Kerry, Gephardt must stop their "Dean bashing"

I'm not a "Deanper", or whatever, but I am a registered Democrat and I'm just a little tired of the tone that both Senator John Kerry's and Dick Gephardt's campaigns have taken lately. Right now, if everything falls its way, the Democratic Party could run a blind mule and beat Bush. Yet the growing nastiness and devisiveness in the rhetoric coming from Kerry and Gephardt aimed at Dean can only strenghten the Republican incumbant at the Democratic Party's expense.

Let me pass along a couple of items from The Des Moines Register.

First a letter from the October 22 edition:
Two well-seasoned Washington, D.C., insiders, John Kerry and Richard Gephardt, with their recent sharp attacks against the "new boy on the Democratic block" Howard Dean, are hoping beyond hope their "two-against-one" offensive against Dean just might do better than their individual attempts to put him down.

Dean is not the enemy, George Bush is. Stop trying to fragment the Democratic Party. Attack your enemy, not your brothers.
(-snip-)
Robert B. Sanderson

Second an editorial column by Ira Lacherin today's edition:
(-snip-)
With notable exceptions such as the late Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, most Democratic office-seekers haven't energized young people by campaigning on issues they care about, such as the environment or college costs
(-snip-)
But given the choice between a headmaster on the far right and a headmaster on the near right, younger voters are likely to stay home in 2004, or cast ballots for a third-party progressive (Dennis Kucinich?), the way they voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. "If Democrats can't speak the language and address the aspirations of the young," Goldberg wrote in the American Prospect, "they can forget about retaking the White House."
Link

The Democratic Party has an historic opportunity, I beleive, to not only retake the White House but the Congress. But the distorted image of a Party at war with itself, that reactionary pundits love painting of the Democrats, can only be reinforced by the current discord amongst Kerry, Dean and Gephardt. I've read issue statements from all three candidates and find only incremental differences and shifts of emphasis between them. All three are formidable candidates and any one of them should defeat Bush in 2004. Any serious and lasting rancor caused by the current divisions between the Party's top three presidental candidates only palys into the hands of the Bush/Rove Cartel. The nation, and the world, can ill afford four more years of misrule by the junta now in control of the White House and the U.S. Congress.

Adding to the irony: Dean's own supporters say he's no Liberal. A disconnect?

After all Senator Kerry did vote for the War Powers Resolution, as did Gephardt, that led to the invasion of Iraq. Dennis Kucinichis the only candidate who voted against the War Powers Resolution. Could this be the reason for Dean's "Bush-lite" claim?

On the other hand, I do agree that Dean is no "liberal" in the Paul Wellstone, Dennis Kucinich sense. Dean's positions seem very much in tune with Clinton's Third Way philosophy.

him "Bushliter" by that same reasoning?

Link me up! Show me where I can learn about this. There's a chance that the answer to your question is YES. But your sorry way of phrasing it and making your point makes it impossible to determine.

and Dean's support of it, you have NO ROOM to be judging anyone's intellect.

Thanks for your help. As usual, I can totally rely on the Dean bashers to share information and educate.

I love the, "If you don't already know..." posts. Big help. Thanks.

Let me know when you are serious about discussing these things. Sooner or later one of the anti-deans MIGHT have some REAL info to share.

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/local2003/012303dean_2002.shtml

I can't wait for those four guys from Congress to come up here and explain to us why they wanted to raise your property taxes after they supported a tax cut for the wealthiest people in America," he said.

Dean also criticized his opponents for voting to give Bush a "blank check" on military intervention in Iraq - and, now, changing their tune on the issue.

"Today, they're running around telling you folks they're all anti-war," he said. (Later, he acknowledged that Lieberman's vote was consistent with the senator's comparatively "hawkish" position on Iraq.) "We're never going to elect a president that does those things. If I voted for the Iraq resolution, I'd be standing in favor, supporting it right now in front of you."

Dean said he would have voted instead for the Biden-Lugar resolution, which he said supported disarming Saddam using multilateral action, and which did not call for a "regime change."

Yeah, that cuts really deep.

I spent six months not posting here and I guess I'm just the worst guy ever for it.

because you never researched your refutations. Alot of this info is common knowledge and if you knew your candidate as well as you claim, then you'd be familar with all of this info.

None of it is common knowledge, unless you have some different definition for COMMON than I do. All I ask is for your BASHING to be CLEAR and intelligible. And not based on LIES.

of you not knowing what the facts are?

The number of times I have to ask you to be specific is staggering.

You mean facts like Kerry claiming Dean is abandoning the middle class? That's a horrible lie.

Gephardt claiming that Dean wants to raise the SS age? LIE.

But you don't speak specifically, which makes it hard for me to understand what you are talking about. So would you like to make your claims more specific?

First Dean's so called bashing WAS TRUE! Dems were voting vote W's war. for no child left behind, for 350 billion in tax cuts... that's Bush lite.

You keep on trying so hard to push the disgusting lie that BL was exactly the same thing as the IWR that Kerry voted for. Do you really think DUers are that stupid? Do you think we're all so ignorant that we can't tell the difference between no regime change, and regime change or between working through the UN and NOT working through the UN?

How desperate are you that you'd continue to tell this lie, knowing that people here will call you on it?

Are you just counting on enough people having gotten so sick of your garbage that they all ignored you and won’t see you continuing this line of crap?

What is it BLM? How can you think people here are stupid enough to fall for this claim that the BL bill was the same thing as the IWR?

