How can anyone say Dean isn't liberal?

Check out the headlines on his site: http://www.deanforamerica.com/

Renewable energy... an economic plan focused on small businesses.

And this added to his support for more funds for infrastructure and mass transit (I'm a big fan of transit)

Dean is a liberal!

I don't want someone who is going to appoint a Supreme Court Justice that would defer gun control to the states (we won't even talk death penalty).

Individual freedom on all fronts.

The party line on gun control is NOT a liberal position. Furthermore, it is the number one sticking point Dems have in tough states. Dean's not just a liberal, he's a winner.

The political axis clearly puts us Dems in the Socialist/Libertarian side of the screen.

That's my def of "Liberal"

:eyes:

If you can just decide whatever liberal means whenever and however you want, then, ok, Dean is a liberal according to you.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

That's my justification for my definition.

BTW - Webster is not infallible.

Webster is not infallible, however, they are probably a better source for the generally accepted definition of words than some political website or an anonymous poster on a message board.

And I much prefer the OED to Webster.

...the party platform of the libertarian party is pretty well known in political circles.

Dean's habit of pawning decisions off to the states - like gun control, medical malpractice suits, and civil unions, is the stuff libertarian dreams are made of.

It sure isn't liberal.

Dean's no more libertarian then Clark. Oh, wait...we really dont know what Clark is yet do we.

We do know Clark and Dean share the gun control issue though.

I've listed below some of the positions of the Libertarian Party Platform. Howard Dean does NOT hold these positions.

Dean isn't any more Libertarian then Clark, Kucinich, Edwards or Sharpton.

Government and Mental Health
We oppose the involuntary treatment for mental health by health officials or law enforcement.


The Right to Property
All rights are inextricably linked with property rights. Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights.


The Economy
Government intervention in the economy imperils both the personal freedom and the material prosperity of every American.

Taxation
All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We oppose all government activity that consists of the forcible collection of money or goods from individuals in violation of their individual rights.

Inflation and Depression
Government control over money and banking is the primary cause of inflation and depression.

Government Debt
We support a constitutional amendment requiring government budgets be balanced by cutting expenditures and not by raising taxes.

Subsidies
The unrestricted competition of the free market is the best way to foster prosperity. We oppose all government subsidies.

Trade Barriers
Tariffs and quotas give special treatment to favored special interests and diminish the welfare of consumers and other individuals.

Domestic Ills
Current problems in such areas as energy, pollution, health care delivery, decaying cities, and poverty are not solved, but are primarily caused, by government.


Pollution
Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution.

Poverty and Unemployment
We support the repeal of all laws that impede the ability of any person to find employment. The proper source of aid to the poor is voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

Health Care
We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We advocate a complete separation of medicine and State.


Agriculture
Farmers and consumers alike should be free from the meddling and counterproductive measures of the federal government -- free to grow, sell, and buy what they want.

Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
We call for the repeal of OSHA, which denies the right to liberty and property to both employer and employee and interferes in private contractual relations.

Social Security
Replace the fraudulent, bankrupt Social Security system with a private, voluntary system.

Foreign Affairs
The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade and travel.

Diplomatic Policy

Negotiations
The important principle in foreign policy should be the elimination of intervention by the United States government in the affairs of other nations.

Human Rights
We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights against governments or political and revolutionary groups.

Economic Policy

Foreign Aid
We support the elimination of tax-supported military, economic, technical, and scientific aid to foreign governments or other organizations.

International Money
We favor withdrawal of the United States from all international money and credit schemes, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.

International Relations

Colonialism
We favor immediate self-determination for all people living in colonial dependencies and the termination of subsidization of them at taxpayers' expense.

Foreign Intervention
We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling. We make no exceptions.

These are a mere 'few' of the positions the Libertarians hold that Howard DEAN does not...

The point of this portion of the thread is the Libertarian party platform and the positions libertarians hold in relation to gun control and states rights.

Like Republicans, libertarians are very pro-states rights (anti-federal government). This is in contradiction to the traditional Democratic platform.

These are a mere 'few' of the positions the Libertarians hold that Howard DEAN also DOES....

1. Medical Malpractice

Just hours after U.S. Senate Democrats defeated legislation that would limit damage awards in medical malpractice cases Wednesday, the American Association of Health Plans called for candidates to take a stand on the issue.

Democrats who voted down the reform in Congress said the bill would punish individuals to protect groups like the American Medical Association, HMOs, drug companies and manufacturers of medical devices.

