Kucinich Challenges, Dean Dissembles at the AFL-CIO Debate

At the AFL-CIO Presidential Debate in Chicago last night Dennis Kucinch accused Howard Dean of supporting raising the retirement age to 68, even 70. When Dean got his turn, he began by correcting Kucinich, even implying that Kucinich lied. Dean said he had never supported raising the retirement age to 68 or 70. Dean intimated that he had supported raising the retirement age, though the actual age was unclear.

http://tinyurl.com/j4z2

After hard questioning on the Sunday, June 22, airing of Meet The Press from host Mr. Russert, Dean suggested the following options for Social Security:

Mr. Russert: Would you raise
retirement age to 70?

Dr. Dean: Social Security,
I—the best way to balance Social
Security budget right now… 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.

(Emphasis added.)

and learn the difference between ENTERTAIN and SUPPORT.

Try this site for a start.

Once you have learned the difference between those two words, let's start this discussion again.

Folks are attacking the wrong enemy......it makes us weak. I could rant but it has no affect..... Dean is the brightest beacon of light in a dim fog of confusion.....

I'm grateful to Howard Dean wanting to help America. With wolves like this in our own den....it may be futile....

I'm sure you're happy in your superiority to drive away as many votes as you can with flippant commentary.

Dissembling applies just as well to making a straw man out of the meaningless and semantic difference between entertain and support as it does to lying about having pledged to look at raising the retirement age up to 68, when confronted on it on a national stage.

But thanks for using your patronizing sledgehammer anyway, instead of commenting on why Dr. Dean's plan to raise the retirement age to 68 and above might possibly be good for social security, or make some political sense.

but you posted something that is at best, extremely misleading. How the hell do you expect people to respond?

If I wrote a post saying that Kucinich eats kittens and used a quote saying something like:

"I like kittens very much, they look good."

how would you respond?

Stop being intentionally misleading, and I'll stop being flippant.

What's with all the people starting mud-throwing competitions and then feigning outrage when we fight back? I don't get it.

But, the "straight talker" always uses semantics to cover his intentions. Now his supporters believe he would never have voted for the Patriot Act.

Dean said in 97 that he would nominate "common sense judges" who didn't get bogged down in legal "technicalities." Now, his supporters will tell you he would never have voted for the Patriot Act.

Dean supported the Biden-Lugar version of military force in Iraq. Now his supporters will tell you that Dean was always staunchly against the war in Iraq.


Ho-hum. Another election, another gullible portion of the electorate.

This was reply to #8.

you got to say something nasty about Dean again! Good for you!

How many times do I have to point out that Biden-Lugar would have forced Bush to prove that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US in order for it to authorize military action against Iraq (and only for disarmament), before you stop misrepresenting it in an attemp to smear Dean?

Even Kucinich said he would support military action if Iraq was an imminent threat.

don't bother...

Believe political analysts.
Believe Dean's own words back then claiming support for Biden-Lugar.

or

Believe that he has always been stauchly against war in Iraq.

that he said he was stanuchly against the war?

NO

YET, your post implies that Biden-Lugar is super duper pro war, and that Dean's supporters are idiots.

Thanks for playing, but your MO is clearly one of double speak and deception.

it was similar to the Iraq resolution which also was not "super duper pro war."

REMEMBER?

How many times are you going to try to hang your hat on that hook? YOU know that Bush would fulfill any minimum standard. You also know that not many people understand the resolution fully, and expect to get away with the obfuscation of it and Dean's support of Biden-Lugar version of the resolution.

He made it look like Iraq was doing something shady, but never proved they were a threat to the US, and used quite a lot of shady evidence in doing so.

Anyway, Dean said Powell didn't maket the case.

The American people and the press said he did. Bush really only met a minimum requirement of going back to the UN with a further argument. That's it.

Dean still would have been left with his support of B-L, which would be as badly misconstrued by many as a vote for war that the Iraq resolution is distorted now into a "blank check."

Nobody can say that now because it didn't require anything.

the jury (the Security Council) voted 9 to 6 against us. And as pointed out Dean, in real time, said he hadn't made the case of him being an imminent threat. Facts matter.

and deeds?

I thought smears were lying about someone's position or attacking them personally. When did pointing to a politician's OWN words and OWN actions become smearing?

He wasn't planning on appointing judges that overlooked "technicalities"?

He didn't support the Biden-Lugar version of the Iraq resolution?

He didn't say that we need to look into the curtailing of some liberties on 9-14-01?

Why are these smears and not legitimate points to be made against Dean as a supposedly "straight talking" candidate??

quotes and surround them by misleading text. You're not being honest.

"You're shittin' in my mouth and callin' it a sundae!"

You are deliberatly misleading when you describe Biden-Lugar and imply that Dean is a hypocrit for supporting it, when it was completely consistant with Dean's position all along.

He did not say we should curtail civil libeterties, but that there was going to be a debate on the issue, and this was the VERY emotional time while the WTC buildings were still smoldering.

especially coming from blm's "beautiful" bottom.

and don't tell me he wouldn't have voted for the Patriot Act because there is NOTHING in his record as governor that points to that.

I didn't say Dean was a hypocrite for supporting B-L. He's a hypocrite for saying he was the antiwar candidate when it suited him, and accusing the others who voted for a similar resolution of giving Bush a "blank check."

Dean didn't say he was an anti-war candidate, he said the Iraq war was unjustified, and said so consistantly.

Unlike some other dems who were against it in principle until it became politically unpopular.

HAHAHAHA....did he ever seek a retraction from the hundreds of articles that said he was?

We all know his penchant for demanding retractions.

And though omission leads others to beleive something about him INFERRED by his stance.

Dena never does anything to striaghten out his stance and in one article indicated if his lack of clarity fools people into voting for him as a liberal, thats great.

Dean revels in his attempt to deceive. Denas supporters try to use semantis to change issues. Like repealing the Bush tax cuts really in not rasing taxes. Of course it is. If you lower the leves, and then repeal the act that lowers them, you are RAISING thme up again. Dena likes to take this word play,

Notice after months of attacking the Iraq war, on the day that Dean formally declread his campign in Vermont, he did not mention Iraq ONCE in his speech. He tricked the war movement people into supporting him and then tries to back away:




After Dean officially announced his campaign on June 23, some news stories identified him with the left. It's a case of mistaken identity. "He's really a classic Rockefeller Republican -- a fiscal conservative and social liberal," according to University of Vermont political scientist Garrison Nelson.

As a fiscal conservative, Dean is aligned with the status quo of extreme inequities. That alignment was on display during a pair of June 22 appearances.

