Let's put the accusations about Dean and utility deregulation to bed

This foolishness is getting mighty old, so I'm going to just blow this one right out of the water once and for all.

Here ya go:

The conference was held as enthusiasm for utility deregulation in Vermont is waning due in part to rate shock and rising prices in California, Maine, and Massachusetts. Even Gov. Howard Dean, once an ardent proponent of electric industry competition, said recently that he was glad the Legislature derailed his administration's drive to deregulate.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/14542.html

And Vermont Gov. Howard Dean thanked lawmakers for blocking his push to deregulate 31/2 years ago.

How long did it take to change Dean's mind?

"About five minutes once I saw what was happening in California," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/02/03/power.woes.02/

really great
:hi:

If one reads CLOSELY on the dereg issue one will see the manner in which the industry seduced the watchdogs with claims that the system was safe and would benefit consumers based on existing law, while they dismantled the laws in the meantime.

California happened in Jan 2001, right. That's pretty recent.

What happened in 2001 that made Dean dramatically change his policies to become more Democratic?

There is no better convert to our side than a former believer. Dean was following the New Democrat line, and has walked away from it.

So what type of Democrat are you referring to?

needed some liberal bona fides if he was going to run for president as a Democrat.

As for ideology, Dean's attitude is that he doesn't consider himself a Liberal, but if standing up to corporate despotism means he's Liberal then so be it.

I think he's either wary of some perceived philosophical weakness in Liberalism, or he'd prefer to rehabilitate the label with the public starting at a level they can deal with.

through competition. Who doesn't want to save money? It's really understandable how people could think it just might be worth a shot. However, once the reality came to light, it was just as easy to do a 360 degree turn on the issue. This is NOT something legitimate to bash Dean over. He was quite clear in his comments in that last article about where he stands on the issue now, so it's a non-issue.

a quote from Oct 2000 of Dean saying "I'm glad the legislature didn't push through my proposal now that we see what it resulted in."

I'm not saying it isn't good that he did it.

But it's not evidence of a dramatic philosophical change. Does he think there was a different deregulation bill that would have been better?

I have repeatedly explained this to a certain Kerry supporter who especially likes to accuse Dean of wanting to deregulate utilities. That clearly is not true, and this thread proves that beyond any doubt. Anyone who reads that statement by Dean can NOT honestly and truthfully claim that Dean supports deregulation. And now there is a thread people can link to everytime someone tries to make that false claim. That is how that ridiculous talking point has effectively been blown out of the water.

As I've repeated numerous times...Dean DID initially support deregulation. He admits he made a mistake and owns it. He no longer supports it. Case closed.

The only thing it adds is that it took him five minutes to change his mind on the issue described in the first article...a position the first article says he ardently supported.

There's a lot missing here. What is Dean's philosophy on privatized utilities?

When he was asked how long it took him to change his mind about supporting deregulation he made the "about 5 minutes....." quote.

His policy on the issue is quite obvioiusly that he opposes it. I've heard him say it in a television interview as well, although I don't recall which one it was.

His statement means "it" was electricity deregulation, and it resulted in some pretty bad situations well before the final 2000-2001 crisis we are all familiar with. CA went through years of prior problems.

Believe me, it's blown out the water. Dean now rails against corporate influence and corruption regularly. Even now, that takes guts.

whether a company not acting criminally could do it right in Dean's mind.

You really can not be reasonable about him at all. This is how we try to present our case, you ignore it, say it is not enough. That is why this board can not settle their disputes. Some of you do not want us to make our points.

on Clark or any of the "washington" candidates.

He would have gone through with it had the legislature not apposed him. Real vindication there

Not if they admitted they made a mistake and was honest about it. He wouldn't be lampooning them over Iraq now if they would just admit that they screwed up and take responsibility for being wrong instead of wallowing in a pit of denial. Dean just doesn't have much patience for that lack or holding yourself accountable for your own mistakes or errors in judgement. Had the DC-ers who voted for IWR just fessed up and showed some humility there would have been no mention of "Bush Lite".

your post proves once again that the Dean movement has everything to do with Iraq and litte else

there are about half of all democrats who lean towards regime change and about half who lean against.

