Dean Invites More Scrutiny by Switching Key Stances

Saturday, August 30, 2003; Page A01

Howard Dean, who sells himself as the presidential campaign's straightest shooter, is starting to throw voters some curves.

As he transitions from insurgent to the man to beat in the Democratic primary, Dean is modifying or switching his positions on several political issues. In recent weeks, Dean, the former Vermont governor, has softened his support for lifting the trade embargo on Cuba -- an important issue in voter-rich Florida -- and suggested he might opt out of the public campaign finance system he endorsed weeks earlier.

Dean also has backed off his support for raising the age at which senior citizens can collect their full Social Security benefits, a change that would save the government money by trimming monthly payments to thousands of older Americans. Dean initially denied he ever supported raising the retirement age, but later admitted he did.

While it's not unusual for politicians to flip-flop, massage or tailor their positions to placate politically important audiences, Dean is inviting greater scrutiny and criticism by running as a truth-teller who doesn't bend to prevailing political winds, campaign strategists said.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2314-2003Aug29.html

wrong(which is all the time) he will stick with it!

n/t

...Tipper, and I stopped in at a local watering hole called the Love Story Canal for a few rounds of iced tea with some earth-toned Buddhists. :eyes:

Thanks for the laugh!

wasn't he?

I understand doing what it takes to win and I will defend him and talk about him changing his views in light of new facts but he needs to be careful.

Scores of people killed in Iraq, and this story makes A01? I guess it's Friday's paper, so that doesn't count.

shook up about how many times Dean has changed his mind or amended what he's said!

Have they ever taken a close look at what fuck head has said?

Excuse me, I mean bush?

and they still refer to themselves as liberals. If we had the same people that are running the Post today in charge back when the Watergate breakin took place, there would have never been a Watergate scandal, much less a Nixon resignation.

The Post is not the newspaper it once was. Now it is more like a Murdoch-Lite version of the paper that Katherine Graham used to run.

their eyes, and scream "Dean! Dean! We don't care what he stands for, we just love him!"

Whatever floats your boat. :shrug:

expect perfection! We got a real person who is intelligent, passionate, and is gathering Steam with the abiltity to knock the bush cabal right back to Texas and the vultures are out to get him!

But they don't have shit!

...including Kucinich.

And exactly what is DK's position on abortion this week?

DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!

dean lied about wanting to bump up the social security age.

kucinich may change his stance or give a view other than yours however, you will recieve an explanation... kucinich did not lie.

DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!DEAN LIED!

what else will dean lie about?

maybe you need a little caffiene and WAKE UP!

-- He said Life begins at conception. (Jul 1996)
-- Voted YES on banning human cloning, including medical research. (Jul 2001)
-- Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
-- Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
-- Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
-- Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

(Source: http://www.issues2000.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm)

BUT, earlier this year, he said: "After hearing from many women in my own life, and from women and men in my community and across the country, I began a more intensive dialogue on the issue. A lot of women opened their hearts to me. That dialogue led me to wholeheartedly support a woman's right to choose."

Source: Campaign website, www.Kucinich.org, "On The Issues" Apr 1, 2003

"I never opposed abortion," or talked about going back to his previous position.

Dean, on the other hand, has denied that he talked about raising the Social Security retirement age to 70 at one time, and to 68 at another. All you have to do is look at the transcript for his appearance on Meet the Press in late June and then compare that to his denial in early August. The next day he issued a statement that he had "misspoken." I say he either lied or he has a serious problem with his memory.

And, since he's done better than expected, Dean's talked about going back on his pledge about not taking public campaign funds. That doesn't play with his "straight shooter" image, either. It looks like same old same old politician behavior to me.

I'll agree with you that no candidate is perfect but it's the Dean supporters who insist that Dean is some transcendent being. A thread in GD says policies don't matter anymore, that Dean has gone beyond that. :crazy:

n/t

it's worth.

I see you subscribe to the Rush Limbaugh doctrine "If you repeat something enough times, it becomes the truth."

in the repetition of any object or idea permeating the group consciousness and creating a culture that abides by the law of cultural identity, which is all made up...

so, every outlet is trying to persuade you into believing that what they say is true... or hip, or cool... you are constantly being beat up and overloaded with images, ideas and words to create in your mind the definition of what you hold true...

it is your right, responsibility and obligation to look pass the "hooks" and "jingles" and lovely little phoney conections in advertised people and find the raw grit where everything may not be as you thought it was, or told to think it was...

the truth is, DEAN LIED; that is not fabricated, it is not false, the question is has DEAN LIED elsewhere and will there be more DEAN LIES?

say it... only when the real picture began to emerge did dean come clean... DEAN LIED.......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=89781#89832

Note, felix19 is right on the money.

~snip~ from felix's argument

As governor, Dean endorsed raising the retirement age to 70 as a prudent step toward balancing the budget. And on NBC's "Meet the Press" this June, Dean said he "would entertain taking the retirement age to 68." The current retirement age is 65 years and two months.


I guess there aren't any fact-checkers at the Post any more; budget cutbacks and all that. Dean never "endorsed" raising the retirement age to 70; he suggested it would be one way to help ensure a balanced budget if a balanced budget amendment were passed. He suggested it at a time when the economy had yet to soar as it would later. As for "entertaining" raising the retirement age to 68, again, he made clear that it would be something to consider if there were no other options available, but that right now there are plenty of other options, starting with getting rid of the irresponsible Bush tax cuts on the rich. But the Post has a narrative now: Dean flip-flops. And they'll run with it until Dean slaps them silly. Or more likely, until he mocks them hilariously.
.................................

dean denied he said anything of the sort and not until the meat and potatoes of it were put in front of his face did he fess up and tell the truth... that he lied....

........................

here you go...

http://www4.fosters.com/News2003/August2003/August_07/News/reg_pol_0807c.asp

~snip~
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean said Wednesday that he misspoke when he told the AFL-CIO he never favored raising the retirement age for Social Security benefits to age 70.

Dean acknowledged that he had called for such an increase when the country was faced with a deficit in 1995, but said he no longer thinks it is necessary. He said former President Clinton set an example of balancing the budget without raising the retirement age.

...............................

DEAN LIED! only when faced with the reporters questions to the contradiction.... did dean tell the truth...