YOU are the one who keeps saying I say that, yet, there are enough honest Dean supporters here who know that I have always said they are "similar" or "not that far off" or "not much different".

Except for the obvious, glaring, and HUGE differences?

Every tie she says this crap she's saying that DUers are all such fucking morans that we'll all fail to see any significant difference between...

Working with the UN and NOT working with the UN.
Taking over Iraq and NOT taking over Iraq.
Going back to congress and NOT going back to congress.
Using force to take out weapons sites and using force to take out Saddam.

Requiring PROOF and NOT requiring PROOF.



BLM apparent sees little difference between a doctor performing surgery, and a lunatic just stabbing some guy 12 times… because they both used something sharp so there’s almost no difference.

Professor Plum. Or have a peek at yesterday's MWO.

.

you look for any similarity, no matter how vague, and if you find it, suddently they're almost the same thing?

they can not defend Kerry's support for Bush's war so they only hope is to argue that Dean is just as bad because he would have voted for BL which would have us in Iraq anyway...

But that's bullshit because BL had a UN requirement, a proof requirement, and wouldn't have sent forces into Iraq, but rather simply authorized attacks on weapons sites to the end of disarming saddam, not taking over Iraq.


BLM's argument is like saying that there's no difference between rape and consensual sex, because both involved sexual contact.

n/t

exactly?

A LIBERAL Democrat. Check out his record for advancing Liberal, traditionally Democratic causes — from public education, to early child development, to HEAD START, to a woman's right to choose, to protecting the environment, to advancing small businesses, to protecting workers' rights, to standing up the VRWC.

Like FDR and JFK, Sen. Kerry also believes in strong national defense. If this wasn't a traditional Democratic position — truly a Liberal position — the USA wouldn't have been able to beat the Depression, beat the Fascists in World War 2, nor beat the commies in the Cold War.

Regarding Saddam Hussein: Sen. Kerry did what he thought best for protecting the nation. Bush is the guy that messed things up. Kerry, unlike the (ex-)governor from Texas or the ex-governor from Vermont, wouldn't need on-the-job training.

In short, there's nothing Bush-Lite about Sen. Kerry. OTOH, I can make a case against ...

He's been doing a GREAT job with public education, child development, etc. as a senator! Look at how well our schools are doing! Very advanced, thanks to Kerry.

Let's get it straight. No one can be credited with ADVANCING liberal causes because liberal causes haven't been ADVANCING.

And it's not Kerry's fault. It's not any senators fault. It'sjust an infuriatingly absurd claim.

And you claim that Kerry wouldn't need on the job training is equally ridiculous. Legislative experience is NOT executive experience. To think that there would be nothing new to learn upon becoming president is beyond arrogant. Whether you are talking about foreign policy or domestic, being president is nothing like being senator.

You insult everyone's intelligence including your own when you make such claims.

Sen. Kerry was an officer in the United States Navy and commanded a warship in combat. He volunteered for the duty and the most dangerous of missions, often going up Mekong River. None of the men under his command died, and Kerry was wounded three times. For his gallantry under fire, Kerry received the Silver Star and the Bronze star.

Certainly this trumps any "executive" type work behind a desk. Especially when you compare it to being the governor of a state smaller than Nashville, Tennessee, say.

In the case of the ex-governor of Vermont, Howard Dean showed up for his draft physical with a note from his doctor and an X-Ray proving he suffered, um, suffers from a "bad back." He celebrated his 1-Y classification by hitting the moguls in Vale, where he spent 88 days skiing. For knocking around money, he got a part-time job pouring concrete. In case you missed it, here's a link:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2087543/

One last point: Richard Pershing, grandson of General of the Armies John J. Pershing and one of Kerry’s best friends from college, died in combat in Vietnam. I don’t appreciate people who infer that Kerry would send people into combat without knowing the true consequences of war.

I get a kick out of you! Really I do!

So you're saying that being a CO in the Army is more like being president than being governor. Hooboy!

And then of course, the obligatory, ignorant draft dodger gambit. Great stuff! Truly great!

yet never mention he got them over 4 months and wasn't even injured enough to be unfit for duty. Kerry seemed to get a purple heart every time he stubbed his toe... then he used the three to get a transfer out of combat to a cushy polictial job.

Yet after spending only 4 months in combat... Kerry lies and claims he did TWO TOURS in nam, when he didn't even do one full tour.

Kerry got special treatment, got moved out of combat, then had the gall to insult every vet out there by lying about throwing his medals over the white house fence.

Fraud, farce, fake, thy name is Kerry.

Sen. Kerry's first was spent aboard a destroyer, running escort service in an aircraft carrier battle group. You obviously don’t know what that is, but it once was a dangerous job.

In his SECOND tour of duty in Vietnam, John Kerry was the skipper of a fast river patrol boat, a modern version of the PT-boats JFK made famous in WW2. Kerry volunteered for the most dangerous missions, taking his boat up the Mekong River to pick-up or drop-off commando teams. He did not lose a man under his command.

On one mission, his boat came under intense fire while part of a river patrol. The formation came under fire from mortars and machine guns hidden in the brush along the riverbanks. Instead of high-tailing it (like most people), Kerry turned his boat directly into the fire and stormed ashore.

Kerry said he did this to reduce the profile — the target size presented by his boat — facing the enemy. Once along the riverbank, Kerry, from his position in the wheelhouse, saw an enemy soldier rise up and aim a rocket-propelled grenade launcher at the boat from close-in range. The RPG misfired and the guy ran into the bush with the weapon.

