Is the reason why Dean bashers start threads due to jealousy?

In Philadelphia yesterday, Howard Dean drew about 4,000 supporters. How many did Kerry draw?

It seems that most of these Dean bashing threads seem to come most frequently after Howard Dean draws large crowds at a rally. The coincidences are just too obvious and smack of jealousy.

Any psychologists here like to weigh-in on this question?

Of course individuals committed to Kerry are annoyed with Dean. Dean can sink Kerry with a single win in NH, which is a very precarious position to be in. Kerry has loads of money, so I'm not sure what they are worried about.

If Clark joins in and stomps Kerry but not Dean, I wonder if we will see a bunch of anti-Clark threads from the same individuals.

when the message board has multiple dean postings all at once.

Smack of jealousy? Slow down tough guy.

I think Dean Bashers fall into several categories. . .

1. Those who are undecided about a candidate and sincerely want answers to their doubts about Dean.

2. Those who have decided that they definitely cannot support Dean and are dismayed at his progress.

3. Those who are ardent supporters of another candidate and somehow think that the best way to promote their guy/gal is to rip into Dean. (Which works REALLLL well as a tactic for winning people over.)

eileeeen from OH

Interesting that studies determine Dean supporters are willing to vote for Kerry should he be the nominee (excepting me;-)) but the situation doesn't reverse itself with Kerry supporters.

Dean supporters have been characterized as "mature and practical" Kerry supporters are impressed by a man in a uniform.

Most of the tried and true Kerry supporters have indicated they will have no problem voting for Dean or any candidate that gets through the nomination process.

There are only a few core anti-Dean posters who are becoming more and more spasmodic in their rants against Dean. It is approaching an absurdist level which is a shame because there are issues Dean needs to sincerely address and explain before I'm 100% with him, but with the anti-Dean squad so prolific, the signal to noise ratio regarding any critical evaluation of Dean is so out of whack it isn't even worth it.

Yet I believe we are in a minority and the issue is prejudicially discounted by those who we seek comfort and respect.

I'm dissapointed. I feel shot in the back.....

Rather than jealousy.

Everyone one of us likes to believe that the guy we back is THE best guy. That is just human nature. The problem lies, I think, in the inability of some people to accept that others have a different view and also think their guy is the best.

I am a Dean supporter, but I recognize that supporters of Kerry and Kucinich and Gephardt and Edwards and Mosley-Braun believe that they are just as excited about their pick as I am about mine.

I think they see 4000 people showing up to support Dean at a rally and they become frustrated that the same is not happening for their choice, because to them it is obvious that their choice is just as exciting, and hence they lash out at what they perceive as the fatal flaws of the person getting the big attention. Unable in many cases to see from another's viewpoint, they tend to assume that anyone supporting a different candidate from theirs must not be aquainted with what they see as questionable or even "deal-breaking" issues about the other candidates, most especially the one getting all the attention. They tend to get even more frustrated when the people backing that person are aquainted with those issues, and have come to terms with them or regard them as insignificant overall.

There is also a strong trend of insecurity in these attacks. The person backing, say, Kerry is discomfitted by the person backing - oh, say, Dean - because at some level they are unsure of their own choice, and fear that the Dean backer has better judgement (Note, this does not apply to only Kerry supporters, some supporters of any candidate, including Dean, will react with this insecurity).

Because it is our duty as americans to question our leaders and our prospective leaders. I lean towards Dean but in no manner do I think he is the perfect candidate.

make up stuff...we have a person who has posted outright lies about Dean and has used carefully edited quotes in an effort to make it appear that Dean is saying something else....

This kind of attack is frustrating and frankly, smacks of Rovean tactics....

We should remember that there is no electric shock put out for those repugs who are pretending to be dems just to stir up trouble....

And for you Kerry supporters....are you really not going to support Dean if he wins? Cause for me, the minute I am sure who the dem winner is, I'll be signing up for them (if it's not Dean)....I am even sending $20 a month to the ePatriot fund at the DNC so that whomever gets the nomination will be able to immediately match Bush's 200 mill....