Howard Dean, a doctor, ... said the issue is best handled by state courts and legislators, not at the national level.

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/politics2003/0713_malpractice_2003.shtml

2. Civil unions and gay marriage

In December 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that Vermont was "constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law." The court instructed the legislature to grant gays "inclusion within the marriage laws themselves or a parallel 'domestic partnership' or some equivalent statutory alternative."

Given that choice, Dean took the more conservative option. According to the Associated Press, Vermont's lieutenant governor and House speaker supported gay marriage, but Dean didn't. Gay marriage "makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else," Dean said at the time. He did encourage the legislature to pass a civil unions bill. But the alternative he averted was legalizing gay marriage, not preventing gay domestic partnerships.

Many supporters of the bill criticized Dean for signing it "in the closet," in private and without a ceremony.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086952

That action has prompted a few reporters to ask Dean about his support for such a law at the national level. His answer has been virtually the same in all cases -- he is opposed. Why would he oppose a national law that he felt justified in endorsing for his state? Because he apparently believes that the federal government has no right to intervene in state decision-making.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8387

3. Gun Control

"Let's keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have, close the gun show loophole using Insta-check, and then let the states decide for themselves what if any gun control laws they want. - Howard Dean, A-rating from the NRA.

On these, Dean is VERY libertarian-ish!

I worked for die-hard libertarian close to 10 years and have studied much of their platform.

I know you hate to see the truth in this matter.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that people on this site don't even understand what the basic tenents of Liberalism actually are.

Actually, the roots of Liberalism in America supported the idea of states' rights, because they felt that the national government would be more tyrannical than the government closer to home. This is very evident in Jefferson's writings- go read them again.

This concept has evolved for Liberals to mean that we have faith in the federal government for setting the MINIMUM GUARANTEE of rights of a citizen. The concept of states' rights is still used by liberals and progressives to provide rights and benefits above and beyond those guaranteed by the US Constitution and federal laws. For example, certain states have minimum wage laws more than that required by the federal gov't, other states have better protection of workers than that required by the federal gov't, while still others have laws that guarantee greater protections to criminal defendants than those rights enumerated in federal law.

Please don't confuse this concept with the states' rights arguments put forth by the Southern racists or the conservatives. It is obvious how the racists want to define the term. And the conservatives want to use the idea of states' rights to claim that the federal government's protections are actually a ceiling of rights (rather than a floor).

And believe it or not, as an attorney, I would rather states set the standards for litigation issues on most things. As hard as it is to believe, until this past legislative session Texans actually had better access to the courts for med mal cases than Californians!

There is a role for the federal gov't in certain matters, most especially those involving HMOs, pharmaceutical companies, etc. since they operate across state lines. But what the Senate repubs were trying to do was unconstitutional, since lawsuits are generally a state issue.

All that is true, however...

The states rights position on many issues is still a libertarian trait.

I'm well aware of the past.

I'm also well aware of the present.

The major issues near and dear to today's liberals involve strong federal laws - things like abortion, gun control, civil rights, etc.

The reason for this, as you know, is equal protection under the law from Alabama to Wyoming.

It's kind of odd that a year ago before many of us knew who Howard Dean was, the very idea that gun control, civil rights, and other issues should be left up to the states would have met very strong opposition on DU.

Now that Dean has take such Libertatian stances, it is OK!

Leave abortion, gun control, and civil rights up to the states?

Do you have a memory?

During his campaign, Wallace talked of physically putting himself between the schoolhouse door and any attempt to integrate Alabama's all-white public schools.


On June 11, with temperatures soaring, a large contingent of national media looked on as Wallace took his position in front of Foster Auditorium. State troopers surrounded the building. Then,flanked by federal marshals, Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach told Wallace he simply wanted him to abide by the federal court order.

Wallace refused, citing the constitutional right of states to operate public schools, colleges and universities. Katzenbach called President Kennedy, who federalized the Alabama National Guard to help with the crisis. Ultimately, Wallace stepped aside and the two students were allowed to register for classes.

But the incident catapulted the governor into the national spotlight and he went on to make four runs at the presidency. It was also a watershed event for President Kennedy, who in staring down the South's most defiant segregationist aligned himself solidly with the civil rights movement.

Vivian Malone Jones, then a 20-year-old transfer from an all-black college, said her goal was simply to sign-up for accounting classes. "I didn't feel I should sneak in, I didn't feel I should go around the back door. If were standing the door, I had every right in the world to face him and to go to school."