Unlike lesser men, Kerry jumped in after the guy. He caught the man and shot him. Later, Kerry said he was determined to catch the man because a friend had been killed by an RPG in Vietnam a few weeks earlier. He didn’t want the weapon or the soldier to fire at another American.

When Kerry returned home after being wounded for the third time in four months, he asked for an early discharge in order to campaign against the war. His commanding officer agreed, and Kerry received an Honorable Discharge as a Lieutenant Commander.

As a civilian, Kerry helped organize the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He helped stage anti-war protests and special events, including a much-publicized activity where he threw combat medals over the White House fence in protest to the war. He also testified before the US Senate, stating the US should stop its involvement in the war in Vietnam. Kerry asked the Senate: “How can you ask a man to die for a mistake?”

Kerry knows all about war. It’s obvious you don’t. Judging by the disrespect you show Kerry’s achievements and SACRIFICE on your behalf, it sounds like you don’t even read about it. That’s sad.

Kerry was safe on a ship... which was the safest place to be in nam for a 7 month tour. he then got to return home. Shortly there after he went back on a 4 month combat tour.

My math says that's a total of 11 months, only 4 of which was in country combat... not even one full tour, let alone two.


Also I've read quite a bit about Kerry's killing that retreating VC soldier... you call that honorable? I shed no tear for the vc kid that Kerry killed as he was running away, but lets not act like leaving your ship to shoot a retreating fighter in the back is heroic.



And those three injuries in 4 months.... what was Kerry total time unfit for duty as a result of those "injuries"? Two days due to a shrap cut on his arm was the worst... the other two were so minor that he didn;t have any down time at all.

The guy got a purple heart if he farted and the smell made his eyes burn... so he could get 3 asap and get out of combat, leaving someone with out his connections to die in his place.

and that oh so heartfelt and passionate “How can you ask a man to die for a mistake?” speach wasn't even fucking written by Kerry.

The man is a fraud.

Kerry is tested under fire. He made the right decisions under fire. He did not fail his country, the mission, or those under his command.

All Dean did as governor is push some papers. That's some executive experience. "Tell me what to do, Joe." Oh, yeah. Being a governor is just what the men and women in the armed forces respect: They'll salute the fact Dean signed a law granting civil unions legal status. Ten-hut. Present arms! Wonderful. The law wasn't his idea, but he signed it anyway. Dean is so brave...for a draft dodger.

If he gets that kind of respect from me, a Democrat, imagine what the enemies of the United States around the world will give him? Zero point zero.

BTW: If his back is so bad when he walks, how come he could hike the entire length of Vermont? A miracle!?!

http://www.aldha.org/howdean.htm

Kerry is tested under fire. He made the right decisions under fire. He did not fail his country, the mission, or those under his command.

Yeah, being tested under fire will come in really handy when trying to sign a bill in the DMZ that is the oval office! Guess what! Governors have to work with legislatures. So do presidents. Governors GOVERN. Legislators LEGISLATE. When talking about executive experience, we're talking about the ability to GOVERN.

Sorry to burst your military service bubble, there, but you were getting pretty far off the point there.


And the whiny draft dodger stuff KEEPS coming, because THAT'S what you want to talk about, not Kerry's total INexperience in GOVERNING.

No doubt there will be a job for you this coming summer, IN THE BUSH CAMPAIGN.

Military service may not mean much to you or your friends, it matters a lot to most Americans.

As for employment opportunities: I don't work for anybody. I've got my own company. And I certainly wouldn't work for George W Bush or his fellow draft-dodger Howard Dean.

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

where I said military service was funny, or please edit your subject line.

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

At the time, Dean didn't want to go. Sorry about your bad knees. Rush Limbaugh got out because he had an anal cyst.

Fuck you, too!

and was rejected as Y1 for a fused disk in his lower back. Not something that means he is unable to run or walk or ski, but that the military doesn't want to put a 50lb pack on this guy and march him for 20 miles because the stress of combat or training would likely cause that disk problem to get much worse.

And they do not want to waste money training someone who is going to be more likely to get injured.


I do not know if that was before or after Dean's brother was killed in Laos.

and you fault him for this. Hilarious!

he was rated Y1 and told to go home.

He was asked to go for a physical, but not asked to serve in Vietnam.

We're saying the same thing, just from different angles.

That's like being mayor of Seattle and I'm not pushing Nickels for the presidency. You can't claim Veromont is representative of the entire country in either population diversity or economic diversity.

I'm just saying that governor is a strikingly similar position to president in that he has to deal with a lot of the same processes. A CO in any branch of the military is a different JOB DESCRIPTION.

It's the process of GOVERNMENT.

than quibbling about governmental processes. Cabinet members and staffers do the job of getting bills to the legislature.

How is it more about leadership? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but please expand on that.

we have a 3-headed system of checks and balances: the legislature who creates the laws, the executive which administers the laws, and the judiciary which enforces the laws. The president is in a unique position to veto laws proposed by the legislature but he cannot wave a magic wand to make good things happen. He's also the civilian leader of the military, who has to ask for congressional authorization before going to war (not that BushCo cares). Based on the above the president is more of a leader than a dictator (insert BushCo joke here:)).

we have a 3-headed system of checks and balances: the legislature who creates the laws, the executive which administers the laws, and the judiciary which enforces the laws. The president is in a unique position to veto laws proposed by the legislature but he cannot wave a magic wand to make good things happen.

Correct me if I'm wrong. My state has a 3 headed system of checks and balances, strikingly similar to that of the federal government. A legislature, an executive branch, and a judicial branch.

Although there are many differences in nuance, the jobs are very similar. In fact, when I say that Dean has executive experience and Kerry doesn't, that's precisely the type of executive experience I'm referring to. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a CO has the same framework to deal with.

He's also the civilian leader of the military, who has to ask for congressional authorization before going to war (not that BushCo cares). Based on the above the president is more of a leader than a dictator (insert BushCo joke here:)).

This is one of the big differences between a governor and a president. And what some would call an impediment to transitioning from governor to president. But I don't agree, and I don't think that either legislative or combat military experience make up for it, noting that of course it doesn't hurt.

Heck I'm not a Kerry supporter; I'm saying that moving from governer to president is not more compelling than other transitions. The counter argument being that the legilature has as much power as the presidency. The president, whomever is selected, will have to compromise with the legislature to pass appropriations. Having an insight into the legislature, at the Federal level, doesn't hurt.

by any stretch I guess.

Commanding Officer?

Can someone who actually knows what they're talking about clarify this? And give me the 0-2, or whatever equivalent of his highest rank, please, along with whether that qualifies as "Commanding Officer."

Eloriel

John Kerry was a USN Lieutenant (O-3), equivalent to a Captain in the US Army. I don't have his service records in front of me, but that normally means he started out as an Ensign, was promoted to Lt. Junior Grade, then promoted to Lieutenant.

Here's some interesting info from the Boston Globe series on John Kerry that sheds light on the character of Kerry as a commanding officer:

EXCERPT...

A couple of weeks later, on March 13, 1969, a mine detonated near Kerry's boat, wounding Kerry in the right arm, according to the citation written by Zumwalt. Guerrillas started firing on the boats from the shoreline. Kerry then realized that he had lost overboard a Green Beret who is identified only as "Rassman."

"The man was receiving sniper fire from both banks," according to Kerry's Bronze Star citation from that day. "Lt. Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain, with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man aboard. Lt. Kerry then directed his boat to return and assist the other damaged craft and towed the boat to safety. Lt. Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the US Naval Service," Zumwalt's citation said.

CONTINUED...

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml

voted for almost everything Bush sent to him... no child left behind was a gut shot to our schools and Kerry voted for it.

From the IWR to patriot act and the 350billion tax cut... Kerry has been the very definition of Bush light.

Kerry supports everythig Bush does... just not as much as Bush.

That's:

In his speech in the U.S. Senate on October 9, 2002, Sen. Kerry refers to an unclassified CIA report that clearly stated Saddam Hussein's weapons program was ongoing and a threat to the United States. In that same speech, Kerry emphasized his vote giving Bush authority to use force against Iraq only if necessary to defend the "national security" of the United States. Kerry stated that these weapons represented an "unacceptable threat," and that the US, as well as the international community, had an obligation to find and destroy those weapons. Kerry also indicated that the US must use force as a last resort, after all diplomatic and economic means had been exhausted.

Voted yes on the IWR?

“If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)


And what Kerry says seems to have little or nothing to do with how he votes.

As the Kerry supporter told me in another thread. Kerry voted for the IWR because in doing so he was able to make it "less horrible"

You want a definition for Bush Lite, there it is. Less horrible, tastes, well, less horrible.

And not only is Dean No Liberal, he's not trying to point himself out to be MORE liberal, as the Kucinich supporter at the state fair told me yesterday. He's not Bush lite because he recognizes that pretty much EVERYTHING Bush has done has been wrong. And his policies are NOTHING like Bush's. You can refrain from being Bush Lite without being very far to the left.

it's getting rough, but it's all fair. There's no dirty tricks here, it's all about the issues. And it's not personal, Gep and Kerry aren't saying Dean is a bad person in any way.

I think the blame lies at his front door.

Also, Kerry was attacking Dean back in feb over the UN...

Dean was asking valid questions... why are the dems supporting Bush on the war, why are they supporting these massive unfunded mandates like no child left behind.

Kerry and Lieberman are bush light... if they do not like the label they need to stop supporting Bush's policy.

Does Dean have a thin skin?

I get nasty mail from Gephardt on Dean (It attacks Kerry and Edwards too). Its nasty and misleading. Yes, criticisms are okay but to act like they are not happening is not productive.

Dean does not have thin skin and he has criticized others--I'll give you that. I wish they would criticize and compliment so no one ends up dividing the party. Example: "I know you have been a great advocate for _____, but in this area your policy was ______." The nasty stuff turns me off. Would I vote for Gep? Yes. Will I knock doors in my swing state, donate cash, and put up a sign? Probably not.

They never started? http://www.deanfacts.com has been around for quite a while, and continues to be even after all of the lies have been publicly corrected. Never started?

and wishy washy Dean deserves all the grief these past thoughtless comments bring him.

It's true? You can't say which parts of it is true. You just say it's true. So funny how transparent you are! You have all of the objectivity of, well, you know.

If it's against Dean, it MUST be true!

http://www.dickfacts.com

It's politics, that the way it is.

You can expect a lot of it. I so well recall reading comments by pro-was Senators who saw Dean picking up momentum when speaking out against it. Dena spoke to the anger of the many of us who thought it was wrong. The others watched, hoping it would be a quick victory and happy ending and that Dean would then be out of the way.