Remember, if 1.25 million dems give $5 a week for the next 32 weeks, we will have $200 million for the dem nominee....

Early in 2000, I was a Bradley supporter and went to a meetup in Silver Spring. At that point, I really hadn't taken a shine to Gore. In fact, he annoyed me in the NH debates. He was scoring what I thought were cheap debating points against someone who I thought would make a better president.

Bradley, however, ran a terrible campaign despite his good qualities. I eventually became an ardent Gore supporter. Hopefully most Democrats will experience the same conversion process next year if their candidate does not win.

I don't like him. If beating up on candidates gave me candidate a leg up, I would be bashing them all. But I don't. I don't like Dean. I can't vote for him. Nothing would bother me more then not being able to vote in the 2004 election.
So rather then having to vote for Nader, I am backing anyone but Dean, but Clark is my favorite.

If Dean would not be such a politico, I might be supporting him now. But I can't, he is a sleeze to me, and a liar, and reminds me of someone that would say or do anything to get elected. He represents all that is wrong with the political system.

I first decided to attack Dean after he attacked Kerry and Gephardt. I have always loved Kerry since he first came into office. When he went negative on Kerry, I lost it, mad me very angry. Now, It will haunt his campaign for the rest of the time.

I mean geez, what kind of sleeze trains his dog to fall over and play dead when asked, "Would you rather be dead or work for Kerry?"

That tells you what kind of man he is, and I will never, ever, support the man, not for the nomination, and not for President. We have enough slime balls in the Republican party, we don't need them in our party too. And this is a guy who voted for Lieberman, yuck, was that gross.

:kick:
J4Clark

You know, like, gross man, I mean yucky poop.

as I've said many times - he had been my second choice until all of this negative campaigning started. Would you vote for him - or anyone - that had Clark as VP on the ticket?

That we NOT have a career military man on the ballot.

how do feel about Dean's NRA rating of A?

I think gun control SHOULD be a state issue, because Dean is correct, gun control means different things in different parts of the country. In Texas, most people think gun control means getting a good grouping on your target at the firing range, but in New York or Detroit or rural areas it is different.

hypo - I'm in Delaware which has very strict gun laws - PA doesn't - all I need to do is drive 20 minutes and buy myself a weapon.

Which is exactly what Dean says.

Why drive 20 minutes? You could contact the crminal element in your city and buy a gun unregistered, and that will continue to be the case no matter how many gun control laws you pass.

If Delaware has strict gun laws and you possess a gun illegally, then you are in violation of those laws, regardless of where you bought it. How far you have to drive to get the thing is irrelevent.

but let me respond as a Dean supporter. I am happy about it. No, make that ecstatic. This one issue has lost us more votes than you can imagine, esp in my home state. I think that Dean can win states like West Virginia and New Hampshire, and put states like Arkansas, Tennessee, and Missouri in play. Gore lost these states by very small margins, and many feel it was mostly due to his gun stance.

And I still don't understand why liberals, who are supposed to believe in individual rights, argue that the government should have the right to tell me what I can or can not POSSESS. There are laws regulating the use of a gun, and those are entirely legitimate. But to tell me that I can not simply POSSESS an object is just as bad as allowing the gov't to tell me what substances I may ingest.

You are not in Dallas by any chance, are you, lastliberal?

SE Texas (Beaumont area). There are a number of people from Dallas here though- Liberal Texan and Velma D (Darth Velma?) I think are both in Dallas.

I didn't realize you were here too- it's always nice to meet a fellow Texan. I remind people on this board that Shrub is not a real Texan. He's just a Connecticut Yankee who plays one on TV. :hi:

My Dad is from Port Arthur and I have family all over that area! My last name is Landry, if that tells you anything. :)

West Columbia here! Got to agree with you guys on this one.

Why not? Clark is a peace advocate and also supports auditing the Pentagon accounts. I like that! Sense and reason combined with tactical skill makes for some wise decisions.

