Dean says he misspoke on Social Security retirement age

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/218/wash/Dean_says_he_misspoke_on_Socia:.shtml

By Nedra Pickler, Associated Press, 8/6/2003 18:26

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.

<snip>

Dean's false statement came Tuesday night during an appearance at the AFL-CIO's Democratic presidential candidate forum. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, who favors taking it back to age 65, criticized Dean for saying he'd raise to 68 or 70. Dean responded, ''I have never favored a Social Security retirement age of 70 nor do I favor one of 68.''

But that contradicted a 1995 article in which Dean said he wanted to raise it to age 70 to help
balance the budget. It also contradicted a television appearance in June in which Dean said he
would consider raising the age to 68.

According to the 1995 Newhouse News Service article, Dean said the way to balance the budget is for
Congress to move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Social Security, Medicare and veterans
pensions, and then have the states cut almost everything else. At the time, Dean was Vermont's
governor and chairman of the National Governors Association.

isn't this what Bush did, with exception of the defense budget?

ought to go over HUGE with seniors and shoot EVERYONE will have problems with that set of solutions.

This is one of the problems with starting one's campaign too early. If you spread it out too long the message starts to get stale and you feel you have to jazz it up a bit and when you do that you can contridict yourself as has happened here.

Guess I should be paying more attention but Edwards is my guy, don't much care what the others have to say. I really think that, at ehe end of the day, he'll be heading the ticket.

I thought Kucinich nailed him real good with that. I personally thought Kucinich did the best, and nailed several others when he challenged them on NAFTA, WTO, Taft-Hartley etc.

I couldn't believe it when Dean claimed he never said that. I SAW and HEARD him on that Sunday morning talk show (Meet the Press, iirc?) a month or two ago where he stated he'd raise the retirement age to 68.

What a scumbag! Kucinich gained ground, imho.

Not that he would in fact do so.

Here is the quote:

"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. "

and then "corrects" himself to newspaper. How honorable of him

Dennis KUCINICH voted against 'choice' at every chance!

And Kucinich supporters dare say he 'evolved' and, Dean 'lied' when he said he'd 'entertain' a rise in retirement age.

Entertain/does not supporter make. However, VOTING for something means 'SUPPORTING' it.

The hypocracy of DK supporters never ceases to amaze...

Lets see (mis-speak) or (mis-vote)

Saying you'll entertain something or voting against choice!

enie, meanie, miney, moe...

But Biden-Lugar has a mitigating effect....

Yeah, this retirement thing is stupid for him to have even got involved in. Let the people enjoy their golden years for chrissakes.

It should be 65 I can think of so many of my relatives who would have enjoyed a retirement at 65.

Probably very few of them.

The trade off and difference from * lies to anything Howard has said, stated and later been corrected on, is like width and depth of the Grand Canyon.

I love working for "WHITE PLANTATIION OWNERS", everything has such order and is neat and tidy.

Kidding. Stupid position that I disagree with completely.

delivered to every union home, very shortly!!

Dean shot himself in the foot.

what Kucicnich claims... the one who needs to issue a correction is kucinich.

Now I am even more shocked and pissed. Christ, this is what some people think the savior of the party is jeez. Why thanks, Mr Kucinich for telling the truth, if only I could get this to some union members.

But I'm not surprised the Associated with Bush Press failed to even quote Dennis as it tried to cast Dean as some sort of habitual liar because of something he said he thought was a good idea back in 1995 -- when SS looked like it was headed for doom.

Are you surprised?

I'm glad Dean admitted that he had held this belief, but I think a far better time to come clean would have been at the union forum, and not later in a news article.

In June, he told Meet the Press he would entertain lifting the age up to 68. Now it comes out he would have moved it up to 70 in 1995.

If he's now truly for lowering it down to 65, he should say so. Otherwise, Kucinich still has a better position, because Kucinich is for bringing it down to 65.

he should know, better than most, how debilitated a manual laborer's body is by 60, let alone 70. what was his practice anyway? not geriontology, that's for sure.

...
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.
...

"Now it comes out he would have moved it up to 70 in 1995."

No, Dean was asked in 95 how he would balance the budget if a balanced budget amendment was passed then. He was asked what would have to be done.

His answer was not voicing support for raising the age limit or cutting benefits... but pointing out that this would be the result of passing a Balanced Budget amendment.

:eyes:

I saw Dean say this a month ago or so on Meet The Press, iirc. He said then he'd raise it to 68.

Are you so infatuated with Dean that you have to call Kucinich a liar just because he told the truth and nailed Dean good? WHy do you try to misrepresent the facts so much? sounds like a repug tactic.

the exact quote from MTP...

"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."

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, who favors taking it back to age 65, criticized Dean for saying he'd raise to 68 or 70. Dean responded, "I have never favored a Social Security retirement age of 70 nor do I favor one of 68."


Dean acknowledged that he had called for such an increase when the country was faced with a deficit in 1995


"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)

It's disingenious to pick one quote to make your case. Dean said he NEVER said that. Proof abounds he certainly EVER DID. WTH is there to argue about? Admit it and move on rather than arguing and destroying your credibility.

That's what Dean is trying to do. If that were my candidate, I'd certainly be following his lead.

when asked a hypothetical question about the balanced budget amendment in 95, which he said he "hates" but thought might be needed to balance the budget, means that he FAVORED that policy.

You guys make it sound lie Dean said "yippy I can't wait to raise the social security age to 70!"

What you keep quuoting was Deans response to a hypothetical question about the balanced budget amendment and the things that would be needed to come into compliance with a BBA.