Two years later, she became the first African American to graduate from the University of Alabama.
www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1294680.html

..but now that Howard Dean endorses making these state's rights issues, it has suddenly become the right thing to some...

I'm assuming you took my sarcasm seriously.

it wasn't till after I posted that I saw your sarcasm....

I pointed out that we liberals do like to federalize things so as to provide the minimum protections of rights, so as to set a floor below which the state legislatures may not go. Without Roe v. Wade and its progeny, Texas would have outlawed abortion entirely, while New York would have the same liberal laws it hsa today. That's unacceptable. But to say that New York can't provide greater access to abortion services than Texas is also ridiculous. Again, the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the US Constitution present the minimum level of rights which are guaranteed to citizens, and act as a barrier to state legislatures denying those guarantees. But they say nothing to the states providing greater rights! Again, believe it or not, until a right wing panel of judges began misinterpreting our state constitution, Texans had greater protections against self incrimination and warrantless searches than that required by the federal gov't.

I don't think anyone here has argued that states should be allowed to "pre-empt" the federal constitution and deny basic rights to their citizens. If Dean or any other candidate began saying that, they would lose my support for any elected office.

All that I am trying to point out is that Liberals began by trusting the people, while the Federalists/Conservatives began by trusting the elite and the gov't. I would prefer that we continue to trust in the individual.

And I actually don't like the phrase states' rights, since that phrase has a VERY definite meaning in the South. One that I am wholly unwilling to support.

Also, you are wrong on these things being Libertarian positions. Libertarians don't like lawsuits at all, regardless of which branch of gov't is regulating them.

...you've misinterpreted my post.

Also, you are wrong on these things being Libertarian positions. Libertarians don't like lawsuits at all, regardless of which branch of gov't is regulating them.

You said "these" but only mentioned one item.

But actually, the libertarian position on most issues is state's rights.

Howard Dean is pawning these three issues off to the states (read: My positions will offend the democratic base so I'll just choose not to voice my position by leaving the decisions to the states.)

Is Clark a Libertarian? By your standards he is.

Also, why don't you peruse the platform to find out what parellels the other candidates have with the Libertarian Party. I'm certain you'll find a few for everyone.

why don't you peruse the platform to find out what parellels the other candidates have with the Libertarian Party?

Because we're talking about Dean.

BTW, someone tossed in the Libertarian issue, so that's what were NOW talking about. Thus, I'd say mine is a fair question.

At the very least, "Your meaning" of the word and "your opponent's meaning" MUST be sufficiently similar to enable mutual comprehension and to make the same logical inferences concerning statements made about the word.
Otherwise there are two DIFFERENT WORDS that simply sound the same under consideration.


I'm not sure that my conditions have been met in this case.

http://gore2004.meetup.com
Support your local "The Real President"

Our version: 2a : marked by generosity

Theirs: 3 : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS

I saw the dumbest cartoon in the paper today...

It said "At least Rush Limbaugh had morals to fall from"


What crap.

From your cite, from the definition of Liberalism:

"c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties"

THE AUTONOMY OF THE INDIVIDUAL. Kind of says what he's arguing, now doesn't it?

I know people who are in favor of gun control try to spin Liberalism to mean that we are only concerned with the common good, but that is simply NOT the actual political theorist's definition. Liberalism is, in fact, about protecting the rights of the individual. It is Conservative political theory that is about being afraid of the individual.

Read Jefferson's writings and then compare them to Hamilton's. You'll quickly see why we are the party of the people, while they are the party of the elite.

You have brought into this debate the two icons of the differing points of view, Jefferson and Hamilton, and raised the bar for the rest of us. Do we just mouth the words of liberalism or do we truly embrace it?

Essentially, do we trust the individual to do what is right or do we have to reign in the individual because the invidual is a threat to the order of society?

I'm blushing.

This is a big pet peeve of mine, and I get tired of being accused of being a Libertarian rather than a Liberal Democrat just because I trust the individual. Personally, I've never understood this, since the very foundation of our platform is protection of individual liberties.

Political philosophers of the left have consistently decried government domination of the individual, while conservatives have taken the Hamilton/Federalist stance and argued that we must be protected from ourselves. I simply think that Liberals should stay Liberals and continue to trust people more than organized government or organized religion.

Justice Douglas described his philosophy in shorthand as follows- in almost all contests between an individual and the government, the individual wins; in almost all contests between the government and a corporation, the government wins; and the environment almost always trumps all else.