Dean Says He Misspoke on Social Security

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean said Wednesday that he misspoke when he told the AFL-CIO he never favored raising the retirement age for Social Security benefits to age 70.

Dean acknowledged that he had called for such an increase when the country was faced with a deficit in 1995, but said he no longer thinks it is necessary. He said former President Clinton set an example of balancing the budget without raising the retirement age.
…
During an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" in June, Dean said an increase to age 70 is no longer necessary, but he would entertain an increase to 68.

He said the way to balance the budget now is to repeal President Bush's tax cuts and restrict spending. He said to balance Social Security, he would consider raising the retirement age to 68 and letting more salary above $87,000 fall under the payroll tax.

On Wednesday, Dean said since his appearance on "Meet the Press," he has consulted with experts and concluded that no increase in the retirement age would be necessary. A better solution, he said, would
be to raise the salary limit.

"I'm willing to take it off entirely if we need to," he said.
…
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-dean-social-security,0,2509226.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=54995&mesg_id=54995

When Dean notices he made a mistake, he has been correcting himself immediately. I am respecting that, alot.

I'm *very* impressed with this and his solution to balancing the budget, above.

I'm also impressed with the short list of Dean's misstatements that the AP is building at the bottom of all Dean apologies.

And I'm wondering where Bush's list is.

spinning for your candidate

I defended Kucinich on his decision to support women's right to choose an abortion, also.

what is "Misspoke"?

"I'm willing to take it off entirely if we need to," he said.
he said, "willing" not, i will but willing... what does that mean?

you said,"When Dean notices he made a mistake, he has been correcting himself immediately. I am respecting that, alot."

first dean did not notice, it was pointed out to him by a fellow democratic presidential candidate, second, there was no "mistake" he lied, he said i never said that... he did that is a lie...

the fact you bring up george bush in relation to dean speaks for itself... however, i agree bush's lies or misspokenisms need to be challenged as well... but that does digress from the issue at hand, which is that dean lied... you can and may read the article upon analysis and conclude which ever you like... there are other articles that one can easily look up to get a varied perspective on the incident.... my research in this avenue is that dean denied the 70 fact and only when faced with the truth did he fess up... he lied and has attempted to "misspoken" his way out of it... know your candidate, do your research...

this does not mean i won't vote for him if he is the democrat parties selection... i just know we can do better, and why should we settle for less than what we deserve?

...about raising the SS age to 70. Eight years ago.

If you expect a candidate to stick by the same positions taken 8 years ago -- let alone remember them -- why don't you hold your guy Kucinich up to the same standard?

Earlier this year, he said he would "wholeheartedly support a woman's right to choose."

Yet 7 years ago, he said life begins at conception. (Jul 1996)

Just 4 years ago, he voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion (Jun 1999).

3 years ago, voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions (Apr 2000).

And just 2 years ago, he voted YES on banning human cloning, including medical research (Jul 2001), YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad (May 2001), and voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes (Apr 2001).

I don't fault Dennis for changing his stance on abortion, even conventiently upon launching a campaign for president, after years of consistently voting against abortion rights.

Candidates have as much right to grow and change with the times as the rest of us do. Howard has as much right to change his mind on a position as Dennis does.

(edited for typos.)

"entertain" raising the retirement age to 68 -- he said that TWICE on Meet the Press on June twenty-something. In that same program, Russert brought up his old support for raising it to 70 and Dean denied remembering that he ever said such a thing but then agreed that he must have said it.

About six weeks later, he denied having ever said he might raise the retirement age to 68 or 70. I think he lied. If he didn't lie, he has a big problem with his memory.

Howard can change his mind all he likes, but he shouldn't deny what he's said in the past.

because you sound like it, whoever you are.

and if that is your pro dean argument you better go to a meet up and procure some good oneliners about issues...

a serious memory problem.

Let me get this straight.

Kucinich changes his stances.

Dean lies.

Okey-doke. Hard to keep up on the rules when you're playing Calvin-ball.

Julie

not that would "change" you're language... or manipulation there-of...

but your level of knowledge would improve...

and quite inflammatory DemBones. I promise to refrain from doing the same when they hammer on Kucinich. In the meantime, I often wonder, what are your intentions if Dean wins the primary?

I'd also like to say to all: I really like *almost* everyone here. haha It pains me to see folks I like, and that I suspect like each other, to rip on each other's views/candidates/whathaveyou so much. A primary shouldn't tear us apart like this.

Julie--who thinks we need to remember we are all on the same team

to raise more than the ~$45 million dollars maximum allowed by campaign finance limits. That is a *major* part of their strategy for beating the Democratic nominee: Outspend the Democrat by 5-1.

Dean doesn't support doing away with campaign finance reform. However, I'm sure that he would support closing the loophole that Bush* is going to be using.

what is the best for his campaign!

Some People just don't want Dean to get a head! Much less so far ahead!

I just want them to be careful of their pilots and their planes!

or what he does or what he says or whatever, they just want dean to get much further ahead....

"And the Dean supporters stick their fingers in their ears, cover
their eyes, and scream "Dean! Dean! We don't care what he stands for, we just love him!" "

Dean supporters can't admit that Dean could ever be wrong or lie or equivocate. And therein lies madness.

Events and situations change, therefore, policies and positions will. "Flip-flopping" is OK if there is a rational reason for. Dean has given rationals reasons for his changes or proposed changes on the 2 issues mentioned in the article. Only Dean's opponents whose campaigns are stagnating or spinning in circles would call Dean's position changes "flip-flopping."

mind about Choice! I thought ..good! That's the way it should be!

Wouldn't it have been nice if ol bushhead had changed his mind about Iraq?

That tells me Kucinich is not closed-minded and willing to adjust his views. Reasonable. I like that.

It's those whose views are unwavering, they are so certain they are right they will never consider evidence to the contrary, that we should be worried about.

Julie

After all, when was the last time Dean supporters actually read any articles about Dean's positions on the issues.

genius. ANd this should read "lie alert".

What do ya wanna talk about?

Oh, I'm sorry, this must be another one of your "hit and run" shitbombs.

Smell ya in the next thread...

:boring:

Big Ticket media these days, especially on page A01.