He supported the BBA *AND* raising the age of retirement is, and has NEVER been "needed"

Another lie from Deenie squad.

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.


"raising the age of retirement is, and has NEVER been "needed""

Yeah, that's why is was a HYPOTHETICAL question.

That is not the problem and your quote is barely relevant except for secondary illustration.

The problem is:

"I never said that" when there is evidence that he did.

The context simply matters not.

Russert had already cornered him on this once and Dean did come out and admit, at that time, "well, if your researchers found it, then I suppose I did".

This time, the second time, it's "I never" when he did. This is a simple 2+3 did not equal 4. What's all the fuss?

and the proof is that even Dean won't make that argument. Dean admitted he was wrong.

Unfortunately, his supporters just can not be wrong. It's impossible.

If you don't believe me, just ask one of them.

Can't address the actual quotes in context, so simply lie and spew insults.

you call me a liar, and then complain about personal attacks.

You said that "He said he *NEVER* said it,"

ANd we all know that's not what Dean said... he said he never FAVORED it, not that he never talked about it.

So why are you lying?

Why must you Dean bashers continue to twist the statements and lie about what was said?


Dean said that he never FAVORED raising the age to 70... not that he never said anything about it. And looking at his quotes on the subject would seem to me to support that he did not favor the idea, but rather said he HATED the idea of having to have a balanced budget amendment that in 95 would likely mean raising the age limit and cutting benefits.

"The context simply matters not."

As with most Dean bashing, the true context of the statement HURTS your attacks.

What's next? "K started it!"?

was an answer to a hypothetical question about a balenced budget amendment in 95... NOT his policy then or now regarding social security.

Anti-choice nuts, then changed his mind because he wanted to run for President. Everyone has dirt on them, it's just *'s is covering him about a couple hundred feet deep right about now.

Who was thinking the US could declare a Sainthood and elect the same person president simultaneously anyway?

Regardless of what you think of DK, Dean lied and you shouldn't be defending lies, particularly ones that even Dean admits he was wrong for saying.

And the difference between Dean and the other candidates is that Dean is campaigning as a "straight talker" like McCain, and the other candidates are not. If Dean makes an issue of his honesty and "straight talk" then his supporters shouldn't complain when people call him on it.

And if you would read up and down this thread you could see it really was not a direct lie, or a bald face lie, just part of it was not entirely correct. Sort of like Einstein proving Newton theories to be not totally correct. A lot of things taken out of context could be considered lies.

Don't think I would be defending Howard on this. I am sure the thoughts he harbored on it was worse than any words that were said. Men have an innate capacity to try to solve problems placed in front of them with what ever they can grasp hold of, instead of trying to get a consensus of other's on how to solve it and wait till the picture of what is becomes clearer. That is exactly what happened to him when K slapped him with the charge on SS.

Howard was a fool for this and a few have now learned how to get him to do it. Howard takes all challenges personally, that could be a bigger fault if others didn't jump in to defend him right away. Ambition and hubris often are tamed trough experience rather than temperance

Obviously Howard not been taking any lessons on public speaking lately

So should we do like Mr.Kerry says and “Get over it already”

He said he *NEVER* said it, and the truth is...HE DID SAY IT.

So should we do like Mr.Kerry says and “Get over it already”

Leave it to the apologists to try and distract attention from Dean's lies

Dean said he never FAVORED it... and he did not.

So clearly since you just said Dean said he never SAID it... when what he said was that he never FAVORED it, you are lying.

Even Dean said it was mistake for him to say he never supported it.

You just said that "He said he *NEVER* said it,"


ANd we all know that's not what Dean said... he said he never FAVORED it, not that he never talked about it.

So why are you lying?

Is it because the truth, which is that Dean said he never FAVORED that plan, is harder to misrepresent and attack Dean with?

If you want to call it lie that okay with me, to some point I also think it was a lie in very real degree. I just don't think it would hold up in a court of law though, I don't think the reasoning would hold up. Reasons and intent cannot be shown is such places, for reasons and intent cannot be used for evidence because of them being subjective. Even if was proven to be a lie (which most people on the face of the earth also commit) this does not or could ever stop the way the world turns. Presidents can't do squat with SS even they wanted to; Congress holds most of the keys there. To me this is not apologizing, this is being rational. So Howard Dean Lied a few times, I can live with that.

So does that make it okay for Mr. Kerry to Help AWOL /Deserter and vote send teenage boys off to be die and kill innocent people because the Commander and Chief AWOL / Deserter lied. Please answer yes, because that was Mr. Kerry's response already. Please bring forth one of them candidates that has been honest and admitted all mistakes; I would like to support and vote for such a person.

and look up the word "apologist"

specific, that could offend some of the light hearted.

http://home.snafu.de/tilman/faq-you/cult.apologists.txt
(snip)
1. What is a cult apologist?

For this, it is just needed to get the word "apologist":

On-line Medical Dictionary
http://www.graylab.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?apologist

apologist

One who makes an apology; one who speaks or writes in defense of a
faith, a cause, or an institution; especially, one who argues in
defense of Christianity.

In general, cult apologists are people who are not cult members, but who
support cults and defend their unethical activities.
(snip)

To me that would seem to fit people that indorse unprovoked wars from, by and for imperialist nations, but I could be wrong

Dean was asked how he'd balance the budget if a balanced budget amendment was passed.

His answer was to a hypothetical question... and it is being spun as if that is his position on the budget.

Do you believe that Howard Dean REALLY wants to balance the Federal Budget, with or without an ammendment to that effect?