While that may be a nutshell version and oversimplified, I think it comes very close the ideal for our party. But I guess given the "what issues are you conservative on" thread in GD and the official gun control stance of the Dem party, I may increasingly find myself in the minority in my own party.

Liberal
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth

Is Medicine a liberal art?

2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL

Howard Dean's generosity has never really been analyzed. The 'good works' people do in Dean's name isn't really his generosity and the fact he wanted people to bring food to help the Tyson Food workers is probably more about effective campaigning than generosity. He is frugal by his own admission.

3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS

Well, NOW we know why the Right Wingers think liberal is a bad word.

4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>

Dean plays fast and loose with language. He is very liberal in his poetics, using similes and hyperbolations to highlight his points. His audience is often left befuddled as they don't seem to understand what a simile is. In this category, Dean is definately a liberal.

5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

This is an interesting category suitable for quite a bit of debate. I would argue that Dean's basic flexibility is a sign of his broad-mindedness. He certainly hasn't run a traditional or orthodox campagin.

6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

Does Dean support great economic freedom for individuals?
I think this is a subjective element on what you consider economic freedom to be. If it means less taxes and greater personal income, I would say no. If it means more economic options that a healthy economy offers, I would say yes.

Does Dean advocate greater individual participation in government? If his campaign is any indicator, yes.

Does Dean advocate reforms to allow those previous two things to occur? I would have to say no. I haven't seen much regarding voting reform, campaign finance reform, or even tax reform.

About the only thing we can honestly say about Dean in regards to this is he is more liberal than Bush.

as is the death penalty. So don't discount issues that are important to many liberals just because you don't care about them or don't want to make them issues.

That's his position, but he never said that's his litmus test.
His stated position is this:
"As President, I would appoint federal judges based on experience and merit. My judicial nominees would have outstanding legal credentials, a record of professional excellence, and a demonstrated commitment to the constitutional principles of equality, liberty, and privacy. These were the criteria I used in appointing judges to the Vermont courts, and they are the criteria I would use in appointing judges to the federal bench.

I would not employ litmus tests, and I would not ask prospective nominees how they would vote in any particular case. However, I would review a nominee’s writings and professional record to ensure that they share my basic view of the Constitution. I believe that the Constitution guarantees Americans certain fundamental rights, including the right to privacy. The men and women I appoint to the bench would share that outlook."

-Note this doesn't take any position on gun control or death penalty.
My suggestion? Email someone at blogforamerica and get an answer instead of griping here like you do. You may not like Dean, but one thing no one's ever accused his campaign of is being non communicative.

for info. he attended a gop convention, and his fam is all stock brokers, etc.

Then he switched parties. Your point being?

Hawkeye-X

So because I once handed out flyers for Pete DuPont when I was 16, does that mean I am not a good Democrat?

Dean's mother JUST changed her party affiliation from Republican to Democrat to vote for her son. My father changed her party affiliation from Democrat to Republican after Clinton's first term. Does that make me less of a Democrat?

go to George Bush's campaign website, and see if he's really the best person to be President.

That doesn't actually say anything about Dubya.

Dean actually says something.

:freak:

Make an informed taunt for a change!

And all the various disappeared citizens of the US and other countries?

I did come across more clarification on his position on unconditional support for Ariel Sharon:

"...the former Vermont governor declared that, while the United States should become more engaged, he did not have any fundamental objections with President George W. Bush’s policies...

When asked by the Jewish newspaper Forward late last year as to whether he supported APN’s perspective, Governor Dean replied "No, my view is closer to AIPAC's view."..

He also rejects calls by APN and other liberal Zionist groups that Israel’s requested $12 billion loan guarantee be linked to an Israeli freeze on constructing additional illegal settlements on confiscated Palestinian land, arguing that such aid should instead be unconditional...

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0226-04.htm

Dean traveled to Israel on a trip sponsored by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). After meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Dean stated: “I do not think that as long as Yasser Arafat is president there will be peace." Before leaving, Sharon asked if Dean would support requests for new loan guarantees to Israel. Dean “promised him he would.”

http://www.aaiusa.org/countdown/c120602.htm

Last December, Dean told the Jerusalem Post that he unequivocally supported $8 Billion in US loan guarantees for Israel. "I believe that by providing Israel with the loan guarantees...the US will be advancing its own interest," he said. His unconditional support for the loan package, in addition to $4 Billion in outright grants, went further than even some of the most pro-Israel elements in the Bush administration, like Paul Wolfowitz, who wanted to at least include some vague restrictions like pushing Israel to curtail new settlements and accept a timetable to establish a Palestinian state.