Let's remember the hatchets are out for Dr. Dean, and the hatchetmen and women are relishing their opportunity to skewer the "Democrat frontrunner." These hatchets are being wielded by both Democratic- and Republican- favoring editors, columnists and reporters.

I think Dean will be able to weather the onslaught.

Note that Jim Jordan, Kerry's man, starts off by defining the candidate:

"He has sold himself as the straight-shooting candidate, the truth-teller, the one who will say what's hard and unpopular," said Jim Jordan, campaign manager for presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). "In truth, he's a very crafty politician, very calculating."

Dean has sold himself as...? Go back through the campaign, and you won't find Dean selling himself in these terms. He will tell the truth as he sees it; he will say things that aren't necessarily popular, or suggest that solutions to problems require hard choices. But he sells himself as the appropriate opposition candidate to George W. Bush, and the candidate who can restore America's dignity, honor, respect and morality in the world and at home.

Further, the author of this piece offers the following:

As governor, Dean endorsed raising the retirement age to 70 as a prudent step toward balancing the budget. And on NBC's "Meet the Press" this June, Dean said he "would entertain taking the retirement age to 68." The current retirement age is 65 years and two months.

I guess there aren't any fact-checkers at the Post any more; budget cutbacks and all that. Dean never "endorsed" raising the retirement age to 70; he suggested it would be one way to help ensure a balanced budget if a balanced budget amendment were passed. He suggested it at a time when the economy had yet to soar as it would later. As for "entertaining" raising the retirement age to 68, again, he made clear that it would be something to consider if there were no other options available, but that right now there are plenty of other options, starting with getting rid of the irresponsible Bush tax cuts on the rich. But the Post has a narrative now: Dean flip-flops. And they'll run with it until Dean slaps them silly. Or more likely, until he mocks them hilariously.

As for changing his mind on campaign financing, and the Cuban embargo, so what? Isn't better to have a candidate -- and president -- who recognizes reality and works with it, instead of one whose ignorance, laziness, and ideolgical arrogance refuses to admit even the possibility of error in his sacred person, and rigidly sticks to idiotic policies and practices because they fulfill something he heard on TV when he was a kid, read in the Bible, or because they fit some ideological fantasy?

I thought so.

Don't change a thing and fire it off to the WP. I'd like to see them have the balls to publish this LTTE.

dajabr

:toast:

wash post letters to the editor!

:toast:

are grasping at straws and it is really very pathetic!

Look at AWOL - he takes a stand and then refuses to move or if he is forced to move it's kicking and screaming, and then if the move works he takes credit like it was his great idea all along.

Dean is smart enough to realize that circumstances change. I see him as someone who if he gets in to the WH is not going to stick his finger to the wind or look at the polls to decide what is right to do. And I expect Dean's will learn the issue and will change if he thinks his first instinct or statement is not correct. I expect a lot of us will be screaming at some of the things he may have to do. And a lot of Repugs are going to be screaming as well. He may be the guy who will tell us we have to make the hard choice. Give up our tax cut, roll the SS age back a bit, not get quite the health plan we want till he cleans up the mess Chimpy is leaving behind. Staying in Iraq till we can get the UN and other nations in, etc.

As to the campaign fund issue - yeah Dean stick to your first statement about accepting the matching funds limit then watch as Chimpy spends his 200 million + on ads sucking away stupid voters while you stand there broke and stupid. No, if Dean can forego the funds and match Chimpy from his grassroots and base, then I say go for it. But when the media attacks you for it, attack back with your reason. We absolutely need to win this election!

it takes to get us out of this bush induced quagmire.

That's right!

Of course things won't always go smoothly but Dean will be in there working his tush off to steer our Country in the right direction and make sure it stays there!

It won't be easy trying to clean up the deep serious trash pile that the Liars, Murderers, and Theives have gotten us into!

But my confidence in Howard Dean is helping me to see that there is hope at the horizon!

eom

Step #1: Define the Dem candidate with an inaccurate or inappropriate label which the candidate has never used to describe him/herself.

Step #2: When the candidate does or says something in conflict with that label, then the GOP/Media accuses the candidate of "waffling" or "re-inventinging him/herself," or "shifting positions."

says and does.

he'd consider raising the retirement age to 68 or to 70. In the Meet the Press interview, Russert reminded him of his previous statement that raising the retirement age to 70 was part of how he would balance the federal budget. Yes, it was years before, but Russert brought it up to ask him where he stands on it today. So the fact that he had once thought 70 would be a good age for Social Security retirement was brought up in late June, on MTP.

In the same MTP, Dean said, not once but TWICE, that he'd consider raising the retirement age to 68.

Fast forward about six weeks and Dean denied that he had ever said he'd consider raising the retirement age to 68 or 70.

The next day, he issued a statement that he had "misspoken." Nobody called him on it but I think he lied. If he didn't lie, he's got a serious problem with his memory.

On the MTP interview Dean said he favored raising the payroll tax cap. He never said he *favored* rasing the retirement age on the MTP interview, although he said he'd "entertain" it as an additional option. In both cases he ***favored*** raising the payroll tax cap.

…
During an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" in June, Dean said an increase to age 70 is no longer necessary, but he would entertain an increase to 68.

He said the way to balance the budget now is to repeal President Bush's tax cuts and restrict spending. He said to balance Social Security, he would consider raising the retirement age to 68 and letting more salary above $87,000 fall under the payroll tax.

On Wednesday, Dean said since his appearance on "Meet the Press," he has consulted with experts and concluded that no increase in the retirement age would be necessary. A better solution, he said, would
be to raise the salary limit.

"I'm willing to take it off entirely if we need to," he said.
…
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-dean-social-security,0,2509226.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=54995&mesg_id=54995

…
MR. DEAN: Yes. Bob, when we first looked at the rules for this debate, we were told that if anybody mentioned our name, that automatically gave us a minute. I'm not going to go back and ask you to change the rules, but I think I'll take 20 seconds just to tell everybody that I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68.
…
http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/politics/candidates_forumtranscript.cfm

…
Dean: … And Social Security, I—the best way to balance Social Security budget right now, other than stop taking the money out for the tax cuts, is to expand the amount of money that Social Security payroll taxes apply to. It’s limited now to something like $80,000. You let that rise. I also would entertain taking the retirement age to 68. It’s at 67 now. I would entertain that.
…
http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp

Now, quit the smears (and the lies) about Dean. Dean has *never* "DENIED that he EVER said" this, DemBones. You are either lying, yourself, or you simply didn't do the research on this you should have done.