If you do believe this, and you have no reason not to, because he has repeated it innumerable times -

How do you think he plans on doing it? Precisely.

Well, fessing up right away is the smartest move, I'll credit him for that.

about him. This is real interesting, Retirement at 70 thats too old.

For his sake, I hope he takes care not to continue with these bloopers.

I agree. Pushing SS pensions out to 70 is ridiculous, it's robbery.

my grandfather would had never got it.

Don't think they don't know it.

How so? It's an insurance plan that we all contribute to. People who oppose privitization have been saying it's not our money for years.

a strong Progressive Party didn't form in Vermont and take state house seats for nothing.....

how else is he allowed the covers of time and newsweek and given plenty of corporate media airtime....he is roves pick for us....i last year said "beware of who they give the most airtime too and raise hell against(attack the most) that will be the one the repukes picked to run"...Dean is their pick and ya'll took the baited hook and ran with it!

no matter how many of these stories come out, some Dean supporters will continue spinning them all away because they can't handle the fact that he is no progressive savior of the party. In the beginning I was a huge Dean supporter and almost sent him some cash. I took a closer look at his record and quickly decided against it.

about debating the candidates because it won't do any of us any good if we get the wrong guy in the White House. I am expecting at least 2 more big issues with Dean; they've already started appearing on his web blogs with lots of progressives requesting clarification.

We're way too politically gullible in this country and I really feel our pain, our anger is being exploited by clever political analysts and marketers. That's ok when you're dealing with material goods but not with political candidates and not when our country is standing on the edge of a friggin abyss.

Peace. I have faith.

Because Dean vacally opposed Bush*'s invasion of Iraq, he now needs to demonstrate that he isn't opposed to the use of military force. Just wait and see how the Deenieboppers react when he reveals what a hawk he is.

Dean bashers try to act as if Dean has presented himself as anti-war... and not simply anti-war in iraq for no good reason... so you could cry that Dean lied and is really not anti-war.

Dean has said over and over again he is not against the use of military force, when that use is justified.

I am NOT looking forward to that moment because there are going to be a lot of disillusioned and angry people when that happens.

You can't be everything to everyone.

Pro-war and anti-war
Pro-labor and anti-labor
Pro-social security and anti-social security
Pro-gun and anti-gun
Pro-death penalty and anti-death penalty
Pro-gay right and anti-gay rights
Pro-welfare and anti-welfare

The typical answer when pressed on this is that "Dean is a centrist" but that answer is not going to be unacceptable to the Leftists and Liberals who thought they were getting something else.

There's nothing wrong with supporting Dean or any other candidate- just know what you're getting and right now I'm afraid that many people are so caught up in the rhetoric or so desperate to latch on to a savior that they're not paying close enough attention to his stand on the issues.

This was made very apparent these last few days right here at DU where Kucinich was practically crucified and branded as a liar for calling Dean out on the retirement age for social security. Even now that Dean has apologized and owned up to it, the supporters who are more personality oriented than issue-oriented are still burying their heads in the sand and spinning the facts.

Dean is going to get called on more issues... more contradictions... more mis-representations because you can't stand in the middle of the road, being everything to everyone, and not expect to get run over! The day that happens, watch out. There are going to be a lot of hurt, angry supporters who will feel they were had. But they weren't. The facts are there for everyone to see and to discuss. The problem is you can't discuss them civilly because a few people are taking this way too personally- as if their entire life was riding on Dean. Well it's not. We have 9 candidates out there and it's the life of our nation we should be focusing on.

The athmosphere is more that of a foot-ball game than anything else.

So yep Sangha, I don't want to be close-by when people realize this. If they're honest they'll realize they did this to themselves.

Check the Dean Blogs because it's already happening. People asking questions, requesting clarification from campaign HQs over murky issues and weeks later, still not getting it so they're not sticking around.

Here's one comment I found on a Dean blog that articulated this quite well.

There is something completely fraudulent about someone who says that you'll always know where they stand, but, they'll never pinpoint it exactly.

Peace

That your posts on some of these Dean threads has really eroded my respect for you.

It's not about you supporting another candidate. I THOROUGHLY support your right to prefer -- and work for!! -- Kucinich.

But this post, and it's just one example, has a tone that is a real turnoff for me coming from you. I wish I could name the poster this post most sounds like, but I think that's against DU rules.

Eloriel

A poster who regularly trashes other candidates is upset because Tinoire doesn't like Dean.

yet bear you absolutely no ill will. I respect your right to support Dean and I respect you enough to know that you would have researched the issues and are supporting him with open eyes. I simply don't have that impression with all of his supporters.

If you would like links to posts in the Dean logs where you can see the disappointment of people who feel let down after discovering that he's a hawk on Israel/Palestine, I will glady PM them to you. The same is happening with gun control. And as far as I/P goes, 3 DU posters in this week alone, have dropped Dean over that issue and to my great delight, I didn't even have anything to do with it- they went and researched and didn't like what they found. Please don't shoot the messenger on this one. You know how important I/P is to me- it has taken ALL of my self-control to reign that in and to stay out of the Dean threads where I know perfectly well who I could easily "convert". But whatever for? Because 1. you can't have any meaningful discourse on I/P at DU and 2. I know it's going to come out. The MPAC (Muslim Pac) is already going to make an issue of this as might some of the Jewish Peace Groups.

Dean's positions and record are there for anyone who cared to look (and many people did) but between a slick campaign team and an over-enthusiastic cheer-leading team, a lot of people just jumped on board and got lost in rethoric. And still, the members of the cheer-leading team prevent any decent conversation.