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/000119.html

Dean believes the Bush administration should be giving Israel $4 billion in military aid to fight terrorism, not the $1 billion it proposed last month.

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk030418/us02.shtml

de http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_foreign_mideast

"The basic framework for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians is a two state solution -- a Jewish state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with an independent, demilitarized Palestinian state. The best approach to achieving lasting peace is a comprehensive one, providing for fully normalized relations, peace, and security as part of an overall negotiated settlement between Israel and the Arab states."

Except he is opposed to the thoughts of some in the bush regime that conditions should be attached to certain aspects of US Funding to Israel, which this year was right around 40 billion.

...except that I find it interesting that "independent" and "demilitarized" are coupled. If Palastine is independent, would not its' degree of militarization be its' decision? And yes, I went to the website and read the rest of the statement, it doesn't say much either, other than putting the onus on Palastine to stop terrorism before any progress can be made, but requiring no such ceasation of Israel's State sanctioned terrorism against the Palestinians. No mention of the US power to attach conditions to its' money to Israel.

The idea is that Palestine will consist of a large prison camp with a flag.

They will not be able to make any decisions, other than what Israel says they can, they will not be allowed to have food, water or medical treatment unless Israel says they can, and they will not be allowed to have any weapons to defend themselves from Israeli attacks, both aerial and ground.

This is what they mean by a "state," not just Dean, but the whole bunch, both Democrat and Republican.

It essentially means Palestinians will agree to be a prison colony subject to complete Israeli control, with no means of defense, and in return, Israel will allow them to fly the Palestinian flag over the Prison.

It's a win-win deal for the defense industry!

Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean issued the following statement on the forthcoming Inspector General’s report documenting abuse of Arabs and Muslims detained under the Patriot Act:

“For the second time in recent weeks, the Justice Department Inspector General will be reporting serious abuses of the civil rights of Arabs and Muslims in the war on terror. These abuses are wrong and must stop immediately.

“I am appalled by allegations – which the Inspector General has deemed credible – that Department of Justice employees have, among other things, beaten Muslim and Arab detainees.

“This should not happen in America.

“The Inspector General’s report confirms my fear that we have unnecessarily compromised constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism. The ongoing abuses alienate the community whose cooperation we need most and diminish our moral credibility in the eyes of the world. The rule of law and due process must continue to be the hallmarks of our judicial system.

“I urge Congress to reconsider aspects of the Patriot Act and other anti-terror tactics that lead to such abuses.

“The government must protect Americans against terrorism while protecting basic civil liberties every step of the way.”
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000737.html

Let's Start Calling Racial Profiling What It Is
AUSTIN—Dean said today that he would take federal action, including withholding federal funding, against state and local law enforcement agencies that engage in racial profiling. As president, Dean would use the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to label racial profiling by law enforcement as a form of discrimination. “Let’s start calling racial profiling what it is—discrimination based upon race,” Dean said.

In comments today to the annual meetings of the National Council of La Raza here and the NAACP in Miami, Dean took issue with the recent memorandum circulated by Attorney General John Ashcroft on the subject of profiling and with the Bush administration’s position that this is a state and local issue over which the federal government has little control. “This is a civil rights issue, and that makes it a federal issue,” Dean said. “Racial discrimination is illegal in hiring, housing, and voting. It should be illegal as a law enforcement technique too.”

“Condemning racial profiling is not enough,” said Dean. “Racial profiling is a serious civil rights issue, and the administration should do more than circulate a memo saying ‘don’t do it’ to federal enforcement agencies he oversees, like the FBI and DEA.”

“As President, I will direct my Attorney General to use regulatory authority under existing anti-discrimination laws—the 1964 Civil Rights Act—to define racial profiling as discrimination, and to withhold federal funds from departments that violate those regulations.”

Governor Dean also made clear that if existing law does not provide sufficient authority, he would seek legislation providing the authority necessary to take stronger action to end profiling, saying “Racial profiling is wrong, and it deserves more than a memo, Mr. Ashcroft.”
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000681.html

40,000 Americans Have Signed the Stop Ashcroft Petition
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/001115.html

Neo-Liberal, yes... liberal, NO!

Breaking down the barriers for expanded network capacity is not deregulation - it's getting past the red tape the individual states have.

