Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gephardt compares Dean to Gingrich

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU
 
Nicholas_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:58 AM
Original message
Gephardt compares Dean to Gingrich
DES MOINES, Iowa - Presidential hopeful Dick Gephardt on Friday likened rival and Democratic front-runner Howard Dean to Newt Gingrich, the personification of right-wing Republicans whom Democrats have demonized as Public Enemy No. 1.

Gephardt, the former House Democratic leader, resurrected Dean's 1990s comments on overhauling the Medicare program and increasing the Social Security retirement age to link him to Gingrich and the GOP policies of the "Contract With America." The critique reflected Gephardt's determination to cut Dean's advantage in Iowa as well as energize his own campaign.


"Howard Dean actually agreed with the Gingrich Republicans," Gephardt told a union audience.


"It was in this period when Gingrich said Republicans wouldn't immediately kill Medicare. Instead, they would let it wither on the vine," Gephardt said. "And it was also during this time that Howard Dean, as chairman of the National Governors Association, was supporting Republican efforts to scale back Medicare."

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/6757308.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
newsguyatl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
1. this is so 3 days ago
can't you find newer stuff??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Didn't he already
post this?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
tsipple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Really? That's Pretty Cool
I feel like I've got a direct line into the Kerry campaign!

Nicholas, why did John Kerry vote to support President Bush's unilateral invasion of Iraq? Just looking for an official answer on that. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. More rubbish
Ther is no legal basis for the stance tht congress votd for unilateral invasion of Iraq.

that was just another example of Deans political lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virtualobserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. the resolution authorizes force in IRAQ.......
"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate..."

as HE determines to be neccesary, and it makes no other requirements of him.

they gave Bush a blank check....it was stupid, but they did it...so just admit it, Kerry blew it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsipple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
4. I Can Top That
Gephardt (and Kerry, for that matter) agree with Bush. Voted for the Iraq Resolution. Remember?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. And he sucked w off in public for a photo op.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. The October Resolution
was not a vote for War.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. We've seen that arguement and most of us aren't buying.
...and you can say that it's due to my "lack of understanding of Constitutional law" all you want, but you'll never convince me that a Democratic "aye" vote on the IWR was anything other than an attempt to save their political asses. I respect the Congressmen who had the fortitude to vote against it even though it was not the most politically safe thing to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. That's just a display of YOUR intransigence.
Suit yourself. Biden-Lugar was authorization for use of force, and Dean was FOR that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. There is a difference between the two bills. You'll admit that, right?
Dean's position aside, do you really see the IWR text as being a document that restricted Bush in the least (in a practical way)? To say that some sort of action was needed and that you supported action within the framework of U.N. input and approval is one thing. The IWR is another animal entirely.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
6. I like Gephardt's pro-union stands - but here he is twisting like a Gop'er
In 1995 Dean heard another person respond on what was needed for SS - and the fellow indicated that our pay as you go SS funding would need - if funding remained the current wage capped payroll tax - a change in the "normal retirement age" - perhaps to age 70, certainly to 68 from the Reagan set age of 67 (folks have forgotten how Reagan raised the retirement age from 65- and it will be good politics to remind them). Dean sain he agreed. He has since gone to a better solution - to changing the funding method - by removing the wage cap on payroll taxes. The folks in the AARP understand this. I expected the media would try to screw him on this - but they are RW and and would have done so anyway. I did not expect Gep to join in.

likewise as to Medicare, Deane endorsed the GOP goal in 95 of reducing the growth in medicare medical costs from a 10% growth each year to 7% growth (Gingrich claimed a $270 B "savings" would result, There were no details as I recall, so it was motherhood - and indeed as a Clintonian pragmatist, why not be in favor of the obvious?

As to Nafta, Nafta sucked except that it saved a world wide economic crisis that would have occurred if Mexico was allowed to go under - yet after its success in saving Mexico, NAFTA is now screwing Mexico as our Farm welfare payment to the major Farm corporations (and God bless that a little of the money does get down to family farms - but that is not the reason the GOP passed it) are destroying farming in Mexico. Indeed that is the reason for the Cancun 26 demanding the US/EU/ and Japan end export prices that are little more than real cost less tax subsidy (I believe beef in the EU prices out at "cost less $2 per day per cow before slaugter" - a great way to teach small countries how we believe in the market pricing model). I agree Dean - and all the others - need to fine tune their message on Nafta - but Gep is pushing - however on the Nafta question there is a diffence of opinion (my god - I may not always be right! even to my own ears I may not be certain! :-) ), so I can see how Gep would - and should - hit Dean on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsipple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Don't Know How Anybody Could Oppose...
...Free trade with Canada. Vermont shares a border with Canada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
8. Yawn
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
9. N-J, do you agree with the comparison?
Just posting the story leaves so many unanswered questions. Do you feel this is a fair comparison?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Good luck getting a response.
Some posters are more concerned with screaming their message than engaging in dialogue. The poster in question rarely responds to questions. If you feel an interest in responding,

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/TR?pg=personal&fr_id...

might be a good link.