That's my observation Eloriel. I have gone out of my way to stay out of Dean threads and to bite my tongue on certain things out of respect for posters like you.

I can't do anything more than that.

The other thing is that there has been an influx of rude, obnoxious, 'Dean supporters' and I'm not so sure they're really Dean supporters, much less Democrats but they are setting a very combative tone, jumping from thread to thread dumping their spin and poisons and perfectly good DUers are following suite and getting caught in the melee! This last week has been worse than F/A!

There are about 4-5 Dean supporters I gained a LOT of respect for this week for openly stating how disappointed they were with the AFL-CIO incident. None of them switched sides. Nobody asked them to. But they gained a lot of respect for just coming out and saying that. There were also a few others who went out of their way to tell some of the cheerleaders to stop being so rude and obnoxious. It's because of people like that that I wish we had a "favorites list" for conversations or that we had private chat-rooms.

Anyway, I came to DU because my country and its policies are in a mess. I didn't come to make friends but I will be very sorry to lose any. Politics is ugly, and now I know why the old adage says to never discuss politics or religion with friends.

I'm so sorry Eloriel but I've said nothing I won't stand by. The only posts I might regret are the ones where I've been too curt, too rude out of the same frustration that makes people hammer their heads against the walls in F/A but even those I'll stand by.

An additional point is that you may think I’m picking on Dean. That’s not the case. I like controversial topics and don’t like spin (which there’s a lot of in these threads) so you’ll see me there but wait until it’s Kerry’s or Gephardt’s turn- I’ll be right there.

All I want is for my country to have the best possible president and for my party to nominate the best possible candidate. If it’s Dean- fine. Kerry- fine. Kucinich-fine. But this isn’t a foot-ball game and yet it’s being treated like one. Why?

If it means anything to you. It's the morning after and I still respect you.

that they would take Dean's answer to a hypothetical question about the balanced budget amemndment in 95 and act that his answer reflects his policy then or now regarding social security.

The man was pointing out what would have to be done if such an amendment were to pass... not advocating those things.

The DK crowd is getting more and more desperate as Dean gets more press, more money, and more support.

Just because he has a lousy position on this issue doesn't mean he's the Rove pick.

When another candidate get's a cover on a national mag will you be there to call them "the GOP pick?"

You know what Dean meant was that he never FAVORED raising the SS age unless it was absolutely necessary to keep SS solvent.

He thought 70 might be necesary in 1995 and he thinks 68 MIGHT be necessary at some point in the next 8 years. But he doesn't FAVOR this method.

Now let's play gotcha with Dennis' attack on Dean ...

Are we really now talking about the definition of FAVOR?

Unbelievable.

"Dean said the way to balance the budget is for Congress to move the retirement age to 70..."

He didn't 'favor' raising it to 70 though. Uh huh.

Definition of favor, according to Merriam Webster:

a (1) : friendly regard shown toward another especially by a superior (2) : approving consideration or attention

Apply the same "gotcha" standard to his attack, and you'll see that Dennis "lied" as well.

If we had a transcript of the forum, I'd gladly fetch it.

From my recollection, DK was saying that you can't save social security by raising the retirement age to 68 or 70, Mr. Dean.

I think that's totally fair. Dean IS entertaining raising it to 68, and he WAS favoring raising it to 70. DK was saying those are not acceptable solutions--which apparently Dean feels they are, since he is the one saying they are options.

Of course it was a "gotcha", and already much has been made of DK's behavior last night. Looks to me like DK is getting sick of Dean's 'progressive' media picture.

Of course he was wrong. DK knows the difference between him and Dean.

Q. So why did Dennis act like that was Dean's current stance on the issue?

A. BECAUSE HE WAS LYING!

I was wrong, he DID say he wouldn't raise it to 70. Here's what he did say, along with the quote from 1995 (Russert reads it). I have no problem with his stance on this (I do, but whatever)--it's that he acted as if he had just NO idea what Kucinich could POSSIBLY be talking about.

"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: Would you raise retirement age to 70?
Dean: No. No. "

"(DEAN)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.
"(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

POSITION.

Dennis knew this. Any reasonable person could easily see he was going out of his way to disown the 70 mistake.

Why did he say he never favored raising it to 70 when LAST MONTH Russert reminded him that he did?

All he had to say when DK handed him the question was--I used to think that, I don't anymore. And, if I rescind the tax cuts, I won't have to cut SS benefits.

Instead he acted like he NEVER even THOUGHT of raising the age.

He flat out said he hated the idea of a balanced budget amendment, but felt one might be needed to to balance the budget in 95. Clinton proved that was not needed, and Dean said on MTP when presented with his statment about what would need to be done to meet the requierments of a balanced budget amendment he said:

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.

Definition of favor, according to Merriam Webster:

a (1) : friendly regard shown toward another especially by a superior (2) : approving consideration or attention

So he didn't approve considering it in 1995?

Come on. It's not a big deal, but the level of denial is stunning.

Then yeah, Dean did approve the act of considering of the idea, and then following that line... Kucinich FAVORS anti-choice laws and bans on abortion.

Since favor means only to approve the act of consideration.


Yeah, Dean considered the idea of raising the age... he did not like it nor did he want to do it, but he did consider it.

that the folks who want to superglue Senator Kerry to him FAVORING the Iraq war or FAVORING giving Shrub a blank check because he voted for the resolution in October, suddenly feels like suggesting a policy move to solve a problem isn't favoring.