Building that capacity is not something that actual deregulationists would do.

Reality, now. Live with it.

so cllearly nothing that was said at that conference scared them off.

Would you please cite a reference for that? I'd be much obliged. :)

KaraokeKarlton says:

This foolishness is getting mighty old, so I'm going to just blow this one right out of the water once and for all.

Here ya go:

The conference was held as enthusiasm for utility deregulation in Vermont is waning due in part to rate shock and rising prices in California, Maine, and Massachusetts. Even Gov. Howard Dean, once an ardent proponent of electric industry competition, said recently that he was glad the Legislature derailed his administration's drive to deregulate.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/14542.html

And Vermont Gov. Howard Dean thanked lawmakers for blocking his push to deregulate 31/2 years ago.

How long did it take to change Dean's mind?

"About five minutes once I saw what was happening in California," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/02/03/power.woes.02/

what else did Dean do for the energy industry campaign contributions he received?

Over the years, the governor has sided with the utilities on many of the most pressing issues, including the push for deregulation of the electric industry, and later backing away from that as a goal. Among other major decisions:

— After years of pushing for the companies to absorb the excess costs of their expensive contract with Hydro-Quebec, Dean’s Department of Public Service agreed to let ratepayers be billed for more than 90 percent of what those excess costs are expected to be in the coming years. The extra costs will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

— The department also agreed to allow the utilities to sell Vermont Yankee to a Pennsylvania company for a price that was expected to be $23.8 million by the time the deal closed. Shortly before the Public Service Board was to make a final decision on that sale, another company stepped in and offered more than seven times as much. That sale to Entergy Nuclear Corp. is currently before the board.

— After it became clear in the late 1990s that selling Vermont Yankee was a top goal of the utilities, the administration failed to heed warnings for more than two years that the money the nuclear plant was paying for emergency planning was much less than was needed. An administration official said there was concern about interfering with the sale.

“The Dean administration knew explicitly (about the worries about emergency preparedness) and deliberately didn’t do anything about it in order to help CV and GMP sell the plant,” said James Dumont, a lawyer for the New England Coalition On Nuclear Pollution. “They didn’t bite the hand that fed them.”
http://timesargus.com/Archive/Articles/Article/43125

"About five minutes once I saw what was happening in California," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/02/03/power.woes.02/

after the California disaster was obvious to everyone, he finally changed his mind.

When I say I'm looking for a leader with vision, I don't mean hindsight.

...utilities, right?

He was still selling off plants. It was simply deregulation of the markets that he didn't like. And it was just "California-style" deregulation, like the kind he ardently supported, that he didn't like. There were other kinds that he did like, perhaps.

I'll take the war vision, thanks.

if not outright smoke. Dean is no leader. A cheerleader maybe but no man of vision.

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

Dean needed to be SHOWN a catastrophic failure in California before he understood? What about all the points made by those Democrats trying to dissuade him from that mistake for years before?

Dean's core Libertarian principles told him not to listen to weepy and liberal Democrats.

...

The passionate centrist

NEW YORK -

At the end of summer and onset of fall, pundits are gearing up for the Democratic presidential primaries. Recently, columnists have churned out a slew of articles profiling, criticizing and praising the candidates. Rating the candidates, writers have given the health insurance gold medal to Kerry, the centrist medal to Lieberman and the leftist medal to Dean.

Absent from all this politicking, however, is discussion on the Democratic strategy. Aside from TIME magazine's "How to Build a Better Democrat," no columnist has provided a comprehensive or innovative view of the identity Democrats need to assume in the coming election.

It seems each party is having an identity crisis. George Will, the conservative columnist for the Washington Post, stated, "Foreign and domestic developments constitute an identity crisis of conservatism, which is being recast - and perhaps rendered incoherent." In an effort to broaden their image, Republicans created an unassailable facade of "compassion," claiming to be "for" all those typically overlooked by the system: the elderly, minorities, the poor.

A cue for Democrats: To broaden your image, embrace the idea of passionate centrism. A 1997 USA Today story quoted then Governor of Vermont Howard Dean as calling himself a "passionate centrist." A cursory look at his governorship proves this to be true. And so, Dean's success, both as a governor (he's won five consecutive elections) and a presidential candidate, is based on impassioned moderation.
…
http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/08/04/3f2de34c3b301
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=41955

…
Of course last week's Dean hype managed to do both at once. It knocked him down by setting him up, in a way. No longer was the question “Is he too liberal to be electable?” Reporters belatedly scoured his record and discovered a fiscal conservative who put balanced budgets before social spending in Vermont, who opposes federal gun control legislation and backs the death penalty for certain crimes. Now the make-or-break question about Dean became: “Will liberals desert him when they figure out that he's actually a moderate?” Then came other pre-fab worries about the problems of sudden success: Had Dean peaked too soon? Could his fledgling campaign handle the attention? And OK, maybe he was moderate enough to be electable, but was he likable enough? Was his reputation for “straight talk” just a euphemism for brusque and arrogant?