I'm not going to get the link, because this has been discussed over and over again.

Dean's position on SS goes back further than MTP. In 1995 he said something like, the way to fix things are to raise the retirement age, etc.

Dean supporters like to get into the definition of 'favor', etc., so I don't even know why I'm bothering here.

But, he did support raising the retirement age, and then he acted like he just couldn't imagine *what* Kucinich was talking about.

…
"The way to balance the budget, {Gov. Howard} Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. 'It would be tough but we could do it,' he said."
…
http://deandefense.org/archives/000671.html

Favored woul be his "favorite" position, the position he "preferred above all others". Anyway he came out and said that he misspoke on it within a few hours. If he had dodged the answer I would say that he lied, but since he corrected himself about as quickly as he could, I think he deserves to be taken at his word.

favored:
…
2. {adj} preferred above all others and treated with partiality; "the favored child"
…
Thesaurus Terms … favorite …
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/favored

And unless you can pull up a transcript proving otherwise, Kucinich accused Dean of endorsing raising the age to 70 in the debate, NOT "68 or 70."

It's more than a little ridiculous IMO to throw such a hissy fit about a years-old remark where he said he'd consider it, or the recent MTP remark where he said he'd consider 68, neither of which are flat-out endorsements.

Here's the way it works, it's a continuum scale:

ABSOLUTELY NOT ----------------- MIGHT CONSIDER IT ---------------ENDORSE IT

People here, and in the media are trying to make "Might consider it" into and endorsement, and IMO that's dishonest, because all the people I'm talking about who do that are certainly brighter and have a better command of the English language than that. It's a trick, and a nasty one.

Eloriel

see that you wouldn't care what Dean said. But I've got the transcript of what he said if you're interested.

I will tell you again that I do not appreciate your assertions that I am dishonest or a liar. The last time you challenged me on something, you used the word "lies" -- and have never responded to my answering post with cites of primary sources -- and here you use the word "dishonest" and say "It's a trick, and a nasty one."

If that's not a personal attack, it comes mighty close.

As you can see, I posted this here on August 10, in GD.

Lobby / Latest General Discussion Forum
Original message
DemBones DemBones (1000+ posts) Sun Aug-10-03 03:38 AM
Original message
Dean, Kucinich, and Social Security Retirement Age

Some of Howard Dean's supporters seem to be angry that Dennis Kucinich raised the issue of Dean's past statements supporting increasing the age for full Social Security benefits during the AFL-CIO debate. Some also continue to insist that Dean never said he'd raise the retirement age.

This is an important issue and we need to know where candidates stand on this issue.

Here are statements Dean made on "Meet the Press" on June 22, 2003, that should clear up the dispute. Dean's statements about raising Soc. Sec. retirement age are bolded to help in locating them in the midst of long quotes.

The entire MTP transcript is available at:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp
Transcript for June 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest: Former Governor Howard Dean, (D-Vt.) Presidential Contender
Copyright 2003, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
       PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS NBC TELEVISION PROGRAM TO “NBC NEWS’ MEET THE PRESS.”

<snip>
Russert: But through your entire career you have been for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

       Dean: Yes, because I just—I have, and it’s because I think that there’s so little fiscal discipline in the Congress that you might just have to do it. I hate to do it because we didn’t have to do it in Vermont, but, God, the guys in Washington just never get it about money.

Russert: Well, in 1995, when you were advocating that position, you were asked how would you balance the budget if we had a constitutional amendment...

       Dean: Yeah.

       Russert: ...calling for that, and this is what Howard Dean said. “The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. ‘It would be tough but we could do it,’ he said.”

       Dean: Well, we fortunately don’t have to do that now.

       Russert: We have a $500 billion deficit.

       Dean: But you don’t have to cut Social Security to do that.

       Russert: But why did you have to do it back then?

       Dean: Well, because that was the middle of—I mean, I don’t recall saying that, but I’m sure I did, if you have it on your show, because I know your researchers are very good.

       Russert: Well, Miles Benson is a very good reporter for the Newhouse News.

       Dean: Yes, he is. No, no, no. I’m sure I did. I’m not denying I said that. I have...

       Russert: But you would no longer cut Social Security?

       Dean: But you don’t—no. I’m not ever going to cut Social Security
benefits.

       Russert: Would you raise retirement age to 70?

       Dean: No. No.

Russert: Would you cut defense?

       Dean: You don’t have to do that either. Here’s what you have to do. You got to get rid of the tax cuts, all of them, and then you have got to restrict spending. You’ve got to control—well, here’s what we did in Vermont. We had some mild tax cuts in the ’90s, not the huge ones that most other states did. Secondly, we put a lot of money into a rainy day fund, and I never let the Legislature spend more than the rate of growth of the economy, so the biggest increase I think we had in the almost 12 years I was governor was I think 5.2 percent or something like that. And then we paid off a quarter of our debt, which is what Bill Clinton did when he was president. Now, we’re not cutting higher education, we’re not cutting K through 12, we’re not cutting Medicaid for kids, and we have a balanced budget. So if you restrain spending, which is long-term spending, that’s the key to balancing the budget. But you’ve got to get rid of the tax cuts because the hole is so very, very deep. And Social Security, I—the best way to balance Social Security budget right now, other than stop taking the money out for the tax cuts, is to expand the amount of money that Social Security payroll taxes apply to. It’s limited now to something like $80,000. You let that rise. I also would entertain taking the retirement age to 68. It’s at 67 now. I would entertain that.

<snip> (This section of Q and A on the budget doesn't refer to retirement age.)

 Russert: But, Governor, if you don’t go to near Social Security or Medicare or Defense and you have a $500 billion deficit, if you’re not going to raise taxes $500 billion to balance the budget, where are you going to find the money? Which programs are you going to cut? What do you cut? Education? Health care? Where?

       Dean: Here’s what you do. As a veteran of having to do this, because this is what I did in Vermont, Social Security, you fix actuarially. It’s just like an insurance policy. Right now there’s— eventually, in the middle of the 2020s you’re going to see more money going out than coming in. You’ve got to fix that. We’ve talked a little bit about how to do that. Maybe you look at the retirement age going to 68. Maybe you increase the amount that gets—payroll tax—I’m not in favor of cutting benefits. I think that’s a big problem.


