Will Repukes Help Nominate Dean?

This is NOT a very liberal paper, but it is an interesting editorial. What do you think about this?

Should Republicans Help Nominate Howard Dean?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusive commentary by CK Rairden

"Republicans are already voting with their wallets for Howard Dean, logging on to Dean’s official Web Site and donating various sums of cash to the left wing candidate’s primary campaign. They want Dean to win the Democrat primary. The real question now emerges. Will rank and file Republicans cross over and vote in the Democrat Primary elections to help get Dean the nomination?

Howard Dean is a dream candidate for two particular sides of the body. . . http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_6309.shtml

didn't you just post this one the other day ?
I replied to it .

Provide a link, I will check it out. Don't want multiple posts if someone else wrote the same thing if we can help it.


J4Clark

Bob Novak's warning to them: be careful what you wish for.

I welcome their money and their votes for Dean. He'd give Bush a really good run for his money.

one, just one, iota of actual evidence that he uses to back up his claim? Go ahead I am waiting.

BTW while you are hunting explain how this is remotely accurate.

HOWARD DEAN----100-1. Dean is the only one of these nine that is willing to admit he is on the left fringe. His latest accusation, we are headed for a depression. The left loves


I would like a citation where he says either that he is on the left fringe or that wwe are headed for a depression.

I will give you this atleast now you are trying to back up what you say. Too bad you use right wing loons as your source.

Havent heard him say we are headed for a depression, more Bush like policies we will I fear though.

I am putting up an article about it. I know he has problems, and I don't claim he is acurate in what he is saying. But it doesn't change the fact that he donating to the Dean campaign and he is trying to get Republicans to vote for Dean in the Primary.


J4Clark

at least he says he isn't. He claims that other Republican are. Evidently you didn't even read his article. But please explain how what you did here is different from Bush 'relying' on the Brits for his intelligence about uranium. Other than the stakes being higher isn't this the exact same thing?

The stakes are quiet differently, and Bush didn't knock down the creditiblity of the British before saying what he said. Which I did if your read what I posted.

Explain to me why asking a question and getting malled is any different then what Bush and Ashcroft are doing?

J4Clark

gave money to Dean. The part of the article you quoted says different. And as to you question non sense yea right. I'll tell you what. I go find Serbian propaganda and ask some questions about Clark then we'll see how you feel.

I know Clark isn't perfect. He makes mistakes, and errors. But he doesn't go around attacking all the other Democrats and lie and cover it up. Nor do his supports try and defend him against the truth. Pure and simple, your attitude about Dean "can do no wrong" is what is irritating to the average person.

J4Clark

I don't think "Dean can do no wrong". In the health care thread to site one example I say Gephardt has the best plan. But frankly you have done nothing but make things up about Dean. You inaccurately claimed he dissed Kerry tonight. You inaccurately claimed he would raise taxes on the poor. You inaccurately claimed that he and Lieberman have the same position on civil unions. You inaccurately claimed that Dean would raise a poverty level person's taxes by $128 when the real figure was $58 tops. You either don't know what the truth is or are just plain being dishonest.

"You inaccurately claimed he would raise taxes on the poor."
A link where I said this please?


"You inaccurately claimed that he and Lieberman have the same position on civil unions."

They both believe in civil unions and not marriage for gays and lesbians, do you deny this?

"You inaccurately claimed that Dean would raise a poverty level person's taxes by $128 when the real figure was $58 tops."

Where did you get this from. If the answer is not here is the link: then I think I know where you got it from.


J4Clark

of this thread:

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=13747&mesg_id=13747

The thread is on page 2 of this forum and authored by you. "What is the difference between Dean and Liberman?'

Both post 9 and post 29 claim that he would repeal Bush's tax cuts for the poor which you also call a tax increase. Post 39 described a $126 (I was off by $2) tax cut you say you got. In that same post you claimed to have an income below the poverty level.