Hanging out with the local Dean folks was my way of getting out of what his campaign dismisses as “the media echo chamber,” and trying to figure out what's really going on. I've lived here almost 20 years. I know the San Francisco Dean phenomenon is not a microcosm of what it will take to get him elected; I saw the way the GOP smeared House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi -- and pushed her to the center some -- by calling her a “San Francisco Democrat” before she even took over the leadership post. I know we're DLC founder Al From's worst nightmare. But I also saw some intriguing things following Dean around San Francisco at the end of July, and talking to his supporters the week after he'd gone. The Bay Area Dean machine is attracting more than the usual suspects: It's neither the Greens nor the City Hall regulars; it's neither the moneyed elite nor the rabble; it's not just the young and the hip; it's not ponytailed '60s holdovers -- it's all of them, and then some. I met Republicans and Ross Perot voters who were supporting the antiwar candidate who promises to repeal Bush's tax cuts. And I met Dean himself, and watched two speeches. You can't get his charisma without seeing him in person.
…
The UFCW crowd seemed a lot like Donna Brazile: They were ready to love everybody. Only the leftier candidates -- Kucinich, Carol Moseley Braun, Gephardt and Dean -- showed up; Sharpton couldn't make it, but Kerry appeared by satellite, as befits his attempt to be a more centrist liberal. All of them got big cheers. These were the folks Al From tried to warn us about. But if Dean hadn't been red-baited by the DLC, you might well hear him as the moderate in the race. He criticized Kucinich and Moseley Braun's call for single-payer universal healthcare, the left's politically impossible dream, as well as Gephardt's expensive public-private hybrid. Kerry vied with Dean for the moderate mantle with his relatively modest healthcare plan, but overall Dean came off as the fiscal conservative in the bunch. Amazingly, he got the biggest hand from this union audience when he called George Bush a “borrow and spend, credit-card Republican” and promised to erase the deficit if he's elected.
…
One thing I don't worry about is that his lefty base doesn't know what he stands for, and will bolt when they realize he's a moderate. His base knows exactly how moderate he is. I interviewed dozens of his liberal devotees, and they all know the not-so-liberal aspects of his record. Someone at the Meetup lamented his staunch pro-Israel stance; several people I met said they differed with him on the death penalty. Brilliant says he has issues with Dean on all of his more conservative stands. “But he's not afraid to say what he thinks. Dean asks the fundamentally sound questions and does not have an ideological answer that trumps reason, as Bush does.”
…
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/08/11/dean/

Extremely massive information dump on Gov. Howard Dean, M.D. (v2.0)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=41214

I do repeat after him.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2003/fax20030715.asp

http://slate.msn.com/id/2084735/

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20030808184348973

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

http://politicalwire.com/archives/002628.html

These all from the first page of a "howard dean liberal" google search.

really different results.

So, now you imply that Dean is a Nazi, Feanorcurufinwe?

Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Typing "Howard Dean" liberal

into google just queries a database and matches strings.

It doesn't magically turn Dean's record into a liberal one.

the articles referenced by my google search are ones saying Howard
Dean ISN'T a liberal.

a chance to bash Dean or his supporters will NOT be passed over.

That's what the query showed when I looked.

He's generally a little left of center on most things. On Equal, Civil and Human Rights he's quite liberal and takes the position that you can NEVER compromise on protecting these rights. Where money is concerned, he's a tightwad. Ironically, though, he has this uncanny ability to do more for less. He's probably a little right of center on fiscal issues. Believe it or not, he really converted Vermont's liberals into believing in fiscal responsibility. It was a tough sell, but now it's pretty much second nature with all Vermont's politicians. Dean is definitely not a liberal, but he does have the ability and willingness to pass some pretty liberal agenda. Universal Health Care, Civil Unions, equal education...these kinds of things are where Dean is fairly liberal. He's just difficult to label because he's full of surprises. He's a good candidate for people from any political viewpoint.

