressive than Kerry's?

kerry is against that.

Are you really going to try and say that???

I mean we have to check if they have diseases or anything and stuff.

Dean does not support open border immigration. For chrissake. Keep Kerry on the issues. It's a joke.

don't you think american citizens deserve this instead of the constant bombarding from the DLC. Why do you hate us liberal so sandsea. Ever since i came to this board. I see you constantly standing up for kerry even when he didn't support liberal legisaltion making up excuses. Is your loyalty that blind? I advise you to take a walk into the forest and smell the fress air and rethink of the common man.

If Dean wants to have a think tank, good for him. But it isn't going to be liberal because Dean's never been a liberal in his entire life. He's more DLC than the DLC. He's the centrist. Everybody on this board said so. Now he's going to keep the candidate, who is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, on the issues??? I WANT a liberal. That's why I've always bombarded Dean on this board. I WANT a liberal.

Then I guess you want Ted Kennedy as Kerry's Vice-President. Your own words, "...who is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, on the issues??? I WANT a liberal."

How about you?

I mean we have to get rid of this notion of electibility. It's just a word. With Ted Kennedy on the Ticket we would have a clear vision for the future that'll make the transition to the younger generation easier. Also it'll make me feel better if i vote for Kerry. I like your style Sandsea. A man of ideals.

Dean is quite moderate in most areas, liberal on social issues. Frankly right now I want that damn budget straightened out.

Liberal is only a word after all, and its meaning is not always clear.

Dean is a pragmatist, he does what seems the best to do at a given time for the most people. Frankly I like that, especially since he is so strong on rights and equality for everyone.

I need not point out which candidate still supports PATRIOT and wants to keep troops in Iraq if he gets elected, but it isn't Dean or Dennis.

He disagrees with Bush's policy on this. Please don't do this.

Dean is no threat to Kerry, Kerry will be the nominee.

Relax, take deep cleansing breaths. Dean will not hurt Kerry's chances. Kerry is it. Trust me. His plans for later, to gradually build a group within the party.

This is his right!

And of couse Dean isn't for open borders. I guess that is my point. I'm sick to death of hearing how we all NEEEED Dean to make everything right. It's just arrogant bull. Dean needs to climb down off his high horse and admit he made up 90% of the "Democratic cockroach" shit he was spewing. That's what Dean needs to do.

He should admit that he enjoys the luxary of money. He should admit that enjoys the perks that ge gets from lobby and special interest groups. He should admit that he in a span of 15 years has received the most money from special interest groups. He should admit that voting for the IWR was a mistake. I want him to be a honest man that can relate to the common folk and not just be aloof. i don't want to feel alienated any more. Let's be inclusive not exclusive.

Vote for Nader.

Do you want an 18 year old who has the potential to be the future president of the United States to Vote for Nader? Is that your advice Sandsea. Do you want me to? Are you serious? Are you advising a young adult who is malleable to vote for Nader. Of all people Sandsea I would never of thought you would say that. I'm dissapointed.

Vote for Nader. Vote your conscience. Be proud of the country you're creating.

If I didn't vote my conscience I would never forgive myself. Thanks Sandsea. With your attitude the world will be a better place.:) But I would rather write Dean in. What do you think?

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

Now you're telling me that if I vote for nader it'll put bush in office for 4 more years. Make up your mind sannsea. Whats your AIM=Aol Instant Messanger?

Attempts to realize them here below in the material world often result in surprising and counter-intuitive outcomes....

"Saints should be judged guilty till proved innocent."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

The concepts refered to are Platonic and Hermetic; the quote is from Mr. Orwell, in an essay on Gandhi.The difficulty refered to is generally known as the law of unintended consequences, with which you doubtless will in time become familiar....

"You can't make things fool-proof; they are too ingenious."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

That is a much more straightforward and general proposition; the tendency of things not to work out as planned is quite seperate, and provides much rum fun to spectators....

"No plan survuves contact with the enemy."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

What if I'm younger than you?

There is little question in my mind that you are.

Enjoy it while you may....

"As you are now, so once I was. As I am now, so shall you be."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

Talk like everyday people, lose the fancy terms. And you go get those bush bastards.

such a command of the language!!!

:hi:

those who differ? And don't call me Maam.

People see in this world what they wish to see; you apparently wish to feel under threat from people who disagree with you, for reasons that must remain unknown to me, due to our remoteness from one another, and so that is what you see in persons who do disagree with you. But it is a thing you impose upon us, not something native to us, rather like a missionary who sees immorality in the naked aborigines, who view themselves as staid and respectable burghers in their place and time, determined to have the best harvest festival the gods could ever smile down upon....

