IS DEAN BEING HONEST? WELL DEFINE 'HONEST'

August 7, 2003 -- SURPRISE! Democratic 2004 front-runner Howard Dean is starting to sound like Bill Clinton in a very un-good way: playing word games and waltzing with the truth.
Which doesn't quite suit his claim that his honesty sets him apart from rivals.

Dean's Democratic foes have privately grumped about this for months, but it came into high relief when he got challenged at yesterday's AFL-CIO debate on whether he'd ever backed raising the retirement age to 68 or 70 - a big no-no for a union crowd.

"I have never favored Social Security at age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68," Dean insisted.

The problem is, just six weeks ago, Dean told NBC, "I would also entertain taking the retirement age up to 68." So Dean wasn't telling the truth to the unionists, unless you split hairs about the meaning of the word "favor."

Now that Dean is the front-runner, he can expect to be held to a higher standard of truthfulness.

http://nypost.com/commentary/2642.htm

I know its from the Post, but sometimes even these guys can descern the obvious.

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

you have come around and are saying that about Dean.

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

He is slamming Dean and I think its wrong, but ignore him don't curse him. It lowers the debate even furthur.

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

:kick:

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

www.deanforamerica.com. I mean I think they have them on all sides. I think we need to remember to check the hate at the door.

Kerry blog. Its really sad, we have over 280,000+ supporters and still about 30 of them make us all look bad. I wish there was a way to kick them off the blogs. Perhaps ban the IPs?

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

You ignore them...
Sorry. NOTHING I HAVE EVER POSTED WAS ERRONEOUS.

Or in fact not done by Dean...

Sending budgets to cut medicaid civerage...done by Dean...

Threatening to veto the legislature when it overrode Denas budget...done by Dean...

Whwn the truth is postesd, you ignore it, and cannot come up with ONE good reason for Deans actions.

All you can do is continue to post liea about Dean from Denas own campaign, with no evidence of Deans responsibility for ANY of the programs in Vermont that HE claims are his, EXCEPT, for his own claims.

All you do is attack those who point out all that Dean did wrong, but can never provide PROOF, of his role in anything that went right:

Like this stuff:

Governor's Bipartisan Commission

On Health Care Availability & Affordability

Final Report

I. Authority, Scope

A. On January 24, 2001, Governor Howard Dean issued an executive order establishing a Special Governor's Bipartisan Commission on Health Care Availability and Affordability...

II. Introduction

A. Our commission is made up of people who have spent years listening to testimony and otherwise studying the problems of health care availability and affordability. We have differences, some of them passionate differences, in our political philosophies, and it should come as no surprise that we differ on some of the directions reform should take. Although we have taken a substantial amount of new testimony during the past nine months, our real task has been to try to find common recommendations, despite our philosophical differences.2

B. Based on what we have learned, we do agree on this: Health care in Vermont is near a state of crisis -- some of us would say it is already in crisis -- and all health care sectors are on edge. We also note that many of these problems are national or even global in scope and that our abilities to solve them at the state level are limited.

C. Health care costs in Vermont, now exceeding $2 billion a year, are of a sufficient magnitude, however, and are increasing at a sufficient rate to place state government itself in jeopardy, including every program for which it appropriates money. By comparison, Vermonters budgeted $1.8 billion for all state government services in FY 2001 (not including federal funds).3

We are rapidly approaching the point at which these costs will directly conflict with our ability to do such things as to maintain roads and bridges, for example, or to provide cost-effective services to our infants and children, to promote agriculture and tourism, or to provide any other services our citizens have come to expect.

D. We do not have a health care system in Vermont.4 That means:

1. No one is in control.

2. No one is responsible for ensuring that high-quality medical care is adequate for the needs of the public.

3. No one ensures that medical charges are appropriate or that they are paid in full.5

4. There is a "disconnect" between the consumer receiving health care and the entity paying the bill. Consumers are shielded from the cost of the service.

5. There is no global budgeting or targeted growth planning for health care in Vermont.

6. There is little in the way of public accountability for the performance of health care institutions, or for their long-term planning.

http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:aC9QzqwOEmkJ:www.state.vt.us/health/commission/docs/report/mainreport.doc+%22Howard+Dean%22+%22Incentive+Plan+for+Medicaid%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Commission CALLED FOR BY DEAN...

Results..Vermonts Health care system is a disaster...

This is the kind of stuff YOU call false info, and the crap off of Dean for America truth. Bull.


AS a matter of fact, I get lost of PM's supporting me for the stance I have taken against Dean, so it is only Dean supporters who have the attitude towards me you suggest.

Are you AFRAID...

Of real articles about Dean...

If not, read all of this one, and refute the findings of Deans own reports.

Nickie?

Everything you posted is the truth?

You post poll after poll and still refuse to acknowledge that you use these polls to represent positions that the data can not be stretched to make....

You carefully edit quotes by Dean and are TIME AFTER TIME caught doing this....and your response is to always repeat the same nonsense over and over again...and the kicker is that you wait and recycle the same nonsense after a few days...

The fact that you can not start a single thread that highlights how your candidate Kerry's positions are the best, but instead resort to attacks against Dean (which by the way is beginning to look pathalogical)...

Perhaps your time would be better spent working down at the local dem headquarters getting out the vote....errr...maybe not...your attitude could only supress voter turnout by 15%....

There...I said it so it must be true....

Oh man, who wants to take this one on? :)

I'll start:
You once said: "Dean tried to reinstate the Death Penalty in Vermont but was shut down by the Legislature."

Bingo! Erroneous!

Hey, this is fun!

You posted that Dean had reinstated the Death Penalty in Vermont sighting a federal case brought by Ashcrofts Justice Department.

You posted that Dean raised the sales tax.

The first is something Dean had nothing at all to do with. The second is just plain false (it was 5% when Dean got there and is 5% now).

explanation:


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

He already apologized for it, and corrected.

Move on.

He cna change his mind before the elections becasue he us afraid he has offended the baby boomer vote,and ten change it back again after the election...
Dean has changed his stance on many issues, so often, that One cannot tell what the truth is and one is not, so one MUST go back tohis behavior as governor to determine what he might do, which was to balance budgets by:

Even the governor’s closest allies in the Senate ignored him. Sen. Nancy Chard, D-Windham, recommended restoring $440,000 to one of the pharmaceutical assistance programs and the Senate voted 22-7 to go along with her.

“I’ve become convinced that we have a philosophical difference between the governor, the Republican House and this Senate,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham.

“The governor and the Republican House want to balance this budget on the backs of our most vulnerable Vermonters. The Senate wants to balance this budget on the backs of the pharmaceutical companies who are charging too much for drugs.”

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

These are MORE of the articles that Dean supporters call lies, but even Deans closerst supporters did not support him on many such demands for cuts.

Since he is prone to CUT programs or change them in order to balaance the budget, and has ALWAYS done so n the past, one MUST comclude that Dean will revert to his most common behavior once in power, and is lying now in order to get it.

All things being equal, the simplest answer is most likely to be the correct one.

Dena is most likely to do what he always has done.

exactly what is your disability and how has that affected your feelings about Dean? What happened to you that made you hate Dean so much? You spend so much time digging up negative articles about Dean I wonder how you have time to do anything else. What do you expect to gain by all this energy you put into hating Dean?

I am serious about these questions and I would appreciate an answer.

and all of us on here who support him to be devils and idiots. Never mind that Lieberman is repuke-lite and says something wrong or idiotic every time he opens his mouth. Well, sorry, pal, but you're not going to change my mind or that of other Dean supporters on here by twisting everything he says and does in the worst light possible. You can get off it now, already.

...attacking Democrats again.

I still don't have anything much against Kerry himself but this one is doing one helluva job of trying to make me hate Kerry. :eyes:

supporters as a whole.

I'm not commenting on anybody particular, but I'd venture that candidates would be ashamed of the way some of their supporters act.

can raise the age for social security without everbody screaming bloody murder. The same situation was with welfare reform when Bill Clinton signed it into law. A repub President could never raise the age for social security. They need a Democrat for cover. I'm not saying that Dean will raise the age, but the only way it will happen is if a Dem signs it into law.

I'm convinced.

The fact that this article is in the NY Post does not make it untrue. The article correctly covers Dean's varying statements about raising the Social Security retirement age.

Here's more from the article:

"Dean aides now admit he "misspoke" at the AFL debate. Dean liked the higher retirement age back in 1995, but won't propose it now, said policy spokesman Jeremy Ben-Ami."

"But that statement doesn't explain why Dean said he'd "entertain" it just six weeks ago. "

Dean screwed up here by trying to wiggle out of something with a lie. He's not the first candidate to screw up and he won't be the last but it's ridiculous for you guys who support him to deny that he screwed up.

The article continues:

"Dean also said this week, "I opposed the Iraq war very early on - and the reason why is I simply did not think the president was being candid about the uranium deal with Iraq."

"There's no doubt Dean opposed the war early, but not because of President Bush's uranium claims. They didn't come until very late, in Bush's Jan. 28 State of the Union speech, just weeks before the war began March 19."

"Now that Dean is the front-runner, he can expect to be held to a higher standard of truthfulness."

You Dean supporters are attacking Nicholas J. for posting a link to a NY Post article which takes Howard Dean to task for his lack of truthfulness. Apparently you are willing to support a candidate who plays a bit loose with the truth. Not all of us are.

:freak:

Dean reminds me more of Nixon.

Claim:

Dean: "I know John (Kerry) he doesn't stand up for Civil Rights."

Truth: Dean was talking about Asscroft, not Kerry.

"Nicholas_J"'s "honesty":

Dean does this all of the time:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=15759&mesg_id=15800&page=

Yup (In answer to "so you are taking it for granted that Dean really said this?")
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=15759&mesg_id=16006&page=

That's "honesty" by "Nicholas_J", so it's no wonder that it calls Dean "dishonest". It's internally consistent, I guess...

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.

Btw, I think Nick_J has posted this every day for a week. Is there some reason Nick_J can't kick one of his many threads up to the top instead of creating yet another duplicate?

all this pointless bashing of Dean would have sent me over to make a donation just for you. Consider yourself lucky I'm committed to Kucinich, and take some advice. Stop driving people away from Kerry if you want him to win.

I have upped my Drinking Game/Eats Puppies contributions to Dean to $5 for every thread or post from you. It remains at only $1 for others. I hope you appreciate the amount of (monetary) support you will be generating for Dean. Thank you for your support.

Ten posts have been made today. Of those 10, 7 have been clear anti-Dean posts.

His level of anti-Dean posting has risen dramatically. I'm in the process of charting it actually for my own entertainment. Is this desperation or has his hatred for Dean over come his Pro-Kerry stance?

Normally, I ignore the pathology of why someone does something, but when we are supposed to be on the same team, I really wonder about the severe negativity being expressed here. Yes, yes, I know it exists against the other candidates as well. While that concerns me, I only have the energy to defend my candidate.

I find his postings to be very informative. I'm not pro-Kerry but I think he makes a lot of good points.

Can you please quote the exact words I used that were negative against Nicolas-J? I am very careful about such things and even called in an alert against the thread that was meant to be an anti-Nicolas thread.

What I've done here, since I saw he posted so many anti-Dean threads today, was review his history. I can't see how that is a bash. The history is part of the DU record and anyone can look at it and draw their own opinions.

When he started he posted a lot of Pro-Kerry stuff. Now he doesn't. I find that curious. Is there a problem in addressing that basic oddity? Is that a negative statement against Nicolas-J in any shape or form? If it is, hit the alert and let the moderators make the call.

and a very good one at that!

Is he thorough? He can be when he wants to be. Can he cite numerous links supporting his positions? Yes, but most are op/ed pieces or are blatantly anti-Dean sites (such as the sover forum links). Is he unbiased and fair in his assertions? Not even a little.

Nick undoubtedly types faster than I and spends more time looking up links than I. However, he has his own admitted agenda and spends most of his time here posting anti-Dean propoganda, often supported by biased links and half-truths.