Ya never know when he's going to "evolve." He is a doctor, after all.

How do his statements on his distaste for letting defendents off on technicalities fit with his position on civil rights? Isn't the right to a trial part of civil rights? Is curbing technicalities or starving public defenders offices (didn't he have an adversarial relationship with this branch?) part of compromising to save money or what? I genuinely do not get his position on this.

He's no raging socialist that I thought he was way back earlier in the year, judging from shallow news report. He's one of the more centrist candidates of the 10. He has one major strong liberal credential, his civil unions, but that's it. And even that's neutralized a bit by his "uncomfortableness with gay marriages". Dean's liberal though, no doubt. He's definitely not a conservative, as a whole at least. He's an admitted fiscal conservative.

Once again, on the heels of data that shows Arab-Americans, a group that voted overwhelmingly for Bush last election cycle, is very receptive to Dean, we have the, "Dean is no liberal, he hates Palestinians, he waffles on his I/P stance, blah blah blah".

No, couldn't see this one being ginned up earlier this weekend and on the Dean blog. Nope, a total shocker.

The scary thing for competitors for the nomination is that Dean's stated policy, that he supports the existence of Israel, while maintaining that the US needs the trust of both sides to act as an 'honest broker' and stay engaged in the process, is the best hope for peace for as many people as possible. But just as they've taken statements regarding Hammas and even-handed out of context to fabricate an issue where none exists, they do so again. It's simple support suppression marketing tactics. And the cycle is pretty obvious now. Take allegations or interpretations of meanings, and 'weave' them into the official spin. Then recognize reality, and compare it to the fiction you've already created. Viola, omg, it's a flip-flop. We've gotten rather good at spotting these kinds of Orwellian language redefinition methodologies, from watching the Bush administration. And it's pretty damn funny that one of the things many of us find most alarming about Bush...that being his willingness to perform real-time revisionism in a cynical pursuit of political opportunity...is being demonstrated so clearly by some. But here is where the Dean campaign will demonstrate to the Democratic party establishment, that not only does Dean present an opportunity to carry forward a pragmatic, progressive agenda, but the ability to 'unspin' the tangled web that lobbyists, politicians and marketing experts have crafted to take from us our voice.

Pfaa...

He might get offended.

I said the other day- Dean is so wishy washy and malleable and has stood on so many different sides of every concievable issue that Rove will have a field day painting him just the way they want America to see him.
Americans like backbone, not wishy washy.

They didn't seem to inspire him for the many years he actually GOVERNED.

A common-sense moderate who firmly believes that social justice can only be accomplished through strong financial management, Governor Dean has cut the income tax twice, removed the sales tax on most clothing, and reduced the state's long-term debt. Not only did the governor pay off an inherited $70 million deficit, he worked with lawmakers to build "rainy day" reserves to help the state through any future economic downturn.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=about_biography

(I don't) but he knows that label will kill him in the general, but he can't change what they think. You can't re-make a first impression.

Just like the other Democratic candidates. So he highlights his liberal views on his web site. When did he put that site up, by the way? I didn't realize that his campaign had an Internet component...

Dean is absolutely a liberal. So is Kerry. So, for that matter, are all the candidates (with the possible exception of Lieberman, but even he isn't as conservative as many seem to think.

There are and should be differences in the ideas and policies of the candidates. But they're all liberal.

Ivan the Terrible look "liberal" (whatever that means, I use it in the common parlance). Nothing I have read by or about Dean gives me any confidence that he has a clue or cares much about wage-workers or the poor, or that he has a clue about the the violent and deadly oppression and abandonment of the inner city poor - especially to what degree that abandonment is fueled by racism- or that he is willing to put pressure on Israel to stop it's reign of terror in Palastine, or even that he'll stand up to the Insurance industry for Universal Health Care in this country. He doesn't even "get" why ordinary wage-earners might object to losing their paltry tax cuts. By my standards, which are based on the above, he hardly even qualifies as a Democrat.

If civil unions are really important, you probably think he is a liberal. If progressive taxation is one of your top three issues, you probably believe he is a conservative. And so forth.

Steaming towards 500 posts and stayin' strong!

I'm not even going to browse the many responses here. I could say I don't think Dean is a liberal, because I am one, but let's go with Dean's own words:

)"I don't mind being characterized as 'liberal' -- I just don't happen to think it's true."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index_np.html

Why is it so important to characterize him as a liberal, when he himself told voters he wasn't last February? The mischaracterization is certainly not his doing!