So, when Bush says he HATES having to use military force in Iraq, does that mean that he is really against it, but only as a last resort would use it?

This semantics game is resembling the White House frantic moves in July over yellowcakegate.

On MTP he said he would consider increasing it to 68.

Last night he said...
snip:

Dean responded, "I have never favored a Social Security retirement age of 70 nor do I favor one of 68."

You call this "wise?" That's not my word for it.

not that it is something he wanted to do, would like to do, or would enjoy doing, was going to do, planed to do, or favored doing.

He also did it re: his position on "gay marriage" vs "civil unions" on Larry King Live. It's not particularly desirable, but it has a lot to do with why he's elecatable. He has a masterful understanding of political propaganda. He can play the straight talker and carefully duck taking a clear cut position on some touchy issues. Why wouldn't he? They all use what they have. DK's attack was undoubtedly rehearsed, and certainly disingenuous given the fact that he reframed the timing and context of the statements. OF COURSE he's using the whole "fire in the belly" anti-anything related to the other candidates thing that some people find so endearing. I can't blame him for using what he has if he's in the race.
The thing I can't understand is this: Why is he trying to thwart the electable guy who has social positions most similar to his? He'd rather people go without health care coverage than have a plan he doesn't like? Or have one of the other guy's plans that cover fewer people?
He must know he's unelectable. If he truly thinks he is, I would be very very concerned about his potential napoleon complex others have mentioned.
I wish he'd look for some other tactics.
I wish the same for Dean as well. I hate to see equivocating in the primary. The thing is, if you listen to him, you'll see he's definitely running his campaign against Bush right now.

Wow wee wow wow! :crazy:

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.


Dean was asked in 95 how he'd balance the budget if the balanced budget amendment were passed. He listed off some things that would have to be done to balance the budget.

The DK folks try to claim this answer somehow reflects Dean's current policy goals for SS, when it was a hypothetical question in the first place.

why is that so hard for you to comprehend.

Dean favors BBA
BBA would require moving the retirement age to 70
THEREFORE
Dean favors moving the retirement age to 70.

Logic 101.

Admit it! He lied! Read the article, FCOL.

not that it was a policy he favored or something he wanted to do.

Admit it! DK lied!

Dean himself has admitted he misspoke. It won't be the last time it happens and how he handles the situation will be a good indication of his character.

Some said. Yeaaaaaah Dean! Did you see the way he smacked down DK? Gloating about it!

Can't say you all don't have it coming to you.

I make my decisions based on what I think and what A CANDIDATE says and/or does and if other people act like assholes that's not going to affect my judgement about the person they may be supporting. I don't purport to speak for other "Deanies."
You should hope that other people on this board won't take YOU for a typical Clark supporter.

What's got your pamper in a twist? :evilgrin:

You shouldn't dish it if you can't take it. As a Clark supporter you have interjected yourself into every thread with your insults to Clark and his supporters. Turnabout is fair play.

1. He's not a candidate
2. He refuses to admit he's a democrat.

If those are insults then you need to examine whether YOU can take it.

It was Dean's answer to a question about the balanced budget amendment and what would have to be done to balance the budget...

And Kucicnich is acting like that was Dean's policy and what Dean wanted to do.

I really thought Kucinich was a better man than that...



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.

what position do you think Dean was advocating at the time?

He was asked what he would do IF THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT PASSED.

Not what he favored or wanted to do... but what would have to be done if the amendment passed in 95.

Here's the quote....

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.

and he was saying what would have to be done if it passed, not advocating those things.

For christ's sake that is like asking someone what they would do if a building was on fire and a kid was trapped inside... then taking their answer as proof they favor throwing kids out of windows.

____________________________________________________________
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.
____________________________________________________________

and has been vocal about it.

He "HATES" the idea of having to do it, but thought in 95 it might be needed to balance the budget.

However, as he has said repeatedly since then, Clinton proved the budget could be balanced without it.

Hence the fact Dean said on MTP...

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

...but said he no longer thinks it is necessary.

I still think that Dean has flirted with this idea too much to make me comfortable. However, the Globe has been the central force in attacking both Kerry and Dean and should be looked at as a suspect source.

and many other newspapers.

Nedra Pickler is considered to a very accomplished political reporter; she works for the Associated Press, not The Globe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2997669,00.html

Why doesn't she ask Bush about how he saw the first airplane hit the WTC on 9/11?

And how he could actually think to himself, "what a lousy pilot"?

And why he kept reading with the kids for 15 minutes?

If she was such an accomplished writer, maybe she'd ask the real questions.

Or at least include the actual quotes she is questioning -- Kucinich's attack, Dean's response, what Dean said on MTP, what Dean said in 1995 and what he said in apology for his comments today.

What does this have to do with 9/11?

The reporter in this case is merely running with what Dean himself said about the incident. DEAN says he misspoke. That's the story here. His campaign admits it.

All I see is spin.

His actual words are enclosed in these marks "".

:crazy:

The Globe is still a rag, though.

a fool out of Dennis. I don't care what his stance on the issue is. Just defend it, say you've evolved, whatever. Instead of mugging for the cameras, like, who me????? And making a stink about it because someone quoted his words from just a few months ago.

I feel completely vindicated now that I never liked him.

and i think i am starting to see the poinr.........

I'll take your challenge. Tell where Dennis Kucinich lied like Dean did?

that Dean lied. But look at the way he did it. Long dramatic, incredulous takes. Moi??????? :puke:

but raising wage cap on payroll tax - as in removing it - and giving the standard 15% factor to the wages over 85000 that now have that factor at 85000 gives a benefit that increases with income to the rich, and provides funds so that the age for full benefits need not be raised from Reagans increased "Nornal Retirement Age" of 57 that will apply to most of us.