In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Dean delivered a one-two punch against economic justice. He advocated increasing the retirement age for Social Security, and he called for slowing down the rate of increases for Medicare spending.

Later in the day, at a Rainbow/PUSH Coalition forum, Dean went out of his way to emphasize support for out-of-control military spending after a rival candidate, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, said that "the only way we're really going to close the (digital) divide in this country is to start cutting the Pentagon budget and put that money into education." Dean's response: "I don't agree with Dennis about cutting the Pentagon budget when we're in the middle of a difficulty with terror attacks."

The next day, at his official campaign kickoff, Dean gave a 26-minute speech and didn't mention Iraq at all. It was a remarkable performance from someone who has spent much of the last year pitching himself to peace activists as some kind of anti-war candidate.

Dean is already sending a message to his announced supporters among peace and social-justice advocates: Thanks, suckers

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=15232&CFID=81%2078495&CFTOKEN=3253804


AS an environmentalist, Dean is a travesty, and he has destroyed thousands of small businesses and a large number of small farms:

Dean's record, however, shows just the opposite. Remember, when Dean took office there were no Wal-Marts in Vermont; there was no Home Depots; Burlington's downtown was dominated by local stores not the national chains that now rule the roost; there were 36% more small farmers in existence; there were no 100,000-hen mega-farms; and sprawl wasn't a word on the tip of everyone's tongue.

Interestingly, Dean told the Free Press last week that he wished the rest of "the country were more like Vermont." But it certainly seems Dean has been doing his best to make Vermont more like the rest of the country...

As Dean goes national he may be able to fool an Iowan or two with his eco-record, but Vermonters have seen enough to know that being green isn't easy for Dean. And he's far from being a liberal.

http://www.counterpunch.org/colby02222003.html



This is all liberal stuff, from well known liberal and progressive sources.

But it it is against Dean, these people who havebeen aomg the most active at brining ot the crimes of the Bush administration are called GOP operatives by Dean supporters, who must be dyslexic, as they have extreme difficulaty telling right from left.

I think I have just invented the Howard Dean test for political dyslexia.

Let me know when you find where Dean says he's the anti-war candidate.

He's supposed to demand a retraction to all those newspapers and magazines and talk shows for labeling him the "anti-war" candidate??

"Please print that I'm not anti-war!"

He's said over and over that he's not against war under any circumstance, he's just against THIS PARTICULAR disaster of a war. He even goes out of his way to say that he supported Bush going into Afghanistan.

This has actually hurt Dean in some ways. As a certain DUer enjoys pointing out, Dean is polling lower than Kerry on the question of "Can he beat Bush", and I think it's because he has been labeled the ultra-lefty, anti-war candidate. That is starting to change, thanks to all the press he's getting, and I imagine so will people's perception of his ability to beat Bush.

Look, there is a lot of confusion here and everywhere about the difference between the vote (and hypothetical votes) and support for the war. It's understandable because the press can't keep it straight, the Republicans absolutely don't want to keep it straight, and the some of the Democrats themselves have confused the issue. Let's take three examples:

Dean: said he would have supported Biden-Lugar, but didn't support the war.

Kerry: voted for something very close to Biden-Lugar, but said very clearly in the first Democratic debate that he supported the war.

Lieberman: voted for something very close to Biden-Lugar, enthusiastically supports the war, and equates his voting with "supporting the war", which confuses the hell out of everyone.

Ok, are we all on the same page?

Now, everyone and their mother is confusing the vote with "supporting the war" thanks to Lieberman, the media, and others with a stake in that.

When someone slams Kerry for the vote, I believe (and I'm getting into dangerous waters here) they are actually slamming his support for the war. But since they say he "voted for the war", it allows Dean-bashers to bring up Biden-Luger, which Dean supporters then defend with the same arguments as Kerry supporters defend Kerry's vote for the resolution (which is right and proper to do, them being so close).

If we're all careful, we don't have to have this confusing conversation again (but of course we will).

BLM, what people object to is Kerry's stated support for the war.

post? I'm disappointed. :)

It must have taken some time to untangle the rhetoric and set it straight. :hi:

and WMDs, just as in 98...not the imperialism that people here accuse him of supporting. He has been very highly critical of Bush's military strategy, too, both in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I am a diehard Dean supporter but I find it hard to believe that he would not have voted for it, since 99 out of 100 senators did...even Wellstone did.

There are literally dozens of DLC researchers going through the open sections of Deans record as governor, and there are legal moves to rewite the state law in Vermont to force the rest to be public record.

DK has a plan that all americans will be a part of. Helthcare for all!

wait lines, also.

...yet. His clearly-stated goal is to 1) get ine currently uninsured covered first and 2) THEN liik at better alternatives. The simple truth is that insurance companies DO have enough lobbting power that a single-payer plan will NOT make it through Congress. Dean's plan (expanding Medicaid and FEHBP) will.

Kucinich, and I dare say a whole lot of us, would love to have a universal, single payer system in this country.

Hillary and Bill Clinton, whether you love them or hate them, are master politicians who staked a lot of political capital on this and LOST big time.

We all love universal single payer. Does Dennis think he can enact it by fiat?

he likes a lot of things i like that will never pass any possibly imaginable Congress this country is coming up with -- even HoHo will have a hard time getting some of his much more modest stuff passed.

An analogy that you may find flawed, I don't know, but anyway, is that it took many tries and several failures to get a) slavery banned, and b) female suffrage.

There are many places to look to find out why Universal Coverage failed in 1992. Some people say that the DLC forced concessions to the insurance industry that made the final plan to bulky and unworkable.

In any case, the situation has gotten worse, and not better, since Bush's massive destruction of 3.1 million jobs. While more people had health insurance coverage under Clinton, the numbers are falling again.

Only Kucinich, as far as I know, has a plan to use a flat payroll tax to fund a non-private-insurance-polluted plan to cover everyone, and by using that huge new pool of insureds to create a system that will run more efficiently by being unhooked from the multiple inefficient ponzi schemes that are the private insurance industries.

I think he can do it, and I think the time has come for Universal Coverage.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

It was too complicated to understand or explain and it kept insurance companies involved. Its very complexity and turgidity made it easy to oppose. All opponents had to do is get those two actors to put on stupid, fearful looks and the 'plan' was history.

I'm not trying to defend Dean, but to me to entertain an idea means he is open to hearing information regarding this idea. Even this definition might make him appear less then honest, but to me it's not the smoking gun you seem to think it is.

Please do not take this as an attack on you or Kucinich, I'm telling you how I read it. Also, I did not see the event last night, so I have no idea of the context of either statement.

All of this infighting just makes the puppeteers in the white house happier and happier.

And as long as the Dean supporters choose to use condescension, dissembling, and misleading characterizations of their candidate's positions to alienate potential voters instead of rationally explaining their chosen candidate's positions, those won't be the choices in 2004, either.

You started a thread that was intentionally misleading (at BEST), and then you act as though you're angelic and we mean Deanies are Hitler youth.

Look in the mirror buddy, YOU started the flames, not us.

If you can't deal with it, either grow a thicker skin or get off of DU.

Your chosen candidate supports restricting eligibility for Social Security in order to make it more solvent.

He said so on national TV.

When he was called on it, on national TV, he first made a point of being pedantic about the rules, saying "whenever a candidate mentions another one by name, we get a free minute" and then declaring he was going take "twenty seconds" to rebut what Kucinich said.

Then he contradicted what he had said on Meet the Press.

If anyone was doing any "intentional[] misleading" it was your chosen candidate, not Dennis Kucinich.

The point continues to be valid that a distinguishing difference between Kucinich and Dean is Dean's willingness to restrict entry into or availability of Social Security funds by age, in order to secure its continued viability.

Your woeful inability or unwillingness to maintain focus on the positions of your candidate not only detracts from your credibility as whatever sort of spokesman you think you make through your insistence on attacking potential voters instead of rationally outlining or highlighting why your candidate's positions are better than those of the other candidates, it also reflects very, very poorly on your chosen candidate, seeing as how no matter how belligerently his supporters alienate and attack anyone who dares question his unquestionable and invincible aura, those are still votes he may need to win.

Pointing out a valid difference is not misleading.

Misdirecting the logic underlying the rationale of standing for that difference is, however. And insulting, attacking, telling people to "look in the mirror buddy," and patronizingly pointing out access to an online dictionary in an attempt to humiliate potential Democratic and Dean voters is counterproductive in the extreme.

I'd suggest that if you cannot engage in rationale dialog without resorting to thuggish and Neanderthal verbal clubbing, that you curtail your, by any definition or dictionary, puerile and churlish "support" of your chosen candidate. You're doing him more harm than good.

But I suppose you already knew that, didn't you.

Back to post #1, you need to learn the difference between entertain and learn.

When you learn what those words mean, let's talk again.

Anyway, I will engage in rational dialogue (which I doubt you could do without lying), when you stop exagerating and using misleading comments.

YOU flamed in the original post, and I responded in kind. When you start a discussion WITHOUT flames, then people won't flame back.

Bush...
Dean did more damage and is more conservative than Bush

as if I didn't have enough reasons to never take you seriously :eyes:

I swear,if Dean pulled a Jesus and walked on water you'd claim it was only because he can't swim.

I don't have a TV so I couldnt watch. But it seems like if Dean wants to be a straight talker why not talk straight about Social Security? As someone who is 42 with no savings of course I don't want the retirement age raised. But if it's gonna happen I'd rather we had the discussion now than when I'm 62.
Is there a transcript somewhere? I'd like to read what was actually said. If Dean has the courage to be honest about Social Security it would be a big plus for me.

We need someone like Dennis debating Bush. Dennis really showed his skill Tuesday night.

instead of what else he said about SSI....

Cause that makes for better fodder for the Dean haters...

For those of you who actually care about SSI, and are not looking to score debating points...the Governor said that he would look at eleminating the cap on those who pay SSI, which is now $85,000...to make ALL INDIVIDUALS IN THE US WHO EARN PAY SSI....which will be more than enough to make SSI solvent through the baby boom years....

Unlike candidates who promise the moon...knowing full well that the programs they are endorsing will never make it through Congress....Dean offers the first option....get everyone to pay...the second option...raising the age of retirement, is an effort to try and save the system for the coming babyboomer bomb...

let's keep our eyes on the meat of the arguments...and not the garnishes....kay

love ya...mean it!!!

Dean's comment was that he was considering
raising the age, not that he supported it
or was definately going to do it.

Now when Kucinich asked him, he said, no I
won't support it. That means he's thought
about it, and has decided otherwise.

Can't people be open to things and then decide against them?

you're part of the smear brigade...

Dennis Kucinich laid out a plan to take the age of eligibility back to 65.

In the crosstalk with the audience after Dean supposedly rebutted Kucinich's claim, he was heard to say, "No, not 65."

So even if he's "thought about it" and decided that 67, where it is now, is good enough, that's still distinguishable from what Kucinich would do, and that is a valid difference between the candidates.

He wants to continue defecit spending.

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

I am really hoping that his momentum will turn soon. To Dean supporters, maybe Kucinich was a little harsh, but isnt one of the qualities that supposely has attracted people to Dean, his criticisms of the other candiates who have done things he doesnt like, yet when Kucinich attacks Dean some people's jaws dropped, I try to respect Dean I really do but theres only two things I am sure I agree with him with and they are: the war was wrong and thats not fully correct because he supported Biden-Lugar, and civil unions I like that but he doesnt support gay marriage and they are not the same thing, remember when Sharpton and Kucinich came out in favor of gay marriage and Dean didnt. Many Deanites love Dean for his willingness to attack, Kucinich hasnt said much in the past bad about Dean, and when he wanted to make clear the difference, some people acted like Kucinich was all wrong, yet its perfectly fine when Dean attacks the others. I am sorry guys but Dean really is starting to make me think, hes way too conservative for me and also he doesnt really inspire me in ways. We all are frustrated keep in mind why do you think we want a democrat to win.

I guess we didn't need to wait for the Washington Post to get around to exposing this guy.

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

It really says a lot about Dean that his supporters aren't fit to speak around children. I'm glad my children don't hang out with these people.

Moderators, please moderate the language.

"CelticWarrior" has been saying...(I specifically remember "a**hole")

Before you object that CelticWarrior does not represent all Kucinich supporters, I'll remind you that NO single poster represents a candidate.

Therefore, you can stop making generalizations about Dean supporters and stick to the facts.

Of course there are some Kucinich supporters who act like asses, I do however see from the other side too, and you know what that person has been here for a while, and hes been mocking DK's looks and all. Mercutio I agree most Dean supporters are good people, I do have misgivings about Dean though, keep in mind I have my peeves about all the candiates including DK, but Dean is one of them, heres why he governed as a moderate in Vermont, and starts to run for president and claims he is in Wellstone's wing of the party, thats kinda iffy and wellstone's former chief of staff agreed. Let me say this originally I wanted Gore, then Dean, and now Kucinich. Dean is pretty good on social issues but on many he flat out gives me butterflies. I get along good with most Dean supporters and well I think some of them are being iffy to act like Dean wouldnt have voted against the patriot act and for the war resolution these are their qualms with Kerry. Maybe DK was harsh last night I dont know really, maybe he wanted to differeniate himself and Dean. I wish Dean the best but I am iffy on him.

and I agree that there will always be asses in ANY camp. You and I may be supporting different candidates, but we're ultimately in this together. I understand your differences with Dean and I respect them, as your posts seem to indicate that you're respectful of other campaigns.

I've never heard you try to paint all of Dean's (or any candidate's) supporters with the same brush. It was certainly not my intent to do that with Kucinich supporters. I was trying to point out that ALL of us have abusive extremists that do not represent the rest of us.

I know that, you've labeled DK as your backup yes? there are extremeists everywhere, its life. ABB thats how I am. Thanks though, I am glad we could come to an agreement. Most Kucinich supporters are good people, I would agree the same for Dean and Kerry too, but they are exceptions to the rules of course. Unity not division I like that.

Kucinich may not be my first choice, but I definitely respect what he has to say. I've voiced some concern with his tone at times, but he is truly the best idealistic candidate, in my opinion.

I think the primaries are a time to enlighten others about the candidates we support. Possibly, even, a time to poke the weak parts of other candidates.

To endlessly post negative threads about other Dem candidates or to state that if one specific candidate gains the nomination that you're voting Republican is over the line, in my opinion (especially at a site called "Democratic Underground".

and I'll stop swearing.

By the way, you can twist the truth any way you want. You sound like Bush and Nixon and their stooges. But the fact of the matter is your guy lied and got caught. Saying he didn't really mean it that way isn't good enough when they whole audience knew what he was saying. I am going to refer people to your posting as a way of seeing the kind of foul-mouthed people who support Dean. I know for a fact that there are children on this site. Tell me, do you use this kind of language around kids in your home life? On second thought, don't say anything to me. I am simply going to ignore your foul-mouuthed lies from here on out.

which is worse?

1) Children reading "fuck"?

or

2) Children reading people (you) lie through their teeth?

I think most people would agree #2 is worse, wouldn't you?

thanks for changing the subject to something completely trivial rather than responding to what I said, re: differences in the meanings of "entertain" and "support."

Like I said, get a fucking dictionary.

are restated as you did with this social security canard, people do tend to go off the deep end.

Bottom line: you misstated Dean's position. Now act like an adult and admit it.

Oh yeah, and salty language has been around DU longer thamn you have.

It is this experience on the board, debating with other democrats over Dean, that has sadly helped me see a little bit of truth in the criticism directed at the Democrats by the Republicans. Our party needs major help. I hate to say it but I am actually looking forward for the day to come that Dennis drops out and all of his supporters will have to back Dean. You'd think that Dennis supporters would spend more time trying to bash someone like Leiberman...

But anyway, once Dean wins the primary, they will all have to back him anyway, so why are they wasting so much of their time bashing him? They will end up having to see the light sooner or later, or we can kiss the election goodbye in 04. Can't they see how much support Dean has generated? Are they completely obvilious to reality? He has broken so many records already, he has the record, the experience, and offers a real opposing vision for this country that is realistic and pragmatic.

It really helps to know that all of the Dean supporters I know are some of the nicest, most down to earth, people I have ever met. Dean is the same way and I guess he is attracting people like him, just as Dennis is attracting angry hostile people, like him.

BTW Dean has been attacking the others for a while why is it so different if Dennis does it to Dean? Tell me that. I dont like the fighting but I really have my misgivings about Dean. Dennis isnt angry and hostile at all, last night was a rare thing for Dennis actually, you know no one thought Dean stood a chance intially and you know what the same could happen with Kucinich.

I'm glad Dennis is pointing out the differences between himself and Governor Dean. I think Dean's supporters would be doing a better job of supporting him if they spent more time advocating for his positions and a little less time attacking other people and calling them names for pointing out that there are differences.

And now that Dean has come right out and said he "misspoke" in Chicago, Dennis is pretty much vindicated in calling him on his position on making Social Security more restrictive in order to make it last longer.

I think Dean is OK, I like Dennis more. No big deal there. But seriously, I have seen more Dean supporters become condescending, insulting, angry, and hostile than I have DK supporters.

As far as the rest of your post, there is still five months before the fist primary and even longer until the nomination is decided. Dean, nor any other candidate has won squat yet.

Keep that in mind.

Dean reminds me too much of Richard Nixon, who was actually closer to traditional Democratic values than Dean. I would back any Democratic candidate who got the nomination except Dean. If he gets it, I'll write in Gore. My conscience won't allow me to back someone like Dean. And I definitely wouldn't want the kind of people who are backing him having any say in a government that was running my country.

Classical Dean. HE knows what he is GOING to do, but carefullt creates plauable deniability.

EVERYONE, every journalist, everyonw who herd Dean "ENTERAIN" knows ewxactly what he is saying. RAISE THE RETIREMENT AGEW.

IN his earlier interview when he mentioned the age &) there wqas no entertain involvevd. Dean SAID the retirement age had to be raised> Notice, Russerts question starst with the age 70 wehich comes from and earlier statement made by Dean over 2 years ago about raising the age to 70. This was also reported in the "Howard Dean is No Paul Wellstone comment. THis wa from an Interview with Russert well before "Meet the Press"

Dean has said that a constitutional amendment to balance the budget "wouldn't be a bad thing" and that the way to balance the federal budget is "for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70 and cut defense, Medicare and veterans' pensions." In the name of fiscal conservatism, Dean's final- year Vermont budget also cut portions of the state's public education funding. Dean supports the death penalty and as governor was embraced by the NRA. Although he opposed the war on Iraq, his policy on the Middle East is closer, he says, to AIPAC--the American Israel Public Affairs Committee--than to progressives calling for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20030526&s=farrell

notice the PRE-TEXT to Deans statementabout entertaining the age of 68:

Mr. Russert: In 1995…you were asked how would you balance the budget…. "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." would no longer cut Social Security?

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

Mr. Russert: Would you raise retirement age to 70?

http://www.socialsecurity.org/dailys/07-02-03.html

Dean doesthis oll of the time. He takes a position, qualifies it, so that if he is called to task for making the statement, he can deny it.


A repetittion of Deans earlier statement:

a progressive not



Last week's May 12 print edition of The Nation's, DEAN'S NO WELLSTONE -- is now available online (here)



Jim Farrell, former spokesman for the late Senator Wellstone, urges progressives to think twice about Howard Dean before rushing to support his candidacy.



Farrell says that using Senator Wellstone's line about representing the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" may be where the similarities between the two Democrats begin and end.



"Dean has said that a constitutional amendment to balance the budget In the name of fiscal conservatism, Dean's final-year Vermont budget also cut portions of the state's public-education funding."

http://www.sover.net/~auc/archives.htm

There a literally dozens of references to Denas eariler statements. Russerts statement on MTP was getting Dean on stuff he earlier comitted to.


THis is the beginning of the end for Dean. Everything he has said in the past wil soon be under attack, in order to show Dean as the spineless, positionless politician that he is. THe DLC is armend anddangerous, and baby boomers will be reminded that on several occasions Dnea has "ENTERTAINED" the idea of making them work 7 dreary years longer before they can retire if they are poor, and not able to spend all their off time skiing, like Dean.

Please provide a link to back up your statement.

He always tells you what he is going to do, but Dean NEVER commits. he always uses words like I would entertain that (in his origianl intrerview with Russert when he agreed to the 70 years he said that a bunch of experts have looked at this and they must be right). Dean is NO leader, he is led by the polls, He is going to "entertain" something, and if there is a negative reaction he does a complete 180.

He has suckered ther fools who back ham and abandons each cause he gets support from at the earliest oppotune monome. Like so:

As a fiscal conservative, Dean is aligned with the status quo of extreme inequities. That alignment was on display during a pair of June 22 appearances.

In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Dean delivered a one-two punch against economic justice. He advocated increasing the retirement age for Social Security, and he called for slowing down the rate of increases for Medicare spending.

Later in the day, at a Rainbow/PUSH Coalition forum, Dean went out of his way to emphasize support for out-of-control military spending after a rival candidate, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, said that "the only way we're really going to close the (digital) divide in this country is to start cutting the Pentagon budget and put that money into education." Dean's response: "I don't agree with Dennis about cutting the Pentagon budget when we're in the middle of a difficulty with terror attacks."

The next day, at his official campaign kickoff, Dean gave a 26-minute speech and didn't mention Iraq at all. It was a remarkable performance from someone who has spent much of the last year pitching himself to peace activists as some kind of anti-war candidate.

Dean is already sending a message to his announced supporters among peace and social-justice advocates: Thanks, suckers.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=15232&CFID=81%2078495&CFTOKEN=3253804

Dean is a demogogue of te worse type. IF every political journalist who heard Dean on Meet the Press beleived that Dean statetd he advocates the raising of the Agge for social security, that is exactly what he meant. He just gives himself wiggle room to get out it his thoughts are unpopular.

That is the cowardly political BULLSHIT of taking NO stance. We need a leader, not somone who is led by the nose by the polls.

How about:

Howard Dean: Find a message and stay on it

Russert continued, pinning Dean to the wall on several proposals he'd made while unofficially campaigning for the nomination, including raising the retirement age to 70, cutting Social Security and the legality of Canadian marriages in the U.S. involving same-sex couples. Ouch. No matter how quickly Dean backpedaled, Russert had snappy graphics ready to remind candidate Dean of precisely what he'd said.

Dean stumbled, backtracked, spun, bobbed, dodged and weaved, but Russert was relentless in his pursuit of an honest position.

Was this a case of Dean not working out a message before he started talking? Or did he start believing his own press? Dean's gotten a lot of ink for his hard-line attacks on President Bush, but he seemed ill prepared Sunday to take a stand and support assertions he'd made.

That's not an attractive trait in a candidate for any office, let alone for president.

http://www.timesleaderonline.com/columns/story/0630202003_col01_lisa.asp

Thats Dean, he denies his troops ritalin, and hopes they do not remember what he said last week. HE HAS NO PLATFORM...HE just continually changes what he says to the press, and does the same rah-rah college pep rallies for his own group. There is not connect between Dean and the public, HE just gets his cult-like Stepford Supporters to attack.



THis is typical old style Green Acres/Dukes of Hazzard - Boss Hogg style politicking. Dean is that type of of politician. WHen he is not out kissings babies, he is stealing their lollipops. The whole nation could do without a weasel like Dean.

Go Dennis, tell it like it is. Tell the truth. It is time for them ALL to tell the truth about that little shit from Vermont with the Napoleon complex.

I think that your strategic advice works great for polished lifetimers in Washington, its the basic recipe for campaigning, repeating the same old crap over and over and over, avoiding answering questions. Then we go nowhere. Your man, Kerry, is great at it. So is Bush. Someone asks him a question and he reponds with whatever he thinks the audience wants to hear!

The fact is that the people in Washington right now that have voted with the President's crazy, irresponsible, radical right winged agenda and in doing so, life has become significantly worse for us. Dick, Joe, and John are three peas in a pod. I hope Biden jumps in too so they can keep scrounging for votes from people like you, reminants of the old democratic party, the people who still refuse to believe that the Democratic party has problems. Denial... is what is keeping people like you at odds with people like me.

In the meantime, Dean will continue his successes and reaching people on a level that John is incapable of because he "sticks with the message." Dean will continue to rise in the polls and Kerry continue his trend as well.

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/cover/

The issue of Dean NOT having any message he sticks to will become glaringly apparant.

He promises as governor, and his repeated failures to come throug. His supprt of the wealthy, and his cutting of services to the middle class and poor, are all about to be opened, repetatively, to the public. In Kerry;s New Hampshire speeche tonight, jhe referred a number of times to behaviors Dean engaged in a governor, without directly assosciating them with Dean.

The Kucinich sttements were the first in what wll become a flood of reminders of Deans statement. Even people who are now approacing returement age will be enraged by Dean "ENTERTAINING" making thme wait an additional five or six years for retirement, as denahas also enteretained changing that law to go back to cover people born after 1940, who now can still retire at 63, and if Dean engages in his typical behavior, he will fiscally responsibly take away their retirements months before they were planning to enjoy it.

Sorry, Deans message will soon be attacked as no message at all.
I am glad to see Kucinic starting it out. Dean will have not chooice but to lie about his past statements and have the press dredge them up the next day, and slowly be seen as a lying candidate, or totally admit that he intends to cut medicare, medicaid, social security in order to be fiscally conservative.

Deans message does not resonate or seem consistant with any body but a rather small group of very activist young people.

AS I said, tonight, those who are the largest group of voters, those over fifty, crowded Kerry's Town Hall meeting, but you see very few of these people at Deans meeting. I carefully note the composition of the crowds when I watch these shows. So far, only Kerry's meetings have had a nuber of blacks and minorities. I have yet to count ONE at a Dean function on C-SPAN.

It is after September when the campaigns start moving in earnest. And EVERY single cut to programs to the elderly, the poor, the disabled, the blind that Dean repetatively tried to cut, or did cut will be thrown up in his face and into the open for public scrutiny.

The democratic party is not the party of taking benefits away from the elderly. Dean hasalways made this the FIRST choice of his cuts.

I was glad to see Kucinich's attacks on Dean last night, to , Hear Liebermans attacks on Dean on Imus today. I am waiting for all of the others to begin concerted efforts to make this be a campaign based on an informed electorate.

WHne Dean is asked to open HIS records, the ones he tried to seal for 20 years, Deans supporters point to BUSH opening his. All this indicates is that Dean is probably like Bush, and has as much to hide.

We do not want another man like Bush, with something to hide, and who goes to GREAT efort to hide it.

That is Howard Dean. ANd the message "What are you hiding Howard?" needs to be, and will be rpeated over and over again.

Kerry's record is wide opened.
Deans is not.

Denas people support him because he says what they want to hear.

He has never done anything that resembles what they want him to do.

In this the DLC has outclassed Dean in opposing the Republicans exponentially.

For example:

Dean kept his distance from his party’s liberals during his governorship.

"He seemed to take glee in attacking us at every opportunity and using us as a way to form alliances with more conservative elements," said former state Sen. Cheryl Rivers, a leader of the state Democrats’ liberal wing and former chairwoman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee.

Dean fashioned himself a position in the political center of Vermont politics even as the state has moved steadily to the left.

Is tis what Dean supporters long for...a candidate who fights against progressives and liberal to form coalitions with CONSERVATIVES in order to oppose democratic legislation.

http://premium1.fosters.com/2003/news/may%5F03/may%5F19/news/reg%5Fvt0519a.asp

Is this what you are supporting your candidate for doing:

Governor Howard Dean, in his eleventh and last budget address, cut several Medicaid programs including prescription drugs, dental care and vision services. Dean told lawmakers times a tough and sacrifices had to be made.

The Dean budget for FY 2003 is $891 million in state spending, one percent more than the state expects to spend this fiscal year but nearly 3% less than the budget passed last year ($916 million). Revenues this year are expected to be $50 million below budget. Dean wants to use the "Rainy Day" fund to cover some of the $50 million shortfall but does not want to tap that fund for FY 2003. Next year’s budget is based on revenue estimates of $893 million.

If passed as presented, Dean’s budget would:

Eliminate the VScript Expanded Program.

Reduce the Vermont Health Access Plan pharmacy benefit.

Increase the co-pay up to $750/year for medicines under both the VScript and VHAP pharmacy programs. (Those eligible now pay only a few dollars for each filled prescription).

Eliminate the Medicaid dentures, chiropractic and podiatry programs.

Reduce the adult dental programs (cover pain and suffering only, not preventative care).

Add a 50% co-pay to adult vision programs.

Add a $250 co-pay per admission to VHAP inpatient hospital benefit.

Reduce the hospital outpatient payment by 10%.

Establish a hospital outpatient co-pay of $25.

These cuts would save about $27 million, $11 million in state money. Few advocates for the elderly are happy with the budget and have vowed to restore the money lost to these programs. A coalition of over a dozen advocacy groups held a rally and press conference at the Capitol building to denounce the budget cuts.

http://vnavt.com/vahhavoicewinter2002.htm

Senate adds money to budget, angers Dean
May 9, 2002

By ROSS SNEYD The Associated Press

MONTPELIER — Senators passed a 2003 state budget Wednesday that the governor made clear he would veto if it ever reached his desk.

Just hours after an angry Gov. Howard Dean leveled a series of charges about how irresponsible he believed the Senate, controlled by his fellow Democrats, was being, senators did precisely what he warned them not to do.

They restored money to a pharmaceutical assistance program that he had slated for elimination, redirected some money to cities and towns to help pay for education, and passed the budget by a 21-8 roll-call vote.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/46513.html

I often wonder if those younger than my own generation have lost the power of introspection and have simply forgetten the compassion that is the base of the DEmocratic Party. It is NOT the FISCAL CONSEVATISM of a candidate who's primary advisors are the lords of wall street, the corporate friends of his father, the Dean. of Dean, Witter et al.

It is better to lose the world than to lose your soul.

Dean has No record of ever asking for any legialation that improved the lives of anyone. All of the health care programs that exist in Vermont have not one thing to do with passage of ANY legislation that Dean was responsible for. It was all the result of the Clinton Presidenct, and the minute CLinton was gone, the money was gone, and Dean decided to CUT benefits to the poor, while retaining FAT tax cuts that favored the Vermont Rich who paid the lowerst share of their total incomes in composite state taxes. By theway did I mention beofre Dean became governor, the reverse was true, the poor paid less anad the rich more.

You can listen to Dean talk and mislead for hours and hours. What Dean said was true. You have the power to change America, But to what.

Becasue certainly, there is nothing in Deans record to indicate that whatever jhe does will moeve America ahead, but bak to the past, where the poor are kept in their place by an oppressive government.

That is what lies behind Deans campaign. He has selected the most gullible to support him. Deans credois , "listen to what I say, not to what I do."

Dean has talked about raising the retiremet age since 1995. It is all there. Dean is cautious as to use words like "ENTERTAIN" so that no one can state that he PLANS on doing anything. But there was no need to state anything. All he needed to state was that he will keep it as it is.

I can hardly wait.

And of course he is going to be attacked on his record in Vermont -- I wouldn't expect a fiscal conservative like Dean to be popular with everyone.

Meanwhile, I attended Meetup tonight with a huge crowd of new people wanting to hear about Dean.

(I happen to live in a place cool enough to have a Kucinich meeting and a Dean meetup on the same night.)

I have book-marked this- the day we can finally engage in civil discourse about Dean's positions, I would like to refer to it.

The affinity between Kerry and Kucinich supporters has been very surprising to discover. It's not so much the personality of the supporters which surprise me but their general willingness to discuss the issues intelligently and back them up with fact so that we've been able to discover positive aspects of the other's candidate that we weren't aware of. It's a crying shame that we haven't been able to do that with Dean because of a few immature people, most of which (but not all) are certainly disruptors who have been clever enough to not get banned. I honestly don't even think 3/4 of these annoying posters are Democrats - more like the hired goons Baker bussed in to disrupt the Florida recount- because not only can they not discuss a single issue but all they can resort to are Republican tactics of "well, you're not a Patriot if you don't support the President" or "how dare you question the President". It's gotten tiresome. I only hope the majority of reasonable Dean supporters can clean up that mess before irreparable damage is done to the original intent of this board.

Any intelligent discourse I want about Dean has to be done via PM, e-mail, phone or on smaller boards. It's a crying shame because lurkers and sincere DUers still searching can't benefit from conversations that maybe would have increased Dean's support. The worst shame and danger even is that some people won't be afforded the opportunity to realize, in time, that maybe he's not their candidate after all, so that the Democratic Party can get the most possibly accurate picture of which candidate will best beat Bush and devote more resources to that person. This isn't a fucking foot-ball game.

Anyway, thanks for that well thought out post. It's a great help to people still examining candidates and also to people like me who are still determining which candidates have earned my vote. Contrary to popular opinion at DU- no candidate can count on the votes of the entire party. It just ain't gonna happen. He's going to have to earn and deserve them and that's where his supporters should be helping intelligently. I already know there are certain candidates I will NEVER be able to vote for; and if I can't vote for them, my vote will go to the more progressive party so I can at least feel that I am helping to build a better future for my country- no matter how long it takes.

Thank you Nicholas_J

to commit to a specific plan on Russert's show. THAT would have done Dean a world of good.

In the prescripted world of his own supporters.

All that is needed for the democrats to win in 2004 is to get rid of conservattive democrats like Dean, and get rid of the fiscal conservatism that has placed the nation in the shape that it is in.

It is Dean who is preventing a single strong democrat to emerge and take the party to the White house. He is engendering the support of a fairly small , activist group, nad keeping ONE candidate from the DLC from emerging wh actually has a chance to beat Bus.

Scream it to yourselves all you want, but Dean is not the candidates to beat Bush. Kerry may be, then maybe Gephardt, But Dean runs dead last out of these top candidates who ANYONE thinks he can beat Bush in every POLL IN WHICH THAT QUESTION IS ASKED.

Risk it all on a candidate that only 17 pecent of people from New Hampshire beelive can win, or the guy who 44 percent believe can beat Bush.

No matter which way Dean runs, trying to run as a liberal. Bush will kill him, trying to run on hiis extremely conservative program in Vermont, why bother elect him, those swing republicans who supported Dean in Vermont will not swing from Bush to Dean. Dean is TOO conservative to appeal to the swing Democrats.

I watched Kerry tonight and then compared the type of people in the rooms to what I have seen in Deans little campign town hall meeting. Kerry's room was loaded with baby boomers and retirees those who comprise the largest portion of the voting population Deans rooms are overloaded with kids. I would guess between 20 and 30.

I am glad that I am beginning to see people who were wavering betweenb Dean and Kerry, tonght decide finally on Kerry. THis is the beginning of the real campaign, and not the campaign of misinformation.





It is SMART politics to put your best player in the game, not someone with the lowest batting average.

Explanation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=9385&mesg_id=9385#9423

Can you beleave what lies he tells? And even more than that, when he gets caught, the Dean people act like idiots? And even dumber than that he did not even have to respond to Kucinich's statement at that time? In the debate he said that he did not say the statement. Then after saying that he said not 65. If not any of those then what age does he want it at? 100?

Repeat the lie and have a complete lack of understanding of English....

Anyway, when you guys can tell the class the difference between "support" and "entertain" we can actually DISCUSS the issue.

There is an awful lot I learn about Dean here that I cannot beleave.

what lie are you talking about?

The only lie I see is spewing out of the confused people on this thread who seem to think that when someone says that they would entertain the thought of doing something that means that they are going to do it.

Look, I think that this whole debate is hilarious because you are defending a man, Dennis, who to me is a joke of a candidate in the first place. I don't usually chose the low road, like many of you do for some unknown reason.

Why don't we imagine what would happen if Dean decided to attack Dennis on abortion?

"During his first three terms in Congress, Kucinich compiled a consistently pro-life voting record, earning a 95-percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee in 2000. "He absolutely believes in the sanctity of life and that life begins at conception," Kucinich's spokeswoman explained last year.

But the feisty 56-year-old Catholic, whose political career is littered with upset victories, has changed course. "I support a woman's right to freedom of choice," Kucinich says now."
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-enrich022003.asp

"His supporters say he is someone who is committed to his principles. But on the subject of abortion, there seems to be somewhat of a calculated shift in position. A Catholic and long-time opponent of abortion, he suddenly became an advocate of "choice" as he entered the presidential contest, promising to appoint only judges who back Roe v. Wade. Had Kucinich been considered a candidate to be reckoned with, such a shift in position would be looked at suspiciously by many in the abortion-rights movement; after all, one still hears criticism leveled at Rep. Richard Gephardt over his initial anti-abortion views, views that changed at least 15 years ago. The fact that Kucinich's "evolvement" provoked so little attention may be an indication of how others view his chances."

http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/democrats2004/kucinich.html

At least if Dean is not sure about how he feels about something, he admits it and doesn't commit to something just because he is on a sunday news program! I respect that. Dennis has no chance, so he is trying to bring down Dean, who is the only other anti-war candidate.

He stopped voting on abortion couple of years back, and he thought about it hard, and is now pro choice. People can change their politics, and I want to be fair. Also here's another peeve of mine, some people say Kucinich has no chance, the same was said about Dean months ago, I think any thing could happen. Dennis wasnt trying to bring down Dean about the war either.

I think if we're going to sink low and start using half-truths about candidates (as all the anti-Dean people here do), I should be able to call Kucinich "repub-lite."

After all, he's the most anti-choice candidate out of the bunch. Heck, even Jenifer Dunn is more liberal than DK on THAT issue.

pro choice. I didnt like his view on that. Thats one issue, Kucinich is more liberal than Dean overall. Also dont judge anti-Dean people, I am netural I think on him right now. Also people doubted Dean's capiblities at first, why is it ok for people to doubt DK's ablities? You would give me hell if I told you that Dean supported Yucca Mountain which he did and most of the others oppose. Look I dont wanna fight but if Dean supporters are gonna call DK a flip floper its only natural and true to fight back with facts.

Come back when you realize that Dean DID fudge his own words. Not the first time either. We are simply calling on Dean to own up to his own words. Simple. Dennis does not have that problem, never did. And, as I stated before, the attacks and name-calling are emanating in a large way from the Dean camp. No candidate is immune, all of them have overzealous supporters, but Dean has more than his fair share right now.

I know he said he would consider it but does he realize that not all of us have easy jobs. My great grandfathers never really retired really, they were both 63 when they died, they never saw the benefits of hard work but you know they brought up some great kids, also I think Kucinich realizes this too, his father never received social security because he died too young, and etc.

But Kerry as the nearest in spirit to Kucinich and in legislative record.

But I just contributed to his campaign tonight.


He is a great man, and spoke the beginning of the truth abour Dean that needs to be heard

That's exactly what will prevent Kucinich from winning the nomination and the election. If you like him then BACK HIM NOW while he has a fighting chance.

I hate to admit it, but that really is starting to anger me. Nothing personal towards you, mind you but it makes me angry for Dennis Kucinich. I was looking at his schedule for this week this morning. I read the locations and gaped. If *I* had to make those trips I'd be jetlagged for a week or more. Kucinich does it and manages to keep his mind focused, his issues straight and clear and he ALWAYS has time for his supporters.

I get angry when I hear that because I'm watching him work himself doggedly for people like you, people who say "I'd back him if I thought he'd win". He's doing all of this for all of us, and while he's trying to show you what he will do for you, you're turning your back on him.(general you, not specific)

I just cannot understand that.

and I think calling Dean out on his past statements was a good thing. I'll admit I jumped all over that saying Dean lied, but I also admitted having some respect for him when I read about his response the following day. I didn't particularly feel a lot better about his explanation, BUT at least he dealt with it openly.

Having said that, I'm now going to defend my candidate. Kucinich did NOT change positions on abortion "upon entering the Presidential race". I researched this a great deal because I worried about it myself. I looked at his voting records, and even the PL websites which listed some of his previous abortion votes showed the shift in voting coming around March of 2002. That's a little over a year before he began his move toward entering the Presidential race. He thought about it, talked to women, I would imagine some who had abortions.
Kucinich IS a man of principles and ideals. He's open about changing his position, he doesn't avoid the issue and freely admits that just two years ago he had a solidly PL voting record. I don't expect Dean never to change his thinking on an issue, but I do expect him to have pretty firm, and clear, stands when he's trying to win my vote with them. So far he hasn't done that from what I see, hear, and read. It may very well be that he's still mulling over some of the things he knows and hasn't developed a clear course of action on some of them, but that's not MY fault. If he wants me to vote for him, he needs to tell me in clear and certain terms WHY I should do that.

Wow, the bile of some of the Dean supporters on this thread is something to behold. Is there some insecurity here?

There is a serious policy difference here that is worth addressing. Dean would appear to at the very least support the status quo of 67 retirement age. Kucinich on the other hand campaigns that he would work to return retirement age to 65. The issue is one of honoring the social contract that the federal government has had with hard working Americans for decades. You toil for years while the federal government takes money for your retirement and then they push the retiremenet age back citing the myth of insolvency. Kucinich calls the federal government out on this deceit. If the move from 65 to 67 is not reversed what is next? 67? 70? 75? It is enough to make you want to move to France. And then they try to rewrite the FLSA to boot. The corporate hijacking of the federal government must stop! It could be otherwise, but corporate-friendly democrats like Lieberman & Dean are not the answer.

"The American dream is to work hard, get ahead, give your life to a company, save with a secure, decent retirement pension. That dream is being destroyed by corporate executives who are cheating people out of their hard-earned retirement benefits." -- Dennis Kucinich
http://www.kucinich.net/issues/issue_socialsecurity.htm

65 should be the retirement age, it really should be, people work for about 50 years, they need an early retirement not a prolonged one. My great grandfathers never got one and my one grandfather only got a small one,

Last night, Dean said he had NEVER advocated 70 and DOESN'T CURRENTLY support raising it to 68. While he may have considered it or supported raising the age to 68, he was careful to use the present tense instead of a more broad tense.

Gotta get the facts straight....

If Dean was man enough to admit he 'mis-spoke', why can't you be? The blind stubborn denials and desperate spin are causing are destroying many posters credibility. This is a prime example of why there can be no constructive debate of Dean at DU. And it's not all Dean supporters. Some were honest enough to admit this as soon as it happened, many admitted it after Dean did, but some die-hards are STILL spinning! What the deal here? Did you not read today's news?

Is this going to be like the Bush administration and "it was only 16 words" while you're talking about my poor broken mother working an extra 5 years so we can keep subsidizing corporations?

Not a good tactic!

---------------------
the following is a direct quote from last night. Notice the emphasis on the words in red that Dean took pains to emphasize last night...

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."

It also contradicted a television appearance in June in which Dean said he would consider raising the age to 68.
-------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Dean's false statement came Tuesday night during an appearance at the AFL-CIO's Democratic presidential candidate forum.
-------------------------

All references to today's mainstream news articles on this subject can be found here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=14795&mesg_id=14795#14813

Isnt that pukable :puke:
We are all angry that Bush did the same. All I can say is thank god for DK because if it wasnt for him I would still be supporting Dean, and well Dean aint all bad, he sure as hell is no Kucinich.

Pro DOMA, Anti medical-mj, anti-rowe vs. wade.

You dont understand really, most Kucinich supporters support Kucinich for his economic policy which has always been liberal.

Dean was wrong when he claimed he never favored raising the aget ot 70. Dean corrected himself.

Kucinich was wrong when he said Dean wanted to raise the age to 68. Kucinich released a statement wishing Dean would have been more forthright.

kinda pisses me off to begin with. Ive never heard the word entertain used in that way before but you know if it simliar to consider, I am still kinda pissed that he even said he thought about it. Its not like Dean hasnt done this kind of confusing stuff before.
ok I used merriam webster's dictionary
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
3 a : to keep, hold, or maintain in the mind <I entertain grave doubts about her sincerity> b : to receive and take into consideration <refused to entertain our plea>
That seems like a little more than consideration imho, and also maybe a slight bit different than I will but its definely nothing to be proud of saying.

Or simply pull back on an unpopular idea, that might cost him votes.

That is easy. And then if he gets elected, he can just just as easily "CORRECT" himself again and take the stance that he has been fairly firm on since the first time he was asked it in 1995.

Dean has also said something about cutting back or slowing down Medicare payments.

He did that sort of thing with Medicaid in Vermont.

One of the first principles of behavioral psychology is that past behavior and actions are the most accurate predictor of futire behavior and actions.

http://kucinich.us/#chicago

<snip>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And by saying that you have to cut the pentagon budget to balance the budget.

Nevermind that Kucinich wants to cut the pentagon budget, but use that to spend on new programs instead of balancing the budget we currently have.

A milestone of sorts.

I'm happy that Governor Dean has now come out and admitted that he misspoke to the good union people in Chicago about his advocating for raising the Social Security age to 70 back in 1995, and to 68 as recently as June of this year on Meet the Press.

Dean's position on increasing the income subject to paying into the system above $85,000 is a good idea, separate from his changing positions on the eligible age.

I'm also glad that Dennis Kucinich demonstrated the courage to point out this difference between himself and Governor Dean over their positions on maintaining the viability of the Social Security system.

For more on Dennis Kucinich's response to Dean's purported position on Social Security, see:

http://kucinich.us/#chicago

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

:toast:

And the reasoned analysis.

And thank you for including the research to prove the point.

He did address Kucinich's challenge on Social Security age. I did not see a meltdown. In fact, IMHO he was on the quiet an contrite side that night while Kucinich was challenging other candidates in a very loud voice.

He's the guy we need debating against Bush.