Is Dean perfect? Nope. Are there people who dislike him? You bet. When those people choose to put themselves forward as "researchers" and then post blatant fabrications and half-truths, they SHOULD lose all credibility.

"Researcher"? Possibly.

"Good"? Not.

.

Ok, Dean backtracks on the retirement issue. Backtracks on Campaign Finance reform. Understandable. But I have a hard time coming to terms with the honesty underlying some of his attacks on other candidates.

From Meet The Press (6/22/03):

Russert: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is. So...

Russert: What did you think of Senator John Kerry's comments that President Bush misled the country.

Dean: Well, I thought it was Senator Bob Graham that said that and I agree with that. And Bob Graham is in a position to know. He's a senior senator on the Intelligence Committee and...

Russert: No, John Kerry said the president misled us and...

Dean: Well, I wasn't aware that Senator Kerry said it. I knew Senator Graham had said it in Iowa. But I believe that. I think we were misled. Now, the question is did the president do that on purpose?

Was he misled by his own intelligence people? Was he misled by the people around us? Or did he, in fact, know what the truth was and tell us something different.

I've called for an independent investigation headed by Republicans and Democrats who are well respected in the country to find out what the president did know and when he knew it.

http://www.deanrocks.com/page.cfm?p=1&c=9

---------------

That was EXACTLY Kerry's position. Exactly. And yet in less than a month (6/22/03 to 7/25/03) Dean came out with the big guns:

''A bunch of the people who voted for this war are now saying, `Well, we were misled,''' said Dean. ''The fact is you can't afford to be misled if you are running for president of the United States.''

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/206/oped/Dean_won_t_let_Kerry_off_the_hook+.shtml

That is dishonest.

<>

Except Nixon was a little more liberal.

/

The head of the Children's Defense Fund indicated the mid-90s welfare reforms were unfriendly to working mothers and children. Dean then said he didn't want her sticking her nose in his policies. So we must remember, just because he said it, doesn't mean Dean doesn't mean it. During the candidates' forum sponsored by CDF, Dean said he wished he hadn't said it the way it was remembered.

What you Dean people don't understand is that this forum is overrun with you guys. It's hard to say anything about any other candidate and not be bashed by a Dean supporter. Sometimes, taking care of your candidate means pointing out Dean's problems and one of them is that he lies.
I met Dean about a year ago and I liked him until he started taking credit for things he didn't do in Vermont. I knew the truth because I lived there before he was governor. He takes credit for a ton of stuff that was already there. It's very hard to hear you guys tout his attributes when we know he is taking credit for things he had nothing to do with. For instance, he is taking full credit for this gay union thing. He didn't work for it, he didn't look for it. Some gay couple sued to make it legal and when all the hashing out was done by other people it was put before him and he SIGNED it. That's it!! He signed it!!! It's nice, but he did not invent the internet!!!

yes, that's what the pen is for Governor.

Sorry that you think having massive appeal is grounds for
un-electability.

But keep trying, there are a lot of nice, polite candidates out
there who would never say bad things about republicans and not to
worry they have no mass appeal at all for you to worry about.

As for taking credit for something others do, well to be honest,
I'm sort of afraid to hear Dean say anything new, cause ten minutes
later, Kerry will be repeating it.

I just mind him trying to take credit for starting the whole thing and carrying it through to the end.

He's not the only one saying bad things about Bush. In fact, I believe every candidate has bashed Bush. That's another thing though. Admit that he's not the only one. Why does he have to be the only one for you guys to sell that? I'll gladly give him credit for not liking Bush, who does?

If Kerry is taking his thoughts, I feel bad for him. My guy isn't though, so I can't apologize.

And I never said that having mass appeal makes him unelectable. In fact, he does that well. Although I think a lot of this groundswell can't even tell you his ideas. I think a lot of these people are there for the ride. "It's a good reason for a party with lots of people, so let's go!" You'll notice I didn't say ALL of the people. I know there are lots who do know what he stands for, but definately not all of them!!