NO FLAMES >> Is Howard Dean a liberal, a centrist, or something else?

[Skinner]

ADMIN NOTE: Let's try an experiment. There will be no flaming or incivility of any kind in this thread. There will be no discussion of any kind about other DU members. There will be no rude comments about candidates, and no smears against supporters of candidates. Even excessive use of profanity, capitalization, or exclamation points could get your post deleted. In other words: The normal DU rules do not apply in this thread. If you want to inflame, you can do so in another thread.

Let's find out if it is possible to have a flame-free discussion in the GD forum that actually keeps people's interest...

---

Yesterday evening I was reading an article in Newsweek by Howard Fineman, titled "2004 Campaign: Lying in Wait for Dean" (Source: http://www.msnbc.com/news/934793.asp). I encourage you to read it. The article discusses different campaigns' motivations for not attacking Dean right now, even though he is arguably one of the frontrunners (if not the frontrunner) for the nomination.

I have not chosen a candidate to support in the Democratic Primary, and I don't plan on doing so for a long time. Still, I read the article with interest.

Much of the article focused on the Kerry campaign, apparently because Fineman considers Kerry to be the other frontrunner. It appears that the Kerry campaign plans to attack Dean as both too liberal and too centrist. Read these two quotes:

If it really is a two-man race, Kerry hopes ultimately to argue that the party can’t afford to nominate the antiwar Dean. Another Kerry adviser says, “The Democratic Party isn’t going to want to nominate another 49er—a guy who loses 49 states, the way George McGovern did in 1972.”

and...

When Kerry finally does unload, for example, the theme will be that Dean is a phony because he really isn’t the progressive—or liberal—he claims to be. The Kerry team will focus on the fact that Dean has supported a balanced-budget amendment, opposes gun control, now supports the death penalty in some cases and has talked about raising the retirement age for Social Security. The Kerry team will use these issues to attack Dean’s character.

Fineman catches this inconsistency:

But, ironically, those issues could undercut the other point Kerry’s advisers want him to make: that Dean isn’t mainstream enough to win the general election.

So my question is simple: Is Howard Dean a liberal, a centrist, or something else?

In the interests of sparking debate, I'll offer my own opinion...

I think Dean is basically a centrist with enough liberal positions and rhetoric to be acceptable to the liberal base.

Or maybe the "liberal" and "centrist" labels aren't sufficient to cover the broad range of liberal opinion, and we shouldn't be trying to label our candidates anyway.

What say you?

[RandomKoolzip]

1. He's a human being who actually gives a damn.

And he just happens to be running as a democrat. There are no easy labels for Dean 'cuz he's mutable like all other humans, and is too honest to snow you about his platform.

whoops, just saw the disclaimer about profanity!

[Skinner]

3. Do you think he "gives a damn" more than the other candidates?

?

[Patriot_Spear]

34. Yes.

His campaign addresses issues important to me and not in the cursory way of the other candidates- his passion is inspiring.

Edit: ommission

[RandomKoolzip]

54. I'm sorry for the profanity.

I believe that most of the Democratic candidates DO give a damn about the important stuff. Gephardt seems like a career politician who say anything to get votes, and Lieberman's stances on War, the media, and the middle east rub me the wrong way. All the others I like to some degree. All of my decisions here are based on reading up on the candidates on websites, and in the print media, but my "hunch", my "gut feeling," is that the Democrats will win in 2004 because of the ascendancy of Dean.

I think we have a pretty strong crop of candidates this election. Of these, the ones who light up my Christmas tree the brightest are Kucinich, Kerry, and most of all Dean.

Kucinich, the "ideal" candidate for me, doesn't have much of a shot. His beliefs are the closest to mine, but imagining him as a predidential candidate is tough...In a perfect world, I'd vote for Kucinich and he'd win.

Kerry's record as a questioner of authority (i.e. tthe IranContra hearings, his criticism of covert intelligence operations, and his newfound distaste for the war in Iraq) make me happy, but I get the feeling that he's a corporate booster who, if, elected, wouldn't make too much of a difference.

Dean...Dean's the guy. I mean, there hasn't been this much enthusiasm, politically, for one guy since....well, I don't know, I'm only 28 and I frankly haven't seen anyone with the same sort of"aura" of greatness about him, even
if he's not the "perfect" liberal (tax issues, gun control) candidate. I genuinely get the feeling that this guy is special. Dean's honesty about the issues (which gets interpreted as "anger" by the mainstream press; hey, who ISN'T angry!) indicates to me that he's more "human" than anyone else (except Kucinich) in the field right now. This is the same feeling I got about Clinton in 92 (I was only 17, but I knew after the MTV audience debate thing that he had a lock on the election; He seemed approachable, a mensch, like Dean. I DID NOT get this same reaction from watching Gore's campaign, which I believe was mismanaged). So far, his campaign has lit up the minds of so many people I know and talk to. I think his centrism will help bring swing voters to the party. I realize that these are not the deepest of observations, but at least I'll admit to more ignorance about the important stuff than your average Dittohead ever will.

[plurality]

2. I believe he is a centrist

that has cleverly employed a campaign machinery that taps into liberal discontent in the Democratic base to paint him as a liberal. I wouldn't have a problem with him if his campaign was honest and didn't paint him as a liberal by using Wellstone quotes and engaging in DLC bashing.

[Skinner]

8. What if he is sincere?

He may be a centrist. But I think his opposition to the war is sincere, as are his other liberal positions.

Is he not allowed to use rhetoric to appeal to liberals simply because he is not liberal across the board?

[plurality]

35. I haven't seen much to give me the impression of sincerity

His war stance was waffling. He said he didn't oppose the war because it was illegal and unneccesary or that there was no threat but because he didn't think it should be 'unilateral'. I read that as if Bush had been able to swing UN support he would have supported it. Kucinich, and Braun, and Sharpton were sincere in their opposition to the war, I see Dean's stance as opportunistic.

As far as other centrist/liberal issues. He calls the other candidates Bush-lite for supporting the tax cuts. Funny, I don't recall seeing Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt, Graham, or Edwards in the 'Yeah' coloumn of the tax cut votes. He reeks of political opportunism, such as the Civil Unions Bill, it was forced on him by the Supreme Court and the Legislature, and he signed it, reluctantly I might add. Now he champions it like it was his idea all along.

[Joeve]

Dean's War Stance

His war stance was waffling. He said he didn't oppose the war because it was illegal and unneccesary or that there was no threat but because he didn't think it should be 'unilateral'. I read that as if Bush had been able to swing UN support he would have supported it.

Actually I agree with his stance, and it's not "waffling." Whatever amount of threat Hussein posed, it was an international one and should have been dealt with lawfully and under the auspices of the UN: as imperfect as it is, it's the only international organization with a semblence of legal authority.

I would have supported the invasion of Iraq wholeheartedly under certain conditions: international role being one, but also a genuine effort to improve the lives of the Iraqi people. I feel the same way about all the other tin-pot dictators of the world, some of whom are worse than Hussein and who are currently supported by the Bush regime, like Uzbekistan.

The use of military force is a necessary evil, and to be against it entirely (as I am inferring you are by your tone) is not to face reality. The decisions of the legislature are ratified on the battlefield. But that decision needs to be based on actual evidence and done within the scope of the law, not used for purposes of political or financial gain, as the Bush regime has done and will do, if we allow him to.

[plurality]

133. I'm not against the use of force entirely

but policing the world is not an instance where I would be. I believe war is a very serious thing and should be very rare, only in response to actual real attacks and threats, not for remaking the world in our image. I was against the war because I knew the situation now is exactly what we'd get, and I also know that some sorry UN stamp of approval won't change that.

[Classical_Liberal]

156. and that would definately be a black mark against Kerry but not

Dean, since he wouldnt' have voted for the resolution and stated very clearly that he didn't think Saddam was a threat, or that he was linked to Al Qaeda.

[plurality]

167. if he didn't think Saddam was a threatthen why

would he have supported a UN led effort to remove him? That's trying to have it both ways.

[Classical_Liberal]

169. How did he support the UN effort to remove him?

if he wouldn't have voted for the resolution? Explain this!

[plurality]

184. there was no UN effort to remove him

and he says he wouldn't have voted for the resolution because it left the door open for 'unilateral' attack. He said he would support a multilateral UN invasion. That's not anti-war, it's semantics.

[Classical_Liberal]

191. Citation of that quote?

?

[Joeve]

186. It's not a contradiction

would he have supported a UN led effort to remove him? That's trying to have it both ways.

No it isn't. It's support for the rule of law, in this case international law. If we had clear evidence that Hussein was a threat, and other UN nations agreed there was clear evidence of a threat, then an invasion would have been justified, and Iraq would be rebuilt under the entire UN, not just the US (though I admit US military forces would shoulder the bulk of the burden). Dean was simply saying what his conditions would be. It's not a contradiction, and it's not a case of trying to have it "both ways."

We could have gone into Iraq if we had allowed the UN inspectors time (which was really all France, Germany and Russia wanted), and they found clear evidence of an imminent threat, but the Bush regime had to move NOW to make monkey boy look like he's a big macho man.

How did he support the UN effort to remove him if he wouldn't have voted for the resolution? Explain this!

Beause our "resolution" went against international law, and an invasion of Iraq could only be justified under international law. It's not a contradiction.

[Joeve]

205. Poolicing the world

but policing the world is not an instance where I would be. I believe war is a very serious thing and should be very rare, only in response to actual real attacks and threats, not for remaking the world in our image. I was against the war because I knew the situation now is exactly what we'd get, and I also know that some sorry UN stamp of approval won't change that.

I agree with you there, my point however is that the UN would be far more reluctant to give it's "stamp of approval" to the invasion of Iraq, it would have actually required the kind of evidence that the Bush regime refused to hand over, or flat out lied about. It's the "let's get Mikey!" argument: if you manage to convince those in Europe, who have no real desire to go to war with Iraq, then your evidence must be pretty convincing.

And if we're forced into a situation where we are policing the world (and the next US President is going to be stuck with the whole damn Iraqi situation whether he/she wants it or not), I'd want some help from our friends in the world, and after the way they've been treated they have every right to tell us to get lost.

As this pertains to Gov. Dean, I think his answer was right on the money: not so much pro-war, but pro international law.

[bearfartinthewoods]

57. the Wellstone line, "from the democratic wing of the democratic party"

has a very specific intonation because of who coined it. there was nothing centerist about Wellstone and using that quote led alot of people to leap to a certain conclusion about Dean.

i've been trying to get a hold on why i don't like the man. over the holidays, i had some wonderful conversations with some liberal, fellow boaters who are 'summertime friends'.

besides the joy of being with likeminded people again, one of them pointed out this inconsistancy and i suddenly realized what has been "sticking in my craw" about Dean.

his use of that phrase was disingenious, crafted purely for the effect of tapping into the lefty/activists to jump start his campaign.

that may make him a good politician but it doesn't make him a liberal
IMHO.

[Khephra]

141. Dean didn't start using that saying on his own though

He was introduced by someone else (a woman...I can't remember her name at the momemt), so Dean isn't totally reponsible for it's use. Someone else used that saying and applied it to Dean and then Dean ran with it.

I'd understand people getting upset if Dean started using it on his own, but he didn't. He adopted it after it was applied to him by another supporter.

[ModerateMiddle]

151. kephra, that just doesn't make sense

if Dean has continued to use it, even if he wasn't the first, it still indicates that he knew what it meant and what it would mean for people who felt a lot of hurts - over the 2002 elections and the loss of Wellstone in that election cycle.

I have always had a problem with him using that phrase, and bearinthewoods explained it perfectly. It doesn't fit for his centrist positions, and his using it was opportunistic and contrived.

[Khephra]

158. He's commented on his use of the phrase and the liberal label

quite a bit, and he's been honest that someone else attributed the saying to him and that the idea that he's a liberal in today's political field just goes to show how far things have moved to the right.

I'm sorry that anyone has a problem with it. I don't.

[CWebster]

162. That's not it

No one is being deceived, and it isn't Dean's intent to deceive. We are not a bunch of blind idiots, who don't recognise Dean for what he is - or isn't. What he tapped into was a deep disatisfaction among people about with where this country is going - bravely pointing fingers at who is steering it and who is going along for the ride. He may not be perfect, but he is perfect for these times. Determined, practical and intelligent enough to know that people hunger for honest leadership. That is what resonates-outspoken defense of the Democratic party, with no slick manuevering or rehearsed doubletalk. Finally.

[ModerateMiddle]

147. I have a problem with his use of the Wellstone line

about being from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party. On what basis does he assert that? Just because he says it? I know another politician who seems to think that just because he says something (i.e. "Leave no child behind") makes it so.

I think Dean has tapped into a cord of discontent in the Democratic Party (and Independents, too) that are very angry. They are angry about the direction the country is going. They are targetting a whole lot of that anger AT the Democratic Party - for not standing up to Bush, over the war, over Homeland Security, over Taxes... etc.

Part of the problem with the Dems in Washington is that they are fundamentally different than the vicious operatives in the Republican Party (read: the McCain treatment in SC in 2000). After 9/11 the Democratic Party really DID want to make this a United Nation to come together to heal. And they were blindsided and confused about how to respond to the radicals on the right in power.

But just as we don't want to abandon Public Schools because they aren't able to do what we want them to do right now, do we want to abandon the Democratic Party?

Another seemingly contradictory concern I have is that Dean is making Republicans out to be the enemy, and I really don't think that is who is the problem right now. Republicans and Democrats have way more in common with each other than Republicans have with The Bush MisAdministration right now. Those people in power are not "traditional conservatives".

My real desire for this 2004 election is for the country to come together and take their country back from the nutjobs in Washington who only care about getting in power and staying in power. And I don't think we can do that without appealing to the best in all of us.

Hmm.

I don't think that answered the question.

[Classical_Liberal]

200. Is Dean running as a green? If he isn't he is not abandoning the dem

ocratic party. Neither are his supporters. If the leadership were attaking the nut jobs, there would be no anger. They just want us to to tolerate more tolerance of the nut jobs.

[poskonig]

10. The bashing is warranted.

Many go right along with Bush's wars and tax give-aways for the rich. Kerry is afraid of presenting himself as more liberal than Dean, though he actually is, because he is pissing in his pants the Republicans will call him Dukasis or, well, a liberal. If he wants to give that advantage to Dean, so be it. Lieberman is even worse -- the word "Democrat" isn't even mentioned in his campaign site ONCE last time I checked.

[poskonig]

4. Centrist with a backbone.

There are issues where Dean draws the line in the sand, where he is moderately liberal, and then where he is more ideologically flexible. His record in Vermont is pretty centrist -- cutting taxes, pro-gun, fiscal discipline, et cetera.

[ShaneGR]

He's a Clinton Democrat, I think.....

But on overlapping issues.... socially liberal, fiscally conservative, pro-gun, pro death penalty....

Not exactly Clinton, but there are similarities. There are also some problems. He does have a short temper and it's questionable whether he will make a good diplomat.

Like I say though, he's not nearly as liberal as they made him out to me. Question is, can he relate to the swing voters.

[w4rma]

38. Clinton described Dean's accomplishments...as "New Democrat" positions

Clinton described Dean's accomplishments with health care in his home state and his proposal to promote a national health care plan with a modest price tag as "New Democrat" positions. He was referring to the moniker the Democratic Leadership Council puts on Democrats who can blend moderate ideas that appeal to swing voters with traditional Democratic themes.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/05/14/national2104EDT0848.DTL

[MissMillie]

154. Just a little left of Clinton

Especially on gay-rights issues. (A good thing, but a hard sell.)

Definitely on the same page as Clinton when it comes to economic policy (this is a good thing and an easy sell).

I'm still learning about where he stands on homeland security and national security.

I think he's a candidate that can win, especially if he can stick to economic and education issues.

[molly]

5. I do not think he is as "liberal" as many of his followers believe

I think he is more "centrist" and his anti-war stance is not provable at this point. I guess we should not be labeling our candidates.

[jonnyblitz]

6. the more I hear and read....the more centrist he appears to be to me

oh well. Anyone but Bush.

[pop009]

7. can't squeeze him into traditional political spectrum

I would pick the "something else" option to answer this question...more than anything else, Dean is ANTI-BUSH.

[ModerateMiddle]

152. Yes, Dean is "anti-Bush"

but Bush ran and governed as "Anti-Clinton", and look where that got us. Look at some of Dean's positions on things - what he emphasizes is that he would NOT do what Bush has done, but he doesn't really clearly articulate in many cases what he WOULD do.

When he was confronted on MTP with having to take a public stand on some of the issues facing Congress right now, he was as wishy washy as he accuses his competitors of being - suddenly you need more words than yea or nay. And yet those yeas and nays are what he badgers the Democratic Party about.

I like his fervor. I like listening to him. Heck, I like listening to Sharpton do his Anti-Bush speaking. But I don't want Sharpton to be President, and I don't think I want Dean to be either.

[Classical_Liberal]

199. He wouldn't have gotten us into the Iraq mess, and compromised

our national security by sticking our soldiers in an unessesary war, when they should be mobilized for real Al Qaeda threats. He isn't Al Sharpton. He never did a Tawana Brawly.

[DEMActivist]

9. He's simply grassroots

A politician who hasn't been insulated by "DC mania" and realizes a candidate has to LISTEN to be effective.

[tpub]

11. I'm glad this is being discussed

I think he's centrist. I was excited about him a few months ago, mainly b/c of his straight talk and anti-war stance. But I want someone who is against the death penalty in all cases. (There can be mistakes in a cop-killing case, too) And who is pro-gun control.

Kerry in 2004!

[Skinner]

17. Do you think he is more centrist than Kerry?

?

[tpub]

30. YES!

Yes, I do think he's more centrist than Kerry. I've checked out Kerry's voting records on various websites that track those kind of things and he comes out very liberal.

He votes pro-choice, pro-gun control, for important environmental issues, etc.

I think someone made a good point that Dean didn't have to vote for/against the war.

[mdmc]

134. Yes

The only thing liberal about Dean is his media label. Even his civil union gig was "decent" and "the right thing to do." Right down the middle.

[TLM]

44. Kerry is not against the Death penalty in all cases.

In fact his stance on the death penalty is very much like Dean's.

[tpub]

82. well...

<<In fact his stance on the death penalty is very much like Dean's.>>

This is all I could dig up on short notice. Obviously, I don't know everything--I am a Newbie. I heard Dean's new death penalty stance on Meet the Press. Where can I get more info on Kerry's stance?

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm

http://www.issues2000.org/Howard_Dean.htm

[blm]

99. Kerry's against the death penalty as part of the criminal justice system.

He is only for it for terrorists who have classified themselves as "combatants" by bringing the battlefield to innocent civilians. If you bring your battlefield with you to kill innocents, you can expect to die on a battlefield.

[Classical_Liberal]

114. Kerry isn't actually against the death penalty just most

cases. Ok, I don't see how this is different. He has also drifted from the absolute opposition camp.

[blm]

166. Kerry against death penalty in US JUSTICE SYSTEM.

Terrorists are considered "combatants" by their own choosing and fully expect the consequences of bringing their battlefield with them.

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

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

[blm]

183. No spin, just the fact of his stance.

He is against the death penalty as an option in the criminal justice system. He thinks terrorist "combatants" expect their death on the battlefield they bring with them. No spin. Fact. No spin necessary.

[Nicholas_J]

180. Kerry on Dealth Penalty...Tim Russert Interviewer.

John Kerry on the Death Penalty
Massachussetts Senator and presidential hopeful John Kerry is looking better and better to us. He was interviewed Sunday by Tim Russert on Meet the Press about his opinions on the death penalty. Here's what he said:

MR. RUSSERT: David Broder wrote a column in June which I want to show you again: ” Kerry is also a man who opposes the death penalty, wants to restrict access to guns and voted against the resolution approving the start of ground operations against Saddam Hussein in 1991—just what you would expect from Ted Kennedy’s partner and Michael Dukakis’s running mate, the Republicans will surely say.”

The Congressional Quarterly does an analysis of key votes and let me show you. Over the last four years, Kennedy and Kerry voted exactly alike 100 percent of the time over your 17 years in the Senate now. You’ve voted, like, 93 percent of the time. Will you have Senator Kennedy’s support for your presidential run?...

MR. RUSSERT: But won’t you be branded another Massachusetts Ted Kennedy liberal?

SEN. KERRY: I think, Tim, as people get to know me in the course of this, they’ll know the things that I have fought for and the things I stand for. I was a prosecutor. I’ve sent people to jail for the rest of their life. I’m opposed to the death penalty in the criminal justice system because I think it’s applied unfairly, as even Republican governors have determined, and because I’m for a worse punishment. I think it is worse to take somebody and put them in a small cell for the rest of their life, deprived of their freedom, never to be paroled. Now, I think that’s tougher. Let me just finish.

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, why shouldn’t Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the Oklahoma building, or if John Muhammad is convicted of being a sniper here in Washington—why shouldn’t they receive the death penalty?

SEN. KERRY: Tim, I think that, as I said, you know, different people have different opinions about what’s worse. I’ve seen people die and I know what it’s like to almost die. I don’t think that—you know, dying is scary for a while, but in the end, the punishment is gone. When you’re alive and you’re deprived of your freedom each day and you’re in tough circumstances—and I’m talking about tough circumstances. I’m not talking about some cushy situation where they live off the fat of the land in prison. I’m talking about tough. But if you’re deprived of that freedom for the rest of your living days until God decides to take you, you know, that is tough, my friend, and I think that plenty of people think that.

Now, I don’t think it is right to have a criminal justice system that kills innocent people. Over 100 people have been released from death row in America in the last year with DNA evidence and other evidence showing they didn’t commit the crime for which they had been committed, some of them in jail for 10, 15 years for a crime they didn’t commit.

MR. RUSSERT: So you would have a moratorium on the death penalty until there’s further research.

SEN. KERRY: I’ve said that previously. I think we need to look at it. But more importantly, Tim, that’s not affected at the federal level. That’s not where the crime of this country is fought. It’s fought state for state by state prosecutors. That’s where it’s done. And I would honor, obviously, the laws of those states and that’s the way we should proceed. But far more importantly, are we going to do the things in this country...

MR. RUSSERT: So if a state had a death penalty, you would respect it?

SEN. KERRY: Of course. You have to respect the law. The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country. And just as I, in a war, was prepared to kill in defense of my nation, I also believe that you
eliminate the enemy and I have said publicly that I support that.

MR. RUSSERT: So you would have an exception in your moral opposition for terrorists?

SEN. KERRY: That is correct. It’s not moral. I have said that I object to it on the basis of the way it’s applied and the way that it’s not the toughest punishment, but I do believe with respect to terrorists, that is correct.

http://www.talkleft.com/archives/001540.html

Now Dean position from a repost of Denas position from a pro-Dean Blog, a less critical source than a Tim Russert interview.

Governor Dean opposes the death penalty except in very limited circumstances involving extreme and heinous crimes.

...When he became governor in 1991, Howard Dean opposed the death penalty in all cases.

...In 1997, after a number of brutal crimes involving the murder of children, including the abduction, rape and murder of 12-year old Polly Klass in California, Dean spoke publicly about his reconsideration of his position on the death penalty.... After careful deliberation, Dean concluded that the death penalty may be an appropriate punishment in limited circumstances such as the murder of a child or a police officer.

...Finally, as a result of the mass murder that took place on September 11, 2001, he concluded that the death penalty should also be available in cases of terrorists who take human life.

...A Dean administration would administer the death penalty carefully and sparingly, unlike the Bush/ Ashcroft Justice Department. Dean would instruct his Attorney General on day one to evaluate the federal death penalty system to ensure that it is applied fairly and reliably. He would also sign into law pending legislation, authored by Senator Leahy, that will strengthen protections against unjust imposition of the death penalty. (emphasis supplied)

Ok, that's a baby step, but a good start. We want to to see the Innocence Protection Act passed badly enough that we'll take it and put Gov. Dean back in our plus column. We do hope Governor Dean remains open to considering a moratorium, pending the outcome of the fairness evaluation he promises to have his Attorney General commence immediately upon taking office. As a society, we should not tolerate even one innocent person being put to death, when a moratorium an option.


The problem with Deans position on what is essentially establishing separate groups of people who will be subject to the death penalty, is that Deans positions on certain crimes, and there fore certain criminals being subject to it, and other not, is that this stance is already under attack by groups like the ACLU as being discriminatory.

As a matter of fact. Treating the death penalty in the selective manner that Dean is suggesting is being assailed as unconsitutional is the very basis for the Illinois Governor's moratorium on the penalty that was in effect in 2002.


VERMONT:

Relatives of a North Clarendon woman murdered two months ago have called
on Gov. Howard Dean to reinstate the death penalty in Vermont.

Barbara Tuttle, Lori Hubbard and Karen Worcester met with Dean on
Wednesday. Their discussions included bringing back the death penalty.

"He was really receptive," Tuttle said of Dean's response to their
suggestions of reinstating capital punishment and raising the salaries of
state police officers. "He was a very nice man. I feel good about the
meeting."

The 3 would not comment on any of Dean's remarks, but said he shared
their concerns about the growing drug problem in Vermont and the need for
better salaries for police officers. They would not say if Dean agreed
with their assertion that the death penalty be reinstated in Vermont.

Hubbard's mother, Teresa King, 53, was kidnapped from the parking lot of
the Rutland Price Chopper just before dawn on Nov. 27. Police said Donald
Fell, 20, and Robert Lee, 21, kidnapped King, stole her car and drove to
New York where they beat her to death on the side of the road.

The two men did not know King, but happened upon her as she was arriving
for work for the early shift at the supermarket. The men were there
looking for a way to leave Vermont because they had allegedly just killed
Fell's mother Debra, and her friend, Charles Conway, after a night of
drinking and taking crack cocaine, according to police.

Fell and Lee have been arrested and are being held on federal charges,
which could bring the death penalty.

The brutality and randomness of King's death prompted Tuttle to start a
petition calling for the restoration of capital punishment in Vermont and
brought her, along with King's 2 daughters, to Montpelier Wednesday to
make their case to the governor.

In the past Dean has said he supports capital punishment in certain
circumstances, but is not sure restoring the death penalty is the right
thing for Vermont.

"My position on the death penalty is I think it's appropriate for the
murder of a child or the murder of a police officer killed in the line of
duty," Dean said last month. "But I've also said that I'm not sure we
need it in Vermont."

Tuttle said she has collected about 2,000 signatures on her petition and
plans to continue to gather them. Meanwhile, a few lawmakers have
indicated they plan to put forth proposals that could bring the death
penalty back to Vermont.

Earlier bills have failed in th legislature in the past 3 decades. The
death penalty, in all instances but a few, was abolished in 1965. The
remaining statute was wiped from the books 7 years later when the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that the laws, as administered by the states, were
unconstitutional. Some states elected to rewrite their statutes; Vermont
did not.

(source: Associated Press)

http://venus.soci.niu.edu/~archives/ABOLISH/rick-halperin/jan01/0031.html

(Sorry, had to find a source in which this article was archived, as AP and Yahoo links to the original articles are no longer active)...


And oddly enough, it was a Vermont Federal Judge who found the death penalty unconstitutional, weeks before Dean left office as governor:


Tuesday, September 24

Judge Bans Federal Death Penalty AP / 7:00PM

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) -- A federal judge declared the federal death penalty law unconstitutional Tuesday in a ruling defense lawyers said could provide a new argument for challenging capital cases across the country.

http://www.radicus.net/news/list/local.vermont.asp

Again, old links, but the Federal Courts declared the Death Penalty as it was applied in Vermont, unconstitutional, shortly after Dean reinstated it.


This would be indicative that something about the way in which Dean selectively reinstated the penalty, as being unconstitutional, and arbitrary.


(CBS) A federal trial judge Monday became the first U.S. judge to declare the current federal death penalty unconstitutional, a ruling that is sure to set off fierce national debate over the issue.

U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff issued a 28-page ruling reaffirming his earlier opinion that the death penalty act violated the due process rights of defendants. It "deprives innocent people of a significant opportunity to prove their innocence" and "creates an undue risk of executing innocent people."

The federal government was expected to appeal the ruling, which would not affect individual states' death penalty statutes.

Legal scholars believe he is the first judge to declare the current federal death penalty law unconstitutional since it was enacted in 1994.

Rakoff found that the best available evidence indicates that, "on the one hand, innocent people are sentenced to death with materially greater frequency than was previously supposed and that, on the other hand, convincing proof of their innocence often does not emerge until long after their convictions."

If the ruling is upheld by the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, it could stop federal executions in New York, Connecticut and Vermont.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/10/deathpenalty/main532456.shtml

By ROSS SNEYD
Associated Press Writer




Vermont was the second state to declare it unconstitutional, shortly after Dean reisntated it, Though this does not necessarily apply JUST to Vermont. Something in Vermonts handling of the death penalty after Deans reinstatement immediately triggered a federal court decision:

MONTPELIER, Vt. -- A federal judge in Vermont has declared the federal capital punishment law unusable, a decision that could have implications for defendants across the country.

U.S. District Judge William Sessions ruled Tuesday that the 1994 law has been rendered useless by a series of recent cases, including a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that found juries and not judges must hand out death sentences.

The decision comes two months after U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in New York became the first federal judge to declare the federal law unconstitutional. He cited evidence indicating that innocent people have been put to death.


http://www.staugustine.com/stories/092602/nat_1012111.shtml

Unlike Rakoff, Sessions said the sentence still might be carried out constitutionally if Congress fixed the law.


Dean was originally anti-Death penalty. The above noted crime is one that he claims changes hiss views, but he was not as clearly pro-death until he was about to be lambasted by Russert...

The death penalty? Yes, Dean evolved into a pro-death penalty position just when he was debating a White House run. For heinous crimes like killing kids or cops. Now, with his eye on the primary in South Carolina, he's added "terrorists" to those into whose arms he would stick the needle. Isn't that the posture of Ashcroft or of W. Bush, who signed more death warrants than any other governor in U.S. history? It is, but be reassured by the Dean campaign. In a Dean administration, those consigned to Death Row will know, even as the needle starts pumping the poison into their veins, that President Dean went that last half mile to ensure fairness.


http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?next=2&ColumnsName=aco

Overall Dean position on the death penalty show an ignorance of the law, and most of all, constitutional guarantees that the law, no matter what it is, be applied equitably, and with justice, for all, not just more justice, for some, and less for others.

Kerry on the other hand, has been a consistant opponent of the death penalty, adding terrorism as a condition of war, not as an overall approval of the penalty. HE has seen the criminal death sentance imposed, and is far more aware of the problems involved than Dean, who is noted for making his personal beliefs the law. Dean cannot separate what he beleives, from what is right, or just, or even legal. Kerry this he call the situation of death penalty for terrorists a moral problem, stating it is not moral. Sometime war causes those problems.

[killbotfactory]

172. You can't execute people on the battlefield.

It's a war crime.

[Nicholas_J]

189. You CAN execute

Thise who infiltrate your country in the service of a declarant of war in order to subvert the nations, or attack the nations the combatant is in the service of. If they are doing so, and they are not in uniform, that is subject to the penalty, as the agent falls under the laws regarding spying, not being a combattant in the field. So your argument has no legal basis. Kerry is a lawyer. He was a prosecuting attorney. He has based his opinion based on the full body of international law in this arena. He is far more cognizant of all of the implications and legalities from the point of view of bith U.S. and international law. Dean is a doctor, let him stick to writing prescription. In this area, it is Kerry, who has the expertise, and Dean does not.

Eve Dean in front of Russert, agreed to the application of the death penalty to terrorists. Unfortunately, his stance on the death penalty, and his selective nature of its use, has been deemed unconstitutional. The inequitable selection of which murderer is subject to the death penalty, and which one is not, is an inequitable distribution of justice, which is promised to be equal for all Americans. Those enemy combattants who attempt to kill U.S. citizens, not in battle, but out of uniform, by infiltration. Are subject to death under military law. Civil law does not cover this.

[killbotfactory]

190. There is a difference between what's legal and what's right...

Kerry says that it's worse to throw them in jail for life, so why does he not advocate that?

Anyway, I'm just saying the battlefield analogy is faulty. If you can sentance someone to death it means they are under your control, and it's not battlefield conditions.

[Nicholas_J]

201. Kerry's position

Is exactly analogous to the battlefield issue, Under federal law, spying and treason is subject to the death penalty for exactly the reasons cited. Enemies who are out of uniform, have snuck into the nation either illegally, or by fale prestext, in order to kill citizens are subject to death under military and not civil law. They are not U.S. civilians.

They were not engaging in a criminal action, but essentially an act of covert, guerrilla warfare. They were not in uniform, they are as such, treated as a separate category from those who are caprured on the field. This is totally consstant with military law.


And in every other nation on earth, a visitor to a nation is subject to its laws, expected to respect them, and is subject to those laws if they break them. John Walker Lindh broke the law, but as a citizen was subject to civil law, Those who were not U.S. citizens who were trying to kill U.S. citizens, in Afghanistan were subject to the military law, not to constitutional law.

The Bush administration treatment of these enemy combattans it illegal, but their incarceration and trials under military law are not.

Dean's stance, ever wavering, went from being totally against the death penalty in civil cases, to one supporting the inequitable distribution of justice, dependant on situation. The constitution does not allow for this type of situational justice for its citizens. The situation for non-citizens is VERY different.


Deans stances in many areas are FAR form moral.
His actions on taxation, refusing to institute progressive taxation were far from right, but they were legal.

His stance on medical marijuana, methadone treatment, and similar issues, may have been legal, but not right. When is his opinion more right than the human suffering it inflicts.

His stance on the death penalty is the same... situational, based on what Dean considers a heinous crime, and what he does not, or even what a manjority of people at this time and place feels are heinous. It may be legal to do this, the federal court stance on it seems to indicate it may not be, but it certainly is not right. And candidates as well as judicial nominees must apply the LAW, based on what is right for all time, and not just for them moment. Again, Dean is playing to whaqt is popular in this regar, not to what is right under our flawed system of justice.

Kerry states:

SEN. KERRY: Of course. You have to respect the law. The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country. And just as I, in a war, was prepared to kill in defense of my nation, I also believe that you
eliminate the enemy and I have said publicly that I support that.

MR. RUSSERT: So you would have an exception in your moral opposition for terrorists?

SEN. KERRY: That is correct. It’s not moral. I have said that I object to it on the basis of the way it’s applied and the way that it’s not the toughest punishment, but I do believe with respect to terrorists, that is correct.

Even his own stance on executing terrorist is NOT moral, it is, as in war eliminating the enemy.

Dean has made no such statements on the morality of executing ANYONE.
His stancnce is arbitrary, based on what he personallly thinks is right or wrong, and what he judges the current flavor of the month posistion is.

Again, overall, who is more right, who is more wrong. Who has consistantly and for a longer period had the same position on the penalty, and who has changed it to a further degree, and for more people.

Howard Dean, or John Kerry?
Who is more right, who is more wrong?

Right seems to be more on the side of John Kerry, and not Howard Dean.





All one can do is too look at each candidate and judge.. Who is more right. None are perfect.

[mdmc]

128. Welcome tpub

Dean is a moderate. I have given him a "progressive pass" due to his opposistion to the war. He is right of Kerry, but he is right on the war. All my other posistions (death penalty, drug war)will wait until after 2004.

[bearfartinthewoods]

77. death penalty...this is another problem for me with Dean

i'll be black and white on this issue. either you beleive the state has the right to execute it's citizens or it doesn't. if a candidate believes it does in the case of murder, ok. i diagree but it's a straight up position.

i don't understand the grey position. some murderers get executed and some don't. that leads to abuses. it makes some victims more important than others. i just can't see the philosophy that leads to that kind of thinking.

on edit...i didn't mean to limit my discomfort to only Dean.

[Classical_Liberal]

107. The death penalty isn't a dlc issue though

money issues like the bankruptcy bill, tax cuts, and budget cuts are their issues. Just think $ signs, and that is the difference between Howard Dean centrism, and DLC centrism.

[WEagle]

139. at least for me

times have changed, I used to think the death penalty was a very right wing position. Now it's rare to find Democrats against it. Personally, I find that scary. Has our cuture become less compassionate in general?

[DarienComp]

12. Dean is a human being

He's not a liberal. He's not a centrist. He makes his decisions based on facts.

Yes, he has tapped into the party's angry liberal base. He never claimed to be a liberal. The reason he is attracting so many liberals (and it's not just liberals by the way, but moderates and independents also) is that he actually pays attention to us, which is something that can't be said about most Democrats for the past ten or so years.

Being part of the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" does not necessarily mean being sufficiently leftist. It means being true to the principles of your party, standing up for what you believe in, and taking the Republicans to task for their shenanigans in a FULL and COMPLETE way.

Full disclosure: I am an active Dean supporter. And I'm a HUGE liberal. :-)

[Frederic Bastiat]

13. Only Bush and Lieberman are to the right of Dean

And I don't know why many perceive him to be anti-war, the man didn't have to cast a vote!!

[markbark]

36. Strooth!

'Tis indeed a demonstration of how far rightward this country has been dragged when Howard Dean is deemed "too liberal"

[DarienComp]

43. Guess who else said that?

Howard Dean.

He said, and i'm paraphrasing, "I think it's pathetic that this country has lurched so far to the right that I'm considered to be the liberal candidate."

[TLM]

47. Because he has consistantly spoken out against the war

while others running were busy voting for it.

That's why.

[Frederic Bastiat]

89. I don't put too much stock

in words. Especially from a Presidential candidate.

[DarienComp]

56. He's NOT anti-war.

He's anti-THIS war. Dean has never made any bones about the fact that he believes in the judicious use of force when it is necessary. He also knows that the war in Iraq was NOT necessary.

He may not have had to cast a vote, but he spoke out strongly and forcefully against it at a time when it was perceived by the media and nearly ALL the Democrats as political suicide. Most of the candidates who did cast votes (except for the great Bob Graham and Dennis Kucinich) failed the cajones test.

So yeah, he didn't have to cast a vote. I think he has more than made up for it.

[Frederic Bastiat]

87. Thanks for bringing up the distinction

"He's NOT anti-war."
He's anti-THIS war. Dean has never made any bones about the fact that he believes in the judicious use of force when it is necessary.

[proud patriot]

14. IMHO

He's "something else" kind of like me ...

I hold some conservative views
I hold some Liberal views
I hold some views that can't be fit into some box labeled
liberal or conservative

That's how I see Dean ...

[expatriot]

15. centrist, liberal, conservative, are very relative...

Dubya is 'progressive' next to Hitler and Dean is 'progressive' next to Bush. It is all relative, defined by the political climate and social environment out there.... I think it is a delicate balance of being 'progressive' while being 'electable' at the same time. I am very pro-Dean and I consider myself ultra-progressive borderline radical... I disagree with many of his stances but what I see in Dean is someone that can mobilize the electorate and save the public sector from Bush and Company and also spark a bit of social progressivism in this country.

[Rose Siding]

I don't need the label.

But a short explanation would be that Dean is socially liberal and fiscally responsible. Maybe even :scared: pragmatically liberal?

The antiwar tag is part of the bigger lie that Iraq has anything to do with "national security". Dean is anti invading countries that pose no threat to our security.

edit to add- It appears liberal in today's America to abhor policies that promote the stengthening of an aristocracy, God help us. I'm reluctant to admit that that doesn't necessarily equate with "liberal" but it may be a more classic centrist position (that I barely remember). If so, it is a centrism that I accept.

[messiah]

16. A centrist and to the right of Clinton..

[ElsewheresDaughter]

18. i fear he is a rove plant...a wolf in sheep garb

<<<<<<<<my pick for Democrats

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[ozymandius]

163. How do you substantiate that claim?

Or is there an inferential characteristic about Dean that makes you believe that?

It would appear to be an awful lot of trouble to identify, recruit, finance and run a candidate who will ultimately take a dive during the general election. Besides, many said the same thing about Clinton when he ran - that the Dems were nominating another Dukakis.

[ibegurpard]

19. I think you summed it up quite nicely

"I think Dean is basically a centrist with enough liberal positions and rhetoric to be acceptable to the liberal base."

He also gives the perception, true or not and anyone who thinks perception doesn't count for much doesn't understand politics very well, that he is not part of the establishment beltway crowd who many people see as completely out-of-touch with rank-and-file Americans.

[Skinner]

28. perception v. reality

anyone who thinks perception doesn't count for much doesn't understand politics very well

I agree. It appearst that the liberal perception is helping Dean quite a bit in the primary. I wonder if that perception will be difficult to shake in the general.

Because you can bet that Rove will try to paint the Democratic nominee as a liberal extremist, regardless of who it is or what the "reality" is.

[ibegurpard]

55. Will be interesting to see

Although he IS being portrayed by the media as THE liberal candidate, I have yet to meet or talk with a serious Dean supporter who is unaware of his views on issues. My meetup host last week is a disgruntled ex-republican who is just as enthusiastic about Dean as I (a pretty "liberal" person) am.

[mclam]

130. Good point.

I get a bit frustrated on the anti-Dean threads with the assumption that Dean supporters are too stupid to have researched their candidate and have bought into some disingenuous efforts on Dean's part to paint himself as an uber-liberal just because he is against the invasion of Iraq. Most Dean supporters know that he is fiscally conservative and not particularly anti-gun or death penalty. And we accept that. Please give us credit for having reached a rational decision in full-awareness of the facts.

My impression of Dean is liberal-enough and centrist-where-I'm-willing-to-compromise. At this point any candidate who has the guts to put out nuanced positions on things like the war in Iraq is food for the starving. He is easy to misrepresent because his positions tend not to be black and white which will help him with people paying attention and hurt him with people who aren't. I'll vote for Dean because it's the right thing to do but how electable he is in the long term depends on how stupid and lethargic the American people are (don't get me started.)

[Emperor_Norton_II]

63. Possible (non-Rove) backlash in the liberal camp?

It doesn't have to be generated by dirty tricks (repeat after me: Karl Rove is not under your bed.), but... if Dean slowly reveals a greater tendancy towards centrism that he previously showed, it might cause a mass defection away from his camp towards "true liberals" like Kucinich. The results of yesterday's DU poll and the MoveOn primary suggest that the liberal base might bolt away from Dean if they start to percieve him as a sellout.

This could hurt him some in the primaries, but in the general having somebody like Kucinich or Graham or Edwards or Sharpton to point to and say "I'm not a liberal extremist, there's a liberal extremist!" might be a useful tactical tool.

Yrs in Von Clausewitz,

[arissa]

20. He's a centrist like Bill Clinton

Clinton: charismatic, talked the liberal talk a lot, looked good in front of the camera, enamored a lot of liberals, but when you back look at his policies, he was dead center, if not leaning right.

Dean: charismatic, talks the liberal talk a lot, looks good in front of the camera, has a lot of liberals enamored, but when you get down to it, he's just another centrist. His healthcare plan is an awful compromise plan that won't work IMHO, for example. He's even repeatedly described himself as a "sensible centrist."

He's a centrist, no doubt about it. If people want to support Dean, great, but it's disingenuous to describe him as the left's saviour, in my most humble opinion. :)

[trumad]

23. He's reminds me of Harry Truman ....

I believe he's a Centrist....

[lastliberalintexas]

67. That's it exactly- like Harry S

That is how I have been describing him to friends and family who are not so politically aware. He speaks his mind and sticks to what he believes while at the same time giving the impression that he is more cerebral and contemplative than appearance would suggest. Like Truman, Dean comes across as strong without being strident.

And Dean does have respectable moderate left credentials. While I don't agree with him on every issue (the death penalty comes to mind), I agree with him enough. And like the earlier poster who mentioned perception, I have worked on enough campaigns to know that, like it or not, electability always plays a role as well. Dean is seen as the most liberal fighter with a chance to beat Shrub, and that has drawn many to his campaign.

Dean isn't as easy to pigeon hole as the others, though in reality I don't think any of the Dems can be pinned down to one spot on the spectrum. I think all 9 are thinking individuals who look at the facts of each situation and make rational decisions based on the facts presented. Some of those decisions will be more liberal than others, but I don't think any of the 9 make them rashly.

Unlike that current occupier of our White House who ignores facts and doesn't have a rational bone in his body. Oops- Bashing Shrub is still allowed, isn't it Skinner? :)

[DarienComp]

32. There's a perception

that Dean supporters seem to think that he's "the left's saviour". I really don't see it that way. Those of us who have been to the meetups, those of us who have followed the campaign closely, we KNOW where he stands on the issues. We KNOW he's not that liberal. It's okay with us.

BTW, the DLC is still calling Dean an elitist activist, so I guess it all depends upon where you stand.

[Skinner]

37. I still don't understand what the DLC is doing.

They used to tout Dean as a DLC-style third-way governor. But now they are really out front with their disapproval.

I wonder if they simply felt that they had no choice, given his rhetoric. If Dean wins the nomination, it could be seen as a chink in the DLC armor.

[plurality]

40. I think it's a way to get

the anti-DLC crowd firmly in the camp of one of their candidates. It's real simple, they bash all the people that hate them and then make a swipe at the chosen 'rougue' candidate and pow! All those anti-DLC people say, 'Hey, I hate the DLC and the DLC doesn't want to win, so I guess I should help Dean!' Classic misdirection.

[EarlG]

64. I dunno

I think the DLC are on the level with their attacks on Dean. I don't think it's a double bluff.

Much as they don't want to admit it, the DLC's tactics took quite a beating in the 2002 elections. I think they are perhaps less worried that Dean stands no chance of winning - as they claim - and more worried that he does stand a chance of winning. Because then they will have lost a serious amount of cred. They won't be able to tell people that their way of winning elections is the only way.

By the way, I'd like to add that like Skinner, I am nowhere near decided on a candidate. Other than "anyone but Bush" that is :)

[arissa]

71. Then what is Dean doing so differently from the DLC?

It seems to me that he's running a real DLC-type campaign, in many ways. He's run to the center on several issues - the only thing I've personally seen him stand his ground on that isn't a DLC-approved issue is the war in Iraq (and like someone else said earlier, it's easy for him to be anti-war when he didn't have to vote on it).

He goes in front of the cameras and refers to himself as a centrist, he's got a buncha "safe" stances on key issues the DLC considers unsafe to be liberal, and most of the rest of his issues involve compromises or throwing bones to the left (in my opinion). Sounds like a campaign right out of the DLC playbook to me.

But that is just my perception of what he's been doing. Kucinich is the one running the anti-DLC-style campaign, imho.

[killbotfactory]

98. DLC = Pro-Tax cut, Pro-Iraq war, Anti-universal healthcare

Dean = Anti-tax cut, Anti-Iraq war, Pro-universal healthcare

The DLC is afraid of Bush's poll numbers and thinks it's political suicide to take the stances Dean has taken, that's why they oppose him now. Also, I think they are nervous about how his pro-civil unions stance will play out across the nation.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[killbotfactory]

110. No it's not

They proposed a $900 billion dollar tax cut in response to Bush's tax cut.

They derided Gephardts universal healthcare plan.

They were for the war whether or not the UN approved it, otherwise they wouldn't have approved of the Iraq resolution.

I didn't miss the part where he would work through the UN, it wasn't a small disclaimer, it was one of his main arguements AGAINST the war.

And you missed the point of my post, which is why they oppose him RIGHT NOW, despite many positions where they would agree.

[plurality]

127. do you think

they would have proposed that tax cut without Bush's? They knew a tax cut was going to happen no matter what. And they still voted against it, they just managed to cut it some.

They derided Gephardt's plan because it wasn't coporate, Dean's and Kerry's and the other plans are universal but go through the insurance companies so yes the DLC supports universal health care, just not the single payer variety, and what a surprise, Dean has the same position.

And yes, they wanted UN approval and that's why they passed the resolution, because that was the only way they could get Bush to even go to the UN. Yes it was a miscalculation and stupid, but the DLC was for the multilateral intervention, same as Dean. So you didn't miss that part, so why do you continue the cannard that Dean was anti-war when if the Security Council had voted yes he would have supported the war. That's not anti-war. That's pro-war with an asterix.

The reason the DLC is against Dean is because as evidenced by MoveOn and other Dem activist polls, their other candidate are going NOWHERE! Mostly because people can't stand the DLC and so they shun candidates connected to them. So how do they get around that, bash a candidate that favors the same policies but wasn't hamstrung with having to take a solid position on anything and, yeah! the DLC now has their chosen 'outsider' candidate with a huge amount of people who hated the centrist, Bush-lite, DLC voting for a centrist, Bush-lite, candidate.

[killbotfactory]

155. That's the problem

As Dean sees it, there shouldn't be tax cuts in the first place and when you argue about how much the tax cut should be you've already lost.

Why are you splitting hairs over what's anti-war or not? Dean is not a peace candidate, never claimed to be, but was against going to war in Iraq unless it was part of a UN mandated action. The only way the UN would authorize action is if Saddam was proven to be a threat to his neighbors, which he wasn't.

Even Kucinich said we should work through the UN and if Iraq was an imminent threat he would support military action.

And where was the DLC when Bush bypassed the UN in a rush to war? They kept their mouths shut, called Powell's bogus presentation convincing, and fell in line behind Bush.

[plurality]

170. i have a problem with it

because I see tons of people who bashed DLC centrism and double talk about Iraq supporting Dean and he's no different from them, he was just lucky enough to not have to take a firm stance on a vote.

[killbotfactory]

182. So the DLC position was:

"If Saddam had a credible nuclear program, or if he was giving WMD to terrorists, than Iraq would be a imminent threat and we should invade. Since neither of those conditions have been proven, any chem/bio weapons he may have only constitute a regional threat and should be left up to the UN to decide on how to proceed. Bush also has not given an exit strategy or prepared the nation for the post-war aftermath."

I don't think so.

[arissa]

113. Dean's plan is NOT Universal healthcare

Dean's plan is some sort of compromise that uses private insurers. Dean only promises to "Try" and get "all children under 18" insured through private insurers.

That is a FAR cry from universal healthcare.

[killbotfactory]

115. You can have universal healthcare with private insurers..

Are you talking about single-payer?

[arissa]

120. It doesn't matter - that's not even Dean's position

Dean's position is that he wants all children under 18 insured through private insurers. He always talks about how 98% of children in Vermont are insured, and how that will be the plan he uses if elected.

That is NOT universal healthcare. Even disregarding single-payer vs. private insurers, that is not even CLOSE to universal healthcare.

[killbotfactory]

142. That's untrue

He's insured most everyone under 18 through medicaid, which is what Dr. Dynasaur is, and he just uses that as an example of what he's accomplished in a small state, his health plan is much more comprehensive.

Here's a summary:

The plan is built on four components:
Start by covering children - The plan calls for extending current programs to every child and young adult under 25 up to three times the poverty level. It will also require employer health plans to extend coverage to dependents up to age 25.

Expand to Families - For those at lower income levels, extend current programs for children to include parents up to 185 percent of the poverty level. For those above that level, allow them to buy into a health plan similar to the plan for government employees, while providing tax credits to keep insurance affordable.

Support Small Businesses - Help small businesses afford coverage by letting them buy into the federal employee look-alike program at reasonable rates.

Send a Message to Large Companies - Without any mandates, the government can still send a strong signal to larger businesses that could afford to but don't provide coverage by limiting their tax deductions and their government contracts.

[Nicholas_J]

206. Deans plan

rely'd completely on the private sector, or more precisely is a wierd comglomeration of 4 separate ways of providing the universal health care. He claims he will do what he did in Vermont, which for once is true, because after ten years, a commission ordered by Dean concluded that there was no system in Vermont. All there was, was a mess:

Governor's Bipartisan Commission

On Health Care Availability & Affordability

Final Report

I. Authority, Scope

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

1. The Governor appointed former Human Services Secretary Cornelius Hogan to chair the commission and appointed current Human Services Secretary Jane Kitchel and Commissioner of Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration Elizabeth Costle to serve on the commission.

2. The House Speaker subsequently appointed Representatives Thomas F. Koch, R-Barre Town, who is chair of the Health and Welfare Committee, and Frank M. Mazur, R-South Burlington, who is vice-chair of the Appropriations Committee.

3. The Senate Committee on Committees appointed Senators Nancy I. Chard, D-Windham County, who is chair of the Health and Welfare Committee, and Cheryl P. Rivers, D-Windsor County, who was chair of the Finance Committee.1

B. The Governor asked the group

1. To study data and information relative to increasing health care costs, cost shift, and availability of services,

2. To talk with employers and others concerned with rising health care costs and access to health care,

3. To identify ways we can achieve the dual goals of controlling costs and guaranteeing universal health care access; and

4. To report back to him and to the Legislature on our findings and to lay out recommended approaches to address these problems.

C. Early in our deliberations, the commission decided not to address directly the issues involved in Long Term Care, not because we believed them to be any less important than the issues we do address here, but because they are of such magnitude that we could not do justice to them with the time and resources we had available to us. This agreement was not unanimous and was arrived at reluctantly, but was deemed necessary by the majority.

D. We include in this report a letter to the Vermont Congressional Delegation outlining problems with health care availability and affordability that we believe cannot be solved except at the federal level.

E. We also include a letter of concurrence from Representative Koch and a minority report from Representative Mazur.


II. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

1. No one is in control.

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

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

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

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

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

7. Although administrative costs, including those associated with government paperwork burdens, have reached an unacceptable level, no one has been able to do anything about it.

E. This commission does not recommend the Single Payer option, even though we have been told by The Lewin Group that it could cover all Vermonters, including more than 51,000 currently uninsured, for 5 percent less than what we are collectively paying now.6 Some of our opposition is on philosophical grounds, but in practical terms, we reject that option for a variety of reasons, including:

1. Concern over the negative financial impact on small employers and wage effects on employees in terms of reduced wages or lost jobs (assuming that most program costs would come from a payroll tax).

2. Concern over whether, in the American historical political context, it would be possible for government to control costs and utilization.

3. Doubt that program funding would be maintained at an adequate level so as not to place health care institutions at financial risk and cause providers to leave the state.

4. Belief that the political consensus necessary for implementation does not exist.

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

In 1992, when Dean began the long attempt for universal care in Vermont , he signed a bill mandating that an agency be created, and that this agency come up with TWO plans, one multi payer, the other single payer, by 1994. Final implementation of the of univesal health care in Vermont was mandated by 1995.

Well, Deans multipayer legislation was strangled at birth, by the republicans, because essentially, it reequired every small business to provide insurance for its employees, even small mom and pop businesses, without assistance from the state.

Dean threatened to kill the single payer version, as Dean is a fiscal conservative, decicated to cutting programs and not raising taxes.

So legislation for universal health in Vermont died. He never sat and negotiated on the single payer in order to get something going .Dean beleives in big business and will have nothing else.

Then in 2000, when the public was getting pisssed that Dean was not doing anything about his promises about universal health, give another campaign promise:

Dean promises health coverage for all by 2002
October 4, 2000

By FREDERICK BEVER Vermont Press Bureau

BURLINGTON - Gov. Howard Dean on Tuesday unveiled an ambitious goal for Vermont's health care system - enactment by 2002 of a plan that would lead to health insurance coverage for every state resident.

Appearing at a press conference at the Burlington Community Health Center, Dean said he would build on proposals expected from a $1.3 million, yearlong study of Vermont's health care system aimed at finding ways to get insurance to Vermonters who currently lack it.

"It will allow us to look at the infrastructure essentially for going to universal health care for all Vermonters," Dean said. "It's a complicated subject; $1.3 million is a lot of money, and I think we ought to be able to figure out how to solve the problem. ... We're going to look at some innovative things."

Those innovations might include a state subsidy to help small employers buy health insurance for their workers, or the expansion of federal or state health insurance programs. Although the study will emphasize building on existing programs, it may also include consideration of more radical changes, such as the "high risk pool" and "single-payer system" advocated, respectively, by Dean's Republican and Progressive opponents.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/State/Story/13593.html

A slight change to his original plan, helping small businesses with a state subsidy, which did not exist in the first legislation.

ALl in all, the groups that benefits the most from Deans plan are the large insurance companies and health care providers. They get a massive givaway from the federal government, and massive co-pays from those receiving the benefit. It doe not deal with rtising costs, both to businesses providing the insurance, and the workers paying their share of cost. The sky is the limit for the health industry under the Dean plan.

[Classical_Liberal]

119. He also says that if he thought it would pass he would prefer

the canandian type system, but in the meantime, will insure as many as possible. There is nothing wrong with going for what is possible, He will have a more republican congress than Bush does, owing to 04 being primarily southern races with retiring dems, and owing the dems piddling away the last two races where they had an advantage.

[arissa]

121. That doesn't change my point that heis not advocating for Universal health

care.

[Classical_Liberal]

136. It changes it greatly, because now we have to elect him a congress

that will pass it, and hold him to it, which is what we will have to even with a guy that goes for broke. Though the guy that goes for broke will leave everyone uninsured including children. When he could have made republicans at least to that.

[Name removed]

198. Deleted message

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

[Classical_Liberal]

103. The dlc runs to the center on corporate issues like

the bankruptcy bill, and the taxing of the internet. Not exactly vote getters, but it pleases K street. Dean runs to the center on areas where the public is actually quite divided like gun control and the death penalty. This isn't left vs center this is corporate vs noncorporate.

[EarlG]

129. I don't believe it's about issues to the DLC

To them it's about rhetoric - it's about how you win. The DLC has staked its claim on the "third way" - you preach to the center, to the undecided voters, to win elections. That's the only way as far as they're concerned.

So when someone like Dean comes along and aims his rhetoric at liberals, they're horrified. It doesn't really matter whether he personally is a centrist or a liberal, what matters to the DLC is that he's preaching to liberals. This goes against everything the DLC stands for.

And if Dean happens to win by preaching to liberals, that pretty much blows the DLC's ideas out of the water, at least for the next four years. On the other hand, if he loses, the DLC can say "told you so - just like McGovern. You should have listened to us."

In theory, the last election should have decided this. But it didn't because Gore's campaign shifted back and forth between DLC-style third way tactics and liberal populist tactics. Remember how after the election both sides turned around and blamed the other for failing to gain the White House?

That's why I don't believe the rift between the DLC and Dean is about issues. The DLC message is on the line here, and if Dean should win by using populist campaign tactics, then they're screwed.

[plurality]

137. I guess that's where we differ

Because I see the DLC as group that thinks it's populist policies that cause Democrats to lose so they're trying to purge those policies from the party. I'd like to see a DLC Dem. that doesn't take the corporate/centrist line on policy. If you can find one for me then I can believe that it's about how you run. Instead I've seen populist Dems voting against the DLC and being cast aside by the acceptable moderate wing of the DLC.

[EarlG]

153. Well yes, that's true

You can't completely separate policies from rhetoric, and there are populist policies that the DLC thinks cause Democrats to lose elections.

However, we seem to be getting a little backwards here. The original question was "why is the DLC attacking Dean if he is a centrist?" I put forth my theory that they're not attacking him because he's a centrist, nor because he supports any particular policies that the DLC is in great disagreement with (with the possible exception of opposing the war in Iraq).

They're attacking him because he is aiming his rhetoric at the liberal wing of the party - and clearly, doing very well out of it so far - and that's the complete opposite of the DLC playbook. They think a Democrat who wants to win - especially a centrist - shouldn't "pander" to the left (or the "activist elites" as they referred to liberals in their infamous memo).

That's why I said that to the DLC it's all about how you win.

[plurality]

174. but at the same time

if the DLC isn't just about rhetoric but also about policies don't you think they'd want to make sure someone who supports their policies gets in? All through the Democratic base anti-DLC sentiment is high. Dean had NOWHERE NEAR the support he does now until that DLC memo came out. Then all of a sudden everyone swarmed to him. I don't think the DLC is stupid, they HAVE to know how much base Dems hate them. Are you telling me that they thought bashing these people and Dean was going to give them a change of heart and vote for Lieberman? I don't think so, what I saw was their realization that their grasp on the party was being lost and they brought it back back sending most of the malcontents firmly into the Dean (a DLCer) camp.

[EarlG]

187. Not at all

I seriously believe that the DLC simply thinks that Dean's strategy will cause him to lose, and that their strategy is the way to win.

I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

[Nicholas_J]

195. Exactly

But one key issue...

other candidates who are DLC and drop out are going to throw their support to a DLC candidate, and not likely to Dean and advise others to support the candidate that they are supporting.

Can anyone imagine that if Sharpton drops out and throws his support to anyone like lets say, Gepardt, as an example, that those who supported Sharpton are going to run in masses to Dean...not likely. And past indicators are good that candidates DO follow the wishes of the candidate they supported, and do throw their votes to the candidate that is now backed.

In Sharptons case, whoever opposed the crimianl death penalty mot strongly, is going to get the backing of the black electorate that Sharpton holds, very much, in the palm of his hands. Kerry has the strongest anti-dealth penalty position. so if either Mosely Braun or Sharpton drop out, the black vote is most likely Kerry's.


Dean has greatly alienated DLC democrats. It is unlikely that any DLC democrat who drops from the race, is going to throw their support to Dean. He has attacked them and all te years of all they have attempted to do ever since Reagan swung the nation to the right. They have fought the good fight, with limited resources, and limited support, true guerrilla warriors in an expanding sea of right wing power. Dena has assualted their integrity, and done so with a great deal of misrepresentation. The donkey is the symbol of the dems, but the elephant is a good symbol of politicians as a whole. They never forget, they rarely forgive.

[Orangepeel]

192. I don't agree that it is easy to be anti-war when you didn't have to vote

Why? He's been very clear on his views about invading Iraq and his views have been well publicized.

Do you think that he will try to deny his opposition later because he isn't "on record"? I don't see how. He is on record plenty through his public statements.

Do you think it is easier because he doesn't have to run for re-election? Why? He is running for election. If it were an election issue, then I don't see why his public statements are any less defining than a public vote.

[plurality]

81. yes but Dean was a member of the DLC while he was governor

They've said that, 'they had no problem with the way Dean governed.' And he says he's a centrist still, so how is it he's all of a sudden a 'McGovern Democrat?'

[blm]

66. Exactly...

Look how many liberals are now defending Dean's centrism as "pragmatic" - when, just 7 months ago, those same folks would rail against any Dem who would dare compromise on a bill in the House or the Senate, and rail against the DLC even more for the EXACT same type of things they defend Dean.

[poskonig]

84. How is Dean's stand against the Iraq invasion "pragmatic?"

Dean is not perfect on all issues, but he takes principled stands when it counts. People like that.

[plurality]

90. he didn't take a pricipled stand

a pricipled stand would have been that the war was wrong and should not have been fought period. instead he took the wishy-washy stance that the war shouldn't have been unilateral. Getting the UN to go along wouldn't have made that war any less wrong, but it would have been sufficient to satisfy Dean. That's not principle, that's political opportunism.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator.

[Cha]

135. Thank you!

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

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

[Orangepeel]

196. It is principle

because you don't agree with a particular principle doesn't mean it isn't a principle.


"Getting the UN to go along wouldn't have made that war any less wrong"

That depends on why one believes the UN wouldn't go along. If one believes that the UN would have gone along if Iraq had been an imminent threat, then it is reasonable to assume (although not a logical certainty) that if the UN had gone along, it would have been because Iraq was an imminent threat.

I too would have supported deposing Hussein by force if doing so really would have been in "self defense" of the US. It wasn't and several countries in the UN called bush on it.

[ozymandius]

125. The current DLC may be relegated to anachronism status.

I, too, do not understand what the DLC stands to gain by calling Dean, or anyone else, names. His grass roots efforts at organization and fund raising by utilizing the Internet are unprecedented. It appears that the DLC is vindictive over Dean's success because they did not employ his tactics first.

I still do not believe that the DLC has moved past the identity they formulated for themselves during the 2002 elections: "working with President Bush". Afraid of McGovern's fate and still limping from the 1994 Republican Revolution - the DLC embraces the squishy center.

[ModerateMiddle]

161. The DLC can't stand his anti-war stance

The DLC is trying as hard as it can to remove the "pacifist" stigma from the Dem party, and allow us to be seen as at least as able as the Repubs to defend our country.

[Classical_Liberal]

193. The best way to accomplish this is to debunk the myth

that the Iraq war had anything to do with protecting the country. Indeed it doesn't protect the country, as there were no ties to Al Qaeda and no WMD, or threat there of. All this does is spread our soldiers thin at a time when they should be mobilized for actual threats.

[Patriot_Spear]

21. I see him as a candidate with proven leadership qualities

His tenure as governor, his budget successes in that role coupled with his no-nonsense speech on the failings of the Bush* admin are what appeal to me. On healthcare and domestic issues; to me he's a genuine commonsense candidate.

With that in mind I am also officially an ABB voter.

[Aristus]

22. I'm posting my opinion before I read the other posts; I want it to be pure

ME. I think Dean is a centrist. And since when is this a bad thing? I'm as liberal as they come, but I'm also a great admirer of Bill Clinton, who was also a centrist. He was lambasted as strongly by the left as he was from the right. But he did what I think a President is supposed to do: the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Thatis best done from the center. The more I see of Dean, the more I like him. I also like Kerry. As a war veteran, I like his history, medals and proven leadership. As a liberal, i like his Massachusetts pedigree. But I think Dean is an inspiring candidate, and I will be watching both of them closely.

Thanks for the flame-free thread, Skinner. :-)

[w13rd0]

24. I say "other"...

...like myself, and most of the population of the United States, Dean has a wide variety of opinions and views that stretch the traditional confines of the outmoded left-right spectrum. Rejecting ideologues and forming opinions based on best information, rather than arbitrarily crafting opinions founded on polls or party platform. It's unfortunate that such a common sense approach is now seen as somehow "radical" or outside the norm. It's also quite telling...

[MrsMatt]

25. Centrist

I've read a number of articles on Dean (the first one I believe was in January or February in the New York Magazine) and he strikes me as a definite pragmatist. And I firmly believe that that is the sort of quality that can win the White House.

[bearfartinthewoods]

93. one thing.......i am convinced that bush is going buh-bye

just like his poppy. given thatm i don't want to settle for another clinton. other people could have beaten poppy but the DLC convinced everyone that it had to be a "new dem".

deja vu...bush is going down but what will we get? another clinton.
what a waste of an opportunity.

[indigo32]

126. Boy would I ever like to believe that

And things definitely seem to be looking down for him these days IMHO, but I just can't count him out yet.

What, in your opinion, makes you so sure?

[Cocoa]

26. a stealth centrist

First of all, if he wins, I will be ecstatic.

But at the same time, he's going to piss off a lot of liberals when he actually takes office. But, if he's effective he can turn the country around like Clinton did.

[CWebster]

27. Projects refreshing honesty, lack of artifice

and a healthy, well-rooted defiance of Bush and the lily-livered Democratic yes-men. The contagious populus appeal surpasses labels.

He doesn't claim to be a liberal, but he isn't a centrist sell-out either. More than the sum of his parts.

[Tinoire]

29. I agree with Plurality in post #2

Dean publicly stated a while back that he was not a Liberal and he is not anti-war. One of the things that makes me very uncomfortable about him is my impression that he is riding the coat-tails of the anti-war movement, gauging our discontent and flinging out hollow words to lure us in. I can't see where he was walked the walk he's talking. Dean is not anti-war and the clever political manipulation of our miscontent may come back to haunt him before the Primaries.

There are some good things about Dean- such as his ability to balance the budget but Kucinich (for one) has helped the people's immediate financial needs which is something I find much more important.

e.g. post # 14 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5635&mesg_id=5635&page=#5828

In a nutshell, my opinion of Dean is that he's a clever talker who will not bear up under closer scrutiny. I prefer a candidate whose record I can examine, who when he tells me he is antiwar, I can go back and check; who when he tells me he is anti-globalization and GMO, I can go back and check.

Dennis Kucinich '04 - The PEACE Candidate!

[killbotfactory]

46. The anti-Iraq-war movement was more than just liberals...

People other than liberals were against the war. My moderate/conservative democratic parents were steadfastly against the war and hate Bush for it. 1/3 of the country was against the war, and only about half were ever for it before it became inevitable.

[Classical_Liberal]

149. Most who were opposed to the Iraq war were not antiwar though

They were against the Iraq war because Saddam wasn't a threat, and not in anyway affiliated with Al Qaeda. These people weren't riding anyones coat tales. Just because you are not a pacifist, doesn't mean you will go in for any and all wars.

[dsc]

31. I think he is both

depending on the issue. I think it is out and out ridiculous to argue that what he did on Civil Unions is anything but liberal. His consistent, and I must say looking very good, opposition to the Iraq war is also liberal. His opposition to the tax cuts and the fact he was the first is also liberal.

On the other hand he does have some centrist tendencies as well. He is more fiscally responsible than activist in a governmental sense. He also is somewhat cautious in governmental action. Those are both moderating influences.

One 'centrist' position that he gets taken to task for I think isn't as ideological as people make it out to be. His opposition to most gun control is portrayed as centrist. People should visit the gun threads to put the lie to that notion. Some very liberal, if not radical posters here are also very against gun control. That doesn't make the position correct but I do think it is hard to say it isn't possible to argue from a liberal perspective.

[AmyStrange]

33. I believe he is a centrist...

with many liberal leanings. It's the media that keeps painting him as a liberal and not Dean himself. In all the interviews I have ever read, he almost always points this fact out himself.

Many of his ideas lean left because he is a thinking democrat and doesn't make up his mind to think one way and then stagnates himself in that way of thinking just because that's the party ideology.

Many people think he lies because he himself is still working on where he stands on many many things. He is a work in progress and really willing to listen to the facts and change his way of thinking and stances, because the facts and reality itself has a funny way of constantly changing and not stagnating itself. In short, he is willing to change his mind and admit he is wrong and adjust his thinking to the facts and not the way he wishes the facts were:

http://www.seattleactivist.org/Dean/DEAN-INDEX.html

Dave (AmyStrange.com)

DU (slang/ folklore) Glossary (Dictionary): http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/
Index of WMD Articles: http://WMD.SeattleActivist.org/

[killbotfactory]

39. Left-leaning moderate

Generally he's socially liberal and fiscally conservative (not a supply-sider, though, just doesn't believe in deficit spending). Seems to be independent minded, he's not an ideologue, and distrusts the extreme left and right.

He's mostly liberal on social issues like gay rights, abortion, medical research, renewable energy, international cooperation, and universal health insurance.

He's moderate on gun rights, trade agreements, balanced budgets, the drug war.

He actually had to run a state and be re-elected, and you can't do that by only appealing to the 10% on the extreme left and flipping the bird to everybody else, so the extreme left considers him a compromising centrist.

[blm]

41. My view is that he governed as a compromising centrist.

For those who paid attention to his candidacy early on, we saw him campaign first as a centrist, then when the antiwar movement grew, he picked up the hotter rhetoric of the left and shifted on some of his stances, ie. global trade and Yucca Mt, Iraq (first FOR military action as described in Biden-Lugar to saying he was an antiwar candidate). Well..that's political opportunity, you take what you can get.

But, I think it really comes down to the press not doing its homework and portraying him with whatever word is on the street. There's been little examination of his actual record. Oddly, many Democrats who worked with Dean or reporters who covered him in Vermont say he was more into striking the compromise deal with the GOP and NOT fighting, yet, so many believe him to be someone who will fight FOR progressive ideals.

I also don't trust much of what comes from Fineman in articles like this, because I don't believe he's motivated by good reporting. I think he does what's best for Bush and Rove and certainly not Dean, Kerry or ANY Democrat.

[poskonig]

51. I do not care about "progressive" ideals.

Perhaps this is why we disagree, and I support Dean. While I might not agree with Dean on all of the specifics, I know he is going to draw the line in the sand on the important stuff. Some candidates are more liberal but crumble when we really need them. Dean campaigns well, has a scrappy charisma, has a sack, and is the best guy for the difficult job of taking on the Bush machine. He is the person we need right now to stop Republican court justices, Bush's tax cuts, stupid invasions of other nations, more Patriot Acts, etc. I am not interested in saviors who are supposed to realize some ephemeral "ideal" in a fantastic quest against perceived evil. I plainly want results.

[killbotfactory]

65. Biden-Lugar is consistant with his stance on Iraq.

He didn't change anything.

[TLM]

42. Dean is a moderate Democrat... slightly to the left of Clinton.

He does not claim to be some super liberal, never has. He's been labeled as a far out liberal leftist by the DLC and others who want to try and drive off the moderate support and independent support he is getting.

At the same time we see the more liberal set trying to drive of his leftward support by calling him a centrist.


That tells me Dean is right in that middle ground that can win support and win elections.

A social liberal on issues like civil unions, health care, and corporate reform.

A moderate on issues like guns, national defense, and the death penalty... issues that normally hurt liberals.

And a little conservative of fiscal policy.

A perfect mix in my book.

[welshTerrier2]

45. Labels are damaging ... labels are damaging ... labels are damaging ...

what i'm trying to say is, well, labels are damaging ...

labels divide us ... labels for republicans are primarily: "conservative" ... with a few "moderate republicans" thrown in who generally think of themselves as conservatives relative to the general population ... labels for democrats only serve to divide us ... we seem to cover a broader spectrum ...

we have a dangerous rift in the democratic party over the war issue ... if i thought the war in Iraq was immoral, and I do, does that make me a progressive? well, i also support a balanced budget ... i have no problem running a short-term deficit in a crises, but overall you can't spend what you don't have ... does this make me a centrist ??

Dean, and I am also an "undecided" btw, opposed the war in Iraq ... but he refuses to call for cuts in our bloated military budget ... what possible utility can derive from sticking a label on him ??? let's leave that to the right-wingers ... we have enough problems getting our own act together ...

Dean supports civil unions but won't go further to support gay marriage ... what label does he get for that ???

On the environment, he incurred the wrath of Vermont environmentalists but did set aside thousands of acres of land to be preserved in Vermont ... what's the label for that ???

Labeling candidates as progressives, liberals, centrists or conservatives is, in my view, just "lazy thinking" ... it leads to a lack of investigation into the underlying details of a candidate's positions on the issues ... and it leads to misunderstandings ... you let Dean get labeled as an "ultra-liberal" because he opposed the war and people who think of themselves as centrists turn off before they even hear he opposes cuts in the military budget or a balanced budget ... you label him a centrist and progressives may not look beyond the label to learn about his outspoken opposition to the bush regime ....

I've been very concerned that the early support for Dean, especially on DU, was the result of his anti-war stand and his excellent, outspoken opposition to bush's abuses ... both of these are positions I completely support ... but far more depth to the candidate will be required than just these two strengths ... and while Dean has much more to offer, so do some of the other candidates ...

Let's get past the labels and discuss the issues ...

[blondeatlast]

68. But the voters like labels, and the Dem candidate must get his ideas ove

over simply and quickly--Bush has his record to speak for him.

[Iverson]

159. labels are limiting

Labels may indeed be damaging, but they exist because categorization is supposed to be useful. Given today's political landscape, the labels in the initial posting may not be adequate to describe what needs describing.

We could say that Dean has elements of all three terms, so let's do that. There is no magic about fitting neatly into a category.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

48. I would put him in the OTHER category with GWB and Clinton

He is a politician who has some liberal leanings, some conservative leanings and some centrist leanings but he more than anything is shaped by opinion polls rather than shaping them. While opinion polls may have favored the war (based on the questions posed and the manner in which they were posed) Dean saw the opportunity to TAP into a market by opposing the war.

I don't mean this as a slam on him, it is simply easier for him to defend his decision since he wasn't in office and didn't have to make one.
He shaped his opinion on gun control to favor states in order to prevail in states where guns are an issue. He shaped his statements on civil unions and marijuana policy in order to prevail in areas where these items are an issue.

While it is realpolitik to do so anymore, it precludes leadership in a respect since a politician can avoid taking a genuine stand on an issue of great import. Are guns (and their unregulated ownership) less lethal in rural areas?

BTW, I am not decided on a candidate and am NOT against Dean. He is playing to win and this is how he is doing it in my opinion. I just think it sorely ditches issues in a sense.

I have enjoyed watching him and believe he has great charisma and can respond well under the pressure of a debate and communicate. I am less clear of what the ACTUAL communication is other than VOTE FOR ME!

[dsc]

60. In a word yes

Vermont has one of the lowest, if not the lowest, rates of homicide in the entire US. Like it or not, rural areas have vastly less gun violence than urban ones.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

76. Per capita or straight numbers?

Is there a study that demonstrates how many have brought their gun from a rural area into an urban area and committed gun violence? I am not being a smartass, I really do wonder?

BTW, I think the wealth of the Vermont populace might have something to do with that number. How does rural Vermont compare with rural Alabama?

[dsc]

88. Per capita

On the gun running no study but common sense suggest probably pretty few do. The only big city any where near them is Boston and New Hampshire is closer and has similar gun laws. Every other big city in the east is closer to Ohio, PA, and/or WV none of which have gun control in their rural areas. I am sure some small number of people with Vermont connections engage in that but the number would have to be very very small. The only study on this at all didn't list any Vemont store as having a huge volume of gun sales (two or three in Ohio were in the top 20 nationwide).

Editted subject

[demnan]

49. I think Dean is a socially liberal centrist

The reason people like Dean and he has struck a cord with liberals is that he makes no bones about this being a fight against Bush and that we have to stand up and call the issues as we see them and not give Bush a free pass on everything.

As far as his issues go, the gun control thing might make Dean a more marketable candidate in the South than Kerry is. Kerry is the more liberal candidate who may not play as well in the South. (But I would vote for him as well if Dean doesn't make it).

[trogdor]

50. It depends on your perspective.

Compared to the current regime, he seems to be liberal as all get-out. If you examine his paper trail, however, he's pretty down-to-earth, about as middle of the road as one might expect someone from Vermont to be. When he talks, he makes sense, and that suggests he's center to center-left, kind of like Bill Clinton.

The interesting thing is, the right thinks he's very liberal, and I guess if you look at him from their perspective, that's how he appears. If the Bushies tack right because they think they can, ignoring the center, Shrub's burnt toast.

[Maeve]

52. Thank you for the thread, Skinner

I have avoided the "candidate wars" threads and this one gives a good view of the way DUers see Dean. My own opinion is that he's a left-side centrist and it seems to be a common perception.

I'd like to see a similar thread on the other major candidates, if you could.

[Skinner]

59. I hope to do this type of thread on a number of issues.

Including (but not limited to) all of the democratic candidates.

I'm not going to do it every day. But every few days I'd like to put up a topic for discussion. Our members need to know that the admins actually do care about the quality of discussion on the board. With a little luck, the positive attitude might seep into other discussions as well.

[CheshireCat]

100. Quality of discussion

Thank the goddess for a flame free thread on one of the candidates.

While I whole-heartedly support DU, I have been extremely disappointed at quality of discussion on the candidates. The flames wars have made it impossible to rationally discuss the candidates for the 2004 election.

We cannot become blinded to the fact that only one candidate will be the democratic nominee and that we will have to unite behind that candidate if we want to defeat Bush.

This is the time for rational, thoughtful examination of the candidates, their stand on the issues, and their ability to beat Bush in 2004.

BTW, I see Dean as a centrist - maybe a little left of center.

Yes, I could vote for Dean and I think he would have a good chance against Bush. However, right now I support Kucinich because he is the first candidate since George McGovern to come anywhere close to my political views. I am realistic enough to realize that Dean has a much better chance of winning than Kucinich.

"Can't we all just be friends"

[blondeatlast]

70. Agreed! Thank you, Skinner, and to all who posted intelligent responses.

I have found nothing informative about the candidates in GDF; just a lot of backbiting and name-calling.

I have yet to even have a CURRENT favorite, much less one I would conribute time or money too.

This thread is quite insightful (rather than inciteful; couldn't resist!). This is why I came to DU.

[Armstead]

53. He's something else

I have not chosen a candidate. Please indulge me on the following diversion of the first part of this post, but I have included it for context of how I view Dean. I believe these labels of "centrist" and "liberal" are a strawman, but they do have an element of truth.

I wish Kucinich had the aura of a presidential candidate, because I beliueve what he is advocating is what the Democratic Party (and the nation) really needs. A clear choice between corporate conservativism and liberal/progressive populism.

Kucinish's positions are more "mainstream" and rational than they are portrayed in the media and by other politicians. (And he does get carried away in New Age rhetoric, which makes it more difficult to see that.).....He is updating the traditional principles of liberalism and Democratic Populism to address modern life.

In my opinion, for any Democratic candidate to be worth a damn he (she) to address the two core issues of Money and Power in society today. Corporations have far too much power, wealth is being far too concentrated. The poor are being abandoned and the Middle and Working classes are being pushed increasingly into the category of "working poor."

Democracy itself is under attack -- Not just by Bush who is a symptom. The problem is a deeper loss of democracy to the Corporate Oligarchy and a hollowing out of our economy.

IMO, centrist Democrats do not talk about this or challenge the assumptions of the GOP on a deep enough level. Nor do they stand for the degree of reform we need to correct the horrendous imbalances that have developed since the 1980's.

Now to Dean. I believe he is both a centrist and a liberal. He is not that differnt from Clinton in many respects.

But there IS an important difference. Dean is willing to listen. And he is aware of how the system has been distorted. He actually addresses those issues of Money and Power in a core way. He is not dismissing the liberals and progressives -- he is seeking their support and absorbing those issues. You can hear that he "gets it" in his speeches.

Maybe he's just doing it for political gain. Maybe he's sincere. Maybe both. But the important thing is that he IS DOING IT. That is why he is generating such support from people who might have problems with him on specific issues.

Kerry is too much a part of thge system that has caused these problems. He's a liberal, but he never challenges the status quo. He wants it both ways. His Iraq vote typified that for me. I have more respect fopr Liebrman and Gephardt on that scorem because they were at least clear and sincere on where they stood and why.

I wish our side would get away from these labels of "center" and "left" and instead look at the issues today in terms of what is really wrong, and how we can fix it. But we have to stop apologizing and marginalizing the idea of liberalism and progressive populism.

Dean's most resonant line, in my opinion is simple: "I want my country back."

[blm]

72. "He's a liberal, but he never challenges the status quo"

BCCI
IranContra
CIA drugrunning
Pushed for gays to serve openly in the military
Public financing of campaigns
Crafted CHIPS bill
Worked on Kyoto Accord

Status quo?

[Armstead]

83. The status quo -- He avoids the core of these problems.

Kerry is great in many ways as a Senator on specific issues.

But is is not bringing up the key issue of who really runs this country. He has to make that break -- like Dean has -- and not be ambiguous and engage in centrist muddiness to do it.

[blm]

171. The "corporatists" are the status quo.

Kerry has NEVER accepted corporate pac money and has always advocated for small business over large corporations. Labor over large corporations. Environment over large corporations. What can you point to in his 11 year record that shows Dean has EVER chosen to buck up AGAINST large corporations? I'm willing to listen.

[Classical_Liberal]

197. The DLC are corporatists

That is why they don't like populism.

[Classical_Liberal]

94. Iraq was a pretty big challenge the status quo

He wasn't even in a position to challenge half the stuff you mentioned. alot of the neat things Kerry did, he did a long time ago.

[blm]

176. You mistook the post.

I was quoting the post above mine, and answering it as it applied to Kerry, not Dean. The CHIPS bill, Hate Crimes bill, and Kyoto Accord were fairly recent. I chose them for their significance, and all directly opposed to the "status quo."

[lastliberalintexas]

91. Great post Armstead

Very eloquently stated. :)

[Classical_Liberal]

58. He is himself, because he is not beholden to corporate money

having raised so much grassroots money. I like him because others do, and they aren't corporations. I don't see him approving of a bankruptcy atrocity like the corporate dems. I think left and centrist are meaningless terms. Corporate and noncorporate are more descriptive.

[blm]

79. Dean never accepted corporate pac money?

I thought the only candidates who didn't accept corporate pac money were Kerry, Kucinich, and I recently heard Edwards. If I'm wrong, I'll add Dean to my list of noncorporate Dems. But, I read that he had a close relationship with energy companies in Vermont and thus supported Bush on Yucca Mt. If you can refute that, it would be some small comfort.

[Classical_Liberal]

86. He won't for this campaign. Pac money isn't the only way

corporatations rule the roost. Soft money and direct corporate donations, not to mention coersive solicitations in individual coporations. Dean gets more from regular people, and that means he won't be as corrupted.

[blm]

106. I thought he already accepted corporate money

early in his campaign, before he tapped into the liberal sources of money that came his way through the antiwar movement. Wasn't it part of his early seed money?

[killbotfactory]

112. Dean started the Fund for a Healthy America PAC

And accepted money from it.

[Classical_Liberal]

124. Doesn't sound corporate to me

and that is the problem. I don't want a dem that owes anything to mbna america. DLCers represent those people.

[blm]

178. Corporate donors? Energy companies, right?

I'm quite certain that is the case. Am I wrong? It was openly discussed at the old board.

[Classical_Liberal]

123. Doesn't matter. If he doesn't need them for funding

He won't pander. I like him precisely because he is a winner and successful at getting regular people money.

[ModerateMiddle]

177. Corporations aren't allowed to donate

as corporations. Where are y'all getting your "corporate money" ideas from?

[Classical_Liberal]

194. They fund think tanks, that generate talking points

and they donate to other issue organizations. They can and do often manipulate their employees into donating to certain candidates.

[Nicholas_J]

117. Not quite true...

Dean started his own PAC "Fund For a Healthy America" , Which can doante to his own campaign. If you look at the list of contributions from PAC's Dean has taken more than other candidates. But in all honesty. The sum listed is VERY small, and not in itself worth mentioning. It's future possibilitis may be.

When Dean first announced his candidacy, within one hour, he was able to raise over 100,000 dollars from Vermont Utilities companies, with whom he had a very comfortable relationship as governor. Too comfortable, many liberal democrats and progressive thought. But then again, this is not all too uncommon. But Dean had a far greater ability to reward those who funded his campaign within his state, than other candidates in Congress do. They had one vote. Dean wielded a veto. A very big fish in a very small pond. The other candidates a bigger fish, in a very, very big pond.

You can find info on all the candidates an who is giving whaqt to them (loosely) at:

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/


http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/

[Classical_Liberal]

131. He has earned enough from other sources that he doesn't need

the corporates, so he won't pander. In the end he will have accepted much less corporate money as a percentage of his campaign than any other democrat, so I prefer him. I don't care whether you can find individual instances. That is anecdotal without actual percentages.

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. It was accidentally posted twice due to a bug in the program.

[KoKo]

62. I think he's a mixture and more Trumanesque than any candidate we've had

in my memory. His popularity probably has more to do with his "anti-war" stance and vocalization that the Florida Selection was a fraud and he's not afraid of saying it than any labels we or the press might try to pin on him.

Also, he's not part of the Beltway crowd. That distance gives him freedom to be outspoken and separate himself from the pack.

He is refreshing to me because I can't label him. And, I'm not a Dean partisan but have given him some nice contributions because he has acknowledged what happened in Florida and came out strongly against the war. I had to support him on those two issues alone, because no other candidate was as vocal and well organized.. It will be hard for him to beat the Kerry machine, though........so I'm resigned that Kerry will be the nominee. He's so tied into the the Democratic Leadership, it would be hard to overcome that at this point. And, that's because my "label" for Kerry is that he's a "corporatist sympathizer" who would protect powerbroking over what really needs to be done to clean up what's gone wrong in America. I think Dean would have some problems dealing with the Powered money interests in the US. Just as Carter did........ Dean would be too "independent" to get along with them.

[sangh0]

69. Dean is a centrist

who has skillfully used a few lines and issues to tap into the liberal "base" at a time when he is/was basically unknown and needed to get attention fast. Now, in order to maintain his momentum, he will either have to push his opposition to Iraq and get the more moderate Dems behind him on this issue, or he will have to tone down on those issues which got him the attention in this first place.

[opihimoimoi]

85. Appears centrist. but he will be many things to many diff people

Dean offers a clean look, successful too as opposed to the shrubs many failures/failings.

Bush is lazy, spoiled, jaded, resulting in people doing his homework when in school. He is a LOLO as a result, hardly reads, not too much background/foundation. Has a hard time remembering. Not an orator, speaks somewhat condenscendingly, arrogantly. etc etc mostly neg shit.

On the other hand, Dean will look like the clean successful candidate who could.

He did Vermont well as a Gov. Is a DOCTOR, which is far more than Bush in his many failings at selling hot dogs, etc.

But more important is the message of hope and positiveness. He describes a brighter future based on reality. You would buy a car from him.

Come, we help the man get elected and do America some good, por favor

[Cha]

95. Thank you, Opi!,,,,,that's a Real Nice Summation of the guy,,,

I like for Prez!!

[tinnypriv]

73. Based on my Brit-o-meter

If he was running over here, I'd say straight centre (i.e. New Labour-ish).

Essentially Tony Blair with rolled up sleeves. :)

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. It was another accidental duplicate post.

[Nicholas_J]

75. Well

I tend to go with the statement of another candidate, who said, "Dont base your support of me, by what I an saying now, to get elected, but base your support on what my past record says about me."

On this basis, which I feel is the only way a person can tell what another person is likely to do, past performance being the only available indicator of future performance, Dean is something else. A very, very conservative democrat, a good deal further to the right of any of the other candidates.

His economic policies in as governor opposed progressive taxation, and increased consumption taxes, something that the founding documentation of the New-Democrats in the Hyde Park declarations, mentions as one of the founding principals of the New-Democrat ideal. New-Democrats, centrists democrats, beleive in fiscal responsibility, but based on progressive taxation, not on cutting social programs , which is how Dean managed his fiscal responsibity, by cutting program.

Dean never signed onto the Hyde Park Declaration. This declaration was written by Democrats as an alternative vision of the American future than offered by the "Program for the New American Century". A Progressive Vision of American as a partner in the international future. Not the leader.It defined all progressive democratic party principals in depth.

Same thing with Deans environmental stance. He did some good by preserving land, But many Vermont environmentalists view his lack of enforcement of regulation on business as a too conservative for a democratic governor.

On Civil Unions, what can be said. Dean signed the legislation, but was not out thre seeking it. It was a mandate of the courts, not of the people. He was legally required to do something because of the Vermont Supreme Court decision of December 1999.

Gays are happy he signed the compromise legislation, but not happy that the legislation was written in the first place.
The court decision made gay marriage legal and constitutionsl. Not civil union. Civil Union was a political ploy, born out of Deans fear of Republican backlash.

Civil Union saved his last term as governor, as most people in Vermont opposed the idea of gay marriage, civil union bought just enough of the gay and moderate republican vote to give Dean one more term. But the price to the democratic party in Vermont was enormous, splitting off a significant number of left wing democrats to the Vermont Progressive party, and bringing more moderate Republicans over to vote for the a conservative democrat, Howard Dean, rather than radical Neo-Con, Ruth Dwyer. The ideals of this Republican Party infection are largely responsible for the every weakeniing progressive position of the DLC.

This last Dean election was key to sweeping Republicans into power in Vermont in the fall of 2002. Vermont now is a mini-Washington D.C. with Repubicans holding all the Governors seat, and the legisalature.

Many other issues, gun control, death penalty, support for the war on drugs, his stance on methadone treatment, his stance on medicals marijuana, are stances that are further indications of the conservative nature of Howard Dean. His vague, changing statements on the war in Iraq, are other indications. It is the one area in which he has been able to criticize other candidates in which no one can really have any idea of what he would do if he was in the oval office. All I can do is extrapolate from what he did when in power in Vermont. Little of what he did of his own volition seems progressive, but rather conservative. Progressive Demorats and the Vermont Progressive Party itself frequently complained about Deans continual resistance to progressive legislation. More of Deans legilative fights were with Progressives and Liberal Democrats than with Republicans.

It is not Dean the Conservative Democrat I object to. It is the the negative attack camapaigning that Dean uses, which diverts attention from Dean himself, from the record as governor that he built, and the record he built, the reasonining behind the decision's he made.

So Who Is Howard Dean. From his current campaign, it is difficult to tell who Howard Dean was. He is record is not open for public scrutiny. It is sealed. Dr Dean is not openly revealing this record. He is carefully letting people form opinions of him, some seeing him as liberal or progressive. Others see him as centrist. But Dean is not saying what he is...

What is he?

All I can do is judge from what he was. This iseem so have beena very, very reactionary elected official, in many areas that are at the heart of the Democratic Party's principals. Dean has yet to give cogent, inciteful reasons for his choices as governor. Becasue no one has asked, Why?, on the national stage. Perhaps the other candidates will.

I think they should.

If Deab were to run on his record, and on what he wanted to do as governor, with universal health, and other progressive programs, this would be a campaign that I wouild find admirable. He tried, but failed. His own conservative inclinations may have been responsible for that. His own unwillingness to step back from his own point of view, and often very rigid opinions. But he did try. I wil give him that. And for me, that would have been enough to give Dean his due.

But it seems even Dean does not see that his effort might be enough, and that his owm limitations, human limitations, make the effort even more worthy of our trust.

It is a shame, becasue Dean the candidate is someone I cannot in all good conscience, bring myself to vote for. Dean the man, I could.

[blondeatlast]

78. Thank you, posters, for keeping it civil! And of course, to Skinner . . .

I'm actually INFORMED now about Howard Dean. As one who is decidedly undecided, I have gained much insight on this thread.

I swore it couldn't happen; you proved me wrong.

Thank you again!

:toast:

[bobthedrummer]

80. My perceptions of Howard Dean

He's not that liberal, as I understand liberalism {but who can define liberalism outside of positions on issues?}.

He appears to be a Third Way centrist, {again, as this independent voter understands those concepts-gleaned by reading} this is where I begin to have fears of him favoring business/special interest groups over the people.

As a Dr., he is obviously an intelligent man, he articulates well and projects warmth. I like his position on some issues {btw I'm not a single issue voter} but have serious questions on his apparent issue flip-flopping, as well as the tactics of his advisors and his supporters.

I think you are absolutely correct on the labeling issue, Skinner.
At this point in history, forget about it.

I would vote for Dean if he gets the nomination, I'm doing what I can to preclude that though.

[MISSDem]

96. If you want to have a chance of

winning in 2004, IMO Joe Biden is the only one who can give bush a race.

[ibegurpard]

104. I am very glad that there don't seem to be a lot of people...

...who share that opinion.

[molly]

105. AHEM - I live in Delaware - Joe is not running

[Cha]

92. Dean is like liquid Mercury....he can't be held down or "labeled"....

I don't know what Dean is in political speakese,,,I just know I started looking at him after Al Gore dropped out and am liking him better all the time!!

And the reasons are a whole combinations of things...

~Dean's a fighter..
~Dean made a stance against the illegal and immoral attack on Iraq...
which is super important to me...if Dean had been one of those who wanted to bomb the shyte out of Iraq...I would have looked no further!!

~I think Dean can get the job done of "Taking Back America" and getting the job done of turning our Country Around!

:kick:
DEAN'04{b/]
:dem:

[LiberalLibra]

97. I think Dean is more of a "centerist" because on some issues.....

....Dean definitely seems to the right of Kerry. I will say though that a Kerry/Dean ticket would attract some of those rethugs that are a bit left of the ultra right.

[LynneSin]

108. I think he's just something different from the regular candidates

I see alot of Bill Clinton in him, not with his policies and ideologies, but with how he is going out there and finding new ways to get people interested in him and supporting his candidacy. I also see someone who has appeal to the Green party; I know that many of my Green friends here in Delaware have joined up with the Dean team.

There's been so much backlash from all the senators who are both running for president and perceived as being Bush supporters that I guess I just liked Dean because he was someone from the outside and he stood for many of the things I believe in. However, I have no problem supporting any of the other democratic candidates (in fact ALL OF THEM) should one of them and not Dean get the nomination. Heck, I have my next 2 candidates lined up should Dean drop out of the race.

[ozymandius]

109. Dean is a leftist with centrist electability factors.

As for Howard Fineman's opinions: I will leave his opinions to himself. I believe that it is too early to speculate on anyone's 'front runner' status before the intitial primaries and caucuses are done.

As for my opinions: Dean, in my view, is left-of-center. But he has centrist elecatability because he is able to deliver a message without clouding his stance with too much nuance. In essence, he parses his stances in easy-to-digest language.

His ability to state his positions in plain language and with the fire of a Baptist preacher will appeal to the swing voters. Why? Because Dean communicates in a way that is directly out of the Right's playbook. (This rhetorical tactic is common with any right-winger on those televised Sunday screaming matches.)

In sum, personality is the key. Communication is a close second. His firm stance on War in Iraq, fiscal responsibility and progressive meat-and-potatoes issues (same sex unions, comprehensive medical coverage) are positive boons.

p.s. Thank you for engaging the discussion boards in a topic that is outside your administrative duties. It's refreshingly nice to see ADMIN weigh in on a pointed discussion.

[nolabels]

111. Howard Dean is Howard Dean

I have never agreed with anyone totally in my life, and I don't think it would be a good ideal to be looking for such a person in a presidential candidate. The other day when I showed up at the local MeetUp there was room full of people and no organizers or presenters showed up. The a couple of local Green and Democratic candidates from past elections showed up, which is funny because I never seen or heard boo from them before. Yet with things starting out like that we all able get along and got some things done regardless.

The only thing that made me wonder is the rest of the people outside. The meeting was in downtown Riverside, Ca. and a half a block away they were having street fair, with thousands of people running around. In the room upstairs at the coffee house the whole place got filled with college kids doing their homework, while were having the MeetUp. What this tells me most of the US is oblivious to politics and what being done in their name.

I hate having to choose things that I think other people might like and that’s why I support Howard and the maverick about him. He usually thinks thing out about things before his gives his position, support or even opinion. When confronted about something out of kilter he explain his position and does not waffle or apologize much, or if at all. He is his own person, which seems to be a crime in today’s world.

[T Roosevelt]

118. First of all - thank you for this thread

I hope to see many more just like it on the candidates AND on issues. It's very instructive to see the back and forth debate/discussion, and can help us get a handle on what's important or not.

In answer, as pointed out a number of times, Dean cannot be labeled in the tradtional sense. Also, as pointed out, labels are a bad thing, precisely because they don't apply across the board. Dean is the perfect example - he is socially liberal, fiscally conservative, with some in-between stands (which some think are a bad thing - like his gun control (pro-states rights) or death-penalty positions (pro-DP with caveats)).

In this thread I have seen posters state things in complete opposition to others, based on their INTERPRETATION of the facts. Is he anti-war? Is he only anti-this war? Is he sincere? Is he an opportunist? Well, he is what you choose to believe he is. It is too easy for us to sit here and Monday-morning quarterback, saying what we THINK he is or isn't, all the while having nothing to substantiate one way or the other. Do the polls shape him? I have seen nothing to indicate this, and so I don't believe they do. Nor do I believe he is anti-war simply because it was a good opportunity for him to tap into something. He was one of the first politicians to come out against this war (note I didn't say war in general), at a time when being against it was not recommended, and not something the polls said he should be. Here again, I choose to believe he is sincere rather than an opportunist - why should I (or anybody) believe otherwise, unless I have something against him?

So far he is one of the few democrats who is showing a backbone (something EVERYBODY on this board has been dreaming about) and standing up to *, and yet still there are those who wish to believe the worst rather than the best. That's not how to take back the WH.

Sorry, I seem to have gotten side-tracked... :-)

On edit: I am a Dean supporter, and I suffer from ABB ;-)

[Upfront]

122. Who cares besides the rethugs?

I stand with this man for having the guts to call Bush out on all the issues, and he was the first to do it. Now we see some of the weak, shaking, afraid, gut less, main stream, bush lite democrats, saying a little more then I suck Bush'es ass. Don't work for me, give a man with balls, Dr. Dean. Go Dean!

[Eloriel]

132. I think the best way to get a feel for Howard Dean is:

1) Hear him speak (DeanTV)
2) Look at his issues (http://www.deanforamerica.com )
3) Read the comments on his blog from supporters

One of those comments put it this way (paraphrasing, probably): It's not about liberal or conservative, it's about what's right.

I see Dean as someone who is NOT one of the panderers and smooth-talkers in the campaign (but that category includes Kucinich and Sharpton too). I love his bluntness -- the clarity and straightforwardness with which he stakes a position or answers questions. I love that he can say, "I don't know," or "I'm conflicted about that issue," and apparently, so did a big bunch of Americans who watched MTP that Sunday morning, because that was the beginning of the whirlwind of fundraising that took him to $7.5 million.

I don't agree with every single issue of his, but he's just fine on the ones that are most important to me. And most important of all to me are that he is willing to take it to Bush, even when it's apparently unpopular (e.g., opposition to the war) and he's a Trumanesque leader, and he and his campaign LISTEN to supporters. What a truly amazing thing.

He's also running a truly exciting and aggressive campaign. Again and again the fleetfooted among them have recognized and seized upon opportunities when they arose. They didn't design the internet strategy -- it was thrust upon them and they ran with it. Again and again they are first out of the box with a press release about this or that (e.g., Bush's "Bring 'em on" comment, advertising buy in Iowa). They keep online supporters intimately involved in the campaign via the blog. And the official blog is but one of several or actually many Dean-oriented websites, btw.

I love his vision for America, his "Restoration of the American community," which he outlined in his June 23 Announcement speech. IMO it's the PERFECT rhetorical and practical antidote to decades of Republican celebration and promotion of greed and selfishness. As another blogger put it afterward: Howard Dean makes me want to be a better American.

Most impressive of all, if we're talking pure campaigning, has been his ability to draw from all across the political spectrum, INCLUDING rather massive numbers of people who have never been political before, some of whom have never even voted before. Greens, Dems of all stripes, Independents, Libertarians, even Republicans, AND new voters. (Again, read his blog.) My own BROTHER, who is basically apolitical (and definitley not liberal), but who hates Bush, is crazy about Dean. He said Dean's Announcement speech (which I emailed him the ink for) brought tears to his eyes.

You bet the DLC is afraid of Dean. Not only do they stand to lose credibility, but with it POWER.

I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!

Eloriel

[WilliamPitt]

138. Two words:

Compromise Candidate.

a.k.a. Gold.

[ozymandius]

164. Compromise Candidate?

Historically speaking who else would have been a Compromise Candidate?

[WilliamPitt]

175. Clinton, Johnson for starters n/t

[ulysses]

181. hrm...

How to say this...

Let's hope that he *continues to build* upon the left/center compromise foundation that his predecessors built.

[Tinoire]

143. Summary of Dean

from Bob Harris' DK/HD comparison site (Bob likes both but prefers DK now). Since this isn't a HD vs DK thread, I snipped out the DK column. Some issues are missing only because HD and DK agreed enough that no side-by-side comparison was needed. Any comments about this summary should be submitted via his web-site. http://www.bobharris.com/kucinichdean.html


Dean

Health care plan

Complex 4-prong plan, extending multiple state and federal programs piecemeal, combined with tax credits and incentives, all of which Dean claims is more likely to become law, but still won't cover everyone


Death penalty

Favors for "extreme" crimes like terrorism or the killing of a police officer, although critical of Bush administration's "careless" approach to executions


Roe v. Wade

Pro-choice, but refuses to make Roe v. Wade a litmus test for federal judges



Kyoto treaty

Says we must "take another look," but has "concerns" about some provisions


Patriot Act

Would repeal "parts," but also wants to expand intelligence agencies; praises Russ Feingold as only Senator who opposed the act, ignoring Kucinich's vocal House opposition, falsely implying no other candidate opposed the Patriot Act


NAFTA/WTO

Notes problems with "free" trade, suggesting the need for inclusion of human rights, environmental, and labor standards in trade agreements -- but still pro-NAFTA


"Star Wars" ballistic missile system

Would cut only 1/8 of the funding, transferring it to international threat-reduction programs


Pentagon waste


Disagrees with any proposed Pentagon cutbacks, and advocates aggressive expansion of intelligence, police, and special forces


Balanced budget

A main priority -- even equating it with social progress: "we cannot have social justice without a sound fiscal foundation" -- describing himself as "to the right of Bush" on the issue


Gun control

Supports closing the gun show loophole, but opposes other new federal regulation; considers guns a states' rights issue; an "A" rating from NRA most of his career


Medical marijuana

Firmly opposed, although promises to abide by a proposed FDA evaluation


War on drugs

Has accepted National Governors Association position: more federal funding for all aspects of the drug war; however, also speaks of drug use as a medical problem, and has called the War on Drugs a failure; website and recent speeches simply do not clarify what policies he would pursue, as far as I can tell


Gay rights

Signed a civil union (not gay marriage) bill, but opposes similar national laws as a states' rights issue


Energy

Supports investment in alternative energy and energy efficiency; however, has sided with Vermont state utilities on most issues


Political experience

Vermont state legislator, 1982-86; Lt. Governor, 1986-91; Governor, 1991-2002. Former chair, National Governors Association.


Iraq war

Firmly opposed, before, although he told the L.A. Times in January that he would support unilateral action if Iraq had WMDs; softened his rhetoric again in March, once the war began, explaining in conservative South Carolina, "it's hard to criticize the President when you've got troops in the field... we all have got to support the troops;" now again firmly opposed, and highly vocal


Personal

Patrician upbringing. Speaks harshly about negative environmental impact of SUVs. Drives an SUV (a Chevy Suburban).


Ambition

Vermont newspapers had to sue to get Dean's 2002 schedule as Governor; Dean spent almost all of the year out the state, and didn't want his constituents to know

[Eloriel]

204. The problem I have with this list, and this is the 2nd time

I've seen it, is that while technically true enough, I suppose, it's still quite biased.

For example:
Medical marijuana
Firmly opposed, although promises to abide by a proposed FDA evaluation



He does more than that. He promises to PUT IT THRU the FDA process. As an M.D. his position is that these (including late term abortion and abortion as a whole) shouldn't be political decisions -- that is, Congress shouldn't legislate medicine.

Gay rights
Signed a civil union (not gay marriage) bill, but opposes similar national laws as a states' rights issue


And puts up a helluva defense on the subject: equal rights for all, which is NOT something easily argued against.

Personal

Patrician upbringing. Speaks harshly about negative environmental impact of SUVs. Drives an SUV (a Chevy Suburban).

There's a lot more that could have been included for him personally, such as how strong a family man he is (used to arrange his schedule to be with the kids for events, etc.), how uprightly he handled his son's recent brush with the law (told authorities no special treatment), his start in politics (getting a bike path created in his neighborhood), etc.


Ambition

:wtf:

Vermont newspapers had to sue to get Dean's 2002 schedule as Governor; Dean spent almost all of the year out the state, and didn't want his constituents to know


Needless to say, I'd like to see either full documentation for this or a more balanced exposition.

Eloriel

[Quahog]

145. Dean's the guy who can turn the pendulum around

What a great (and civil!) thread.

Yup, Dean's to the left of Bush and to the right of Kucinich. Some of his positions sound liberal, some sound centerist, some sound conservative, most sound like fairly solid common sense (as in, things that could actually get DONE, especially given that a Dem sweep of the House and Senate is unlikely even if we win the WH).

I've been voting for 25 years, and the country's never been this far to the right in my lifetime... not under Nixon, not under Reagan or Bush I. And the momentum appears to be moving further right.

In the America I hope to live in one day, guys like Kucinich will be running the show. But I don't think the country can make that big a swing in one electoral cycle. Even if Kucinich had TONS of charm and swagger and telegenic appeal, he'd still be a radical about-face as a choice for president, even if you accept, as we all do, that Gore (no liberal he) won in '00. Dennis, sadly, does not have tons of these things.

I've got a lot of Dem friends... hell, I've ONLY got Dem friends! HEH!! But what I was going to say was, I've got many Dem friends who were lukewarm about Gore, talking about holding their noses at the voting booth, and these people are generally psyched about Dean. Yes, Kucinich gets the nod on his positions, progressives clearly admire his take on the issues. But he doesn't inspire that belief (at least not in the folks I'm talking with) that he's the chosen one, that he's got the right combination of qualities, positions, emotional appeal and grass roots momentum to start the ideological pendulum moving from right back to left. Dean's just got the right stuff, that's all there is to it.

My best friend from college is the ultimate socialist cynic, very liberal in all of his views, and I don't think the guy has voted in the last four or five elections. He's working as a Dean organizer, he's totally fired up. I asked him what the deal is, and to him, it's that Dean is not like other politicians, while still seeming like he could do the job. To quote an email from my buddy, "Dean meanwhile seems to me to be direct, passionate, handsome, smart, and close to my views on most issues I care to care about. He seems to have the Midas touch when it comes to getting people to rally behind him."

Check the Doonesbury series over the last week, like the one about the "meeting" that turns into a "rally" in a matter of seconds. People are interested in this man, they are drawn to him for whatever reason. And whatever his political "position" (I'd have to guess that, overall, he's to my right, but then so are most people, and frankly I don't really care), I think he is the one who can start the sea change. He can get up there with his big smile and outdoorsy energy and his confidence and attitude, and make the gibbering resident look like the spineless, colorless, soulless know-nothing that he is. And I think Dean can even come off looking like a "regular guy" while doing it.


Edit: Stupid random emoticons! Beh!!

[southernfried]

146. I'd call him a populist

as he is all over the map depending on the specific issue. Nothing wrong wit this, I think many people are the same way much to the frustration of dems and reps. He's not far from being a libertarian but I doubt he'd ever agree with that.

[DFLforever]

148. Liberal moderate? Moderate Liberal?

What I like about Dean, his experience goes beyond issues advocacy to problem-solving as executive of a state (On the issues alone, my views are closer to Kucinich and Kerry). But what I like more about him is his message of uniting to take back the country, the old pre-2000 Republic, a call to all democracy lovers, including conservatives.

Regarding fiscal conservatism, I think Clinton proved that spending for social programs is dependent on deficit reduction.

A minor note, Dean seems unable, ever, of saying anything good about Bush, which gives me immeasurable satisfaction and goes a long way toward assuaging the misery inflicted by pussy-footing Democrats in DC, including some now seeking our support.

I think Dean is the one who has put it together for 2004.

[RogueTrooper]

150. All that glitters is not gold

The first thing to be said is that Dean's supporters are not that liberal. Dean himself has never pretended to be a liberal. The idea that Dean's base is liberal is based upon the erroneous assumption that, because he opposed the war, his supporters are all anti-war liberals. They are not. The bulk of Dean's support comes from people who have been disengaged in politics, first-time political activists, disaffected Republicans, "independents" and the like. Yes, there are some "liberals" but they are a minority.

There can be no denying that the Democrats have been on the back foot for a good couple of decades. It is hard to imagine that there once was a time when liberal was not a dirty word in politics, and liberalism was the dominant philosophy. But its true ;-). In the nineteen sixties conservatism was pronounced all but dead. Unfortunately, it was not dying, it was mutating. From its birth in the early sixties, to its infancy in the seventies, it finally came of age in the eighties. This new conservatism was becoming the new orthodoxy and there was nothing anybody in the left could do to stop these neo-conservatives. We tried, and we failed. We tried once more, and failed once again. Even eight years of Bill Clinton cannot hide the fact that we have been fighting a rear-guard action against the Right. Even amongst our own kind liberalism became a dirty word. Liberal thought was something to be ashamed.

Pretty soon people were pronouncing liberalism dead. It may have been half-beaten to death, but it was not dead. It too was mutating.

The DLC was the left's first attempt at rebirth. A measured response to the dominance, and momentum, of the new right. However, the DLC was born out of Republican dominance and is, for better or worse, a child of that dominance. The DLC branded themselves "New Democrats" and went about the business of transforming America behind the backs of the Republican. They were the "new center".

If I were to label Howard Dean? I would say that he is "old center". A moderate from the times when Democrats, and their philosophy, determined the direction of America. He governed a state that managed to stay insulated from the worst excesses of the new right.

I am a firm believer in the coming Democratic majority. The new right reached its high water mark in 1994 and it has been downwards ever since The elecotral chicanery of Florida, the gerrymandering of Texas and the consolidation of "K-Street"; these are all signs that the right's power in on the wane. All that glitters is not necessary gold in the land of the Right. These times, they are a changing.

I believe Howard Dean to be the first of the true "New Democrats". Many of the judgements people have made about Howard Dean have been based upon the old orthodoxies of American politics. It is why they do not stick.

We have the power.

[LSdemocrat]

157. A little from Column A, a little from Column B

He's rather difficult to define, but I would say he is basically a left-of-center Democrat not willing to cede anything to Bush.

[GumboYaYa]

160. Personally, I don't like labels.

It is a symbol that forecloses important discussions about the facts of a politician's beliefs. To call someone a liberal, centrist or conservative will automatically cause some people to discount the message.

Right now I am listening to the message from Dean and others in the race. There are a few candidates I like based on what they are actually saying, Dean among them.

To show the danger of labels all you need do is look to the Gephardt campaign. He is already labeled a centrist and so many on the left discount his message. If you listen to what Gephardt is actually saying there are some really good points being made. For example, he is in favor of a plan to achieve energy independence that focuses on alternative sources. He has a universal health care plan, and he was one of the few Dems to come out with an actual economic plan in 2002. All this message is ignored, because of pre-conceived notions and labels.

Bottom line is that I will watch the candidates, listen to what they say and then make a choice. The manner in which others label a candidate will not affect my vote at all.

[opihimoimoi]

168. Out of the stew comes a nugget of MEAT

Good meat, tasty too.

Deans message will kill the shrub in any political battle. The CLAP will want to distract/distort the guy no end. They will fail and this is what worries the shit outta the Pubs. The smart ones that is. The Real Power Pubs have arrogance, hence very little fear of Dean. They will underestimate him and in the end, lose their asses. and their faces too.

That is all.

[ursacorwin]

188. thanks, skinner! and everyone else on this great thread

the left can be undivided! hee hee, or at least forced into temporary civility...

labels suck, and yet we can't seem to live without them in this country. if i have to give a (meaningless to me) label to dean it would be the following:

Winner!

i wish americans voted according to reasoned, sound principles and after a careful review of past policies, statements and voting records- but they don't. in fact, not even all americans bother to vote at all, and some who do don't get counted...but the point is, right now we have to look at the reality of our situation, and stop dreaming and wishing and fantasizing.

i'm a radical, lesbian black woman with some pretty far-left views. but i love dean. even though he's a white boy patrician, son-of-investment bankers, even though he's got some silly ideas about security issues, and even though i'm sure there's some dirt out there that is both true and damaging. i still love dean, because i understand that *nothing* will change in the way i want it to until a democratic president is in office, with at least one body in democratic majority, and a whole slew of other issues are dealt with (campaign finance reform, media fairness, demilitarization, environmental awareness, etc.)

i know none of these things will happen with bushco in charge.

i know bushco will pull out all the stops and use every dirty trick and then some to win.

i know that many "swing" voters are swayed in the last five days of the campaign, often by TV commercials and other foolish places that dither about politics when it suits their needs.

i believe we are in a war, right here at home, for the soul of america. i believe that no one who is not a patrician, friendly to some corporation, white male can ever win the presidency. i believe that in order to survive the selection process, one needs an incredible amount of backbone and fortitude.

i believe howard dean understands these things, and has what it takes to win.

ideally, my candidate would be a nobody with a lot of experience working with the poor and saving the environment- but that's not gonna happen. what *could* bring that day about in some distant future is if we save america now, and get a mature, reasoned adult in office with a proven record of getting things done. not of making every purist happy, and not being afraid to say "i've changed my mind, i've come up with another approach that will work for today." some one who's able to accept the fact that american politics are a messy, complex process that defies labels and requires the consensus of a wide ranging group of diverse voices.

that's dean, all the way.

[ulysses]

165. That sounds fair to me

I think Dean is basically a centrist with enough liberal positions and rhetoric to be acceptable to the liberal base.

And as far as it goes, I'd have to agree with Will, that it makes Dean pretty much the ideal compromise candidate. Obviously, not everyone agrees, but hey...;-)

That said, I ended up voting for DK in both the MoveOn and DU polls. The longer Kucinich is in the race, the longer he can provide cover for/keep the heat on Dean. Strategery!

[CMT]

179. I've long considered Howard Dean to be a Clinton Democrat

meaning someone who governs from the middle but has basically liberal impulses. His support for a balanced budget and fiscal restraint in my opinion is not only right but needed to advance the economy and can be an issue best if Dean makes it against Bush since Dean has actually balanced budgets.

Beyond where he stands in ideology I support Howard Dean because he does do things beyond political consideration such as signing and not running away from "The Civil Unions" bill in Vermont--his last campaign for governor he defended the bill and has also done so as a presidential candidate. This to me is proof that he really does believe in civil rights for all people.

Then there is the war issue. The polls showed that a majority favored the war but Dean has stood steadfast that it was wrong--morally wrong--"the wrong war at the wrong time." This was a true profile in courage in my opinion.

My basic reasons for supporting Dean are these:
1) He was against the war--a bad and unethical war--this doesn't make him some kind of "anti-military" candidate the way the media wants to paint people and put them into little categories. It just means that he was against this particular war--with good reason.

2) His support for civil rights for all people was evidenced in his support for the Civil Unions Bill.

3) He supports a balanced budget and has done this as governor.

4) He wants to provide medical insurance to all people--and again has a strong record in Vermont of doing this with children.

In short, I like his record put up against Bush's--balancing budgets vs. Bush's deficits. Providing health insurance for people in Vermont vs. Bush's record of more people becoming uninsured during his administration. Being anti-Iraqi war vs. Bush's support for a fool-hardy war which has now bogged the US down in Iraq.

[Orangepeel]

185. He calls himself a "common sense moderate"

"A common-sense moderate who firmly believes that social justice can only be accomplished through strong financial management"

dean for America

I believe that he has become more liberal after travelling the country and listening to people.

But something changed along the way as I listened to Americans around this country. On my first trip to Iowa I heard people speak of a profound fear and distrust of multi-national corporations. From New Hampshire to Texas I met Americans doubting the words of our leaders and our government in Washington. Every where I go people are asking fundamental questions: Who can we trust? Is the media reporting the truth? What is happening to our country?

Importantly, I don't believe this is campaign pandering -- I know that I'm being listened to by the campaign -- it is very responsive to ordinary voters -- so I believe that he heard the voices of the people and is responding to them.

[Skinner]

203. I think this went pretty well.

:thumbsup:

Thanks to everyone who participated. Apparently it is possible to have a relatively productive discussion on DU!

I'm going to lock this thread now, because I'm stepping away from my computer and I can't monitor it closely anymore.

I hope everyone will try to continue this level of discussion in other threads.

Skinner
DU Admin