Didn't work out that way and now a new plan is needed. Has Dean been the standard bearer for the liberal cause? Nope. He just saw the best time to take a stand against the acitivities of the BFEE when his competition did not. It's a gamble.

Now the strategies are adjusted, more jockeying for position. Let it be. It is the natural course of things--when you figure in our base animal nature.

Julie

Who does Dean think he is, the Messiah of Modern Democracy?

Are you suggesting he should deny authors from penning their perceptions? Who do you think you are, advocating censorship?

Dean didn't write that.

Dean complaining about attacks on him are like the Republicans complaining that Gore's campaign was "cutthroat"....Dean threw the first twenty punches in this campaign starting last JANUARY.

Dean even attacked Kerry while he was recovering from cancer surgery when Kerry was OFF the campaign trail. What does that say about the DOCTOR'S character?

I started complaining about the rhetoric and tone of the Dean campaign when he first attacked. The supporters of Edwards, Gephardt, and Kerry ALL noticed. Thanks for noticing only when it hurts YOU.

If Gephardt et al had something SUBSTANTIAL it would be different.

You are attempting to freebase the language here and it's disgusting.

Why don't you address specifics? How did Dean attack Kerry while he was recovering from cancer surgery?

Welcome to counter attacks.

Bush included.

You'd thikn Dean was Satan himself.

The sad thing is the complete inability to make points.

And why not address the facts? You are the one who told me last winter that Dean HAD to attack the others to make himself better known and you thought it was the right thing to do. Please don't pretend now that reciprocation isn't warranted.

And stickdog, why are you trying to lie about me and say I would vote for Bush over Dean when my record is more than clear on ABB? That is a very slanderous thing to say about anyone, especially when you know it isn't true.

Kerry's the man and we know it.

Attack with FACTS.

This means YOU.

Let me know when you start.

so you pretend they don't exist.

Fact:s: Dean started attacking the other candidates Jan. 23.

Dean continued attacking Kerry while he was OFF the campaign trail in Feb. following his surgery.

Dean pushpolled against Gep, Edwards and Kerry in Iowa over the summer.

Dean just started negative television ads in NH.

Show me one post in this thread where you made a substantial argument.

All you've done in this post is take those single words you freebased and made them into simple sentences.

Dean attacked other candidates in January. How? What did he say? Was it true? Could a case be made?

Dean continued attacking kerry while he was off the trail. How? What did he say? Did he attack Kerry's apparent health issues?

Are these what you call facts? This is the kind of thuggery we're supposed to be ready to fight against. Apparently you're fighting by becoming the master of the tactic. Let's move on.

Dean pushpolled against Gep, Edwards, and Kerry. What was the poll? What did it say? When did he do it? What were the responses?

Dean just started negative ads in NH. What do they say? How are they negative? Where are the transcripts?


Don't you get it? These aren't facts. They're ALLEGATIONS. ALLEGATIONS need to be BACKED UP. Back them up. SOON, PLEASE.

to judge others. They have been posted here numerous times.


Pushpolling:
>>>>>>>>
"First phone attack

Straight-talking Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean is testing his attack message in Iowa. Political operatives say Dean's phone polling is probing for weaknesses in support for Sens. John Edwards and John Kerry and Rep. Dick Gephardt. For rookie pol Edwards, it's about experience. For Gephardt, it's his alliance with Bush on key issues. Questions about Kerry test Iowans' reaction to his vote backing the war in Iraq."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/archive/030512/12whisplead.php

Attacking opponents by claiming they supported Bush's taxcut for the wealthiest when NONE of them voted for it. Support of Biden-Lugar:

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/local2003/012303dean_2002.shtml

I can't wait for those four guys from Congress to come up here and explain to us why they wanted to raise your property taxes after they supported a tax cut for the wealthiest people in America," he said.

Dean also criticized his opponents for voting to give Bush a "blank check" on military intervention in Iraq - and, now, changing their tune on the issue.

"Today, they're running around telling you folks they're all anti-war," he said. (Later, he acknowledged that Lieberman's vote was consistent with the senator's comparatively "hawkish" position on Iraq.) "We're never going to elect a president that does those things. If I voted for the Iraq resolution, I'd be standing in favor, supporting it right now in front of you."

Dean said he would have voted instead for the Biden-Lugar resolution, which he said supported disarming Saddam using multilateral action, and which did not call for a "regime change."
>>>>>

This article was also his first use of the word "Bushlite" to smear his opponents.

If you don't already know, then...

Pushpolling: Edwards has been in public office for 5 years. He's been a public servant for more like 3 or maybe 4. It's wrong for the dean campaign to learn how voters perceive that?

Gep HAS sided with Bush on key issues. It's wrong for Dean's campaign to find out what voters think of that?

Kerry DID vote for the IWR. It's wrong for Dean's campaign to find out what voters think of it?

I guess I just have no idea what you think is wrong with asking these questions. You try to use the term PUSHPOLLING as a big, hairy monster, without qualifying your problem with it. Yeah, What Bush did to McCain was evil and wrong. But it wasn't the fact that it WAS a pushpoll, it was WHAT IT SAID. It was that it conveyed LIES.

I know you don't think in terms that black and white. So why do it here?

About the tax cuts comment. I don' thave a defense for that. Dean was to a huge extent wrong. If he knew he was wrong, he lied. Kinda like how Kerry lies when he says Dean is abandoning the middle class.