Summing up: On June 22, 2003, Howard Dean told Tim Russert he didn't remember saying (in 1995) that the Social Security retirement age should be raised to 70 but he didn't deny that he had said it and agreed that Russert's source for the quote was good. Also on June 22, 2003, Howard Dean TWICE suggested he'd "entertain" or "look at" raising the returement age to 68.

Fast forward to Aug. 4, 2003, at the AFL-CIO debate.
In arguing for his own position of returning the age to 65 at the nationally-televised forum, Kucinich noted that "Mr. Dean has said that he'd move the retirement age to 68. One time, he talked about moving it to 70."

A few minutes later, Dean simply offered a broad denial: "I have never favored a Social Security retirement age of 70. Nor do I favor one of 68."

I will note here that Dean didn't say he would definitely raise the retirement age to 68 but he said, in two different paragraphs of the interview with Russert, that he'd "entertain" or "look at" raising the retirement age to 68, and in 1995 he favored raising it to 70, a fact which Russert reminded him of on June 22, 2003.


Added on 8/30/03: Arguing that he "didn't mean" that he supported raising the retirement age when he talked about raising it to 68 or to 70 is silly. He was talking about raising the retirement age because he thought it was an acceptable thing to do and because he thought it would help balance the budget. He favored doing it. He was plainly not concerned about the hardship it would create for many workers. He's got his millions, after all, no Social Security worries for him.

Moreover, he admitted what he'd said about raising the retirement age, although belatedly. The day after the AFL-CIO debates, Dean issued a statement saying that he "misspoke" when he denied having ever favored a retirement age of 70 or 68.


The questions I'd like answered are: Would Dean still "entertain" or "look at" raising the retirement age to 68? Has he changed his mind about that since June 22, 2003? And how did he forget his old position of raising the retirement age to 70 when he was reminded of it on June 22, 2003? One would think that having Russert hit him with quotes he didn't remember would have impressed that on his mind, particularly when it apparently was part of a program he advocated earlier in his career.

Here's his 1995 statement again:
“The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. ‘It would be tough but we could do it,’ he said.”

Now, if you want the transcript of what Kucinich said, plus the citation for the 1995 Dean quote, read on:

Chicago Debate Fallout: Gov. Dean's Denial on Social Security Age

http://www.kucinich.us

Rep. Dennis Kucinich does not accept the media script that portrays Democrats as groveling before unions and civil rights groups. Quite the contrary, he sees Democrats who often serve up vague and fuzzy rhetoric to loyal constituencies during campaigns and then govern against the interests of those voters once in office. That's why -- at the AFL-CIO forum in Chicago -- he tried to encourage fellow Democrats toward specificity.

That's why -- since Gov. Dean says he is committed to a balanced budget while keeping Pentagon spending off-limits to cuts -- Rep. Kucinich felt it was important and relevant to a union audience to question Dean's public statements about raising the Social Security retirement age. In arguing for his own position of returning the age to 65 at the nationally-televised forum, Kucinich noted that "Mr. Dean has said that he'd move the retirement age to 68. One time, he talked about moving it to 70."

A few minutes later, Dean simply offered a broad denial: "I have never favored a Social Security retirement age of 70. Nor do I favor one of 68."

Today, Congressman Kucinich said: "It's unfortunate that Dr. Dean was not forthright with labor leaders and activists concerning his statements on Social Security which had been discussed on a recent 'Meet the Press' program. I was surprised at his denial, which raises many questions. If he wants to clarify his earlier statements, fine. But don't deny them while appealing for union votes."

BACKGROUND
"The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. 'It would be tough but we could do it,' he said." (Times-Picayune, 3/5/95, "And Politicians Wonder Why They Aren't Trusted," by Miles Benson, Newhouse News Service)

Dean was asked about the comment on "Meet the Press" (6/22/03):

DEAN: ...I don't recall saying that, but I'm sure I did, if you have it on your show, because I know your researchers are very good."

RUSSERT: Well, Miles Benson is a very good reporter for the Newhouse News.

DEAN Yes, he is. No, no, no. I'm sure I did. I'm not denying that I said that.

A few minutes later on the same "Meet the Press," Dean said the following as he discussed budget balancing and Social Security: "I also would entertain taking the retirement age to 68. It's at 67 now. I would entertain that."



 

point made by him, IMHO. You just repeated plopped down some transcripts (of which I have quoted in my previous posts) to try to make it look like there is smoke and then you alleged that there is fire. There is no fire.

Quick summary:
Dean said that he didn't favor raising the retirement age for Social Security to save it. He said he favored raising the payroll tax cap on both MTP and at the AFL-CIO forum. He did *not* say on the MTP forum that he favored or endorsed raising the age requirement but that he'd look at that as a possibility ("entertain", "maybe you look").

8 years ago he favored this. He said he misspoke on Social Security because his statement didn't take into account his statement 8 years ago. He explained himself within a few hours of the AFL-CIO forum.

He has changed his mind on how to fix the social security budget since 1995. He found a better way, just like Kucinich did his research and decided that pro-choice was better than anti-aborition.

It's dumb to criticize folks when they do their research and come around, IMHO. It's hypocritical for Kucinich supporters to criticize other candidates who do this, since Kucinich did the same thing: researched and decided there was a better solution.

Dean took into account his statement from 8 years ago within hours of the forum.

Let it go DemBones. This is a non-issue.

to ANY dem front runner. This is the royal treatment.

If the candidate of your choice becomes the perceived front runner - THIS is what s/he has to look forward to.

To jump on and abet the media because you dislike Dean and or Deanfans, is to tacitly approve of the media tactics. Which will be used on Clark, Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich - WHOEVER has momentum at the time.

Certainly pay attention to the information - and be questioningly critical of ALL candidates.

But recognize what the media is doing - it is the best way to be able to defang its impact when one sees the tactics.

Likewise, Deanfans - counteract this attack - but if/when the same type of attack is aimed at another democrat - don't cheer it, repeat it or abet the media/Rove. Dissemble it.

Why? Because along with getting Bush out of the WhiteHouse by supporting x or y candidate - we also are fighting a very uphill battle against a media echo-chamber that seems to be orchestrated by Rove (whether it is or not - is almost irrelevant - but the way the echo chamber amplifies anti dem themes - has the same impact). FIGHT the RightWing Media echo-chamber - while supporting Your candidate.

Just my two cents.

This should be on the front page of DU, it's very important and so easily forgotten in the heat of debate.
Thanks Salin.

in the candidate "wars" that we forget the real battles facing all of the candidates. And around those battles we can/should work together.

And one (the Cuban one) he never said he wouldn't lift the embargo - just that it wasn't the right time.

If Dean only switches on TWO issues, which IMO aren't as important as other flip-flops (abortion issues), then he's doing pretty damn well.

why am I not shocked?

Come on folks, this is silly.

While it's not unusual for politicians to flip-flop, massage or tailor their positions to placate politically important audiences

Except Kucinich, I guess.

What did it used to be? (Hint: they're not the same.)

For a complete history of Kucinich's abortion positions, see Post #32.

This was right before he began to run for president.

I still think that Kucinich's decision on pro-choice is a good one and I still think that Dean's position on Social Security and the payroll tax is a good one.

Look guys I used to support the death penalty but through my life I have changed. Kucinich as a pro life democrat was nothing evil either, its not like he was a acting like a republican and being pro death penalty, and cutting services to women. Which isnt a inference to Dean btw but is a inference to right wing republicans. Would you all deny my grandparents your respect because they are pro life?

It's hypocritical to attack Dean for reevaluating his position when your own candidate did the same thing (on a different issue).


-- He said Life begins at conception. (Jul 1996)
-- Voted YES on banning human cloning, including medical research. (Jul 2001)
-- Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
-- Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
-- Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
-- Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

(Source: http://www.issues2000.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm)

BUT, earlier this year, he said: "After hearing from many women in my own life, and from women and men in my community and across the country, I began a more intensive dialogue on the issue. A lot of women opened their hearts to me. That dialogue led me to wholeheartedly support a woman's right to choose."

Source: Campaign website, www.Kucinich.org, "On The Issues" Apr 1, 2003

raising Social Security retirement age.

A candidate changing a position is not necessarily bad, though it seems Dean is wobbling a good bit.

It's more of a clear-cut problem to me that Dean denied having ever taken a position for raising retirement age. This denial came only six weeks after he discussed it on Meet the Press, hardly an interview he'd be likely to forget. See my reply to felix19 above for more.

I don't see what you say you see. I don't see this "wobbling a good bit". I see you exagerating a good bit though.

like white on rice.

Until then, I have every right to point out when Democratic candidates are being less than 100% honest about their policies and records. If I can see Dean's flaws, you can bet the GOP can.

This is a political message board. We all have the right to discuss candidates' strengths and shortcomings.

The GOP will be on every one of the Dem candidates like white on rice.

To say that any questioning of some candidates' dubious records is bashing, or whatever, ridiculous.

and I dont have a problem with Dean changing I do however have a problem with the same you do it just comes from the oppostie direction. Dont worry about it w4rma I think its great that you defend Kucinich when you do, I am not mad at you I do get lets say a little like I wanna roll my eyes at hardcore dean supporters who call Dennis, Dennis of the flip flop, yet dont acknowledge that Dean has done the same. Dont worry about w4rma, maybe they were unjust in their attacks.

In both cases they looked at the totality of the information and decided that their former positions were not as good as their current ones. I'm fine with that. Both of their positions now are much better than their old ones.

of course. I tell you Kucinich's economic liberalism and sucess tale is what attracted me to him, me, Dennis, and Howard see eye to eye on most social issues and most foriegn policy ones. I am a democrat in many ways because of the new deal, and Kucinich has new deal like ideas, so yummy.

He spent the last week taunting Bush- calling him out. Dean can handle this.

This reporter tells us that "...Dean has largely escaped criticism for his new positions". That's not exactly so. Of the three he suggests- Cuba, campaign matching funds and retirement age- Google reveals extensive coverage of each topic. As they came up, each was argued effectively- to my satisfaction, at least.

With such a lengthy campaign season, foreign policy especially, if based on realistic circumstances, will change with those circumstances. Obviously.

So too the tactics of the race. I'd imagine Dean would like to embrace matching funds even more than I'd like him to, but I trust he'll do what's necessary. The whole point is for the candidate not to be indebted to the narrow interests of the filthy rich.

Dean has hit them where it hurts and they'll go all out to Gore him. Guess this blows the theory that, being the corporate media darling, he's Rove's schill, huh?

Love when the press explains to me how the Dems are "selling themselves". Too bad for them that so many of us have already figured it out for ourselves.

see

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank08122003.html


In a 1997 Vt News Bureau interview, Dean admitted his desire to appoint
judges willing to subvert the bill of rights. Now the fallout from Dean's
appointments are before the US 2nd Circuit at Foley Square, NYC in two
outrageous cases. Docket #s 03-7036, 02-6150, 02-6199, 02-6201 One case is
being prosecuted by Washington, DC first amendment attorney Robert
Corn-Revere against two of Dean's judges for their banishment of a Vermont
"citizen-reporter" for life from all state courthouses because he criticized
one of Dean's judicial appointees. The other case features Dean's judges
violating Double Jeopardy, First Amendment, State law and the State
constitution. See Docket No. 99-445 (Vt. Dec. 13, 2000), aff'g, Docket No.
167-1-99 WmCr (Windham D. Ct. Aug. 30, 1999) Both cases have been briefed
before the Manhattan Court awaiting oral argument. Also filing a brief in
federal court against Dean's appointees is the Thomas Jefferson Center For
The Protection of Freedom of Expression.

Below are links regarding Dean's voicing his problem with the Bill of
Rights. He constantly complains about "legal technicalities" (i.e. the Bill
of Rights) as he did in the June 22 meet the press interview.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/government.shtml

http://www.txtriangle.com/archive/1049/coverstory.htm


A link to a story regarding the courthouse banishment case.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org//news.aspx?id=5354
or…
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13300


A commentary on Dean's subversion of the public defender system.

http://www.talkleft.com/archives/003681.html#003681

Dean's statement on "re-evaluation" of our "civil liberties".