These people doing marketing need to step back and smell the coffee. The problem with most of the worlds markets today is overcapacity and poor distribution. The ideal of engineered scarcity is over. Population explosions, Eco-system collapse, management of a resurgent microbe populations and political instability among the rest of the world’s political structures could well end up as bigger problems than social security retirement or a spiraling national debt.

The days of the of the computer are catching up with all candidates. If Howard is a normal person (like the rest of us)surely most would reconize how one could scarcely remember what they exactly thought or said nine years ago, but for them politicians the whole archives of their careers is at most peoples finger tips. This is the type of thing really don’t bode well for anybody including *. To me stuff like this is par for coarse, getting out of that boggy mode into par will be necessary for any body that is running

We'll see if it hurts him or not.

for being a sane supporter. I am afraid I run into the other type too often, and I forget you aren't all like that.

I don't know if it will hurt him as an instance or not. As a demonstrated pattern, it might. I hope he learns to be more careful, but otoh, being a risk taker is what has got him as far as he's gotten, so who knows?

And anyone else see a double standard here? Dean immediately acknowledges that he goofed in what he said. Bush still hasn't accepted responsibility for the State of the Union.

something less than circumspect Dean said ~8 years ago.

How in the hell is there a comparison between the bad actions of Dean and the bad actions of Bush?

That's like Carville saying "Gore couldnt win Tenneesee? Well, George Bush couldnt win the whole country" a REAL stretch

BUSH!!!!!!!

Mu ha ha ha ha ha!

It is NOT a minor flub - it illustrates a mindset. Dean needs to explain - IN DEPTH - why he ever thought SS was in trouble (it wasn't) and why this particular solution ever appealed to him.

Trouble is, the whore press will be babbling about gay marriage and "soft on terrorism" 24x7 - they'll never address this.

President Clinton was still trying to get Reagan/Bush deficits back under control, and the Social Security surpluses were covering for that. We're in the same boat now, so we've got to get federal budget deficits under control lest they overwhelm Social Security.

I'd also like to point out that arch-liberal Daniel Patrick Moynihan, former New York Senator, makes Howard Dean's (past, now changed) Social Security comments look positively timid.

And no, SS was never in trouble. And if it had been, the solution would've been to raise the FICA limit.

The "solution" to the problem was lousy, a patchwork of nudges and policy changes. It was a lousy solution, but it was the only one that could get thru Congress.

and Kucinich is vindicated

Puts Kucinich's performance last night in a NEW light :D

He explicitly has said he does not favor raising the SS eligibility age to 70, and has said only that a raise to 68 should be debated.

But DK comes off looking like a cheap-shot artist.

and said one thing last night EVEN THOUGH he admitted that he misspoke

Otherwise I will conclude that you are indulging in hysterical raving.

or did he simply MISSPEAK? That would make Kucinich very justified in what he said.

He did not favor the policy of raising the age to 70.


That statement is from a 8 year old interview where dean answered a hypothetical question about what would need to be done to come into compliance with a balanced budget amendment.

So really, your denial of it is puzzling.

Even Dean acknowledges he misspoke.

It is a lot easier to say he mispoke by saying NEVER than to try and point out how his postion wasn't favoring increasing the age and in fact according to his statements was very unhappy with that situation in 95.

So saying Dean favored the raise in age is like saying a doctor favors cutting off your arm or leg, when the fact is they don't want to do it but it might be necessary to save your life.

However with the way folks in the DK and Kerry camp are just ready to bounce on every fucking word Dean says, it is a lot smarter to just cut his losses on this one and kill it as an issue by sayign he misspoke. He simply does not have the time or energy to devote to this one.

Whereas I do, so I see no reason not to point out the fact of the matter to those who want to lie about Dean answer to a hypothetical question 8 years ago.

Perhaps he learned from his MTP experience where he tried to explain to Russert how his apology to Bob Graham wasn't really an apology.

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

Kentuck started a thread earlier today on whether Dean misspoke, and many Dean supporters said no no no no no no no.

The DEAN CAMPAIGN said Dean misspoke.
Interestingly, that now makes some DUers "stupid". Uh...

:eyes:

Oh, but I bet you hope those jerks vote for Dean in the general, though, don't ya. Way to bring them into that fold.

:) Just kidding guys! But, if we put the perceived transgressions on the scales, we can weigh its disqualifying magnitude. I will still vote for the nominee, whomever it is, over Bush and the Repubs...

I am ABB too still but you know I think DK could see a little boost.

Because our Party needs liberal ideas such as Dennis'. It'll take a horseload of ideas such as his just to prevent us all from becoming Repubs...but we will still call ourselves Democrats....but we will be Repubs.

Seems to me that Dennis might have actually got his goat, and goaded him into reacting instead of acting. If Dean had any thoughts like "I'll fix that runt" last night, he's got a problem and better see to it quick, before the others try their hands at needling him until he pops.

Blooper
Evolving
Wiser
Flub
Minor flub
Misspoke
False Statement

Can't say they haven't learned anything from 3 years of shrub.

Bushisms ... Deanisms

Deanism.com .. wonder if it's available.

Kucinich did good in nailing Dean and others.

Constitutional protections for the accused are "technicalities"

Right out of the RNC "Dems are soft on crime" playbook.