But Dean is right about everything else you mentioned. You're not going to take attention away from Kerry's IWR vote by claiming Dean is a Bad Man.

That Kerry most certainly DOES support SOME of Bush's tax cuts.

that they had worked for years on.

Progressive taxation is a Democratic principle, ya know.

They voted to reduce BUSH's tax cut down to 350 million. And Kerry voted FOR that. Like the Kerry supporter in the other thread:

"He voted for it, knowing that if he did, he could make it LESS HORRIBLE"

Less horrible is still horrible. I'm not voting for less horrible.

If you understood congress, you would know they had two choices, 550 bil. or the lower 350 bil. Those who voted for the 350 bil. were voting for that lower number to be the FINAL number. When the FINAL bill came up they voted against the 350, too.

Dean was dishonest when he said they voted for that tax...again.

I'm talking about the amendment to the 2004 budget resolution. What are YOU talking about?

earlier this year. I said they didn't vote for that taxcut. They voted to drop the 550 figure DOWN to 350 in one recorded vote, but still voted against the 350 bil. taxcut in the final vote.

Where am I wrong?

Or do you just not know the difference between 350 BILLION and 350 MILLION? Hint: 3 zeroes.


I was being specific. I named what I was talking about. Did you miss it or are you FEIGNING ignorance?

The amendment to the 2004 budget resolution, which failed, despite Kerry's best efforts.

Now here's where you say SPECIFICALLY what you are talking about.

.

"About the tax cuts comment. I don' thave a defense for that. Dean was to a huge extent wrong. If he knew he was wrong, he lied. "

I posted this HUGE refutation to BLM crap here, and proved that she is lying. Of couse she ignored it and continues to push this lie. If you can search, search my posts for terms "Kerry" and "350 billion".


See the tax cut vote that Dean was referencing was the vote for a 350 billion tax cut that dems put forth as a response to Bush's 700 billion tax cut package. It was an amendment and I posted the vote records.

BLM flat out lied and claimed Dean was refering to the 2001 tax cuts, which Kerry and pals voted against... about the only good vote Kerry cast in the last 3 years. When in fact Dean was talking about the 350 billion ammendment that they voted FOR in response the 2nd bush tax cut, not the 2001 tax cut.

I cited quotes, the dates of Bush's new jobs and growth package, the dates of the dem response... all happeneing within two weeks of Dean's quote about Dems supporting tax cuts.

BLM has made the choice to ignore the truth on this subject and repeat the lie that Dean was not telling the truth about the 350 billion tax cut Kerry was supporting when Dean made the statement, but that Dean was ignoring that and lying about the 2001 tax cut.

BLM must just think DUers are really stupid and won't catch on to this.

it's Billion and not Million? The amendment that failed 62-38?

Ack! I need a better source.

Basicly... Bush in Jan of 03 come out with the jobs and groth package that has like 700 billion in tax cuts. Shortly after that the dems put forth their reduced 350 billion version... and that's what Dean was talking about when he said Dems were supporting Bush tax cuts.

Here is the vote record from when the dem version came to a vote a month and a half later.



http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00076


U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Breaux Amdt. No. 339, as Modified )
Vote Number: 76 Vote Date: March 21, 2003, 02:52 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 339 to S.Con.Res. 23
Statement of Purpose: To reduce tax cut to $350 billion.
Vote Counts: YEAs 38 NAYs 62

Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea

John Kerry: Less Horrible than Bush. His IWR vote, his budget amendment vote...

so the LARGER bill would NOT pass. Then they voted AGAINST the 350 FINAL bill. Spinning an amendment to make it appear they voted for Bush's taxcut is classic smoke and mirrors and denigrating to those who you expect to fool.

They didn't vote against the FINAL 350 bill, as there WAS NO 350 final bill. The amendment to MAKE IT 350 FAILED 62-38.

Immaculate conception?

Divided Congress gives
Bush $350-B tax cut
May 24, 2003


WASHINGTON-The US Congress has narrowly passed a 10-year, 350-billion-dollar tax cut bill embraced by US President George W. Bush as an economic stimulus but excoriated by some for giving too much to the rich.

US Vice President Dick Cheney, who is president of the Senate, cast the tie-breaking ballot Friday in a 51-50 Senate vote, hours after the measure passed 231-200 in the House of Representatives. Though the bill is only about half as large as the 726-billion-dollar "jobs and growth" program he originally proposed, Bush declared victory after passage of the bill.
>>>>>>

http://www.inq7.net/brk/2003/may/24/brkafp_11-1.htm

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Breaux Amdt. No. 339, as Modified )
Vote Number: 76 Vote Date: March 21, 2003, 02:52 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2
Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 339 to S.Con.Res. 23
Statement of Purpose: To reduce tax cut to $350 billion.

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---38
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wyden (D-OR)




http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00076

*Edited to clean up the layout.

amendment votes to fit your story. That's smoke and mirror campaigning and insults whoever you think believes you. You want them to believe that the others supported Bush's tax cut. NONE of them did, so you find an amendment that makes them APPEAR to fit your misrepresentation. That's insulting.

The 350 bil. taxcut passed and NONE of the Democratic candidates voted for it.

because all I did was show you that Dean wasn't lying. He took the same position that lots of respectable democrats took. And I showed you solid evidence to back it up. If you are trying to call Dean a liar then you need to put up something more accurate than the role call vote from the Senate web site.

I hope you recognize how you insult those who you intend to fool.