Finally as to civil unions. Dean has said, repeatedly, that he wants all the federal rights of marriage to be given to civil unions. Lieberman has said that he would do this on a right by right basis (there are over 1000). That is a radically different position. site for both the HRC forum for both and OITM and the HRC forum for Dean.

So evidently you are lying now.

and all three of your posts that I site in that forum were answered by me at the time with what I am saying now.

"Both post 9 and post 29 claim that he would repeal Bush's tax cuts for the poor which you also call a tax increase. Post 39 described a $126 (I was off by $2) tax cut you say you got. In that same post you claimed to have an income below the poverty level."

Well, I did get a check for $126 from the federal government, that I know. And I do know that ellimiating the Federal Tax break would take that away. You said that the greatest amount was $56 for a poor person. Taking that away would be a $56 tax increase would it not?

"Finally as to civil unions. Dean has said, repeatedly, that he wants all the federal rights of marriage to be given to civil unions. Lieberman has said that he would do this on a right by right basis (there are over 1000). That is a radically different position. site for both the HRC forum for both and OITM and the HRC forum for Dean."

That is isn't radically different. Both are for Civil Unions and both are against Marriage. You are spliting hairs on this one.If Lieberman gives 999 of the same rights to gays and lesbians as marriage that is the same. Liberman did not say he opposed Civil Unions, he said he would go through the rights. He said he was opposed to Marriage for Gays. So did Dean. They both agreed on Civil Unions and Marriages for gays, that is the same to me. If one said I am against Civil Unions and Marriage and the other said I am for marriage and Civil Unions I would think you got it right.
But they are Both are for Civil Unions and both are against Marriage. You are spliting hairs on this one.

J4Clark

though you do get points for quoting. You leave out the at most, you leave out where I explain what you check was (an advance on your refund) and you also leave out that the example was for a single poor person with no kids. Any other class of poor people got nothing at all.

And I do consider it radically different for me to have all my rights given to me at once vs begging Lieberman for them one by one. Maybe the differece here is whose rights they are.

Listen, all that you are going to gain from this is that most Dean supporters will.. support him more.

BTW. Clark has not even announced his candiacy. What a slap in the face to all the other candidates who have been working so hard. And do not give me that well Clinton announced in October 1991 crap to bolster Clark's "possible" run. This is a different ballgame with a illegetimate presidency and that is why many different supporters of candidates are trying to get going earlier than the typical primary season. Getting rid of Shrub 43 is serious business and most DU'ers first priority.

I have read REPUG remarks and they do not think Clark is invincible. Let us see if he even RUNS first.

Clark is running. You are just not aware of when exactly he is going to enter the race. If you would like to place a wager on it, I would love to take your money. But this would be like insider trading because I already know when he is. So I suggest you be careful about what you say.

I also think you are insulting all the people that have put effort into drafting Clark in this election. We have three headquarters and raised over $1/2 million, which will be matched on the date that he declares. In addition he will have about $7 million from the Stephens Corperation, and will get a good boost from the endorsement of Clinton, and the financial help of Mega billionaire Soros, and the 30K supporters he has on the ground.

So let us add that up, Over $8 million plus whatever Soros gives. An endorsement from Clinton, and 30K volunteers,and headquarters in NH, Arkansas, and Michigan on the day he enters. How many candidates do you know that have that going for them one the first day of they enter the race? Or for that matter, right now?

Good luck. I hope you join the Clark team soon. Anything else is a waste of time and money in my book.

:kick:
J4Clark

But it doesn't change the fact that some Republicans may or may not be sending money to the Dean Campaign to get him the nomination.

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

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

But 99% of Dean supporters, right, left, center, moderate, radical, whatever...

will tell you that DEAN IS NOT A RADICAL. DEAN IS NOT EVEN REALLY A LIBERAL. DEAN IS NOT A LEFTIST, NOT A PACIFIST.

Dean is a moderate, he leans right on guns and budgets, and leans left on some social issues.

he has said so.

His supporters say so.

I do not actually like or support ANY of the candidates that much.