Have you ever seen a primary camapaign before? I'll stipulate that "Dean started it." So what? Do you believe for a second that if he hadn't "started it" that no negative comments between the candidates would have occurred by now? Do you? If your answer is "yes" to that last question, I'll posit that you've never seen a primary before.

This "I liked Dean until he started attacking the others" argument is patently and historically rediculous. You see Molly, in every race there are frontrunners and also-rans. The also-rans attack the frontrunners in the hopes of elevating their status. If a frontrunner feels threatened by these attacks he/she responds in kind. If they don't feel threatened (read: their poll numbers are unaffected by the attacks) they take "the High Road." Simple.

This scenario has played itself out, in one form or another, for over 200 years.

So please cease with this mock indignancy.

That anyone would think to venture from the back gallery and be so impertinent to speak out of place to the lord Kerry. Likewise, the lord Kerry wouldn't think of confronting the ignorant boy-king, Smirk. There is protocol to consider, after all, and that comes before accountability as every lowly peon should know.

Someone needs to take these guys down a notch and make them answer to the folks back home.

"I don't like him" is utterly insufficient to explain all of the bashing threads you post. And you can skip the pretense of trying to "educate" people on what a horrible liar and all around baby eater Dean is.

There are many candidates that people do not like, but you do not see them trolling the web for anti-"insert name of candidate here" articles to post.

Don't like, him, don't support him, that is fine. Don't like him enough to skip voting in '04? Fine, that is your choice, and no one here would claim otherwise, although they might feel it foolish to abrogate your duty as a citizen that way.

What you are doing trolling and spamming, and that is the bottom line. You do it out of frustration that the guy you support is not even running, and therefore very few people take him seriously.

someone would say I'll vote for any Dem that gets the nomination EXCEPT DEAN? I mean there are those who would say "I'll vote for any Dem that gets the nomination EXCEPT LIEBERMAN," but I think most people will suck it up and do it for Joe.

Disruptions are killing this board.

Rather than very odd.

The two people posting all the Dean-bashing stuff (we all know who I am talking about) are pretty transparent. Their threads are not much more then adolescent insecurity and an unwillingness to accept diverse opinion.

I would find it odd if we all thought the same thing. That would be scary. I would expect most Democrats to dislike at least one of the candidates.

:kick:
J4Clark

I despise Lieberman and am very disappointed in Kerry's votes for both Iraq Wars, but I'm not spamming this board with tons of anti-Lieberman and anti-Kerry threads. I will post my opposition to these candidates and my reasons for opposing them, and that is my right.

In regards to Dean "bashing" Kerry over his war vote. He's not. Dean's argument is very similar to Al Gore's in that Congress, including the Dems who controlled the senate last year, had a moral obligation to debate the issue of war against Iraq thoroughly and that included pressing Bush for valid evidence that Saddam was an imminent threat and what plan Bush had to rebuild Iraq should war be the best option. That was not done because 1) the Repukes knew that Bush's aggressive campaign to push for war was a con game to retake the Senate and 2) the Dems wanted the war off the news because they wanted to return the election debate back to domestic issues, which they never did after the war resolution was passed. Both these reason are IMMORAL.

Kerry is wrong that Saddam being in "violation" of the UN resolution allowed for war. Hans Blix never said that war was necessary but that inspectors needed more time to assess if Saddam was in violation of the UN Resolution. War would be only necessay if after sufficient time, Saddam was stonewalling the inspectors and evidence that Saddam had massive WMD's was true.

I hope you dont cry when someone starts bash kerry threads because all I've seen is anti Dean threads. Just do a simple search on candidates on DU and thats right, most threads bash Dean and not the other wise. And it's by few zealots. What are you scared of?

and his own record for many months.

Let him reap what he has sown.

3 people

I can think of a couple of others if you're counting, Northwind.

I completely agree with you. There are candidates I like less than others and Lieberman's comments really disappoint me sometimes, but I don't start anti-whomever threads. The irony of it is that those posters (we know of whom we're speaking) have lost all credibility with most of the members here. They could post valuable information and nobody would believe it.

who of course, have to remain nameless, but they know who they are.