The fact is that a 350 bil. taxcut passed last May. NONE of the candidates voted for it.

I find it humorous that you're insulted.

You keep changing the subject. You may not consider it a big deal, that's up to you. But to deny it, ignore it, is just humorous.

I posted the relevant information. That's all I can do. Interpret it however you want to. Decide for yourself that it's unimportant. Just don't call Dean a liar.

If NONE of the candidates voted for Bush's tax cut, either time, then Dean purposely created a false impression. Many people find that be a lie. I do.

That's up to you. Some fought against the cut the whole time. Some fought for a less horrible version.

Dean used the past tense when he spoke of the taxcut. last Jan. 23. He said they SUPPORTED taxcuts for the wealthiest. The only tax cut at the time that had been voted on was the first one. The second one had just recently been proposed, and the senators only supported the lower 350 figure over the 550 figure, but did not support the taxcut at all and voted against it in its final 350 form, as well.

Not true at all. The amendment was defeated 62-38 with such notables as KERRY and EDWARDS supporting it and such notables as CLINTON opposing it.

Read wat you wrote, BLM. Why can't you just admit you're wrong?

"Dean used the past tense when he spoke of the taxcut. last Jan. 23. He said they SUPPORTED taxcuts for the wealthiest."

And when Dean said it the dems had supported the 350 billion version in response the bush 700 billion cut. I already cited all the dates for you... the dems had voiced their support weeks before Dean's comment about the fact they supported 350 billion of Bush tax cut.

You want to lie and claim Dean was talking about the 2001 tax cut and not the tax cut Dems had just voiced support for two week before he said the dems were supporting tax cuts.

How stupid do you think people on DU are? Do you really think that people will swallow that Dean wasn't talking about the tax cuts that dems were supporting when he made the statement... but was instead ignoring that and lying about dems supporting 2001 tax cuts that they didn't support?


" The only tax cut at the time that had been voted on was the first one."

Oh I see, so you are saying nobody can voice support for a bill or amendment to something until after it has been voted on? Nevermind the fact that Dems said they supported this 350 amendment...


The second one had just recently been proposed, and the senators only supported

The senators... what? SUPPORTED the amendment to the 2nd cut that had just been proposed. Thought they could only support something AFTER they voted on it. Wasn't that the whole foundation of this lie of yours BLM?

and all your claims that I am are disingenuous. You can't prove which taxcut Dean was speaking of, and no matter, BOTH were voted AGAINST by the other candidates. You spin it to make it appear they voted for it. That's JUST spin and not the reality of their vote.

you lied about and edited a Dean quote to try and prop up another attack.


"You can't prove which taxcut Dean was speaking of,"

Yeah as a matter of fact I can... I already cited the news story about the dems putting forth their 350 version in response to Bush's tax cut that he introduced in Jan 03. Dean's comment came right after that, jan 25th I think. you'd have to either be stupid or lying to claim Dean wasn't talking about the tax cuts that were going on WHEN HE MADE THE STATEMENT, but was instead talking about tax cuts from two years prior.

Dean also said in conjunction with his statement that the Dems had made the mistake of changing the argument from should we have tax cuts now and can we afford them, to how much should the tax cuts be.

"and no matter, BOTH were voted AGAINST by the other candidates. You spin it to make it appear they voted for it. That's JUST spin and not the reality of their vote."


Another lie BLM... they voted FOR the 350 billion tax cut amendment, but the amendment failed, however they voted for it and supported it, just as Dean said they did.

After that they voted against the 700 billion version. Although now Kerry flip floped again and wants to keep part of Bush tax cut.

That must have bugged you, after all the work you did lying about how Kerry doesn't support any bush tax cuts... to have him turn around and suddenly start (gasp) saying he supports some of Bush's tax cuts.

and uncivil. Those who did NOT vote for the taxcuts did NOT vote for the taxcuts. Anything else is classic smoke and mirrors.

is that Kerry's attempt to make it 350 changed the debate from "is this tax cut RIGHT" to "how much should this tax cut BE". I resent that. It concedes the right's premise that a tax cut will solve our economic problems. I was NEVER willing to concede that we needed tax cuts like Bush was promoting.

You would prefer they roll over and let Bush have the taxcut he wanted?

They did not vote for even the 350 bil. tax cut. Don't use smoke and mirror tactics to convince other people that the other Democrats supported Bush's tax cut. It's a false charge.

Lot's of Democrats were against the tax cut and FOUGHT AGAINST THE TAX CUT. Feinstein, Clinton, Kennedy, Jeffords (I know he's independent, but I love him), Lautenburg, Chambliss, Byrd, Harkin. THAT was the right choice for me.

And you forget that I'm not making any charge. I'm showing you why you are wrong to call Dean a liar. What he said happened HAPPENED.

.

If I want to play games, I'll try to defend my unbeaten streak on Madden 2004. I want you to say that Dean wasn't lying when he took a stance against changing the debate and criticized Kerry.

It was in PLAIN English. Where's the proof that his statement was SUPPOSED to be a "stance against changing the debate" like YOU say?

NONE of the candidates voted for the FIRST Bush taxcut OR the SECOND! Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

"He didn't vote for it. he wanted a less horrible version."

Didn't you see the role call vote? That's spin? How?

And while you claim that TLM can't prove which tax cut Dean was speaking of, you talk as if YOU can prove it. That's pretty messed up.

I asked you a specific question, and BAM, he runs away. This is my point. If yo ucan't reduce things to single words, you're lost.