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

Criminal sentences doubled during Dean's tenure as a result of his
appointments. I wonder how many of those serving these inflated sentences
were also subjugated to constitutional deprivations at the hands of Dean's
Judicial appointees leading to their convictions? How many of those serving
inflated sentences were prejudiced by Deans' subversion of the public
defender system mandated by the 6th amendment?

In the Meet the Press interview with Dean while discussing the death
penalty he stated,

"So I just-life without parole, which we have which I actually got passed
when I was lieutenant governor- the problem with life without parole is that
people get out for reasons that have nothing to do with justice. We had a
case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted,
then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new
trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the
second trial. "

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1

Now, according to Dean, the Bill of Rights (ie. legal technicalities) has
"nothing to do with justice". In the above quote, is he saying that if
someone was unconstitutionally convicted it is better that the government
kill them before they can point out the constitutional problems with their
conviction?


A further commentary on Dean's death penalty stand.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1907-2003Jul2¬Found=true

and, noting the "anti-due-process" Dean message,

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/930194.asp?0si=-&cp1=1#BODY

See 1994 Yale Law School commencement discussing the danger of our leaders dismissing the "provisions of the Bill of Rights as mere technicalities.".


http://www.schr.org/reports/docs/Yale%2094.pdf


Scott Huminski
Cary, NC

IS DEAN A CRIMINAL TOO?

Dean's appointment of Vermont Attorney General Sorrell and Sorrell's criminal violation of civil rights law and bribery cover-up.


Dean is quite impressed with Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell. He appointed him Attorney General in the late 1990’s to fill a vacancy and then Sorrell was his # 1 choice for CHIEF JUSTICE of the Vermont Supreme Court. Sorrell was removed from consideration because he had no judicial experience. Good try Dean. A google search on "Howard Dean William Sorrell" speaks volumes. A vote for Dean is a vote to appoint William Sorrell to a very high federal position as Dean will take this unusually close associate with him. US Attorney General maybe?

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean0702/freyneint.html

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/68525.html

http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/66910.html

http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102%257E8860%257E1089066,00.html

http://www.state.vt.us/atg/vtag.htm


After Dean’s judges had been enjoined for 2 years from interfering in my access to Vermont Courthouses, Sorrell engineered a plan to re-banish me. The banishment lasted one month before the federal court woke up and re-placed an injunction on Dean’s judicial appointees once again. Google search on "Scott Huminski First Amendment". The story is all there from the Associated Press, the Freedom Forum, First Amendment Cyber Tribune and many others.

http://www.benningtonbanner.com/Stories/0,1413,104~8678~831060,00.html

Courthouse access is a first amendment right according to US Supreme Court Precedent. See Press-Enterprise cases. Sorrell’s conduct last year constitutes criminal violation of federal civil rights law. See federal law below. They say birds of a feather flock together. Is Dean a criminal too, or just a very poor judge of character. Either way there should be concern.

By the way, Sorrell is currently busy covering-up the acceptance of a bribes by two Vermont Prosecutors, William Wright and John Lavoie. This fact stands undisputed before the United State Second Circuit Court of Appeals in NYC, # 03-7036. Unfortunately it’s not online, but, I will email court pleadings to any interested parties.

Another Dean item….

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html



Scott Huminski

UNITED STATES CODE Title 18

Sec. 241. - Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death

Sec. 242. - Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death

Tell us Scotty!

just the facts... can we settle this and put it all to bed or is there some nightmare that won't let this sleep?

... and making no bones about it:

Dean said what differentiates him is his willingness to speak his mind, change his positions and admit when he's wrong. "They won't beat me by claiming I switched positions," Dean said in an interview Wednesday. "They better come out with better ideas." Dean said he has no qualms about "changing his mind" when facts warrant it.
<snip>

He may be able to turn this into an asset, but the press can be murderous about this if they start running in a pack.

Dick Gephardt got tagged as a "waffler" in 1988 over some minor issue which the press then used to gang up on him. They had a field day bashing him on that and he could no longer talk about the issues. He was history after Iowa.

Dean's outsider message and the messianic devotion of his followers should innoculate him from that kind of implosion, but he he should probably stay off the Yak shows while this press cycle plays itself out.

There's nothing there for Dean fans to get their panties in a bunch.

Dean has been adjusting his positions to better situate himself for electoral success. Nothing wrong with an article examining the process. At least it focuses on his politics and not whether he's wearing earth tones and is comfortable with his real self.

If you think this kind of thing is vicious, wait until the Democrats begin going after each other in the ads and debates during the run up to Iowa and New Hampshire (let's not forget the Gore/Bradley unlovefest of 2000). Scrutiny is a good thing and how a candidate stands up to it is an important factor in determining whether or not he or she should win the nommination. This is especially so considering the nature of the Republican opposition the winner will face in the general election.

This does not change my opinion that Dean would be a good President.

1. The Cuba embargo thing- he's just saying it's not a good time- he still supports lifting the embargo. I've seen the threads about the justification (or lack thereof) of Casto's crackdown. Whatever the case may be, I don't see anything wrong with an "outsider" taking a cautious approach to a volatile situation there. Perhaps as a little time goes by, and Dean can get more fully informed about the situation and the ramifications of various responses, he will be able to refine his position.

Also, some of this may have to do with perception. How much of the general public is going to gain awareness of what has been going on in Cuba? Can a candidate explain the situation in concise enough terms to support their position? For example- is Kucinich going to advocate immediate and complete removal of all sanctions under any cicumstances? Is that a resonable position? How about sanctions against N. Korea, Iran, and Iraq? Are there any exceptions?

2. Retirement age- this is a trap that so-called "plain-spoken" people can get into. It is NOT Dean's position to raise the retirement age. When he is asked the question, he wants to be clear on that, and yet must acknowledge that there may be circumstances where it is a last resort option. Does he "favor" it, has he "ever" "favored" it? Would he "consider" it? Has he "ever" said he would "consider" it? He could be vague in his answers and avoid direct comparison to previous statements, but he's not vague. He tries to be clear. This won't be the first time it gets him in trouble.