I am supporting Dean because of his CAMPAIGN, and because he is willing to ATTACK BUSH, and because he is willing to SAY WHAT HE THINKS EVEN IF IT GETS HIM IN TROUBLE.

If Dean loses the nomination, I think that he and his campaign staff should IMMEDIATELY DONATE his campaign structure and network to the winner (in exchange for political paybacks later, of course).

He should ask his grassroots folks to keep their energy going, to keep the meetups going, to keep the internet campaign going, and put that energy into the winning campaign.

However, I do not think he will lose the nomination.

If the GOP are stupid enough to get Dean nominated and give him money, then GOOD.

because at the LAST meetup I went to, there were a number of ex-military and ex-GOP folks there who were JUMPING SHIP to support Dean, because they HATE BUSH, and because they LIKE DEAN.

Right on! To both of your posts.

Well said - boy did someone ever need to come out and say that. Well done.

DLC, the DNC, and dumped Nuclear waste all over my familes back yard.

You can think of me what you want. I don't care. Really. I already admitted I was incorrect on the "John" that Dean was refering to, and that he is not a radical on the postions.

Now, will you admit that Dean attacked my the DLC and DNC and dumped Nuclear waste on my family LONG before I ever said a word about Dean?

If you do then, you admit that you are supporting a candidate that is sleazer than anything I could ever do. If you don't, then you are lying to yourself.

J4Clark :kick:

But he didnt have a vote in that so is that fair to blame him for that? hes a governor NOT a senator.

The Texas-Maine-Vermont tready dumped nuclear waste on my family. He had to sign it. He knew where it was going. He did the same with Yucca Mountain. That is wrong, and he is to blame. He knew where it was going. He knew what he was doing. He will never be president because of it.


J4Clark

Sorry I didnt know about that first thing.

After I found out Dean was the Governor of Vermont when they did that I got mad. I thought it was the Republican governor before him.

.

of those like Dean who supported Yucca. I would expect a doctor to be more cncerned with human lives.

...or even accepting waste yet. Doesn't seem to have stopped you from painting Dean as a child-killer, though...

Where do YOU propose we store nuclear waste?

Ever hear of the Texas-Maine-Vermont compact? Look it up.


:kick:
J4Clark

1) I wasn't talking to you (the post is clearly in reply to genius' post)

2) Sierra Blanca isn't leaking nuclear waste either.

You DID, however, state in an earlier post that Dean "dumped Nuclear waste on my family". When, exactly, was that?

I assume an apology is in the offing.

Please do, If I did I will apologize

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

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

http://www.powervacuum.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/07/1159218&tid=
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=McAuliffe+out+Washington+Post&num=100&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Dean&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images

Dean does want the chair of the DNC out.

Nuclear waste, you are wrong again. Don't tell me about it, I know it well. You are not the only one to have 6 classes in geology. The Texas-Maine-Vermont pack was very much in the control of Dean. Govenor's must sign the pact to make it legal. He knew where the waste was going, and could have knocked it down by refusing to sign the contract.

Want links here ya go, read then come back to me.:

http://www.angelfire.com/vt/vermontwalk/texans.html

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4745/LLRW/Texas/vermont.html
http://www.nonviolence.org/nukeresister/nr113/actioncamp.html
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/1994/acts/ACT137.HTM
http://www.angelfire.com/vt/vermontwalk/reasons.html
http://resistinc.org/newsletter/issues/1998/01/art1.html
http://www.nirs.org/nationalnews/rowewithdraw.htm
http://resistinc.org/newsletter/issues/1998/01/art1.html
http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nm571.pdf
http://www.andrewsnuclearwastedump.org/wastewar.html
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/1999/19990607en.html
http://www.etceteraweb.com/IYNC/pwr.html
http://old.valleyadvocate.com/articles/pollution.html
http://implants.clic.net/tony/Corner16/
http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2002nn/0207nn/020723nn.htm
http://www.vtearthinstitute.org/energyuse.html
http://www.uvm.edu/~jmoore/envhst/jmcneill/Main_Page.html
http://www.uvm.edu/~jmoore/envhst/jmcneill/Main_Page.html
http://www.uvm.edu/~radsafe/newsletter/rawdisp.44.html
http://cr.middlebury.edu/es/altenergylife/nuclear.htm
http://www.andrewsnuclearwastedump.org/txobsMainetoTexas.html

Hey Vote Clark, according to the Weekly World News, Hillary is still having that affair with an alien.