As ususal... call Dean bashers out to prost FULL QUOTES and do so IN CONTEXT, and they can't.

Because these attacks on Dean are based only on the gross spin on half quotes from hypothetical questions or policy based on circumstances that have changed.


Dean's attacks on Kerry, Lieberman, Gep etc. were based on their VOTES!

And BLM, why can't you explain this Kerry quote... and this isn;t from 10 f-ing years ago.



“If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)


Ok john... I won't be voting for you.

"Dean even attacked Kerry while he was recovering from cancer surgery when Kerry was OFF the campaign trail. What does that say about the DOCTOR'S character?"

Kerry's capaign was attacking Dean in Feb of 03... and I know you know this because I've pointed it out to you at least a dozen times.

So why continue to lie like this?

Kerry's campaign manager went after Dean on one of his gaffes after a speech where Dean inadvertently set a precedent he disn't mean to set. This was well AFTER Dean spent weeks smearing Kerry as Bushlite and a supporter of Bush's taxcuts. Jordan didn't smear Dean, only pointed out his gaffe.

the degree you'll go after these phantom accusations. Tell me right here if you think all the candidates should have stopped campaigning because Kerry was in the hospital:

__________________________________________________

And show me EXACTLY what dean said.

even about his votes because he's in the hospital... but it is Ok for Kerry's camp to say the following while he is in the hospital.

Kerry, who first came on the national scene as a veteran against the Vietnam War, was not at the DNC meeting because he is still recovering from prostate surgery. But the reaction to Dean hit a nerve in the Kerry camp. Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan, snapped at Dean's insistence on getting U.N. backing (a position supported by three-quarters of Democrats and 53 percent of Independents). "Gov. Dean, in effect, seems to be giving the U.N. veto power over national security decisions of the United States. That's an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. president or serious candidate for the presidency," he told the Associated Press' Ron Fournier.

for the wealthiest, and said he was backing down from his IWR vote, which he never did.

Dean didn't have to stop campaigning, but he didn't have to keep hurling accusations at Kerry knowing full well he was in recovery stage and OFF the campaign trail. Some doctor.

He IS Bush lite. I get that impression more and more every day. With the IWR he fought for a less horrible version. With the tax cuts he fought for a less horrible version. That may not fit into your definition of Bush Lite, but that's what it means for me.

Kerry was off the trail. Did his campaign stop functioning? Did they call "time out"? That's so ridiculous.

Dean piled on. Some Doctor.

They're all competing for nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate. The campaigning should be as vigorous as possible. If Dean can't stand a good thrashing by his fellow Dems why would I expect him to be able to stand the pummeling of the actual presidential race?

Since when are campaigns suppose to be nice. The goal of the campaign to make you look better than the other guy. If Kerry is appearing mean because he is playing hard ball, well WHAAAAAAA! I am sure that if you went back and looked at the campaign that Dean ran as Govenor, he was hard on the other candidates.


Deal with it, Bush is not going to be nice to whom ever is nominated nor with they with Bush. That is the way the game is played

I expect it to be tough. But I want to see challenges on poliy. Not the kinds of claims that aholes like Gep make. They should be challengin each other on issues of merit. But Gep is doing what Bush is going to do. That's not productive.

it's where the Dems run against each other.

Dean can handle it. And does with great skill, knowledge and political ability. And Dean hits back too. And Kerry et. al. can handle it. They're big boys.

Wait until the real election, you ain't seen nothing yet.

It's called Politics, stop whining...

In New Ads, Dean Becomes First in Campaign to Attack Fellow Democrats
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/politics/campaigns/23DEAN.html

"Howard Dean this week began running two new television advertisements that criticize his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination as "Washington politicians" who have failed to deliver prescription drug benefits and were inconsistent on the Iraq war.

The commercials are the first of the election campaign's nascent television advertising battle in which a Democratic candidate has criticized the other primary contenders. (President Bush has been fair game for weeks.)

While the spots fall short of singling out Dr. Dean's opponents by name, they are unusually negative for this stage of the campaign, when biographical commercials are the norm.

Officials of the Dean campaign said the commercials were devised to address biting criticism from rivals and to emphasize Dr. Dean's status as a Washington outsider. Dr. Dean's opponents said the spots were a sign of growing concern in his campaign that his opponents' attacks from the stump were having an effect with voters..."

Maybe you should be talking to the Dean campaign before telling other campaigns what to do

He's the first to attack becaus ehe's the first to HAVE ads.

Now you're pissed because you're candidate is always one step behind, relegated to making his attacks in front of the press and groups of voters.

How pathetic!

I can't wait to see what other horrible dirt they can dig up on him.

That was a really big deal for Vermont. It made all the animals sick on the other's farms. Farmers lost many thousands of dollars. Let's not forget - Vermont is a little state with lots of land, farms and wildlife. People there are very concerned about animals, wildlife and the environment there.

Sort of like the smoking ban in New York (or like we had down here in Florida). It sounds kind of silly but it costs a lot of money in tourism dollars.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/Archive/Articles/Article/54008

The manure atracted flies which bugged the neighbors. The farm then started shipping their manure elsewhere. Problem solved.

their Kerry and Gephardt bashing?

n/t

infiltrated a certain campaign (which will remain nameless), you would

I'm just checking myself...

"Vote for me solely because I'm a Dean basher" is never going to cut it in the Democratic primary. Too much Dean bashing clutters the message too.