But then we'd have to define "disruptor" for those who think "questioning a candidate" means "posting lies and half-truths and slandering them".

for when you feel Dean is being bashed. Yet, when it was Dean doing the bashing of other Dems, many here cheered him on, while his accusations proved to be inaccurate.

Hypocrisy abounds.

of Kerry bashing Dean or plans the Kerry campaign has to steal Dean's style, marginalize him as "unelectible" and tag him as "fringe liberal"?

Dean's style? Kerry has his own style and it appeals to many people.

I guess his campaign would know better than me. Why don't you ask them what their "co opt" strategy is?

Let's see, Dean decided to use Meetups to help organize his supporters and teach them the basics of politicking. Dean has over 83,000 members signed up on Meetup. Kerry has over 8,000. Um, why do I not get the impression that Kerry's supporters are not as gung ho as Dean's?

Also, Kerry decided to copy Dean's use of the Internet to sign up supporters. Dean is over 280,000 and Kerry just topped 200,000. If Kerry was so innovative, why isn't he leading Dean in this area?

do you?

We wrote letters to undecided voters in New Hampshire in August. In July it was Iowa. Meetups are about keeping Dean's base excited while attracting new members. That's how the base will grow strong to withstand the propaganda blitz that Bush will unleash next year.

He coopted Nader's style in 2000 but doesn't have the progressive record to match.

Anyone familiar with Kerry's campaigning over the years, knows that he sits back and cruises for awhile and comes out later with the intensity. I don't think Dean had any influence on Kerry's past campaigns did he?

Kerry attacks on HIS time, not as a reactionary need to Dean.

he is sure to attract a lot of progressives.

know Kerry's record of dedication to fighting for progressive values for over 30 years.

Pseudo or neo lefties are the only ones who take potshots at Kerry's credentials. They don't have any of their own, just reactionary rhetoric.

that killed 7700+ people for no reason.

http://www.iraqibodycount.org

Not to mention the fact that he actually flouts his service in vietnam. Yes, he helped in an atrocity that killed 2.5+ mill vietnamese.

And the ones in Massachusetts see Kerry as the next Dukakis.

Seems to me that you post so many threads out of complete insecurity about your own candidate. I post replies so people hear the truth.

You want to attack anyone who hits back at the guy who threw 20 punches before anyone else struck back.

That Iraq War vote is a BIG Thorn in his campaign and rightly so. Both Kerry's Iraq War votes prove that he either can't or refuses to look at the situation at hand and make a sound judgment call. Dean has proven in Vermont and in his opposition to the 2003 Iraq War that he assesses the situation at hand and makes a sound decision, which is looking prescient now, and has the political courage to weather the storm of jingoism and opposing public opinion polls.

Dean has demonstrated political courage and that is what this nation needs right now.

...about a cattle meeting that reminds me of Kerry and some of his supporters:

'Attending a Boston convention, at a dinner meeting, a pleasant young matron chanced to be seated beside a dignified local dowager, typical of the "proper Bostonians." This good lady finally unbent enough to say, "Pa'don me, my deah, what did I understand your name to be?"

"My name is Mrs. Sawyer," was the reply.

"Oh" (more warmly) "perhaps you are one of the Wellesley Hills Sawyers?"

"No, I'm sorry, I am not."

"Ah, then perhaps you are one of the Brookline Sawyers?"

"No, I am from Oklahoma City. I have no relatives in New England."

"Oh," was the much cooler response, and after a pause, "You know, in Boston we think that breeding is everything."

"Well, we think it's lots of fun in Oklahoma but we do not think it is everything. We have other interests."

Dean represents more the Oklahoma viewpoint.

the issues raised? And why do the Deanies label, raising issues about Dean, bashing? Raising issues about the candidates is part of the election process.

The irony

post one personal attack on you by a 'deanie'

This whole thread is an attack against anyone who posts anything critical of Dean. An attempt to spin any negative comments as 'bashing'.

I could start a thread asking 'Why do Deanies attack?' - would that advance the discussion of the issues? No.

post a single 'personal' attack to you by a 'deanie'.

? With all due respect, I am not clear on what you mean by saying that and putting in a link to this thread.

Every other candidate can debate the issues. I don't agree with Lieberman, but at least he believes what he stands for. Dean is so wishy-washy that his followers have to support him wihout knowing from day to day when he's going to restate his position, as in his wishy-washy opposition to the war and his changing position on Social Security. I don't even think he remembers his own position on the issues.

Howies the only candidate who ever helped in a Republican campaign.

He assisted his father who campaigned for Nelson Rockerfeller.

P.S.



In the meantime scoring early in the polls gets free media, attracts money and can give a candidate momentum, as Dean has shown. To those who would complain that Dean is too liberal to be competitive in the general election, there are a few obvious retorts. One is that the Democrats' next presidential candidate needs to excite, expand support among, and mobilize minorities, women and young people. Had Al Gore done so in 2000 he would have won handily. The other is that in a general election campaign, a candidate like Dean can clarify his ideas and assuage the concerns that some folks who define themselves as moderates or centrists may have about him.

"Dream on," is the way From would see the above scenario. And he and the DLC have some of their own polls numbers that they believe substantiate their position. Mark Penn, a respected pollster who worked for Bill Clinton, reported a bunch of findings at the DLC convention. Overall the percentage of self-defined Democrats in the nation has declined to its lowest level in seventy years. 32 percent of Americans call themselves Democrats, compared to 30 percent who say they're Republicans and 38 percent who are independents. Only the lowest income group - folks earning $20,000 or less - contains more Democrats than Republicans. While the party's base remains urban minorities, labor and white liberals, this group is "too small in a changing America to guarantee victory" for a Democratic presidential candidate...

The question then for the DLC and Democrats in general is what types of issues and approaches to public policy should the party and its candidates emphasize in 2004? The DLC offers an agenda that it calls "...rooted in the values that most Americans share...and a bold, responsible path for realizing it. On a platform of security, opportunity, responsibility, and reform Democrats can confidently...make a case for replacing a Republican administration...that has failed to keep its promises." Specifics of this platform include hiring more police, ending corporate welfare, cutting taxes for the middle class, offering tax credits for those paying for their families health coverage, more pay and tougher standards for teachers, more after school care and family leave, holding absent parents responsible for child support, and vastly expanding Americorps.

This is a sensible and responsible agenda that scrupulously avoids the exaggerated promises and overblown attacks that mark most campaigns. Apparently it polls well among not just Democrats but those all important swing voters. As such, Democrats in leadership roles and in the rank and file would be wise to take this agenda seriously. So would Dean, whose numbers may not look so good at all if two of those three "establishment" Democrats mentioned above drop out, leaving one - John Kerry perhaps - to consolidate support among moderate, centrist Democrats.


http://www.politicsnj.com/rebovich080303.htm

If you looks to the polls done by the DLC, and compare them to the economic group that Dean gets his promary support from, relatively wealthy white middle class, or their college kids, Dean has little to NO support from the majority of the demcratic part'y base. Which is largely poor, or minority based.

Maybe it's cuz they don't like his policies - ever think of that?

Some of the things Dean has supported really trouble me:

Dean said Wednesday he believed that the attacks and their aftermath would "require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street."

Dean said he had not taken a position on these questions. Asked whether he meant that specific rights described in the Bill of Rights - the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution - would have to be trimmed, the governor said:

"I haven't gotten that far yet. I think that's unlikely"

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html

"We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the second trial. And so the guy basically got time served, and he was the man who murdered a 15-year-old girl and raped her and then left her for dead and she was dead. So life without parole doesn't work either. If life without parole worked 100 percent of the time, there'd be no need for the death penalty because I agree with the bishop. Vengeance should never be a piece of this. As human beings, we all want to get revenge. That should never part of public policy, to get revenge, but the trouble is that life without parole is not perfect either and the victims in that case are 15- and 12-year-old girls. That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1


Dean is saying he would rather put an innocent man to death than risk having a guilty man go free. That's quite at odds with the tradition in the country of "better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished."