Opinions are like bellybuttons. Be proud of yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Yes I do feel it is a fair comparison.
Dena has even more recently. When Dean first spoke to Russert in 1995 about raising the retirement age, he also stated that he would make cuts in medicare payments, and again in June indicated that he would limit growth in medicare spending:


Russert: When the Republicans tried to limit the growth, the Democrats said that was an actual cut.
Dean: Well, theyre going to say what theyre going to say. All I...
Russert: You would be willing to limit the growth...
Dean: Absolutely.
Russert: ...in Defense, in Medicare and Social Security?
Dean: You have to do that. If you dont go where the money isSocial Security, were going to fix differently. Were not talking about Social Security. Were talking about Medicare. Were talking about Defense and were talking about all the other things the federal government does.

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?0sl=-13

Unfortunately for Dean, Pickler points out, according to 1995 Newhouse News Service article, Dean said the way to balance the budget is for Congress to move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Social Security, Medicare and veterans pensions, and then have the states cut almost everything else. Not so far back was Deans June appearance on NBCs Meet the Press in which He said to balance Social Security, he would consider raising the retirement age to 68 and letting more salary above $87,000 fall under the payroll tax.


http://www.socialsecurity.org/sstw/sstw08-11-03.pdf .

or:

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:Z5GJBOqgOKkJ:www.s...

Yes, Deans statements about cutting back on medicare and veterans pensions was lauded in the right wing media, and the repeat performance and reminder in his speech in June, and being called to the carpet on it by Kucinich is another example of Deans real politica philosophy, which Trippi has had to get him to tone down while running for president.

A number of Vermont liberals and progressives have frequently pointed out that this is NOT atypical of Dean, campaigning in one political direction, but as soon as he gets what he wants, reverting to his extreme conservative policies.

Gephardts statements refer to the fact that while Dean was governor, he supported Gingrich's and the Republican party's ideas about government spending and in particular for cuts to thpse programs mentioned above. Gephardt is simply reiterating Dean's fiscal alignment with Gingrich's contract with America as a while he was involved with setting policies and platforms for the nations governors

There is little difference between Deans statements about Medicare, and the goals of the neo-conservative movement.

Lets put it this way, Dean has gotten higher Grades for conservatism from the renowned conservative Cato Institute, Receving B's for the first several years of his years as governor, then slipped to C in 1998. Only when Dean decided to run for president, and started speaking in LESS conservative terms, did he finally get a "D" in 2002.

Kerry and the other candidates get solid "F"'s from this bastion of conservatism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Two problems with that...
First, Dean has explained his 1995 statement about raising the SS age to 70. He made that comment in a completely different economy and does not feel the same measures are appropriate or needed now.

Second, you're relying on "everything Republicans do is bad" propoganda to somehow smear Dean for appealing to a broad range of people. True, Dean was less appealing to the far left than he was to moderates. That's no crime, however. He openly claims to be a fiscal conservative. The simple fact that there are also fiscally conservative Republicans does not take away from the benefits of fiscal responsibility.

Actually, since the nominee will have to then go out and win a general election, wouldn't it be a benefit to appeal to as broad a base of voters as possible? Dean has no shortage of supporters among the ranks of the Democrats. If your facts have merit, he quite obviously appeals to some Independants and Republicans too. That sounds like a winning recipe to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. But not to
All those people on medicare or about to go on it, as they find out Deans stance on the issues, or perhaps he will simply lie about his stance again, until he gets what he wants. Th fact that Dean made the comments about Social Security and Medicare in 1995, and then repeated it agains in 2003, is clearly indicative that he still maintains the same stance he did before, and his intention is to cut these plans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Absolutely untrue...not even remotely factually correct.
You have every right to believe what you will of Dean, but stating that he repeated his 1995 stance in 2003 is blatantly untrue. He clearly stated that the set of circumstances was different in 1995 and he does not feel that raising the SS elegibility age to 70 is needed. You KNOW that.

So, contrary to your post, he obviously does NOT maintain the same stance he did before...

THIS is what people mean when they accuse you of misrepresentation of facts. It's perfectly honest to say that Dean has stated that his position has changed but that you don't believe him. That's an opinion. However, to say that Dean has maintained an 8-year-old position on this issue is a lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
11. Good comparison
Good for Gephardt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-03 07:32 AM
Response to Original message
23. I compare Gephardt to Howdie Doodie
with as much chance of beating Bush as the puppet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 22nd 2014, 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC