Local Dems back Howard Dean to lead national party

[ProudToBeLiberal]

EUREKA -- The Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee has unanimously endorsed Howard Dean to be chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Dean, the former Vermont governor who unsuccessfully sought his party's presidential nomination, is on a long list of potential Democratic leaders.

The Humboldt Democrats, at a meeting Tuesday picked Howard over former President Bill Clinton and Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore's presidential campaign.

The hunt to replace current DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who was elected chairman in February 2001, has not been without potential candidates. Besides Clinton, Dean and Brazile, the list includes former Labor Secretary Alexis Herman, former New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack.

....


http://www.times-standard.com/Stories/0,1413,127~2896~2548177,00.html

[Plausible]

1. Dean or Clinton hmmm

I was favoring Dean but now I'm thinking if BC were made the chair then Dean could consider running for Prez again.

[okieinpain]

2. terry was suppose to be bills boy. so doesn't that mean bill was

running the DNC.

[barb162]

38. good idea, though if Dean were chair, he'd have a lot of publicity and

Clinton can usually get all the publicity he wants anyway just because he was a prez. We need to keep Dean in the limelight...he's too talented a speaker to hide away the next few years.

[WI_DEM]

3. well those are grass roots dems speaking

and besides Bill doesn't want to be DNC Chair.

[otohara]

4. Won't Happen, Dems Will Pick Weakest DLC'er Type

person. Harry Reid already got a new title last week, he isn't available.

Although it would be great to see Clinton in, his presence would over shadow Bush and repubican's would go crazy!

[gristy]

6. and this would be a bad thing because.... why?

his presence would over shadow Bush and repubican's would go crazy!

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[ProudToBeLiberal]

7. Umm duh Dean is a centrist, have a problem with that?

[joelogan]

9. raising the SS retirement age to 70 is NOT centrist

Dean said we need to raise the retirement age to 70 on TV.
That is RIGHTWING. Period. And not surprising, either, seeing as how most of the Democratic Party IS rightwing....

[ProudToBeLiberal]

16. Ummm yes but you forgot to mention he changed his mind.

January 01, 2003
A.6.ii. Social Security: "Does Dean want to raise the retirement age?"
Here's the summary of Dean's stance on the retirement age for social security:

Gov. Dean used to be in favor of raising the retirement age to 70.
After President Clinton demonstrated that Social Security could be better-funded with a strong economy, he gave up that position.
Given Social Security's current state, he later entertained the idea of raising the retirement age to 68 (it is currently 67).
Currently, he is against any increase of the retirement age.
In order to fix Social Security, he is now in favor of either raising or removing the salary contribution cap (currently set at $87,000).
What follows is a more detailed description of the evolution of his position, including details about the AFL-CIO misstatement.

Here's the background of the non-scandal:

On June 22, 2003, Tim Russert asked Gov. Dean on Meet the Press about his 1995 "prescription" statement for balancing the budget. Here is the statement (from the MTP transcript):

MR. RUSSERT: ...calling for that, and this is what Howard Dean said. "The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. 'It would be tough but we could do it,' he said."

Dean said in the MTP interview that he is no longer in favor of raising the retirement age. Roll the tape:

MR. RUSSERT: But you would no longer cut Social Security?

DR. DEAN: But you don't--no. I'm not ever going to cut Social Security benefits.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you raise retirement age to 70?

DR. DEAN: No. No.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you cut defense?

DR. DEAN: You don't have to do that either. Here's what you have to do. You got to get rid of the tax cuts, all of them, and then you have got to restrict spending. You've got to control--well, here's what we did in Vermont. We had some mild tax cuts in the '90s, not the huge ones that most other states did. Secondly, we put a lot of money into a rainy day fund, and I never let the Legislature spend more than the rate of growth of the economy, so the biggest increase I think we had in the almost 12 years I was governor was I think 5.2 percent or something like that. And then we paid off a quarter of our debt, which is what Bill Clinton did when he was president.

Now, we're not cutting higher education, we're not cutting K through 12, we're not cutting Medicaid for kids, and we have a balanced budget. So if you restrain spending, which is long-term spending, that's the key to balancing the budget. But you've got to get rid of the tax cuts because the hole is so very, very deep. And Social Security, I--the best way to balance Social Security budget right now, other than stop taking the money out for the tax cuts, is to expand the amount of money that Social Security payroll taxes apply to. It's limited now to something like $80,000. You let that rise. I also would entertain taking the retirement age to 68. It's at 67 now. I would entertain that.

His last statement on June 22 about this issue indicates that he is no longer in favor of raising the retirement age to 70. He said he would "entertain" raising the retirement age to 68, though.

The controversy: On August 5, 2003, the nine Democratic Presidential candidates participated in an AFL-CIO forum covering a wide range of labor issues and concerns. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) verbally attacked Howard Dean's position on the Social Security retirement age. Here is the transcript of what he said in response to a question about Social Security:

KUCINICH: I think that money belongs to Main Street, not Wall Street. That's why when I am elected president I'll block any efforts to try to privatize Social Security. And we need to take the retirement age back to 65. The fact of the matter is that workers everywhere -- you understand that, because when you work a lifetime, 20, 30, 40 years at a job, people get to 65 years, you know, they can be tired. And they deserve to be able to retire at age 65 at 100 percent benefit. But some of the candidates up here, though -- you know, for example, my good friend, Mr. Dean, has said that he'd move the retirement age to 68. One time he talked about moving it to 70. This is a night for truth telling. Which of the candidates here will take the retirement age back to 65? Which of the candidates here will commit to blocking the privatization of Social Security? Which of the candidates here will make sure that workers, when a company goes bankrupt, will be able to stand first in line with the banks to be able to protect their retirement savings?

Now, it is this author's opinion that Kucinich either mistakenly or deliberately distorted Dean's position by only using his 1995 statement that Tim Russert's researcher dug up for Meet the Press. When Kucinich said "he'd move the retirement age to 68", he was distorting what Dean said by slicing Dean's statement as broadly as possible without getting called on it.

Here is Dean's reply to Kucinich:

DEAN: Yes. Bob , when we first looked to the rules for this debate, we were told if anybody mentioned our name, that automatically gave us a minute.

I'm not going to go back and ask you to change the rules, but I think I'll take 20 seconds just to tell everybody that I have never favored Social Security retirement at age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68.

Now let me talk a little bit about unions.

(APPLAUSE)

No, not 65.

The "never favored" phrase is what is generating all the controversy. If you look at the 1995 statement, Dean misspoke by using the phrase "never favored". To Dean's credit, he admitted he misspoke the next day.

As of this writing, he is no longer in favor of raising the retirement age. His position has changed, and he now believes that the salary contribution limit to Social Security should be adjusted. According to the Newsday article, he is in favor of raising the salary limit from the current $87,000 or removing it completely.

Later, in an Iowa speech, he says that he is not in favor of raising the retirement age to 68. (Check out minute 36 of the C-SPAN archive of the event for the full answer). He does not get into the history of his position. Here is his statement:

DEAN: Sure, I'll be happy to. Let me respond to one other thing that Dennis said. Dennis is a good guy, but he said that I approved of increasing the Social Security age to 70. That is not so. I do not approve of increasing the retirement age. If we want to fix Social Security, we want to do it by uncapping the amount of income. A CEO who makes 45 million dollars a year pays the same Social Security tax as somebody who makes 85 thousand dollars a year. That's ridiculous. The President gave all that money away to that CEO. We ought to at least have them pay their fair share of Social Security. We'll get that one off the table right now.

In summary, here is the evolution of Dean's positions on Social Security in chronological order:

Gov. Dean used to be in favor of raising the retirement age to 70.
After President Clinton demonstrated that Social Security could be better-funded with a strong economy, he gave up that position.
Given Social Security's current state, he later entertained the idea of raising the retirement age to 68 (it is currently 67).
Currently, he is against any increase of the retirement age.
In order to fix Social Security, he is now in favor of either raising or removing the salary contribution cap (currently set at $85,000, according to Gov. Dean, or $87,000, according to Nedra Pickler of the AP).
As far as the controversy is concerned, he admitted he misspoke at the AFL-CIO event within 24 hours after the misstatement was made.

Sources:

AFL-CIO August 5, 2003 debate transcript: Link
Meet The Press June 22, 2003 transcript:Link
C-SPAN: Dickinson County, Iowa - Arnolds Park Meet-and-Greet:Link(Minute 36 - Question about WTO)
Admittance of misstatement: Link

http://deandefense.org/archives/000671.html

[joelogan]

19. yeah, Dean will say pretty much whatever he thinks will get him elected

what an attractive choice for a president!

[ProudToBeLiberal]

damn you think kucinich is too right wing too?

You do know that he was against abortion then changed him mind. Oh god now kucinich will do anything to get himself elected. He's a right winger now too huh?

[joelogan]

26. it is economic issues, not wedge social issues that matter

Dean does not have enough real progressive spirit to qualify to wipe the mud off of Dennis' shoes.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

30. So equal rights for woman doesn't matter?

Omg so you advocate that woman stay and home and serve the needs of men? How chauvanistic are you. If you had people like you in the 1960s we would still have segregation in schools. If we had people like you during the 1880s woman would not be able to vote. So these social issues like equality for all doesn't matter?

[Lorien]

25. Name any candidate who won't say whatever he thinks

will get him elected. Name just ONE!

[bvar22]

37. Paul Wellstone, but they had to kill him!

Fiengold (Wisconsin) and several others who voted NO on the IWR faced political pressures (suicide it was called) for voting their consciences.( I believe they were all re-elected).
But mostly, there are FEW in DC who will tell the truth.
Most of them are here:
http://www.pdamerica.org/

[ProudToBeLiberal]

41. Paul wellstone voted for Doma

[papau]

39. Raising the retirement age to 67 as Reagan did was what?

As folks live longer the wage cap must be eliminate - which is where Dean and Kerry are at now - or the normal retirement age must increase from 67 to 70 - (meaning early retirement at 62 gets less because it is hit with 3 more years of "early" retirement reduction)

You are up against the increased lifespan of folks - and the lower birth rate.

There are no other solutions for those of us on the left - but the age 70 change is not needed until 2052.

Of course the right has a change - unneeded - of private accounts - which they admit help the 2052 problem not one wit - and cost 2 trillion more in national debt - but they will not worry about that debt as they know they will get the SS benefit cuts later after the private accounts are passed.

[papau]

8. fiscal conservatism and social liberalism is now a bad?

????

:-)

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[ProudToBeLiberal]

18. wait elminating the national debt is bad? wdf ....

:wtf:

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[ProudToBeLiberal]

22. wait you just said fiscal conservatism is bad?

but now you're advocating it for some slective instances. make up your mind man.

[papau]

20. fiscal conservatism does not mean letting the rich/corporate rob country

This is an imitation of a Rush BS gig that was meant to amuse -

It is not done as well as the one Rush did -and Rush's gig sucked.

[Demeter]

10. What Safety Net?

[joelogan]

12. Social Security is part of the social safety net

You really big into politics, huh?

[stlsaxman]

24. Social Security is NOT part of the social safety net- it's a Public Trust!

and it's not a welfare program either- or a hand out.

We pay into the public trust so that ALL might retire with a certain amount of dignity.

But this is all a moot point- your boy George is putting America up for auction Monday morning. We're doomed. Enjoy.

[papau]

27. And Dean wants to harm SS more than Bush - Dean is the rightwinger?

Dean's one comment was to state the obvious - that as folks live longer the amount available to the early retiree at age 62 will have to decrease as the "normal" retirement age - Age 65 but now changing under the Reagan 1984 law to age 67 - will need to further increase to 70.

I can not be avoided unless the payroll tax wage cap is removed - and indeed the removal of the wage cap was Dean's - and Kerry's - position.

Also both note the truth that there was no hurry as the SS system is solid as is through 2052 - assuming the payroll surplus of today - now being stolen to finance the tax cuts for the rich - and represented by government bonds in the SS trust fund - is not repaid.

Indeed the GOP lie de jure for SS is that there is a crisis when the payroll tax first does not collect more than 100% of the benefit payout in the year 2019 - meaning there would be no surplus for the rich to steal.

So we need private accounts which is a cover for benefit cutbacks.

right?

And Dean is the one hurting or planning to hurt the social services safety net??????

:-(

[shance]

14. You know, he actually would do well across the board because

he's not liberal or conservative, he speaks common sense and the truth.

I think we get caught up in the labels of liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. I don't care who's in what party.

If they are authentically doing the right thing and have not become seduced and enslaved by the politics of money, power and profit at the expense of everyone else, and have the courage to tell the truth, I will support them in a heartbeat.

I dont think our problem lies as much with our leaders as it does the system they get entangled in. Many of our leaders are top notch and inherently good people.

However, they are accountable if they don't take the action to change the system, just as any of us would be.

What will those leaders tell their kids and grandkids about not standing up to those dismantling our government right now?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[WI_DEM]

17. so this is why all the progressives like him

[joelogan]

23. you mean all the yuppies and latte sipping trustifarian Dem activists?

the ones that seem to dominate among the party activists? THe ones who concern themselves with social issues, like the wedge issues? The ones that have helped the GOP and the Dems run this country into the ground?

[ProudToBeLiberal]

28. if being liberal means advocating for civil rights then yes I am one.

If these wedge issues are about civil rights for gays, protecting the right to privacy, the right to freedom of speech, and the right to assemble. Then god damnit call be a liberal and a progressive.

[joelogan]

31. splendid tradeoff-trade healthcare for 50 million for gay weddings

what an excellent tradeoff-- 50 million people can go without healthcare so we can get wedding ceremonies for gays!

THat attitude epitomizes why working class Americans have turned their backs on the Democratic party. And no party ever deserved it more!

[ProudToBeLiberal]

33. your logic is off based

you're basically saying that democrats can only support one idea. But they can support healthcare for all and civil rights. You're advocating for the phsysical needs but neglecting the emotional and spiritual needs of the people. If their bellies are full but there minds are not free then the people might as well be machines and slaves. Also Clinton Supported national healthcare and he was a centrist. But by your logic he would be a right winger. It's a catch 22 situation, you can''t have it both ways.

[joelogan]

40. to elaborate on this concept

The core of today's democratic party activists and leaders are more concerned about gay weddings than if the maid cleaning their rooms at the Ritz has to declare bankruptcy because she cannot pay the bill for her infection, or if she dies because she cannot get medical care.

The core of today's democratic party activists and leaders (like Howard Dean) are more worried that female executives/yuppies not face a "glass ceiling" than they are worried about the homeless mentally ill man under the bridge they pass over in their SUV on their way to the theater.

The core of today's democratic party activists and leaders are more concerned about racial diversity in TV shows than they are worried that the busboy who cleans up their dishes in their favorite chic restaurant has to work two jobs without benefits and has not had a acation in 2 years.

The core of today's democratic party activists and leaders are more concerned about the number of some pinktoed skinks living in some forlorn desert creek than they are worried about whether kids from working class come out of college with tens of thousands in debt.

Good riddance to that kind of party. Looks like Americans have figured out that if they want to vote Republican, they will just vote for the Republicans that agree more with their cultural values.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

42. Umm you're saying that dean didn't advocate for healthcare.

you're wrong. here http://www.amsa.org/legislativecenter/dean.cfm

[joelogan]

43. dean is a rightwinger. I read up on him throughly

have you read the article I cited above?

[ProudToBeLiberal]

45. yes, but by there standards kucinich is a right winger

so I don't really put much stalk into what they say.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

46. no you haven't

or else you wouldn't have said that dean's position is to raise the social security age to 70 because you would have known that he changed him mind. Again you are lying. Tell the truth man

[ProudToBeLiberal]

44. the logic you propose is deeply twisted

Essentially you're saying that the health and food for the people are the most important and civil liberties can be sacrificed. So lets look at this scenario. A slave is provided with food, clothing and shelter. They are also provided with medical treatments because slaves are valuable property and don't want to damage them. What you're advocating is that if all there physical needs are met then who cares about there freedom. Who cares about there right to life and the pursuit of happiness physically AND spiritually. THis kind of attitude is a dangerous attitude to have. As long as the people are fed then there freedom doesn't matter.

[mzmolly]

34. According to that website Dennis Kucinich is a right winger too.

:eyes:

[ProudToBeLiberal]

35. lol god people these days.

[Andromeda]

51. I think you have the wrong forum...

This is a Democratic forum and we really don't like distrupters here.

[joelogan]

53. Hey, I just give my opinion

I like the Democratic party of the 70s a lot better than the one we have today. Is there a Time Machine forum here?

[stlsaxman]

13. We have to start letting Bill go...

As long as he's involved the press will ponder how the Dems are nothing without him. Maybe they're correct. If not, why would Dean have needed to give the Dems a spinal implant in the first place?

I love ya, Bill... okay, next?

[papau]

29. I do not understand the logic - and do not see the problem that needs a

solution.

fiscal conservatism and social liberalism defines 95% of the Dem party

It is our "base"

granted the 5% further left have a great deal of energy and ideas - but they tend to walk at election time if they do not get their own way 100% on whatever is their pet issue.

[stlsaxman]

32. Bill was/is a great leader but also damaged goods...

The 3 hour hate mongers and right-wing press will never let us forget that we are following a fatally flawed man.

Just saying it's high time to look for strength and leadership elsewhere...

Don't get me wrong, I do love the Clintons... just time to move on.

[papau]

36. OK - but I still like Hillary in 08!

:toast:

:-)

[joelogan]

48. Bill was a pretty damn good President

....for a Republican, that is!

However, as a Democrat, he sucked.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

47. Dean, Dean, Dean!!!

[Voltaire99]

49. It won't matter who runs the DNC if economic populism isn't their mantra.

GOP-lite is finished, done, kaput. Toss out the corporatists, or forget about this party.

[currentsupply]

50. John Kerry would chose Dean

He's that kind of descision maker.

[acmavm]

52. Howard Dean would be fabulous in this position. He wouldn't act like

a spineless ass kisser like McAuliff was. We'd at least hear some badly needed words about standing up for what we believe and no appeasement of the enemy.

McAuliff sometimes stuck me as being too afraid to take a stand. He was pretty useless until the very bitter end, and then it was way too late. I, for one, am glad he's going.

[bob-calhoun]

54. Dean over Clinton

I say we need an opposition leader and Dean is it. That is what he has been all along. With Clinton we will get more of the same -- conciliation with the Bush agenda and shame over our liberal ideals. Dean will clearly differentiate our party from the GOP and give Americans a clear choice. Some of his shortcomings as a candidate (his abruptness) are strengths in the role of opposition leader. Clinton is a classic fence straddler and he could do that like no other. It worked for him. He could make that sort of thing even inspiring somehow, but no one else, and I mean no one else, can pull that off. Also, Bill Clinton gave Kerry some god awful advice in this year's campaign. What worked for Clinton in 1992 will never work for anyone else ever again. We need new leadership. Also, with Clinton we will still get McAuliffe, Carville, Cahill, Shrum et al. We need a house cleaning. We need people who will fight and Howard Dean is a good start.

Polls show that clear majorities of Americans support some form of gun control and a woman's right to choose, but the GOP was won election after election by running counter to this. Shouldn't we be able to win elections by running strong on the ideals that most Americans support? If we stop running from those things or downplaying them, we will.

[struggle4progress]

55. Howie! Howie! He's our man! eom