"There is no accounting for tastes."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

.

An elemental truth of human perception, and one that accounts for much mistaken action and mis-statement....

"On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

Babies are, it seems, born with the expectation of being loved, and will interpert what they experience from those around them as love and care and concern. In normative situations, that is correct, but in abnormal ones, it can lead to some tragic comsequences, that provide employment for therapists and prison guards in roughly equal measure.

Babies are also born with an over-riding urge to seek some pattern of order in the sensory universe that surrounds them, from which theu pluck the structure of relationships and language, elementary physics, and a variety of other seemingly recondite matters, with surprising speed, given the blank slate with which they start. there are few things more impressive in this world than that spectacle.

Calling me sir. Are you a little confused tonight?

The comment you have just replied to is a response to young Mr. Liberal's No. 92, "But what if you are a baby?"

"I'm going in, Mom...there's a vacancy!"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

I sure don't.

She politely asked you to stop calling her Ma'am.

And if your conscience allows you to cast a vote that will help put Bush in office, go for it. We'll all be wallowing in your ideals for the next 4 years. I don't Instant Message.

We do need Dean for his outspokenness. He got in trouble for it, but he was right on target. No, it is not arrogant bullshit. Only Kucinich was talking about the war until Dean came along.

We need Dean, maybe not as president, but as a catalyst. No one else seems willing.

I am voting for Kerry, Kerry is the nominee, why all the anger toward Dean and us?

"Do you think Dean's new grassroots org will keep Kerry on the issues?" giving the false premise that the voters don't agree with Kerry on the issues. and you ask why we are defending Kerry? :eyes:

In fact I am seeing he has done something Dean didnt do when he was the frontrunner, and that is breach Bush in the polls. It is sorta condescending to a point. In fact I took a test being idealistic as I could be, and Kerry was way out ahead of Dean. Their rhetoric is where I feel they differ :shrug:. Kerry has been on the issues without Dean's help, and he seems fine. In fact, I am quite pleased with how Kerry has handled himself.

What is going on here? Must we fall in line so much that we can not form a group? The DLC did, and everyone loves them. You might like the one Dean forms as well.

Oh, did I say Dean is not a threat to Kerry? Relax.

I think Dean has every right to form a group but I think Kerry is holding fine with or without Dean having a group. I see why people got offended, its this whole concept that we must thank Howard Dean for everything that has gone on, and I will be honest, thats not my train of thought. Look he did a lot but I dont think he deserves full crediot. You can form a group. Please that is not what I said.

No one has expected that. The people who supported him did so because they wanted to hear clear truths spoken, not political speak. I believe Kucinich people were, or used to be the same way. What happened here?

I am voting for Kerry. Dean is out of the race effectively. Everyone relax, Kerry won. Dean did not. Kerry is the nominee. Relax.

I tell you the truth, I am still upset Kucinich isnt the nominee. I am glad you're voting for Kerry. Well people act as if Kerry is some horrible republican like senator, and I have studied his votes the past year, you know what he supported Bush only 30% of the time, thats one of the lowest. I am not upset but please understand why people get upset. I am relaxed. Can you understand that people believe in Kerry? I am not a big fan of Dean because I found him too moderate on domestics but I can appreciate that people believed in him, thats all i ask, that people understand the same of Kerry. I was told so much as a Kucinich supporter that people were behind Dean for pragmatics, and then he :shrug: doesnt do to well, you wonder. I am still much a Kucinich supporter at heart.

I am tired of this forum continuing to insult and degrade Dean and his supporters. It is non-productive and it hurts.

I admire Kucinich for his views, and the way he has campaigned. Perhaps the group that is being formed might be open to such people who don't march in party step.

I know talks have been held with others. This could be a great thing for the party.

Kerry is the nominee, Dean is out, Dean is not a threat to Kerry.

Remember when people were basically laughing at Kerry's campaign presumed demise arond Christmas time. This could be a great thing, I dont deny it, and I hope its a success. Maybe he will have more success as an organizer, people are put on this earth for a reason you know.

I am still crying in my teacups over the Iraq invasion, over the Florida election. I don't have a thing against Kerry, I just defend Dean's right to disagree with him.
Don't you?

that will help Kerry and the Democratic party.

John Kerry said Monday he is ready to go to court -- even before the November election -- to ensure that he does not lose Florida's 27 electoral votes because of ballot problems.

And he directly accused Republicans of stealing the 2000 election for George W. Bush in a contest that was finally settled by the U.S. Supreme Court, giving the president a 537-vote victory.

"What can you do to prevent them from stealing the election again?" Kerry asked a crowd of hundreds at the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center in Hollywood, his first stop in a three-city Florida campaign swing Monday.

"We're going to pre-check it, we're going to have the legal team in place," said Kerry, who expected to easily win today's Florida presidential primary. "We're going to take injunctions where necessary ahead of time. We'll pre-challenge if necessary."

More: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/auto/epaper/editions/today/news_04d4e4290587121e005c.html

What Dean wants to do is more than about Kerry or any one person. He is very afraid for this country's economy and the destruction of the social programs. Our Democrats have not even slowed this destruction, and they act they don't know the plan.

He is terrified of the deficit, knows that other countries are buying up our debt, and will soon practically own us.

There is so much more. If Kerry continues to speak out, I will be most happy. But there is still change needed.

me they benefit business at the expense of U.S. workers.

Is that the definition of "progressive" these days?

Kerry is the nominee. Dean will do nothing to keep him from winning, and he does not expect his supporters to do anything either but help.

Dean has a perfect right to start up a group within the party. Others have, why can't he?

Don't you think? My main issue with Kerry is the war, and I don't think he was duped. I think he approved of it. If he did not, then I apologize.

to try to keep the DLC from pulling us so far to the right. That sounds like march in step to me.

Did I say I was voting for Kerry in the fall? I am. I will also be a part of this group to get progressive candidates for congress. That is the main goal.

By saying Dean should not do this, the party is making a big mistake. Many are not satisfied with the play nice policies that have gotten us disastrous bills.

Dean has every right to form a group. It seemed to me that this was infering that Kerry needs Dean to be rational and stand up for whats right, and frankly I think thats wrong, because he is holding his own.

Our congress voted for an illegal war, an unjust war, and our guys are dying.

Maybe they do need a catalyst for change, John. Maybe they do.

sigh I dont wanna get in to this. I am so dead tired. Our guys are dying indeed, and if the war was such an issue, why after the withdrawal of Dean did many Dean supporters get behind Edwards. Sigh I Dont wanna fight. Ive opposed many of the recent wars, and I know that the party was wrong on many of them. I could be a lot more idealistic and always voting third party. However, I realize a few things, like this is my party and I dont want it taken over. Have you ever thought that cataylst's name could be John Kerry, take away the IWR vote, and I think you would see that some of his biggest detractors would be his biggest fans. I am sorry that I lost my cool.

granted that they both voted for the war, however Edwards was running on a platform saying that he was an outsider and he was against the establishment like Dean

he was just as guilty of Kerry for supporting the war to people. I dont wanna fight, please.

you romeo you.

How absurd and not very credible.

Thankfully many of us rely on examining a politician's ACTUAL record of governance and prefer Kerry's REAL progressivism over the rhetoric of others.

and for the beliefs of those who will be involved with him. It is time to stop beating the dead horse. Dean is dead. He is totally completely dead, and all he wants to do is stand up for his ideals.

He is meeting with Kerry, and he has asked his supporters to vote for the nominee which is Kerry, though I vote tomorrow.

I am tired, too.

I havent denied he has the right to do this. I am just saying, Kerry isnt gonna go to a Bush lackey like some people believed he would after Dean left, I rememebr the posts. Sorry guys ok, please I apologize, I dont lose my temper too often, I do apologize if I upset or made tempers fly.

He knows Kucinich and Dean and Sharpton are waiting to pounce if he does.

Think about it.

No hard feelings, John. You are a favorite, ok.?

Sure hes learned from his mistakes. To think that he doesnt deserve a lot of credit himself though for staying strong though. Hes always been one of our better senators. :shrug: I admit the war resolution stings a lot of souls but as an opponent of the Kosovo war, I know all too well the feeling when your party for the majority supports an unjust war.

What a fearful prospect that is, too!

"Three little kittens who lost their mittens...."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

because I think the whole premise that since Bush got in to office, Kerry has been a lapdog and has only not been recently because he knows it will benefit him is wrong. Kerry in the year we hammered him for supporting Bush so much in reality voted only 30% of the time with Bush according to congressional quarterly. I admit, he was wrong to vote for the IWR but it wasn't him on TV saying lets go to war alone like Bush's bastards were, he wanted an international coalition, and warned against the rush to war, Ted Kennedy, one of the strongest and consistent opponents of the resolution has said that Kerry's vote meant the same as his. It was a terrible mistake, and I really wish Kucinich could be where Kerry is right now, and I am sure MF wishes that for Dean, but life goes on, and we have the potential to get Bush out number 1 and number 2 start a new era. Sorry if I offend.

Your analysis of the situation is sound, and that is generally true of your comments here in this forum. But you may understand the tiresome quality of much of this sort of grousing, to people who are aware of the facts you present, and have followed Sen. Kerry's career over the years. Finally, to put it bluntly, it is not that easy to get me to laugh out loud, as that comment did.

"I know of nothing against him except that he is a human being: that ought to be enough to hang any man!"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

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

:P

You stated my comments contained veiled threats to those who disagree with me, in reply to a mild jest directed to another member of the forum.

Any question of stalking would seem more properly addressed from me to you, on the record of the exchanges here, but if you feel you are being stalked, by all means, use the alert function; that is what it is there for....

"It is wrong to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

Don't do that. Hurts my ears.

I will admit that Dean was bad, Kerry is good.

I will be a good little Democrat.

I will now approve of the war.

It is done.

No one's asking you to say 'Dean was bad, Kerry is good'.

No one's asking you to approve of anything you don't approve of.

Yes,it is easier.

I should have known better.

My husband and I are almost conservative in our standards and morals. We are only liberal in our view that all people, no matter who,should have equal rights.

And yet, we see danger in the way the party is headed. That should tell you something.

with its mandatory "service" and the federal bureaucracy that will be needed to enforce it.

:wtf:

The best thing any grassroots organization can do is to POPULARIZE ISSUES. Note the jobs issue in the Senate last week. It's only a start, but the start was forced upon them by the people. That was grassroots at work. That's what grassroots organizations should do. On the darker side, Welfare Reform happened because most people wanted something that sounded punitive. It never would have passed had it not been popular. I'd like to see some action in the grassroots organizations to expose that for the mess it really is and to advance some better solutions. Democrats will come and Republicans will go, and unfortunately the reverse is also true. Moving this whole country, regardless of party affiliation, to demand responsible and compassionate government will do a lot more to make this country a better place than hoping to get this or that candidate to jump through a particular hoop.

Dean provides a bridge in the middle.

is credible on progressive issues over a man with over 30 years of promoting progressive values?

What a sad joke that people will only see as credible campaign rhetoric instead of politicians' actual records of governance.

while Kerry skipped the Prescription Drug bill vote, that he bragged about voting against. On the day that bill came to vote, Kerry was AWOL.

Dean reduced Vermont's deficit and cut taxes fairly, while Kerry voted for tax cuts for the wealthy that have contributed to the worse national deficit in US history. Kerry also voted for No Child Left Behind, an unfunded mandate that is designed to destroy public education.

Kerry excels at talking out of both sides of his mouth while doing very little to defend progressive ideals during his 19 years in the senate.

I'd rather trust a centrist doctor-turned-politician than a jellyfish senator from Massachusetts.

that extended healthcare coverage for children in EVERY state. That bill was crafted by Kennedy and Kerry.

Kerry voted against Bush's taxcuts for the wealthiest both in 2001 and 2003. Why spread disinformation?

Try using FACTS. They last longer than misperceptions.

to publicly challenge the nominee then he's a liar. I think Dean is smart enough not to do that.

I can't make any judgments on the role he's playing because I don't know what he's planning to do that is different from what other organizations such as moveon, truemajority etc. try to do.

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

How the hell does needing Dean to hold Kerry to the issues end up being a nice thread???? I see it as pure bullshit. Just like it's been bullshit all year long.

Now, a nice thread about Howard Dean and a grassroots organization, in and of itself, is a whole different matter.

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

based on a hypothetical that didn't happen.

I'm not interested in Howard Dean. I'm just tired of this arrogant, self-righteous attitude that other Democrats need Howard Dean to save them.

AFAIK.

Which is why I think Dean's move to form an organization is a great idea.

"I agree, I'm sure Dean's org will be a good thing for Kerry and the party." (post 52)

Or this:

" America has room for millions of views." ( post 73 )

Or this:

" I stand by what I wrote which is that Dean's org is a good thing
that will help Kerry and the Democratic party. " (post 87)


Or this:

" Why say that? No one's asking you to not criticize.
No one's asking you to say 'Dean was bad, Kerry is good'.
No one's asking you to approve of anything you don't approve of. " (post 107)

Those were very reasonable. I agree that Kerry is liberal, which is why I'm voting for him. My main issue with your posts was your running out that tired piece about Dean restricting our civil rights. That's as silly as saying that Kerry hates gays or something. Sandnsea's posts continue to be hateful and divisive. Dean supporters see something in Dean they don't see in Kerry and the poster's thread starter is a legitimate question. The slander that SNS runs against Dean only serves to hurt us at this point.

to have to counter the assertion that Dean respects civil rights more than Kerry, but the assertion was made. So I provided a news article that countered that assertion. I didn't make an unsupported assertion. I didn't bring the issue up. I did make the comment "I can't believe you are making me drag this stuff out again." because I truly don't ever want to have to participate in a Dean/Kerry argument again, but when people start making these type of assertions, I will respond.

BTW, I could have 'piled on' with a bunch more articles, interviews and other links that showed Dean's civil liberties record, but I refrained because I just didn't want to go there, again.

In short, I respectfully submit that accusing me of 'ruining with partisan bickering what could've been a very nice thread' is not consistent with my posts.

I apologize. I think, being a Dean supporter, that while I do support Kerry I sympathize more with my Dean brethren who I feel will come around quicker and easier if treated with kid gloves. That's not to say that if one of them makes a false accusation against Kerry is shouldn't be countered. Clearly it should. I don't think the thread starting post called for any such posts however. The poster in question, like the DK and AS supporters, only wants to influence the platform.

:yourock:

I did not catch what the deleted post said. I don't need to be treated with kid gloves. I only want to be treated like a fellow Democrat with a brain.

I am tired of being called names, tired of being accused of drinking kool-aid, tired of watching our own party get ready to purge us.

Don't believe me? Check out the DNC forums. We are not worthy.

But kid gloves are not needed, and you do not need to explain when and how we "will come around." Some never will. Just what is "coming around" anyway. Could you clarify what it entails?

I will vote for Kerry in November. Kerry is the nominee. It is March 9, but Kerry is the nominee.

I will vote for Kerry in the fall. But my primary vote did not count....again. Neither did my 2000 vote.

the ABKers, people who will vote for Nader(Bush) or not vote(Bush) because their candidate didn't win. I don't give a flying fuck if you or anyone else doesn't think I'm "Dean" enough. I know what I did and what I feel. You don't. I'll vote for Dean in my primary and it won't count either. This isn't my fault or John Kerry's fault. Want to change the primary system? Go for it. I'll do what I can. I'll remind that I hopped in because Sandnsea was being an ass.

article was somehow an act of restraint. It was, as all such articles are, a cut and paste job on some quotes where he said that there would be a debate on the topic. So, tell me .. was there a debate on these topics? Yes there was, the quote says nothing about his opinion on what should be done. That he "called" for a re-evaluation is an assertion of the writer. In fact, it was probably the result of the usual sort of blunt not so well phrased-for-quoting Dean type statement. Which I will admit is a style that is not a positive for an election, though I admire it personally. If you were going to pick something representative of your assertion that Dean has a worse record on civil liberties, it might have been better to post something a little more balanced and substantive. I don't think you ruined the thread, but you definitely contributed to its downfall with that inflammatory article.

There was no need for you to drag up a whole bunch of articles in this vein to support your view. Perhaps it would have been better to post a positive article about Kerry's civil liberties record. It is Kerry's record that Dean supporters, myself included, probably know less about then they should. The problem here is not that Dean supporters are grossly misinformed about Dean and his record. That somehow, if they did more research, they would wake up and realize he is manipulative, lying, bumbling and just right of center as I have seen him characterized by a few persons on this board. The problem is that many of the people who supported other candidates don't know as much as they should about Kerry and his record.

Note, I personally don't think one or the other has a better civil liberties record. Dean is not more or less liberal, both are more left or more center depending on the issue and how you define where a position falls on the left-right line. Kerry is a good man who has a very traditionally liberal record, but recently made some compromises that don't sit well with some folks. Dean is a good man with a record of pragmatism and, for the most part, acting in the best interest of the people of his state. He has been pretty damn liberal as well, he has made some compromises that don't sit well with some folks.

Kerry is the boss, and he will play by his own rules.

Dean lost credibility big time. Kerry doesn't have to pander to someone who lost.

:spank:

Thanks so much.

...it was meant to deal with a simple truth.

No one in this race earned enough support to significantly influence decisions that Kerry will make about issues, or his cabinent, or how he runs his own campaign. That is just a basic political fact.

I am sorry if you thought my comment was meant to "hurt" any specific group, as if was not.

Now if Kerry didn't win the primary electorate by a landslide, and Dean came close, it would matter. But he did win it by a landslide, so all fo the 'losers' in the race become insignificant in influence.

.

I would prefer to be voting for another, and I would hope my candidate had influence, but that isn't the reality we face.

I, too, will vote for Kerry and pray that he will do the best he can in his administration.

ANYONE is better than Bush/Dick...even my cat. :P

See post just above.:

No one in this race earned enough support to significantly influence decisions that Kerry will make about issues, or his cabinent, or how he runs his own campaign. That is just a basic political fact.

I am sorry if you thought my comment was meant to "hurt" any specific group, as if was not.

Now if Kerry didn't win the primary electorate by a landslide, and Dean came close, he would have credibility and it would matter. But Kerry did win it by a landslide, so all of the 'losers' in the race become insignificant in influence.

Did you hear Dean's speech the other day on C-Span? It was amazing how he put it when asked by the press what caused his downfall.

He said the voters were very smart, and they were not fooled. He went on, forgot the exact words. In effect he realized, and this was proven out in several ways earlier.......the voters saw what the press was going to do to him and that he would not be electable.

This Dean is "unelectable" deal started early on, and it really took root. Exit polls and interviews showed that many changed from him because they said he was not "electable". He was still their first choice.

He said people are very smart. They knew. He did not blame anyone.

There is so much more to this story of Dean than just losing votes. Actually, what happened is that Iowa single-handedly elected a president for various reasons. The decision came in Iowa. We have a daughter there. She said it was so sad to hear people say they would just have to not vote for him because he was unelectable. She asked a couple why, and they really did not know. Just that they had been told.

But technically, you are right. The voters spoke, and they were right. The media will continue to crucify him. He told the press group at the luncheon that he would have more to say after November about the press, but that he did not want to say it now and be accused of sour grapes. Then he smiled.

...that his ideas made him unelectable, but I do think his personality made him unelectable.

Dean's ideas were not bad ideas (other than repealing all the tax cuts).

To put it bluntly, the message wasn't the problem, but the messenger was a BIG problem for voters.

I don't blame the media at all. I think Dean shouldn't either. He made tons of gaffes and was given a pass on them by the press for all of 2003. When January rolled around, voters started looking at him, not the issues, and they didn't like him, even though lots of his ideas were good.

Just my opinion, but I think is correctly reflects how the voters spoke, and why they chose who they chose.

I said that he did not.

I disagree with you on the gaffes, but that is a matter of opinion. Obviously, the people of Iowa spoke. And there was no time to recoup. Iowa had too much power. My daughter saw and heard a lot, and people who preferred Dean totally still changed their vote.

More went on than gaffes. Arguing about it does nothing. Dean is blunt, and I would prefer he remain that way than be managed....even if he never holds office again.

We need someone like Kerry who does not make gaffes and is more polished. I will vote for Kerry in November.

...that it is wrong, with the front loaded primaries and all, for a 95% WHITE state to decide who gets the momentum to move forward?

Perhaps I should start a thread on that...but it really, really bothers me that the first two states to make decisions are both 95% white. I have a problem with that as it does not match the demographic of the democratic party.

For how many voters, mostly white....was it about 130,000?...to have that much power is wrong.

If there had been time, I think things could have been different.

However, it was done on purpose by McAuliffe. There was an article here laying it all out....will have to find.

My daughter just cried one night. She said Mom they are changing their vote from Dean but they still like him the best. Most just were vague, could not give a reason. The couple of groups who did, told her they had heard he was unelectable.

Iowa had too much power, Dean folks did not caucus well apparently, and that was it. Kucinich made a deal with Edwards that day, and Gep made a deal with Kerry...and so it went.

I would be quite happy if I thought the media would just lay off Dean now, but they won't. Did you know Gore spoke to over a thousand cheering Democrats recently? He does that a lot, but it gets no publicity at all. They will treat Dean the same way if Gore is deeply involved with the new org, and I hear he is. Dean is great demand by local groups for fundraising speeches. That is an honor. Bet you won't see that in the news. Sadly.

They will both be "gored". So much for good folks who don't have the spit and polish.

...then the first states to vote should be more demographic of the party. Now, it couldn't be California or New York because no candidate could fairly afford advertising there.

So which states do you think would be better? (keeping in mind demographics, cost of media in their primary markets, and geography).

With Iowa, the tragedy for the Clark campaign is that they started their campaign too late to compete in Iowa. Strange, because by all appearances, he likely would have tied or beat Kerry there, and the race would likely still have Clark and Dean in it right now.

No, Iowa should lose that priviledge. That whole 'meet the candidate at least three times' is BS, and all white states should not get to decide our nominee. It is gross disenfranchisement of minority voters.

Your point is well taken. This is why Dean still wants people to still vote for him even though he is not actively campaigning anymore. He knows his chance for the nomination is at best very, very small, but the more delegates he has, the more influence he will have.

So you can relax.

but I was never clear on how Dean differed from Kerry on issues. Indeed, it was my impression that except for IWR, Kerry had more progressive positions than Dean. And I'm no Kerry supporter (at least not yet).

featuring all the usual suspects who ignore the issue of the thread and instead just turn on the venom.

Like flies to shit, here they come...

file cabinet after the convention like always.

Kerry's positions are already clear. They aren't going to change between now and November.

and Dr. Dean is the one to do it because it was Dean, not Kerry the Waffler, who gave the Dem Party a spinal transplant.

I'm looking forward to next week's announcment and am ready to donate to it.

Calling Kerry a waffler is not helpful in any way and its inaccurate. What do you mean by waffling? All politicians waffle to some degree, even Dean, and they all could probably use some titanium spine reinforcement. I love Dean's blunt pragmatic style, but it wouldn't work for Kerry at all. Also, Kerry is much better at debate style speaking then Dean. The use of grand language is a strength he should stick with.

I am also looking forward to the announcement of the new organization and will donate to it, but I don't think of it as particularly targeted at Kerry. I think the goal is to push issues like further campaign finance and media reform within the party to counterbalance the push from other interests.

He never said it was about Kerry. It is an attempt to get more of a voice for the people through attempting to take back congress.

I see no need to slam anyone right now.

on both sides. I don't think people need to love Kerry, but applying negative labels like waffler is not ok. Same goes with Dean. According to some folks the two are duking it out for the role of great Satan. It just creates this image in my head of two people shouting at each other while the big toothy beast creeps up behind them.

You are right, the organization is also going to be about candidates for congress and progressives for local level positions. Although, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that pushing certain issues will also be part of it. Hopefully it will all become clear on March 18th.

When we griped for people to at least let up a little on Dean here at DU, we were constantly told it was a political forum and to expect attacks.

We were told to get tough. We took it for months.

I have no desire to slam, bash, or whatever to Kerry. It serves no purpose.

HOWEVER, I do find it totally insensitive for the attacks on Dean to continue. That serves no purpose either.

Kerry is the nominee, I will vote for Kerry in November.

It was Dean who showed Kerry how to rescue Jim Rassman. Kerry needed prodding.

It was Dean who led the way on Kerry's investigations into BCCI, IranContra, CIA drugrunning. Really, Kerry couldn't have done it without him.

It was Dean who meade Kerry expose and helped stop Reagan and Bush's illegal wars in Central America. (Neat trick, considering Dean supported Reagan and Bush on those actions)

Wasn't it Dean who led Kerry to attack Bush on his poor leadership and military strategy in Afghanistan?

Kerry Shows Courage In Challenging Bush
Thursday, August 8, 2002 By: Joe Conason

New York Observer

>>>>>>
But it was John Kerry who delivered the most interesting, substantive and challenging message. His subject was George W. Bush's shortcomings as a world leader.

The New York Times reported that Mr. Kerry "offered a long attack on Mr. Bush's foreign policy," although the paper gave short shrift to the details in the Senator''s speech. What he began to articulate was a Democratic critique of this administration''s blunt and myopic unilateralism, and a vision that restores international alliances to the center of American diplomacy.

He agrees with the objective of removing Saddam Hussein, but objected to the vague plans for what will replace the Iraqi dictatorship. He called the latest arms treaty with Russia a "cosmetic" one that inadequately safeguards decommissioned weapons. He denounced the "Cold War" approach to North Korea that has undone the progress achieved by the Clinton administration. He expressed scorn for the administration''s disengagement from the Middle East crisis before Sept. 11.
>>>>>>>>>>>
He is, however, no naïïve internationalist who abhors military force. As he has done before, Mr. Kerry wondered aloud why the President didn't muster sufficient firepower in Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda''s army when the chance arose at Tora Bora.

>>>>>>>>>>
Mr. Kerry is staking out a politically perilous position at a time when conventional wisdom declares foreign and military issues to be the exclusive province of the President.>>>>>>>>>
There is, however, at least one benefit for Mr. Kerry in speaking out on those faraway places and problems. While his rivals sound as if they''re campaigning for the offices they already occupy, he sounds as if he is running for President.
>>>>>>>>
Whether Mr. Kerry can engage the electorate in a discussion of America''s global responsibilities is far from certain. His own dispassionate style may hinder him. Yet he deserves great credit for reclaiming international leadership for his party when others cannot or will not.

___________________________________________________________

 MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the military operation in Afghanistan has been successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: Yes, I do, and I support the president in that military operation.
       
       MR. RUSSERT: The battle of Tora Bora was successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: I’ve seen others criticize the president. I think it’s very easy to second-guess the
       commander-in-chief at a time of war. I don’t choose to engage in doing that.

Health Care — 96% of Vermont’s children have health care coverage thanks in part to Governor Dean’s Dr. Dynasaur program, and an additional 3% are eligible for coverage.

Access — Governor Dean expanded health care for children in low to middle income families. Children 18 or under, whose families are at or below 300% of the Federal Poverty Line, are eligible for insurance at virtually no cost.

MentalHealth — In 1997, Howard Dean signed the what was then and still is the most comprehensive behavioral health care parity legislation in the United States. Comprehensive parity simply means that health insurance companies must provide the same degrees and types of coverage for mental illness and substance-abuse treatment that they provide for physical conditions.

Women’s Health — During Governor Dean’s tenure, the breast and cervical cancer rate went from slightly above average to below the US average, thanks to Vermont’s comprehensive screening system. Vermont’s Medicaid program was also expanded to cover treatment for women diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer.

Teen Pregnancy — Under Governor Dean, teen pregnancy rates dropped 49%, to the lowest rate in the country.

“Healthy Families Visionary Leadership Award” — Presented by Prevent Child Abuse America.

Long-term vision — As Governor of Vermont, Howard Dean based his budget policy on the sound principles of keeping spending growth in check, avoiding long-term structural fiscal drags, relying on conservative revenue forecasts, and paying down the state debt.

From shortfalls to surpluses — Dean inherited a $70 million deficit -- 11% of the budget. By 2001, Vermont enjoyed a $10 million surplus. So when other states fell deeply into debt in recent years, Vermont (the only state not required to balance its budget) remained in strong fiscal health.

Paying down the debt — Dean paid down Vermont’s debt by 29% in 5 years. As a result, Vermont's bond rating rose from the lowest in New England to the highest.

Taming the marginal rate — When Howard Dean took office, Vermont had the nation’s highest marginal tax rates. During his tenure, Dean cut income taxes twice, bringing the top marginal rate down from 13.5% to 9.5%

Cutting taxes fairly — Dean made sure that all Vermonters, not just upper-bracket earners, enjoyed tax cuts. He also eliminated the highly regressive sales tax on clothing and shoes and removed thousands of low-income Vermonters from the income tax rolls entirely. While many states have a regressive state tax structures, Vermont has one of the most progressive state tax systems in the nation.

Cutting taxes responsibly — Howard Dean believes in long-term fiscal prudence. That’s why when President Bush passed his huge tax cut for the wealthy, Dean decoupled Vermont’s income tax rates from the federal rates ensuring that Vermont would not be dragged into deficit by Bush’s short-sighted fiscal policy

Putting Vermonters back to work — When Howard Dean became Governor, Vermont’s unemployment rate as 6.9%, slightly higher than the national average. By the time Dean left office, Vermont’s unemployment rate was 3.7%, far below the national rate of 6.0%.

Creating jobs — Under Dean’s tenure, Vermont added an astounding 56,000 new jobs, a 20% increase in the workforce.

Better wages — Governor Dean worked to create higher paying jobs. In 2001 the average income in Vermont grew 8th fastest in the country.

High-tech jobs — Dean understands that technology will help drive the 21st century economy. That’s why he focused on bringing high tech jobs to Vermont. The state now ranks 5th in high tech jobs per capita, with 3500 such jobs created between 1993 and 2000 alone.



Kerry works solely to further his political ambitions. He doesn't give a damn about average Americans. His response to jobs going overseas was pathetic.

During 19 years in the senate, Kerry has hardly sponsored any legislation that actually could help people.