"error"

and even if he did get the nomination, and then went on to win the presidency, that we would end up being plenty sorry that he did.
I'm pretty sure that we'll be seeing morethan a few more "misspeaks" on his part before it's over.

A number of people in this thread have been SALIVATING for a moment like this. Enjoy it while it lasts...it will likely be nothing more than a bump in the road for Dean and if it turns out to be more then you will just have to look forward to it happening to whatever candidate you happen to support.

At least he admitted he made an error IMMEDIATELY rather than hoping it would just blow over and then having the story force it out of him.

I think he didnt want to tell his feelings to the workers because he knew they would give him hell for it.

n/t

He did with Wellstone's line about "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party", and he did it when he claimed that all of his opponents voted for Bush*'s tax cuts. He also said that the Dems voted to raise real estate taxes in NH

No one thinks this is the death knell for Dean's campaign.

But why is it so hard for people to say hey, Dean shouldn't have done that?

Lighten up!

Obviously he agrees or he wouldn't have said anything about it. Now we can argue all night about his motivations for coming clean right away but it was certainly the smartest thing to do under the circumstances.

That's all I wanted, LOL, that's all!

for very long.

Could have saved yourself the "misery" of reading the entire thread.

I just wanted a Dean person to make me feel sane, LOL.
I didn't get the disconnect here about what I saw and what they were seeing.

on edit--I also see a few other Dean folks felt as you did.

what at the very very worst was a case of Dean saying he never favored something and he doesn't favor soemthing.

That's it.

And frankly I think Dean was right on and shouldn't have said he misspoke, because he didn't if you know the context of the statements that they are tying to hang him with.

However I guess since the average joe isn't going to look up the interview and see the question was an 8 year old hypothetical question, that it is easier to simply say he misspoke when he said never.

He's getting quite a reputation for "misspeaking." :eyes:

Call it a bump in the road if you want. I've been around long enough to now that this kind of overzealous campaigning (a new euphemism for lying) will sink a candidate's campaign faster quicker than anything.
People really want to get rid of bush. They won't entrust that job to Dean.

then he'll be out of the picture, won't he? In which case you will have your work cut out for you to try to transfer the enthusiasm of 1000's of Dean supporters over to the candidate YOU prefer.

he'll lose a few here and a few there. I don't see a gigantic folly where he just falls from grace. But more and more folks are going to start looking around at the other candidates.

There will be a bunch of folks whose enthusiasm won't transfer to another and we'll have to live with that. But chances are good that come the general election, the anger that they feel now towards Bush will compell them to vote ABB anyway, Dean or no Dean.

The guy talks off the top of his head and doesn't follow scripts layed out by politcal hacks. That's not going to play against him in the long run...on the other hand, these career DC politicians will ALL look like slick shysters everytime they backtrack on a position.

I have an idea you'll be waiting a long time.

since I rather like Kucinich's position on a lot of issues. I wish he'd gone on the attack against someone else.

Also I think he chose Dean because Dean's the most like him, he wanted to differeniate himself between him and Dean. Glad to see many Deannies still respect him and will support him, I also appreciate some of you standing up against that disruptor the other night, you know the haikuist.

that Kucinich singled out Dean because they are competing for some of the same votes. (Note I say "some of" -- they both get the anti-war people, but on other issues they couldn't be more different.)

Tonight at my Meetup, there were some people asking about the differences between Kucinich and Dean. Keep in mind I live in a VERY liberal town where Kucinich is quite popular. He had a good showing at our local parade and I have seen more than one Kucinich bumpersticker.

Oh, the haikuist -- that one was unbelievable. I will always step in for Dennis. :)

I guess al those anti-choice votes by DK were misvotes?


Funny how DK supporters give him a pass on his total flip flop on the abotion issue when he decided to run.

Yet those same folks shit themselves over Dean saying he never favored raising the social security age to 70... because 8 years ago Dean answered a hypothetical question about the balanced budget amendment by saying that raising the social security age would be one of the things that might be necessary to balance the budget.

Even though Dean said he HATED the idea of having to have a balanced budget amendment that could requier those kinds of spending cuts... that apparently still meets the Dean basher's definition of FAVORING.

Never mind that he's energized people more than the other eight combined.
Never mind that I agree with him >80% of the time.

He mis-spoke on this issue, and he's blown-it with me!

NOT!

as I said on another thread, he shouldn't have done this. He was trying to defend himself, and he blew it.

He apologized, which doesn't excuse it but is also better than trying to wiggle out of it or ignore it. Probably won't be his last mistake. Or the only mistake made by a candidate in this campaign.

You think the Dems are scrutinizing and challenging each other, just wait until the eventual nominee goes up against BushRove. This is just practice.

If this is the WORST you can pin on Dean, or better yet, if this is what you think is actually IMPORTANT, well than God help ya. Isn't it bad enough that Faux News plays "gotcha" - we gotta have it between the Dems?

Get fucking over it.

eileen from OH

Of course they will say he does this all the time, when in fact he was accused of "misstatements" twice. Once which was a true statement, but it offended Graham so he said he regretted offending him with the damn truth (he was not a tier 1 candidate in the polls of Iowa and NH) and the other was something about Edwards.

Now let's see...what "misstatements" have the other candidates made about Dean? Maybe Lieberman calling him "weak on defense and too liberal for Washington DC" or how about Kerry's spokesperson claiming Dean is a republican in sheep's clothing?

This is so petty and asinine that Dean-haters think they can convince me he is the same as Bush because of this.

Is that he previously considered it as an option but since ruled it out.

Now,

Kucinich had his moment like a sullen child - but let anyone of the other candidates rip him apart on his voting history on women's rights, or his unbelieveably shallow and reactionary vote on flag-burning or even the question of courting racial divisiveness in the past to win elections and it is over.

I'm *very* impressed with this and his solution:

...
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.
...

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

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

To single out Kerry, one of our best candidates -- he hasn't apologized for his war vote, which I feel is a far greater blunder than Dean entertaining options to keep social security solvent.

It was a lie, and all the euphimisms you can dream up won't disguise the fact that Dean has a habit of lying.

1) Wellstone lie
2) Edwards lie
3) Kerry lie
4) And now, SS lie

about the lies about Wellstone and Kerry?

"But that contradicted a 1995 article in which Dean said he wanted to raise it to age 70 to help balance the budget."

Total bullshit... in that interview Dean was presented with a question about how he would balance the budget IF there was a balaced budget amendment passed and the budget HAD to be balanced.

This was the same crap Russert tried to pull.
_____________________________________________________________
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.
_____________________________________________________________


To ask Dean a hypothetical question about what he would do if there was a balanced budget amendment passed, then take the answer and act as if that is what he currently favors as policy is totaly dishonest and despertate.

I though Kucinich was a better man than that.

In fact the closest thing Dean said is that he would entertain the idea of raising the age to 68.

  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.

Dean lies, TLM swears to it (even though even Dean admits he was wrong), and gets burned for it.

There is some justice in this world.

but Dean's answer to a hypothetical question about the balanced budget amendment in 95... and his saying on MTP that he would entertain the idea of rasing the limit to 68.

DK lies and said Dean wants to raise the age to 70, and Dean rightfuly points out that he never favored that.

He said almost 10 years ago that if a balanced budget passed in 95, that would be one thing needed to balance the budget and he was none to happy about it.

Yet you people ignore when Dean says that he hates the idea of having to have a balanced budget amendment in the first place and "Well, we fortunately don't have to do that now."

"you might just have to do it."

"I hate to do it "

"we didn’t have to do it in Vermont"

"but, God, the guys in Washington just never get it about money. "


So how does that translate into Dean favoring raising the age to 70?

He was asked a hypothetical question about the balanced budget amendment in 95 and what would have to be done then to balance the budget.

ANd you guys are acting like he is just licking his chops waiting to raise that retirment age to 70.

amendment since evidently Dean's been for a balanced budget his entire political career. Dean has been described as a real penny pinching deficit hawk as Governor of Vermont.

What does Dean have against Clinton's surplus? Doesn't Dean like paying down the debt and saving SS?

Mean he is against clinton's surplus?

Clinton achived the surplus by balancing the budget.

A balanced budget has no surplus. Clinton created a surplus by raising taxes and improving the economy, not by balancing the budget

LOL! Where did you take economics, the crawford school of a'countin?


Balancing the budget is what boosts the economy by creating a stable and profitable investment market, rather than a skyrocketing inflation rate debt market like we have now.

Having a balanced budget means not spending more than you make... it does not mean spending EVERYTHING you make in order to always zero out.

http://www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/getword.cgi?391

balanced budget:

A budget for which expenditures are equal to income. Sometimes a budget for which expenditures are less than income is also considered balanced. The concept is often discussed in reference to the federal government.

That seems pretty clear to me...

"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."

Lets see, he hates it, and did not have to do it in VT, but thinks it might have to be done to control congressional spending.

When asked in 95 how we would meet a BBA, Dean gave the quote that is being spun as Dean favoring a SS age of 70. It is very misleading because not only was Dean not saying he favored those things, but he's since made it clear that we don't have to do that now.

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.

I seem to remember the Dean cult opining about something Kerry said in the 1970s.

Can you say dead man walking. Dean will never win the White House.

Burnt toast.

we'll all just pack-up and go home. At least he's man enough to admit it when he's wrong.

Misspoke, like Bush misspoke.

He lied, and since it didn't just slip through the cracks he claimed he 'misspoke'.

I'm not Dean bashing, he is my 3rd choice, but I don't like that at all.

I am not sure what I would call him number wise, but I envision me and you man have the same list, I imagine Kerry's number 2 too for you.

on a board of doctors who are trying to fight to get a no age limit on s.s. , he says some need it earley then others and some can work longer in life , there should be no age tied to s.s. , it is for those who have worked and no matter the age , when it is time for them to retire it should be out there for them to draw on , these suckers want to take our money we put into this fund and and have a ball with it in d.c. , if they kept there crooked little paws off it , there would be well over the amount out there to fund any who needs to retire to do it at any age

Not sure how much you know about his idea, but here goes:

I work in IT, typing all day. If in 20 years, at age 40, I got crippling carpal tunnel from working... they would advocate me being able to retire, right? Is that what it's about?

And by the mid 60's everyone should be retired, if not earlier. My gramps has had melanoma in both ears, cancerous bening growth in his throat and hes 60.

My grandma is 61, and has had 3 brain tumors, 1 removed, and the effects it's had are apparent.

They both still work :(

I was watching CSPAN this afternoon and Dean was speaking "live" in Iowa. He said DK is a good man, but he mispoke when he said that he (Dean) was for raising the SS age. I thought Dean had said he mis-spoke - now he's saying DK mis-spoke. Who mis-spoke? I'm confused. Anybody else see it?

I didn't see it, but geez already. I hope he figures out whether he misspoke or not.

Here's a nice summary of Dean's other GOP-lite positions:

http://www.hermes-press.com/HDean/dean_republican.htm