You must not read must past Drudge if you still think that McCaullife thing is true.

As for the second thing, it's been debated here many times over by people far more knowledgeable than yourself.

Your credibility is uh....oops, there it goes....gone!

Anyone who knows anything about how the DNC works -- knows that there is no way any of the candidates for president could have any impact on the DNC chairmanship -- least of all the Dean Campaign. Particularly in the days following the New Hampshire primary regardless of the result. No one from the Dean Campaign leaked anything to Drudge -- this report is like a National Enquirer headline proclaiming "Martians surprised that George Bush is our leader"

Now back to the process of encouraging Americans to participate in their democracy.... Keep the focus on how each of us can encourage one more friend, co-worker, or family member to join the Dean Campaign this week.

Ask them to visit our website or this blog and sign-up.

Joe Trippi
campaign manager
Dean for America

Posted by Joe Trippi at 11:15 PM
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000630.html

Dean hides his position and is easily subject to attack - as happened Tuesday night when he misstated his position on an important issue. Actually, in trying to hide his position, he only misstated what it was not - not was it was. He never said what his position was. Bush will make mince meat out of him. But if the powers behind Bush get fed up with him, Dean is one of the strongest supporters of most of the Republican ideals. If he wins, the Republians will have their moderate - one who will break the Democratic Party. If he loses, they'll keep Bush. And the worst part is that some Democrats are playing stooges to the Republican Party on this matter.

Dean Says He Misspoke on Social Security

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honestly, he lied twice. First he said clearly that he did say that to Tim Russert when Russert quoted him from 1995. Then he said he though 68 was a better idea. When Russert questioned if he favored lowering it to 68 he said he would entertain the idea.

Then he said in Chicago flat out he never said he wanted it to raise the age to 70. How could he not know that he said that when Tim Russert said that he did, and he admitted that he did, just a matter of weeks before hand. Are you telling me that Dean who is running a campaign for President of United States did not review his preformance on "Meet the Press"? That he doesn't remember what he said about social security just a few weeks before? Come on!

Second, he later in Iowa said that Kucinich misquoted him when he said the he would entertain the notion of raising the age of Social Security to 68. Kucinch did not lie, he said it twice on Meet the Press.

Third, the waving of the Bush gift to the rich, I mean the $300 Billion tax cut does not effect Social Security. Social Security is seperate from the rest of the Budget. It is collected from your check and put into an account. The reason that it is hurting is because medical costs are rising higher than we expected and the baby boomers are reaching retirement age faster and are larger then the working class is growing. You have to either raise how much people put into social security, limit benifiets, cap prices Doctors and pharmacies can charge, or raise the age. Which will Dean do, find me a link?

Finally, Dean didn't switch his position until AFTER he was called on it by the press and you can bet he would not have said anything if they didn't contact him.


:kick:
J4Clark

If there were no complaints how would he know there was a problem. OHHHH I see your trying to say he is lying about his position thinking no one will bother to see what he said about it before.

Yea i buy that. Hes really an idiot who has been through five elections and magically he never figured out people keep track of what he says so he figured he might be able to get away with bold face lying on this one.

This is also pretty laughable stuff...

I mean the $300 Billion tax cut does not effect Social Security. Social Security is seperate from the rest of the Budget

If social security really worked the way you think it wouldnt be in the trouble it is in now. The main problem with social security is the funds that were suposed to go into this acount you describe have been being looted for years now replaced by IOUs from the government so they could use the revenue on the budget :)

Its in trouble now because a lot of those IUOS are about to come DUE!

Not that it apears he needs the help at this point but my god it will be great fun pointing at them and laughing after he is elected if they do.