If, in 1968, I had been a Republican (and that's almost impossible to imagine) and I had known the type of person Richard Nixon was, I would have informed my party. Many people are printing the truth about Dean to warn people about a man they feel is a con artist and a threat to the Democratic Party. Educated voters are better than ignorant ones. If George Bush had run as a Democrat, the Dean supporters would also say it was bashing to inform the people that Bush didn't embody the ideals of the Democratic Party. The people posting the truth about Dean are not the enemy. They are friends who want to save friends from being tricked into voting Republicrat. Sometimes peole love to have their leaders pull the wool over their eyes. Think of all the people who tried to save Jim Jones's followers. To Jones's followers, it would have been considered bashing to warn them that their leader was not Mr. Nice. But it's too bad people weren't able to get through to the followers to save them from disaster. Rescuers are often seen as intruders or bashers. We will have to go through the same thing during the general election when Bush's supporters will say any information about Bush is bashing.

What bothers me most is when the Dean followers react by swearing and knowingly lying to get back any anyone who dares to try to tell them about their man.

Or half truths...

Or non-truths (lies)...

Or hearsay...

Or right-wing sources...

Or opinion pieces from people with an axe to grind, but who are too lazy or unwilling to do a little research...

Then they turn a blind eye when their claims are debunked with facts, and continue to spam.

because he wanted to get more well known and needed the press last January?

sheesh, Larkspur. You have to grow a thicker skin.

and that is his right.

What this post is about is Dean bashers who intentionally post misleading and outdated information about Dean as fact and post them multiple times, which is spamming, blm.

If you don't like the heat Dean-bashers get out of the Politics and Campaign board.

HAHAHAHAHA. You saying anyone can't take the heat is a laugh.

Dean is the TOP BASHER of Dems. He LIED to do it, and the naive cheer him on. He called others "Bushlite" while staying reticent about his own closeness to Bush on issues.

He was knocking on doors rather than preaching to the converted, something i wish Dean would of done rather than that rally. I think that Dean spends a little too much on media spectacle than on what democrats do good at : grassroots. A rally is not grassroots, its a rally. Grassroots is finding people who don't give a flying horses ass about politics and showing up at their door and getting them active.

As far as the Dean attacks; I think its worrysome yes, but I wouldn't judge Dean 100% by his supporters and nor would I do the same for Kerry.

and the 2 things he found out was that Democratic voters are angry at Bush and are just as mad at their Democratic leaders. Like a good doctor, he listened to his patient, not preached at them that they are too stupid to know the difference between Democrats and Republicans, and Dean did some research and then devised a strategy to deal with the situation. And it has paid off.

in regards to the broader overall goal of tactics. He should of tried to arrive about 2 hours earlier and went canvasing either after or before the rally and really just shocked the hell out of Phili. Imagine all 4,000 of those people knocking on doors for an hour?

And started bashing other Dems the way Nader bashed Gore. He had NO record of being a fighting populist. He adopted the language of the internet for the support $$$$$$.

He is not a populist. What attracted me to him in the end, though I still may switch (Disclaimer)is his free hand, state's rights philosophy. I don't know about my fellow Dean supporters,but what I like is his description on Gun control, civil unions and the balanced budgets. I don't know what my fellows believe in or why but thats why i support dean at this momment and probably will till the primary; because Im a supporter of limited State's Rights. I think that the Federal government has gone overboard, but we need their money, but we don't want their contorl. We can't have both, so we need to keep compromising and giving and taking. Hopefully, it will all work out.