3. Campaign finance- Dean merely acknowledged that some on his staff were talking about it. Even if you have made a decision, it is prudent to look at alternatives. I, as a business owner, may have decided to not buy any new product lines right now because money is tight. But if a supplier comes out with some new killer line that will respond to our customers needs, I HAVE to consider it. That doesn't mean I have forsaken the idea of cutting costs, it just means that there is a new reality.

Epilogue: If Dean ends up showing that he is untrustworthy or unfit for the office, I will switch, but this stuff is minor and based on the technicalities of what he said vs. what he meant or implied. Also, I am convinced that Dean originally held little confidence that he would become a front runner. As a minor candidate, it is not so necessary to have fully formed positions on ALL the issues. That is changing now.

and he flipped on many issues. WP doesn't care when it comes to JR.

and goes to my earlier point on this thread. THere is a media treatment - it repeats themes - some with harsher and more slanderous accusations, some with an appearance of some truth thus "balance". But the point is a media echo... repeat a theme, in many sources, some more acrid sources will repeat it in exagerated terms that will sound - to their readers/listeners as "TRUTH" - but over time the theme will become an accepted "FACT" by many (including some supporters) We saw this again and again and again in the 2000 race. (And in some 2002 midterm races).

What points to it being a campaign (rightwing) strategy - in terms of getting the theme floated and picked up by the respectable (to many) press, is the BLATANT disconnect between the charge and the reality of the other candidate (You know... that guy squatting in the White House). How many times has Bush flipped. You can watch him do it almost daily when he goes on the campaign trail. I tried to follow it last year but it would take a full time job. He appears to a handpicked group... praises their cause/program.... then within weeks slashes the funding sources for those programs. Watched him do it to a jobs/training program in Oregon, a veterans group in North Carolina, relief workers after 911, heck New York city rebuilding efforts (where they tried to renege on much of the pledged support). That doesn't even begin to look at policy flips. But with bush is it a policy flip if he has spun it so hard in the first place that it just 'sounds' like a flip but one knows that from the beginning he meant the opposite?

Notice the press isn't asking any of these questions.

Just floating and pushing a theme - that we can expect to see repeated, amplified, twisted and exaggerated by the rw echo chamber. Then it will be repeated by the mainstream press - because the echo chamber (talk tv talk radio rw press {think drudge and newsmax}) will have said it so many times that there must be smoke... right?

I say this because these exact tactics - including the absense of ANY similar criticisms of the boyking on similar or more egregious behaviors - will be repeated ad nauseum through primaries to election. And it will focus on ANY democrat who picks up momentum.

Clear the smoke - look at the tactics - one can question critically all democratic candidates, and one can support a specific candidate, without tacitly abetting the Rovian pushed rw tactics that gets the media to become the chief campaign tool for W.

OK. Now y'all get to defend your guy:

Kucinich record

Voted NO on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment.
Vote to pass a bill that would make it easier for courts to change debtors from Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which allows most debts to be dismissed, to Chapter 13, which requires a repayment plan.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Gekas, R-PA; Bill HR 333 ; vote number 2001-25 on Mar 1, 2001

Voted YES on Constitutional amendment prohibiting Flag Desecration.
Proposing a Constitutional amendment to state that Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
Bill HJRES 36 ; vote number 2001-232 on Jul 17, 2001

Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC.
Vote on an amendment banning adoptions in District of Columbia by gays or other individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.
Reference: Amendment introduced by Largent, R-OK; Bill HR 2587 ; vote number 1999-346 on Jul 29, 1999

Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit burning the US flag.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
Reference: Resolution proposed by Cunningham, R-CA; Bill HJ.Res.33 ; vote number 1999-252 on Jun 24, 1999

Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions.
HR 6, the Higher Education Amendments Act of 1997, would prohibit any post-secondary institution that participates in any program under the Higher Education Act from discriminating or granting any preferential treatment in admission based on race, sex, ethnicity, color or national origin.
Reference: Amendment introduced by Riggs, R-CA.; Bill HR 6 ; vote number 1998-133 on May 6, 1998

Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released.
Stop enforcing travel restrictions on US citizens to Cuba, only after the president has certified that Cuba has released all political prisoners, and extradited all individuals sought by the US on charges of air piracy, drug trafficking and murder.
Bill HR 2590 ; vote number 2001-270 on Jul 25, 2001

Voted NO on banning soft money donations to national political parties.
Support a ban on soft money donations to national political parties but allow up to $10,000 in soft-money donations to state and local parties for voter registration and get-out-the vote activity.
Bill HR 2356 ; vote number 2001-228 on Jul 12, 2001

Voted YES on banning soft money.
Campaign Finance Reform Act to ban "soft money" and impose restrictionson issue advocacy campaigning
Reference: Bill sponsored by Shays, R-CT; Bill HR 417 ; vote number 1999-422 on Sep 14, 1999


http://www.issues2000.org/OH/Dennis_Kucinich.htm

Jim Jordan, Kerry's campaign manager.
Dean
Rick Davis, McCain's cm


Typical primary bs. I think it's probably part of Kerry's roll-out this weekend. Fair game. Much ado about nothing.

As much as I hate the "holier than thou" crap from the Kucinich supporters, it's ultimately counterproductive to get drawn into a mudslinging fest between supporters of two Dem candidates.

So, to put things into perspective, let's keep in mind that:

1. Our main objective is to get Bush II out of power in 2004.

2. While EACH of the Dem candidates has flaws (yes, even Dennis and Howard), ANY of them would be better than Chimpy.

3. Whoever gains frontrunner status will surely be the target of intense scrutiny, smears, bashing – fair and unfair.

4. So we need to be ready to fight back. (For example, Dean has a “rapid response team” to attack negative media reports: www.deandefense.org .) Whoever ends up the nominee, we better be prepared to respond en masse to the trash that will inevitably be circulated.

And changing your mind in response to Castro cracking down on dissidents is a "key issue."

This is the same crap they tried to pull on Wellstone when he "flip-flopped" on running for a third term because he felt the changing circumstances of Bush's evil rule forced him to do so.

Will they go just as far to stop Dean as they did to stop Wellstone?

and his expectations for Howard seem to be coming true.

...and what a hypocrite he's turned into:

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

from the evil Dean.

"There's not a dime's worth of difference between Howard Dean and George W. Bush."

Not only is Dean evil, he's the Devil himself. </sarcasm>

losers.

Dean '04