My side doesn't call your side appeasers or pro-saddam or ignorant on foriegn policy. Yet your side has no problem with deciding that we are Bush-lite based on that.

Clark and Graham apposed the war and they still get called Bush-lite by Deanies.

It as unsubstantiated and desperate an argument/attack as the right blaming things on the liberal media

Although I don't see why people wouldn't borrow the term to refer to Kerry and Lieberman's stance toward Iraq and Palestine.

Now that they realize those votes hurt them with a lot of potential voters, they are trying to back paddle and act like they didn't really support the war. I don't have a strong opinion on the whole Iraq mess regarding the vote and the decision to go there, so Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with who I support or who I don't. What annoys me is that some voted for it because it was the popular thing to do at the time (vote grabbing attempts) and now that it's not so popular anymore, some are trying to convince people that they didn't really support it afterall. THAT is the issue I have with the "Bush Lite" candidates. I don't group Lieberman in that group because he at least stuck to his guns and hasn't faltered a bit. I find him annoying as hell, but I at least respect him for standing his ground and being straight with voters, even when he gets boo-ed. I also happen to like Edwards and really don't see him as being all that "guilty" of the back paddling, but he has done it a little bit, but he tries to be honest and fair, and I give him props for that. It's mainly Kerry and Gephardt who I see as deserving the label.

with the same Brush as the rest of the candidates, practically at every appearance.

Dean waffles, stretches, misleads, and lies as much as any candidate. Yet he puts himself out as the shoot-from-the-hip, straight talker, and people buy into it.

I'd like to know how Edwards has backtracked as you claim

When Dean makes those general statements about "Bush Lite", Edwards isn't who comes to mind for me. Kerry and Gephardt do, though. Edwards has backtracked a little bit in his criticism of Bush and the war, but it's been minor from what I've seen. I haven't even seen or heard Dean single Edwards out since he apologized to him for saying something that he wouldn't have said had he heard what Edwards had said during his speech right beforehand. Have I missed something? I don't see much dislike towards Edwards from Dean supporters. In fact, I would very much like to see Edwards as at least Attorney General in a Dean administration, if not his VP. I also would like to see Edwards become president a little later on down the road. I just don't think he's quite ready yet, but if he plays his cards right, his time will come. Have you honestly seen Dean supporters criticizing Edwards a lot? I haven't. Is it possible that you are more upset that Edwards isn't catching on in the way you'd like and that's more of why you are upset with Dean? I'm just not seeing Edwards being attacked here at all. If I'm missing something, please point me towards those threads, because I honestly haven't seen them if they exist.

...at the last minute.

It just shows that he didnt put much time into studying deregulation to see what it would do. There were plenty of examples to look at in the United Kingdom and Latin America where deregulation ran amuck.

I can see the resulting headline when a governor lobbies against "free choice and competition" because the UK and Latin America couldn't hack it.

Dean's history with this simply says he was in Clinton's NAFTA-esque school of thought and has since graduated.

Just utter complete hatred. That is too bad. KK was trying to present a topic that is always brought up, and is insulted.

I don't consider the war votes of the other candidates positive. So we can just go in circles with no one backing down.

What a stupid idiotic thing to do.

It is for the people who might buy into the foolishness repeated by the haters. Those who read here and haven't made up their mind should know the truth. They should also be given plenty of examples of how there are many, many lies about Dean circulating by the other campaigns. Now people who read this will know the truth and who is telling it, and that's important.

:hi:

Glad you enjoyed it...and do bookmark it for future reference for use in Politics and Campaigns every time someone tries to spread the old yarn.

and believe it or not, Kerry supporters are STILL trying to portray Dean as someone who wants to Deregulate Utilites. It's unbelievable that you can prove that something being posted about Dean is blatantly false and the supporters of some candidates will still try to use it to mislead voters. And here I thought it was the GOP that uses those tactics. How utterly disgusting.

So I am going to bring it up again and make sure it doesn't get buried too far down.

:)