Actually Dean's views are very similar to my parents. While Dean came from a priviledged background, my parents were children of poor immigrants, yet both had similar views of government and a citizen's duty. My parents believed that governmet was to secure the welfare of the commonwealth. That is not a support of socialism or communism but that the government is to act as mediator to correct wrongs in society and the market that hurt people, especially the poor and middle class. A citizen, no matter what their economic class, was to be a responsible adult and productive member of society. Those that had mental and physical disabilities that prevented them from being responsible citizens needed government support, but the rest of us were to pull our own weight.

When my mother defined herself as a liberal, the words "irresponsible behavior" was not part of that definition, and those words have a tendency to be implicit in how many so called liberals describe themselves today.

Howard Dean has a good record of promoting social justice via fiscal conservativism and that's pretty much what my parents supported. And Dean has the political courage and history of making sound judgments that makes him a superior candidate over Kerry and the other DLC clones.

The TIMELINE of every attack by the candidates that no Dean supporter wants noted. But, boy can they whine when someone scratches Howie just a little bit.

btw...I don't buy that Dean is progressive one bit.

That was CWebster. Get you posters straight, blm.

If America loses and he becomes Presidents, he'll be out wooing his next corporate job while in office. Ever hear of modus operandi? It means method of operation. Leaving his duties to further his career seems to be his.

Let's see, Vermont ended the fiscal year with a $10.4 million surplus, thanks in large part to Dean's fiscal conservatism. If that is neglect, then we need more neglectful politicians like him.

But by law it should have had a 44 million dollar surplus.

Again, Deans idiocy in rolling back the Snelling income tax inncreases, spending big government bucks building projects for the big businesses he wooed into the state (8 million alone in the Arrowhead Lake Area, in order to help a Canadian Plastic bottle factory he wooed into the state and had the desired area rezoned in order to accomodate them.

Deans economics began to create an ENORMOUS deficit by 2002, As large as the one that was fixed by SNELLINGS implementation of the three tiered income tax, and which was Snellings plan, but Dean got the credit, the author having died.


Dena refused to keep the tax, and all throughout his tenure as governor, Dean was plagued with the possibility of deficits, and his answer was always the same, cut programs, especially social programs.

Late Breaking Budget News

Budget Cuts Looming - Earlier this week we learned Governor Howard Dean has asked all Commissioners to submit proposals for significant budget cuts for FY 2003. The Governor has the authority to do this under a little publicized, last minute addition to the budget which gives the Governor broad authority to slash the budget. During the waning hours of the session legislators knew that the predicted revenues would be too low to pay the bills, possibly $25 to $30 million too low for FY 2002, which ends this weekend, and much more next year. Rainy Day funds were used for this year, but nothing was included for FY 2003 except the legislation that says basically - Here governor, it's your problem, you fix it. Our sources did not reveal the amount, but the cuts surely will exceed 5% and could be more than 10%. Caregivers of those with Alzheimer's will no doubt be affected. The Alzheimer's Respite Grant, homemaker, adult day, you name it, it could be cut.

http://www.alz.org/vtnh/leg070102.htm

Again, Deans only solution to the problem he created by eleiminating the tax was to, cut, cut cut, same as the Bush plan.

Budget surpluses can be frequently claimed by anyone who is prepared to harm the poor, and workers, ion order to cut social programs.

More Important than balancing a budget, it the method one uses to balance it.

This was Deans suggestion:

MONTPELIER -- When the state's economy drooped this fall, Gov. Howard Dean huddled with his cabinet members to deliver a sober message: Prepare to diet.

In weight watchers' language, all state agencies were instructed to plan to lose up to 10 percent of their body weight. The good times were over.

When legislators return to Montpelier on Tuesday for the opening of the session, they will find the state's finances in worse condition than when they left in June. Money from tax collections flattened this fall just as costs for schools, road projects and government health-care programs were climbing.

Lawmakers will make difficult decisions on spending and taxation, some for the first time in their careers. Dean will ask them to go along with his austerity program. But crowds of Vermonters and special interest lobbyists also will warn about the consequences of budget cuts.

http://www.geocities.com/dmmead/2002/sc0110.html

Medicaid cuts will affect thousands of Vermonters
January 23, 2002

By DAVID MACE

Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER — Tens of thousands of Vermonters would see their state health care benefits rolled back or cut off completely under Gov. Howard Dean’s proposed budget, which seeks to wring $16.5 million in savings from Medicaid.

In an effort to curb costs in a rapidly expanding part of the social services budget, Dean is proposing to require many people who got coverage under his expansions of Medicaid programs to pay for a greater share of their health care.

Medicaid is the state-run program that uses both state and federal money to provide benefits to the poor and disabled. Over the past several years Dean has expanded the programs by allowing participation by Vermonters with incomes higher than the federal guidelines.

Under the proposed budget, about 3,200 elderly or disabled Vermonters who get half the cost of long-term drugs paid for under a program called VScript Expanded would see their benefits disappear. This would save the state nearly $2.5 million. A single Vermonter with an annual income up to $19,332 is currently eligible.

And even those making less who are covered under the state’s standard VScript program will see their costs rise.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/41169.html

Dean was offered MANY alternatives to such cuts. All of which he threatenend to veto becasue they meant adding a small income tax increase to thr rich:

Progressives call for higher taxes for rich
January 25, 2002

By JACK HOFFMAN

Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER — Vermont Progressives renewed their call Thursday for higher taxes on the wealthy in order to avoid some of the budget cuts that Gov. Howard Dean outlined earlier this week.

The Progressives, with support of a couple dozen Democrats and one Republican, proposed two new income tax surcharges. Taxes would go up 12.5 percent on taxable income between $43,000 and $158,000. On taxable income above $158,000, taxes would be increased 25 percent...

The Progressives said their proposal was designed to mirror the surcharges adopted during that last budget crisis, but they have not proposed an expiration date for the new surcharges.

Dean reiterated his opposition to raising the income tax shortly after the Progressives unveiled their tax plan. Dean contends Vermont’s marginal income tax rate — that is, the top rate paid by those in the highest income brackets — already is too high.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/41293.html

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...

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

This is how Howard balances budgets.

On the backs of the poor, and the middle class, and by defending the interests of the wealthy.

A fairly common Freudian signal of paternal aggression.

<>

They've gotta have enough intelligence to know that their chances of changing our minds is next to nil. So what then would be the motive? I have a few ideas:

1) Disruption - If the we've divided, we're weak. I can easily imagine some Freeper sitting back and cracking-up at all of this BS.

2) Frustration/Jealousy - Dean has gotten some great excitement and press, and he continues to do so, all while attracting tons of new voters to the process. The question "Why not my candidate?" has to be bouncing around in their minds. We see these candidates working hard to create some excitement, some momentum, missing votes in Congress, travelling around like crazy, and yet poop.

3) A genuine dislike for Dean - He ate their puppy or actively sought in an evil plot to give their child cancer, or he wore plaid with stripes once in 1973. I don't know why; the reasons are numerous. But again, do they really think they'll change peoples' minds?

4) One-issue voters - You know the type. "I want purity, or America can rot in a GOP hell for another 20 years!" Logic flies out the window here, as Dr Dean's stance on their pet issue isn't perfect. Sure, he might agree with them on 85% of all issues, but that isn't enough. These are the Veronica Salts of the voting world. They will never, ever have political happiness.

I'm guessing that it's a combination of these. We seldom see positive posts regarding their alleged candidate of choice; it's always one Dean-bashing thread after another. And it's kind of pathetic. Still, I say let them waste their time typing - that's that much less time and energy that they can be out expending for the creation of momentum and excitement for their candidate. (That, and it's fun to laugh at 'em.)

And they don't like....

Did you ever consider that maybe they just don't like his policies?

for my part. I mean logically I know it isn't necessarily a bad thing that Dean is doing well, and I know he isn't personally responsible for my candidate's problems.

Even so when I see almost all of the other candidates being held out as so much better than him I resent it. Human nature I think, and especially when some of us are pasionately inspired by our candidate.

And please don't forget the knife cuts both ways. Whenever Kucinich does well the same things happen.