HOWARD DEAN: A Good-Tempered Man

[Free_Thinker]

I think Howard Dean has broad grassroots appeal and that we can win this thing in 2004. Frankly I haven't been energized about our chances prior to his candidacy. I'm not saying Clark couldn't beat the smirking chimp but that Dean is just apart from the crowd, someone different.

A Good-Tempered Man
EXCERPT:

Several times I've heard television journalists complain that Howard Dean has to learn to control his temper. Actually, it is his temper that I find attractive.

An honest man with sincere convictions will get angry when he hears lies. Some of our greatest presidents had ferocious tempers. George Washington, Andy Jackson and Harry Truman are three examples.

You don't see other candidates getting angry because they are all phonies. Their so-called convictions are just campaign positions manufactured by their staffs. They don't really believe in anything except getting elected, so they really don't care what is said. They are like trial lawyers. They are interested only in scoring points and winning. There's nothing personal, and the truth simply doesn't matter.

[gWbush is Mabus]

1. Yes!

excellent point. I agree 100%

[Larkspur]

2. You need to fix your link

Looks like you left in the http. Gotta take it out if using the LINK statement

[Free_Thinker]

12. THANK YOU

FIXED LINK

[buckfush2]

3. anybody got charley reese info?

I'm trying to figure out when he got enlightened...

I remember reading the occasional column by him in the 70s and 80s and HATING his guts-

he was always the hardcore pro-war anti- everybody -who has- a brain writer.
Then lately, I've read a few thoughtful, intelligent columns of his here and elsewhere. He's still no poster child for progressives, but at least he writes like he actually thought about it first.

Any body know when/why he "crossed over"?

[Kahuna]

4. Really? Remember how Gore "lost" debate #1 for sighing....

Imagine Howard, mugging and mouthing denials while his opponent(bush) is speaking in a debate? God help us if Howard is nominated. His antics are too juvenile.

[clar]

9. If Dean gets the nomination

I think he'll be fine in a debate with Bush. And I think you're getting a little hysterical in your anti-Dean fervor.

[JaneQPublic]

10. Gore "won" the first debate

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/DEBATE_poll001003.html

Among a random national sample of registered voters who watched the debate, 42 percent said Al Gore won — and about as many, 39 percent, called George W. Bush the winner. The rest called it a tie or had no opinion.

===========
As far as the hype that surrounded Gore's sigh in the first debate, it's a safe bet that whoever the Democratic nominee is, he/she will get "Gored" i.e., undergo the same trashing by the GOP/media.

I've watched all of the 2004 candidate debates and forums, and can't recall ever seeing Dean "mugging." He did recently mouth the denial, "That's false" while one of the other candidates was attacking him, but I liked that. In fact, Gore should have made a practice of it, rather than let false and unfair charges against him go unchallenged.

The fact that Dean fights back is one of the reasons for his rise from obscurity to frontrunner status. As James Carville says, "If the candidate won't fight for himself, how can we expect him to fight for us?"

[boxster]

13. Probably not. What is often forgotten about debate #1

is that Bush was up there making faces like a misbehaving child while Gore was speaking. I thought it was bizarre that the media locked in on the sighs and completely ignored Bush's juvenile mugging for the camera and rolling his eyes.

[Speck Tater]

39. How can anyone's anitcs be too juvenile

for voters who are capable of voting for Ahhhnold?

That's the biggest flaw in democracy; the average voter doesn't have a clue why they vote the way they do. It's some kind of blind visceral reaction having virtually nothing to do with real issues. I've heard people walking into the polling place say they hadn't decided who to vote for yet. So much for rational decision making.

The candidate that wins will be the one that can both present thoughtful answers to policy questions for those who are paying attention, and connect at the visceral level with those voters who don't pay attention. We need both to win an election. Dean delivers on both counts.

[boxster]

47. California is one thing. Nebraska, North & South Dakota, Kansas, et al

are quite another. People in the Great Plains do NOT like a showboating candidate, and while Dean doesn't qualify as that, in combination with the fact that he's from the Northeast, people out here very likely would interpret his "passion" as such.

Unless you live out here in the Plains, you have no idea how conservative it is. Even our Democrat Senator is conservative.

And, frankly, I think we'll win California even if Arnold wins. Obviously, I could be wrong, but I think there's more anti-Davis (as opposed to pro-Republican) sentiment here than most people will admit.

[Romberry]

73. Do people in the Plains states like...

...idiots?

Dean is no showboat. If Plains stater's are actual conservatives, they ought to be able to recognize the difference between a man who is telling them the truth and a man who is steering the nation into disaster after disaster. I suspect Dean will pay much better in the Plains that many suspect just as I suspect he will play much better in the South than many expect. Rednecks in pickup trucks need health insurance for their kids too.

The Doctor is in.

[boxster]

82. Oh, please. Do you really believe that?

When did we suddenly decide that conservatives are rational? Are you trying to tell me that conservatives actually THINK about their candidates? Suddenly, we're giving them credit for looking at the issues and being able to see through the BS.

No offense, but you don't know what you're talking about. Most people out here don't vote for issues. They vote for the closest person to them personality-wise.

Bush beat Gore 63% to 33% in 2000 in Nebraska - the highest percentage in the US, if I remember correctly. More than 60% of Nebraskan's STILL support him and his policies and praise him constantly.

Want to reconsider your, "they ought to be able to recognize the difference between a man who is telling them the truth" statement?

I think it's hilarious that you're so desperate to plug Dean that conservatives are suddenly rational and perceptive in your eyes. Interesting. Oh, and "rednecks in pickup trucks" is so open-minded of you, thanks. Nice to see you're so understanding of the voting public.

Be glad that most people don't equate their supporters to their candidates, or I'd have to think Dean is ignorant, too.

Last but not least, re-read my post. I did not say that Dean was a showboat. I said that he could be perceived by people in the Great Plains as one.

[no name no slogan]

86. You have a point

I tried pointing that out earlier here on DU that people in the plains states and midwest do NOT find a "New England Liberal" as an attractive candidate (by "New England Liberal", I mean ANY Dem candidate from New England that has a "D" after his name-- whether s/he is liberal or not). Even though Bush has continued to do damage to the average family farmer, people voted for him because he seemed more "like them" than some Senator's son from inside the beltway.

People in this part of the country don't go in for a lot of flash and show: they want a candidate who knows the price of corn, who can sit around and talk shop and who comes from a similar type of bootstrapping background. Kerry or Dean or Liebermann seems more like a Martian to them than even somebody as faux-populist as the Shrub.

Even if the voters don't completely agree with your politics, they will still vote for you if you are completely HONEST with them. That's part of the reason Wellstone did so well in 1996, even among Republicans: he was straight up with them, and he did some good things for the state and its people.

[peaceandjustice]

145. did Clinton win any of those states?

I'm pretty sure he didn't. Dean will have problems in the wheat belt and deep South regardless of his "antics" because of the civil unions bill and his work at a family planning clinic.
But I think he can win the states Gore won. I think he can make enough in-roads with rural voters in Missouri that, coupled with St. Louis and K.C. he can win there too. I think he can win New Hampshire on gun control and balanced budgets, Nevada on gun control and Arizona on gun control and senior citizen's benefit programs, and West Virginia on labor (not that he's great on labor but Bush is so awful) gun control and miners' safety. And that would be enough.

[boxster]

151. No, we're in the big block of red states on the map.

So, you're right - my point is kind of moot.

Though, I do think that someone like Clark would be much more likely to pick up a state or two out here because of his military background. He's still pretty liberal on the issues, but military experience plays pretty well out here. Or, I could be completely wrong and Bush could get 63% of the vote again.

[Romberry]

68. People who actually saw...

...the first debate knew Gore won in a walk. It was people who did not see the debate who depended on the spin of the "liberal media" over the course of the next several days who thought Gore "lost".


There's nothing juvenile about Howard Dean. I can't say the same about your spin.

[frogczar]

5. God Yes!

I absolutely agree! If all these Anti-Dean people had seen Dean in person they would completely turn around. The man is electrifying in person and it's not only him, it's his message. I'm a young person and I've voted in every election since I was 18 (the 96 presidential election). I care about my government but I've never been so motivated for a candidate in my life. Howard Dean is for real and all democrats need to (and will) get on board with him once they have seen him in person. 2004 will be ours because people have finally "had it" and Howard Dean is the cure.

[9119495]

8. Look at the number

of posts from the "God yes" guy. Now look at mine. I loved DU for months but it was Dean's energy that made me want to really comment on what was going on. He makes me want to perusade others to become activists. Don't assume the "temper" will be labled juvenile. It may come accross as passion, or frustration at the anti-hope message of the right.

[Sean Reynolds]

23. Both of you welcome.

Be warned there are many anti-Dean fans here, but Dean has a majority of support here at DU - glad to add another! :bounce:

[Larkspur]

6. Great column about the affect of Dean's campaign

It's this quality of being real and genuine that I think has attracted hundreds of thousands of people to his campaign.
Yep, definitely agree. Howard Dean is our new Harry Truman.

And the following example sums up best what I think of Clark's candidacy.
The general is just an insurance policy for the Establishment. Yes, Virginia, there is an Establishment, and the game it has played all of my life is to make sure that both the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee were controllable by the Establishment. What the Establishment fears most is an independent outsider...

The Establishment is scared to death of Howard Dean. The more progress he makes, the more you will see the Establishment press and think tanks attack him. The Establishment wants a choice between Wesley Clark and George Bush that would in effect be between tweedledee and tweedledum. Clark isn't even sure if he's a Democrat, much less what he believes, if anything. He just wants to be emperor. And the Establishment got him into the race simply because it was afraid Dean would beat Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, Bob Graham and John Edwards.

Old J.P. Morgan maneuvered Teddy Roosevelt into the vice-presidency, which, at the time, was the death of a political career. When Morgan was told that President McKinley had been assassinated and Roosevelt was the new president, Morgan threw up right in the Waldorf Astoria's dining room.

I predict that if Howard Dean wins the nomination, Establishment types will be throwing up all around the Ivy League.
Yep, I pray every day for the Establishment to spill their guts.

Go Dean!

[emcglynn]

7. That's f#&%@!

We need a fighter nothing less will lose.
We need a message-universal health care at home and coalition- building abroad.
I liked his candidacy when he was a little known governor with an ambition to do what is politically good.
The Republicans and the DLC should feel threatened.
You've got the power! You've got the power!
That's funny!

[deaniebopper]

11. Dean is going to stick it to Bush and all the phony Democrats in Congress

[boxster]

51. No offense, but if he's every going to get anything done,

he needs those "phony" Democrats in Congress, as most of them aren't going anywhere.

[boxster]

14. I think that this is WAY too simplistic a viewpoint on this issue.

This article assumes that all Americans are exactly alike and that all will respond to Dean's "temper" equally - and in the same manner as the author. Voters in the South and the Great Plains, among others, may not respond well to it at all if Dean gets too demostrative.

George Washington, Andrew Jackson, and Harry Truman didn't spend every waking moment in front of the media, so I find the comparison pretty much irrelevant.

[JaneQPublic]

16. Voters don't respond to ANY candidate's personality equally

To some, Lieberman's a friendly guy of high morals; to others, he's a back-stabbing, opportunist Bush coddler.

To some, Hillary is an articulate, intelligent woman with her constituents' best interests at heart; to others, she's a conniving b!tch.

I could go on -- Chimpy, Bill Clinton, etc. -- but you get the point.

The bottom line is that Dean comes across as Dean -- an authentic person, not someone who's being packaged or spun or processed to look like whatever the consultants decide is the most appealing candidate.

After Al Gore's "Alpha Man" fiasco, Dean's approach is refreshing.

[sandnsea]

17. You're right

Voters don't respond to candidates equally. Because Dean comes across to me as a lying scumbag who is more spun than cotton candy.

[boxster]

34. True. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

This thread was about Dean specifically, which is why my response was as well.

[Romberry]

75. It was Ronald Reagan's outburst...

...of temper that cemented his status as front runner and won him the nomination in 1980 over George H.W. Bush. Remember the "I am the one paying for this microphone" line.

Dean has not lost his temper. Dean has shown righteous indignation. I've lived most of my life in the deep south and calling a spade a spade, which is exactly what Dean is doing, plays here very well.

[sandnsea]

15. Like trial lawyers???

Gee, I wonder who that was directed at? And the rest of the candidates have been fighting for their principles for 20 - 30 years, but we're supposed to believe they're just phony, manufactured candidates? This article is the biggest crock of shit I've ever read. It's why I hate Dean and am at a point that I'd rather vote for Lieberman.

And he gets angry because he's called on his bullshit, not because his 'convictions' are questioned. The only decision he stuck by was the one to dump nuclear waste in Sierra Blanca, but even now he can't be honest about it. Says he 'doesn't remember' it being an issue. Even though the Sierra Club of Vermont said they met with this staff to express their concern. And he says he thought both Gephardt and Dukakis were more liberal than he was, but now tries to report his 'endorsing' Dukakis AFTER the primary as some sort of proof that he was always a solid Democrat.

This country has become completely bamboozled by hype. George Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Howard Dean. All symptoms of the same media-generation problem with no end in sight.

[Larkspur]

18. Howard Dean's success is not based upon hype

He was an asterick in most polls at the beginning of this year, and many political experts predicted his demise after he spoke out against the Iraq War when 70% of Americans supported it.

Dean started with $157,000 campaign fund and no Party hierarchy support. In contrast, John Kerry transferred $2 million from his senate campaign war chest to his Prez campaign fund, and was dubbed the front runner after Al Gore bowed out.

Now because of ingenuity, hard work, good judgment, luck (when opportunity meets hard work), and a message built upon his experiences listening to what Democrats and progressives have been saying about Bush and the Democratic Party, Dean is the fundraising leader of the Dem Prez Pack and Kerry is 2nd, but lost the 3rd quarter fundraising battle by $10 million.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. Call it hype or spin or lies, but eventually the voters will see thru it

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." -- Abraham Lincoln

Neither Bush nor Dean can fool everybody forever.

[KaraokeKarlton]

35. No, eventually you'll see the truth.

See, it's actually individuals such as yourself who are "falling for" the spin, lies and misinformation. Dean is the most honest, principled politician in the race, and one of the most honest and principled in the country. What you see is what you get, and all of the criticism of Dean that I've seen has been twisted so much it's not even the truth, and it's all come from people with an agenda. That agenda comes from third party supporters and the supporters and campaigns of those Dean is doing better than in this race. When Dean wins the nomination and whoops Bush's tail in the general election and takes office, you will love his leadership. Remind me to say "I told you so."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

56. If Dean is so honest and principled why does he keep lying?

So far he has flat out lied in two debates -- once about his support of raising the retirement age, once about his support for cutting the Medicare growth rate.

These are lies that Dean told about his own positions, not something that came from "third party supporters and the supporters and campaigns of those Dean is doing better than in this race".

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[KaraokeKarlton]

76. What lies? You're making quite a stretch there.

Saying that you would consider doing something is a far cry from saying you support it. Wanting to keep medicare solvent by fixing the problems with the system is smart. Dean has always been someone who prefers not to bring the rate of spending higher than the rate of growth. That's how you balance budgets, prevent running a deficit and save money on interest. The money saved on interest leaves more money to spend on programs when the rate of growth increases. I sure am curious when controlling the costs of a program turned into program cuts. Cuts are something that is taken from a budget. If something isn't part of the budget it's not a cut. Limiting the rate of spending increases is NOT a cut because that money was never part of any budget in the first place. Twisting things doesn't make for factual information. This is all twisted nonsense, not lies.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

83. Dean lie: I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70

That is a lie.

"Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.): I've said many times that I think we should raise the retirement age about the year 2015—raise it by that time to about age 70.

"Howard Dean: I am very pleased to hear Bob Packwood because I absolutely agree we need to reduce the—I mean, to increase the retirement age. There will be cuts and losses of some benefits, but I believe that Sen. Packwood is on exactly the right track."
—CNN's Crossfire, Feb. 28, 1995


"I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68."
—AFL-CIO Democratic presidential candidate forum, Aug. 5, 2003
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804/

You can tell us black is white, or up is down, or that isn't a lie, but it won't change the facts.

[KaraokeKarlton]

91. Why aren't you talking about Dean's CURRENT statements?

Okay, so 10 years ago, when he was in no position to influence the age at all he said he thought the age needed to be increased. I didn't see "Age 70" anywhere in there at all. I'm pretty sure he supported it going to the age it's at right now, along with an awful lot of others who wanted to see the program actually last.

For your information, Dean has come up with a plan that doesn't require the age be raised at all. It's pretty suspicious to me that you are going back to a nearly decade old statement when I'm sure you know full well that this is NOT what Dean's position is at all. He wants to leave the age where it is and raise the payroll tax cap instead. So, why are you implying that Dean wants to raise the age when he quite clearly has proposed something entirely different? Just as Kerry supporters have to go back a decade to find something positive to say about their own candidate, they have to go back that far to find something to spin into criticism of the competition. :eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

96. Dean lied in the debate Aug. 5, 2003 - that's not current?

Does Dean inhabit a special moral universe where he is only responsible for the things he's said or done in the last couple of minutes?

[KaraokeKarlton]

98. Actually, Kucinich lied in the debate

He said that Dean wants to raise the age to 70, which isn't true. Dean wants to raise the payroll tax cap to keep Social Security solvent. Dean was accused of wanting to raise the age as president and he has never said any such thing. Dean has NEVER said that if he became president he would raise the retirement age to 70. When Russert asked Dean about the supposed comment, Dean didn't even recall making it, it was so long ago. I'm sure everyone else remembers every comment they made a decade ago except for Dean and myself, because I know I don't remember every comment I've made in the last 10 years.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

106. Let's see who's lying, Dennis Kucinich or you:

KaraokeKarlton: "He said that Dean wants to raise the age to 70"
--post 98


Dennis Kucinich: (M)y good friend, Mr. Dean, has said that he'd move the retirement age to 68. One time he talked about moving it to 70.
—AFL-CIO Democratic presidential candidate forum, Aug. 5, 2003

Well, gee, what he actually said what that Dean has said he'd move it to 68, and once talked about moving it to 70. He didn't say Dean wants to, as you claimed. By the way, you are aware of the distinction between the past, present, and future right? I mean, that is not something beyond your comprehension, is it?

So ok, Kucinich didn't say what you said he did. But was what Kucinich said true?

"Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.): I've said many times that I think we should raise the retirement age about the year 2015—raise it by that time to about age 70.
—AFL-CIO Democratic presidential candidate forum, Aug. 5, 2003

<…>

"Howard Dean: I am very pleased to hear Bob Packwood because I absolutely agree we need to reduce the—I mean, to increase the retirement age. There will be cuts and losses of some benefits, but I believe that Sen. Packwood is on exactly the right track."

—CNN's Crossfire, Feb. 28, 1995

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

—News story on a breakfast meeting Dean held with reporters by Miles Benson, Newhouse News Service, March 3, 1995

"Just six weeks ago, Dean told NBC, 'I would also entertain taking the retirement age up to 68.' "
—Deborah Orin, "Is Dean Being Honest? Well, Define 'Honest,' " New York Post, Aug. 8
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804

Looks like Kucinich spoke the truth.


As far as the Alzheimer's Defense, it worked for Reagan, but it won't work for Dean.

[KaraokeKarlton]

110. Hello???

Since when is "I'd entertain moving the age to 68" and "He said he wants to raise the age to 68" the same thing? The last time I chekced, "entertaining" means someone would think about doing something. When someone says "I want to do this" it means they already did the "entertaining" and had made a decision to do something. HUGE difference. Kucinich lied.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

111. What a pathetic avoidance of responsibility for your own words.

You've learned the lessons of your hero well.

[KaraokeKarlton]

114. I know what Kucinich implied

I heard him say it with my own ears. I knew it was a lie when I heard it. Just because I didn't recall the exact words of the quote doesn't make the quote any less dishonest.

Oh, and you are avoiding the fact that what Kucinich said was not true. But we all know you won't fess up to that because you'd rather deny the obvious and keep criticizing Dean over something irrelevent than admit that this is just more desperate Dean bashing with decade old material that has no bearing whatsoever on the current positions Dean holds.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[KaraokeKarlton]

119. You aren't supposed to call members liars

And using "cute" ways to do it doesn't make it any less against the rules.

Furthermore, anyone who knows how to read and has a 6th grade comprehension level knows that "entertaining" and idea and actually wanting to do something are two different things.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

120. What is your problem? Use the alert button if you think a rule is broken.

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it more convincing.

Furthermore, your spin is so weak I think your top has fallen over.

[KaraokeKarlton]

124. I felt you needed to be reminded

And I wasn't going to alert when I made the post. I changed my mind afterwards, however. Perhaps you should not respond to me anymore because you seem to be getting too angry and aren't really reacting very well.

The only falsehoods being repeated are the ones coming from the Kerry and Gephardt camps.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

127. I feel you need to be reminded of the difference between truth & falsehood

so I plan on responding to every post you make.

It's not anger to point out when someone makes a false statement.

Dean also took issue with a characterization by a TV interviewer that he had been a "strong supporter" of NAFTA, the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement. Dean acknowledged that he had supported NAFTA, but took exception to the "strong" part. "I never did anything about it," he said. "I didn't vote on it. I didn't march down in the street demanding NAFTA. I simply wrote a letter (to President Clinton) supporting NAFTA."

The Gephardt campaign subsequently called attention to a transcript of a Jan. 29, 1995 "This Week" show in which Dean told a different interviewer that "I was a very strong supporter of NAFTA."
http://www.n-jcenter.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Politics/NationWorld/03LegislaturePOL03091503.htm

How 'bout this one? Which was the false statement? When Dean said he was a strong supporter of NAFTA? Or when he said he wasn't?


Surely, you, the noted Dean apologist and authority on truth, can tell us which of those contradictory Dean statements is true, and which is the lie?

[KaraokeKarlton]

131. He was a supporter

He also feels we have to attach environmental issues, human rights and workers rights to the agreements. His current position is the ideal one. It's comical that the only thing you can find to criticize Dean over is that he's willing to alter his positions when the facts available change. I realize that with how lackluster Kerry's current record is that his supporters have gotten into the habit of going back a decade or more to find things he did to defend him, but Dean does have his official positions listed for all to see, so it's really rather ridiculous to keep trying to create a scandal where there is none. It's good for a laugh at the level of desperation some will go to, though. :eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

132. So which was the lie?

He was lying when he said "I was a very strong supporter of NAFTA."?
Not when he denied being a strong supporter?

Those official positions he has posted... is he going to be as consistent on them as on his strong support of NAFTA? How do we know when he's reached his final position? Will we hear a cock crow or something?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

121. Let's put it this way: the evidence I presented in post 106

isn't changing no matter how many times you ignore it.

[KaraokeKarlton]

126. You mean the evidence that Kucinich lied?

Because that's what I saw. I read Kucinich claim that Dean wanted to raise the retirement age. However, all Dean said is that he would ENTERTAIN the idea. Again, everyone with a decent level of reading comprehension clearly knows that "entertaining" an idea is simply being willing to "think about it". During that very interview (MTP) Dean went on to say that he actually wouldn't change the age at all because he would instead raise the payroll tax cap instead. It's quite clear what Dean plans are should he become president, yet you (and others) insist on going back to a decade old comment that Dean doesn't even recall making and trying to imply that is his current position, which simply isn't true. This horse is long since dead, so I can't help but wonder why you still insist on beating it. :eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

128. Keep repeating it if that's what's needed to convince yourself it's true.

Facts of the Matter

[KaraokeKarlton]

133. I don't need to convince myself of anything

because I know the difference between "entertain" and "wants to". I suspect, however, that you keep missing the distinct difference between the two.

Try a dictionary to clear up that problem. :eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

136. Do you know the difference between:

"Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.): I've said many times that I think we should raise the retirement age about the year 2015—raise it by that time to about age 70.

"Howard Dean: I am very pleased to hear Bob Packwood because I absolutely agree we need to reduce the—I mean, to increase the retirement age. There will be cuts and losses of some benefits, but I believe that Sen. Packwood is on exactly the right track."
—CNN's Crossfire, Feb. 28, 1995

and

I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68."
—AFL-CIO Democratic presidential candidate forum, Aug. 5, 2003
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804

And if Dean didn't remember what his prior positions were, why didn't he say so? As if we are supposed to believe that an ex-doctor turned professional politician running for President can't remember his own views on Social Security -- and if he can't -- is he fit to be President?

[KaraokeKarlton]

138. Do you remember every comment you made in 1995?

I bet you don't. Like Dean said on MTP when asked about this, he didn't even recall ever saying that. It doesn't mean he didn't say it, but he didn't recall saying it and doesn't agree with it anymore anyhow. Again, do you not realize that a statement made in 2003 holds far more weight than a comment made in 1995 that one doesn't even recall making?

I could go back a few years to Kerry's comments about Iraq and Saddam Hussein that sound eerily similar to the case Bush made for going to war and I bet it would sound much different than what he's saying today about the same issue. So are we all to assume that Kerry agrees with Bush about WMDs because he said so a few years ago? I mean, we CAN do that if that's really what you'd like to do. That's sounds like a great idea.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

141. Do I remember whether I thought we should raise the retirement age?

Of course I do. I'm not senile or stupid and neither is Dean. He lied when he said he didn't hold that position, and he lied if he said he didn't remember.

In court, it would be hard to 'prove' Dean lied when he told Russert that he didn't remember on June 22:

Russert: ...calling for that, and this is what Howard Dean said. “The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. ‘It would be tough but we could do it,’ he said.”
Dean: Well, we fortunately don’t have to do that now.
Russert: We have a $500 billion deficit.
Dean: But you don’t have to cut Social Security to do that.
Russert: But why did you have to do it back then?
Dean: Well, because that was the middle of—I mean, I don’t recall saying that, but I’m sure I did
http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp

but how are we supposed to believe that he forgot this again on August 5, only a few weeks after being reminded by Russert?

"I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68."
—AFL-CIO Democratic presidential candidate forum, Aug. 5, 2003
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804/

Dean lied, and if you repeat his spin, you are repeating lies.

[peaceandjustice]

146. ok, maybe Dean lied. So what?

Dean may have lied in the heat of the moment. I can't tell from the Slate link because I don't know if he said something else after that statement to put it in some sort of context.
But first, Dennis Kucinich was misrepresenting Dean's 1995 position. Neither Packwood or Dean was calling for raising the retirement age at the time or even now. They were calling for it to be done in 2015. So while Kucinich may have been telling the truth, he certainly wasn't telling the whole truth.
Also, that isn't Dean's position now. I wish Dean hadn't made the statement about never supporting raising the age. I wish he would've said he changed his mind after Clinton successful management of the economy. And then he could've asked Kucinich about his mind changing on abortion and why he's entitled to change his position but Dean isn't.
I also wish Democrats weren't so knee-jerk opposed to the age being raised in the first place. I think it should be increased (or even decreased)automatically every ten years based on changes in projected life expectancy.
I doubt Dean, if he was lying, was doing so intentionally. I don't think he is trying to mislead people into believing he supports the current age, when he really wants to increase it. Part of the reason I wish he hadn't said this is so he could raise the age if it needs to be changed.
I don't think Howard Dean, if he was lying, was lying out of malice. I don't think he's hiding a nefarious conservaitve agenda. Lying in of itself is not wrong. Only lies made to hurt others or deny them something they're entitled to are wrong.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

152. So we have one liar in the White House now, we don't need another

Dean's first reaction wasn't to explain the nuances of his position - it was to lie.

[no name no slogan]

87. Oh dear, better watch it there....

Limiting the rate of spending increases is NOT a cut because that money was never part of any budget in the first place.

Unfortunately, this is the same flawed logic that the Repubs in Minnesota have been using for the last decade to decimate our social safety net in their effort to turn this state into a colder Mississippi.

I've heard this line uttered by too many Republicans over the last ten years to be anything but alarmed and concerned, because it's usually meant as code for "we're slashing already decimated social spending because we need more tax cuts for our rich white friends."

Given Dean's previous record, this does not leave me with a lot of hope for the working people of this country. :(

[KaraokeKarlton]

92. Well, Vermont ran a $10 million surplus this year thanks to Dean

and his leadership. 99% of our kids are eligible for insurance. Over 92% of our adults are insured. We haven't cut social services and rate at or near the top of the rest of the nation in damn near every good thing to be at the top in. Dean's logic isn't flawed. Neither is the logic the Republicans in your state are claiming to be using. The difference between them and Dean is that Dean is applying the logic to help people whereas Republicans tend to use it to help themselves. The logic itself is right on, but the success of the logic is all in how it's applied. Dean applies it properly, for the people.

[sandnsea]

95. Where'd the surplus go?

It was $100 million just 2 years ago. Sales tax is up, cigarette taxes, property taxes. What happened to all that money?

[KaraokeKarlton]

101. The 10 million surplus is not the "rainy day fund", it's just this year's

surplus as far as I know. When Dean left office the rainy day fund hadn't been touched. If it's gone, Douglas is responsible for that. Dean had lowered the sales tax and never raised it. As far as I know, I'm still paying the same sales tax I always have. Cigarette taxes went up to help pay for the rising health industry cost to keep people insured. Is that a bad thing? I'm a smoker and I don't mind paying the cigarette tax so more people keep insurance. Property taxes haven't gone up here that I've heard of. Across the river in NH they skyrocketed, though...up a $100 million just this year. If anyone's Vermont property taxes went up they sure aren't complaining about it, because I haven't heard a peep about this. I'm a renter, so I don't know. I always get a renters rebate of between $1200 and $2000 at tax time. That's another great thing Dean did for lower income people. Where do you get your information on Vermont? I watch the local news and read Vermont papers and I'm not hearing about any of this stuff other than the cigarette tax, which people support.

[sandnsea]

115. Don't look now!

The sales tax will increase from 5 percent to 6 percent on Oct. 1. And at least one long-time Vermont merchant says the latest increase may push his store across the river to West Lebanon, N.H.
http://www.caledonianrecord.com/pages/editorials/story/7ed19d7b9

Property taxes for these property owners are lower today than they were before Act 60 in only 47 towns, with an average decline of 8 percent. In the other 207 towns where property tax rates have risen over the past three years, the average tax bill is 38 percent higher than it was before Act 60.
http://www.act60.org/2001necrpt3.htm

Congressional Quarterly's Governing magazine, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, ranks Vermont second highest among the 50 states in the amount of tax revenue collected as a percentage of personal income in 2001 — about 9 percent to 10 percent.
In a separate ranking that measured state tax revenue per capita in 2001, Vermont was in second place with six other high-tax states, including Massachusetts and California. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030806-113650-4135r.htm

And I can't find the $100 million quote right now, so I'll argue that another day. And I do see that I got surplus money figures mixed up with rainy day figures, but the rainy day fund has still been depleted to pay for the health care program. But like I said, I'll argue that another day.

And, finally, no I don't think providing health care on the backs of 23$% of Americans is fair. It's one thing I don't like about Kerry's plan, actually. Not to mention low-income people tend to be the smokers so it's an extra tax burden and not very progressive. I don't buy the bs that smokers can just quit, so can cheeseburger eaters. Tax them, more people eat them and they're just as unhealthy as cigarettes.

[KaraokeKarlton]

123. You can't blame Dean for any rise in sales tax

That would have been something Douglas must have signed off on. I won't notice it and am not at all bothered by it. Vermont isn't big on retail anyhow. In fact, everyone who lives in my area does their shopping in NH anyhow because there is no sales tax at all. As for the property taxes from ACT 60 going up in some towns, it's the most wealthy towns they went up in, or in towns that have higher budgets. Maybe you don't understand how this works. Towns play a very big part in their own property taxes being raised. There are local votes on these issues. Each town has it's own school budget and some towns like to build new schools, fire stations, community centers and what not. These towns who choose to do this DO pay higher property taxes to help pay for it.

Here's something you probably don't realize about Vermonters. We don't really mind paying taxes that much. However, we demand that our politicians use our tax dollars wisely. Dean was re-elected after signing ACT 60, so clearly Vermonters weren't nearly as upset by this as you'd like everyone to think. Of course the Republicans weren't fond of it, but since when do DU members criticize other Democrats for trying to make sure ALL kids get an equal shot at a good public education? I mean, that's what ACT 60 is, afterall. It's a way to make sure kids in the poorer schools have equal access to as good an education as wealthier schools do. Do you oppose that?

As for the cigarette tax...a lot of those people who smoke now will end up on Medicare or Medicaid getting expensive cancer treatment. If the higher taxes on them help them smoke less and help pay towards making sure they have coverage when they need it, I'm all for it. Also, as a smoker, I have to add that the tobacco companies respond to new cigarette taxes by lowering their prices and offering a slew of "buy one, get one free" offers. As a smoker who usually buys cigarettes at the conveniece store closest to my home (in Vermont) I pay less than $5.00 for 2 packs of premium cigarettes. And if it were easy to quit, I would have done so, because I absolutely hate smoking. Yet I have never whined about the cigarette tax even once. But then I'm not selfish. I WANT my state to continue to take good care of our state's needy.

[sandnsea]

134. Taxes went up

You said they hadn't and the fact is they did. ACT 60 was a part of that and caused property taxes in lower income communities to go up as well. Because now that the state controls the spending, and not the local communities, school spending has skyrocketed. The reason the sales tax is going up is to try and provide funding to decrease the property taxes. And the sales tax was increased in 1997 to 5%, so Dean did increase it as well.

You can be as smug as you want about Vermonters not minding how much tax they pay. It doesn't sound too true when you also say Vermonters shop in New Hampshire to avoid the taxes. Which would be exactly what the majority of Americans would do which is why Dean would not be able to win if he were the nominee in 2004.

[KaraokeKarlton]

139. We don't shop in NH to avoid taxes

We shop in NH because Vermont doesn't have much in the way of retail business. This is also why I laugh when I hear that whole "Walmart" in Vermont nonsense. I think there might be 3 Walmarts in the entire state, maybe just 2. The state could actually use a few Walmarts because as it is Vermonters have to drive a considerable distance to shop for a lot of things.

As far as I remember, the sales tax has always been 5%. I do recall Dean removing the sales tax completely on clothing purchases up to a certain amount. This wouldn't be a huge issue in this state because the state isn't that big and we border on 3 states. We don't have a lot of retail business here in the state. The only two areas where retail is really big are Burlington and Rutland.

The taxes that went up from Act 60 went up several years ago, not recently as your first post on the topic seemed to imply. A little girl sued the state for an equal education and she won. Dean did the right thing as did our legislators and found the best way they were able to address the issue. Perfect? Nope, but nothing is. It was the best option and is going to be a work in progress for some time to come. You'll have that. Also, local budgets DO have a big impact on property taxes. The wealthier towns kick in some of their property tax dollars to poorer towns to help make all schools equal. However, those same wealthier towns also have things their town adds into the budget on top of it, which brings the property taxes up more. In many cases, that contributes a great deal to those towns who end up with higher property taxes than some other towns.

Actually, I think the quickest solution would be to bring powerball to the state, if they haven't done it already. That's one thing I didn't agree with Dean on. He isn't big on gambling and wouldn't support bringing more gambling into Vermont. As a doctor, he isn't big on inviting things that tend to be addictive to our state. Personally, I think he should have just caved in on that one, and I think if it came down to needing those revenues for health care, he would have caved in. But he stuck firm to his beliefs, that's for sure. But he managed things so well that he could afford to.

Vermonters generally really like and respect Dean a great deal. In fact, the only people who dislike him are the far right and the far left (Vermont's left is even further left than the Greens, by the way). Hell, our left is actually even further left than Rush and his ilk are right. And our right is further left than Bush, for the most part. We do have a few of the whacko righties too, but not a lot.:D

[sandnsea]

143. Here's your words

"In fact, everyone who lives in my area does their shopping in NH anyhow because there is no sales tax at all."

Nothing personal, but I actually thought you were up on Vermont. Your sales tax went from 3% to 5% in 1997, and then up to 6% a couple days ago, and you weren't even aware. And somewhere in there, it seems like I read it went up and then was lowered again. Not including the increase on Oct 1, but I don't have the link, so...

And it's how the state's enact equalization laws that makes a difference. Vermont's doesn't sound like it's working out so well, per pupil spending and property taxes are way up. It isn't working out that wealthier communities are picking up the tab for lower income communities. It's working out that equalization caused wealthier communities' property taxes to drop and lower income communities' property taxes to rise. Link already provided.

Again, people in Vermont may like Dean and all these taxes, people across America won't.

[KaraokeKarlton]

149. You left out a very significant part of what I said

This is what I said: "That would have been something Douglas must have signed off on. I won't notice it and am not at all bothered by it. Vermont isn't big on retail anyhow. In fact, everyone who lives in my area does their shopping in NH anyhow because there is no sales tax at all."

Before the comment about NH not having taxes I said that "Vermont isn't big on retail anyhow." That means that Vermont doesn't have many stores to do the shopping in. That's the main reason people in my area shop in NH. We don't have much choice. Yes, it's an added bonus that NH has no sales tax at all, and even if Vermont did have plenty of stores, some people would still shop in NH for that reason. Now, I could drive 90 minutes to go to Rutland to shop or 2 hours to go to Burlington to shop. Or I could drive over the river and shop in NH in a little less than a half hour. Which would you do? You see, Vermont's radical left tries to block big stores like Walmart coming to Vermont even though we are severely lacking in retail stores in most areas.

[sandnsea]

20. Power power, money money

All of a sudden money has become the campaign hype. It's like some sick televangelist healing scheme. Get people all frothed up screaming power platitudes and have them send in money to get healed! And the more money someone sends in, the more they have to keep sending in because that's the only way to prove the movement is real. It's not new or different, it's been around since tent revival meetings and rainmakers of old.

[LuminousX]

22. In this case

the money is coming in from hundreds of thousands of people, many who never participated in elections before. Do you think once a person has given $78 to someone that they won't follow up with their vote. People see the donation as an investment and they realize for the investment to come to fruition they are going to have to vote, and convince their neighbors to vote for the guy also. That is why the money is important.

[sandnsea]

26. Republican tactics

Did you know they say the exact same thing? That their money comes from lots of small donations, not corporations? We all know that's bullshit, I suspect some day we'll find out a similar truth about Dean and his donations.

Hyping up this idea that the money is everything has simply made people unable to see the issues clearly because they can't back out of a campaign that they've put so much money into. It's sad, just pathetically sad.

[LuminousX]

44. Easy to determine

and I don't ever recall hearing a Republican make that claim. Can you cite more than one example please?

[sandnsea]

52. Open Secrets?

I would hope that would be a sufficient resource.

"...Small donors are far more important to the political parties — particularly the Republicans, who have long used direct mail lists as potent fundraising tools among their members nationwide.

In the ’98 elections, small contributions made up 48 percent of the parties’ total hard money. Republicans drew 60 percent from small donors; Democrats drew just a third of their money from low-dollar donors.

Overall, two-thirds of the small donations went to the GOP, including both candidates and party committees..."

http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/bigpicture2000/overview/donations.ihtml

[LuminousX]

59. Doesn't this source undermine your argument?

It is saying small donors are important and Dean is getting small donors.

I was thinking you would get a quote from the Bush campaign about the amount of sub-$100 donations they've collected and how large of a part of the multiple millions they've collected that is. For some reason I don't think they ever did talk about that.

[sandnsea]

60. 60% Republican small donors

That's what it says.

The point is, alot of small donors doesn't mean the large donors aren't going to have the same kind of influence they've always had.

[LuminousX]

62. We can see who Dean's large donors are

right?

We can see it isn't the same Haliburton/Enron/Brechtel crowd giving to Bush... correct?

Wasn't the original argument that touting the small amount given by a large number was bogus and it is the same thing Republicans say? I'm still waiting for a quote from more than one Republican campaign regarding this. McCain made a big deal out of it, but before him I only seem to recall Jerry Brown making a big deal out of it. Trippi's work to be sure, or at least Trippi learned from that campaign and magnified it.

[sandnsea]

64. Open Secrets isn't good enough?

I wouldn't trust any other source more, so you can take it or leave it I guess.

And I don't know who is giving to Dean's campaign, I'm not really making any judgment on that. I'm just saying that all this small donor funding the campaign could be the same kind of hype Republicans use. You can't really calculate the actual small donor contribution until you separate out large donor from small donor. Dean hasn't done that, to my knowledge.

[LuminousX]

69. Wait a minute... you said...

Did you know they say the exact same thing? That their money comes from lots of small donations, not corporations? We all know that's bullshit, I suspect some day we'll find out a similar truth about Dean and his donations.

Which I inferred as saying that Dean really isn't getting most of his money from small donations. Then you went on to quote opensecrets:

In the ’98 elections, small contributions made up 48 percent of the parties’ total hard money. Republicans drew 60 percent from small donors; Democrats drew just a third of their money from low-dollar donors.

Overall, two-thirds of the small donations went to the GOP, including both candidates and party committees...

Which clearly means that the claim isn't bullshit as you originally stated. It also means that when we investigate Dean's financing after all is said and done, we will probably see more than 60% coming in from small donations.

Now, my contention was I don't ever recall any Republican hyping the fact that most of the funding was coming in from small donations. I can only recall McCain hyping it. I'm not saying they don't get small donations, I'm saying they don't advertise it, make it a talking point about having hundreds of thousands of people invested in them.

Now I understand your point that just because you have a lot of small donors doesn't mean you still aren't beholden to big business interests. Again, that is easy to determine which big businesses are donating to Dean. Nothing untoward has come out about that. If there is something there, then this is the time for Clark, Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman to jump all over it, especially since Dean has made the 'people powered' thing an issue. He is calling it 'true campaign finance reform' and no one is making a stink about it.

So, what we have determined is it isn't bullshit that the campaign is primarily funded by small donations. And we have also determined that Dean's making a point about it isn't similar to the Republicans because Republicans don't turn small donations into a campaign issue.

[LuminousX]

77. In Fact

to further quote the Center for Responsive Politics, the top industries donating to Dean are:

1 Retired $716,263
2 Lawyers/Law Firms $447,692
3 TV/Movies/Music $307,700
4 Education $289,983
5 Health Professionals $238,291
6 Business Services $211,009
7 Securities & Investment $182,550
8 Printing & Publishing $182,369
9 Real Estate $165,860
10 Computer Equipment & Services $132,859

The top contributors overall are very interesting indeed:

AOL Time Warner $45,000
University of California $24,699
Dean for America $16,493
Microsoft Corp $14,750
University of Pennsylvania $12,050
IBM Corp $11,050
Goldman Sachs $10,750
Efoora $8,000
Harvard University $7,700
Skadden, Arps et al $7,699

Overall the sector that has given him the most money is
Finance/Insur/RealEst $67,750

Kerry is most beholden to Lawyers/Lobbyists at $2,555,600 while Kucinich and Sharpton, for purposes of comparison, are beholden to Other $177,334 and Other $25,750 respectively.

For a person promising fiscal responsibility, not necessarily a bad sector to be liable to.

I also find it interesting that a lot of universities are donating to him. I'm wondering if those are speaker fees. Dean got $7,700 from Harvard while Kerry got $40,000 from them. Except for AOL/Time Warner, I'm not too bothered by this group of contributors.

[no name no slogan]

158. AOL/Time Warner is Dean's top corporate donor?

Oh well, there goes any hope of getting the 1996 Telecomm Act repealed if he gets elected. :cry:

It's good to see all those corporations contributing to him. IBM is one of the most worker-unfriendly companies of late, and has a horrible record as a corporate polluter (of course, Dean was good pals with the IBM folk when he was governor). Not to mention convicted monopolist Microsoft :eyes:

Thanks for the info.

[LuminousX]

159. If that worries you

then check out AOL's Top 10 recipients (1990-2004):

Bill Bradley (D) $150,025
John Kerry (D-MA) $133,210
Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) $128,500
Al Gore (D-TN) $121,925
George W. Bush (R) $111,650
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) $98,775
Fritz Hollings (D-SC) $96,783
Howard L. Berman (D-CA) $84,750
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) $81,350
Richard A. Gephardt (D-MO) $77,950

[no name no slogan]

160. Which is yet another reason...

why I don't support any of those listed.

It's fairly common knowledge among those who are interested in these issues that big media has insinuated itself into every level of government, and into both major parties. Mainly that's due to our broken campaign financing system.

The whole thing, like our healthcare system, needs to be scrapped and/or overhauled. Public financing of political campaigns, like so much of the industrialized world does. A universal health care plan that covers ALL Americans, regardless. Anything less is like putting a bandaid over your amputation-- it's too little, too late.

[sandnsea]

84. Yes, they do

"The hundreds of thousands of small donors giving to the party for the first time indicate the extraordinary grassroots support for the President and his leadership."

http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/Releases/Jan02/FECrelease011602.htm

It depends on how you count it all up. You could have 1,300 people giving $10,000 a piece and 200,000 giving $10 a piece and still come up with a figure of 201,000 giving an average of $75.00 a piece. That's all I'm saying. I haven't seen anything that shows the percentages of Dean's contributions so we really don't know anything about the actual funding of his campaign. Just that we don't know, I'm not accusing him of any kind of backroom deals or anything.

[LuminousX]

21. Deep breath

Comparing Bush, Schwarzenegger and Dean clearly demonstrates how the anti-Dean movement has reached a new level of fervor. Don't sweat it, Clark is the new favored candidate. Those of us who support Dean, we will all be disappointed and you will get to gloat. Your vilification of Dean achieves very little.

[sandnsea]

24. Comparing the hype

Not the people themselves.

And since the article and Dean's campaign is based on vilification of the other Democratic candidates, your argument is a little weak.

[indigo32]

25. LOL

prove that...

[sandnsea]

28. What?

Dean's campaign ISN'T based on vilification? Just go read what Deanie's post around here. It's almost ALL vilification. The article that started this thread begins with vilification. Don't have to go very far to prove that.

[w4rma]

29. Prove. It. You're being called out, sandnsea. (n/t)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. What is this if not villification?

"You don't see other candidates getting angry because they are all phonies. Their so-called convictions are just campaign positions manufactured by their staffs. "

Come on! Dean is the only one of the ten candidates who has any convictions? What crap...

[peaceandjustice]

147. I'd didn't know...

the guy who wrote this article was in any way affiliated with the Dean campaign. What position does he hold? Has he donated to Dean?

[sandnsea]

32. Prove what?

Dean didn't call the other candidates Bush-lite? He doesn't say we need an outsider because nobody in D.C. gets anything done? Deanie's don't support him because he's going to take on the establishment? That's the campaign. I don't know what there is to prove.

[KaraokeKarlton]

37. You need to learn the difference between "villification" and the truth

Dean also tells the truth about Bush in his criticisms of what's wrong with this country. I don't see you complaining about that. Those Democrats who have supported Bush instead of their constituents deserve to be called out on the bad behavior. If you don't like that, then tell your candidates to stop behaving in ways that leave them open to the criticism. It's really that simple.

[indigo32]

30. You want to talk vilification

open your eyes.
Frankly... I'd say that Politics and Campaign is seriously anti-Dean
just look at the thread titles for goodness sake. General Issues tends to host much of the Anti-Clark and Anti-Kerry stuff... and I tend to stay away from that.

But all of that is beside the point...most of the campaigns have disagreeable people. I don't like ANY of that NO MATTER WHICH SIDE it comes from. What we are talking about is the campaign HOWARD DEAN is running... and it IS NOT based on vilifying the other Dem candidates.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. I agree with your basic point

and I think sandnsea is off. Dean's campaign is based on being all things to all people, fudging the record, and keeping a finger up in the air to guage the wind. Villifying the other candidates is just one of the tactics.

[JaneQPublic]

38. Here's a textbook example of "keeping a finger up in the air":

At the CNBC debate, John Kerry took all alotted time answer to Brian Williams' question as to whether he would vote "up or down, yes or no" on the $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, Kerry still concluded:

"I can't tell you exactly where I'm going to vote."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A433-2003Sep25.html

[sandnsea]

43. other conditions... until I know how that comes out in the struggle

"I can't tell you exactly where I'm going to vote."

You want somebody to tell you how he's going to vote before all the amendments and other aspects have been presented? Maybe you like a candidate who spouts off at the mouth without having all the facts, but I don't. And I also don't want a candidate who is going to pretend you can just vote no and leave the soldiers without support in the field. AND I don't want a candidate who votes no because he KNOWS the final vote is going to be yes and he doesn't really have to make a decision on whether those soldiers are actually going to get the support they need.

[JaneQPublic]

53. Finger in the Wind: Lesson #2

Kerry voted against war with Iraq after Iraq had invaded another country, saying GHW Bush hadn't built a big enough coalition.

Yet in 2002, Kerry voted for GW Bush's resolution for a pre-emptive war with Iraq. Did Kerry really think Junior was going to rally a bigger coalition than his father did? No, I think he stuck his finger in the air and decided it wasn't politically safe to oppose a (then)popular president.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

54. You take Kerry's most unpopular votes and call them opportunism?

Here's some reading material for you:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060955449/qid=1065473142/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-0829166-1405644?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[JaneQPublic]

57. At the time, yes, his vote was the popular thing to do.

Back then, the politically expedient thing for Democrats to do was to "hug Bush on defense" and oppose him on domestic issues.

So Kerry made the politically expedient vote, rather than the vote that would have saved the lives of hundreds of troops and billions of dollars.

[sandnsea]

58. Oh yes, the Iraq war vote

That's always the slam of last resort.

[JaneQPublic]

61. How many lives were lost and billions wasted because of his vote?

And the vote of others who voted for the Iraq War Resolution?

Sweep it under the rug if you want, but decisions like this say a lot about how prepared Kerry is for the office of the President.

[sandnsea]

65. 30-60 days, then go in unilaterally

That's what Dean said, sweep it under the rug if you want.

[JaneQPublic]

81. What are you talking about? (n/t)

[sandnsea]

85. That's what Dean said

Give Iraq 30-60 days to comply with inspections, then go in unilaterally. That's what he said.

[JaneQPublic]

89. Link, Please (n/t)

[sandnsea]

90. Never read this before, huh?

Kind of doubt it. What's funny is the first 'solution' is more radical than what Bush actually did and is before the vote even happened. And he's still saying the same thing months later while he's criticizing everybody else for supporting the war.

Sept. 29, 2002, DEAN -- "If You Don't Do This...We Will Go Into Iraq"
On CBS "Face the Nation": After saying that the administration "had not yet made" its case that Saddam was an immediate threat, and that if we attack Iraq, "it's got to be gone about in a very different way," Dean also states: "It's very simple. Here's what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the UN Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline, saying, 'If you don't do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq.'"

http://www.kucinich.us/antiwarcandidate.htm

And then on Feb. 20, Dean told Salon.com that "if the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-geraghty032803.asp

[sandnsea]

40. Vilifying is a major tactic

It's what he does after he sticks his finger in the air. As soon as he can get away with it, he'll start vilifying the candidates for being too liberal instead of Bush-lites. And if he were to become President, he'd stick another finger up because he governs by consensus and with the Congress we have, we'll all end up royally fucked.

[KaraokeKarlton]

41. Actually, Kerry has done far more "villifying" than Dean has

Kerry has twice done it to Gore, repeatedly done it to Dean by claiming Dean "isn't fit to be president" (far worse than being called "Bush Lite". Kerry has done the same to Clark as well. Kerry is also the worst of the bunch about worrying about the political wind before he acts. He wouldn't even criticize Bush until he saw that when Dean took that risk it paid off for him. You're being very hypocritical. You're criticizing Dean for things that Kerry does more often and more blatantly than any of the others.

[sandnsea]

55. lol

There's a difference between pointing out policy differences and claiming the entire field of Democratic party candidates are a bunch of Bush lite Republicans. Especially when Dean endorsed Gephardt in the '88 primaries, but added that Gephardt had a more liberal position. Now Gephardt is just another Bush lite.

Kerry never said Dean isn't fit to be President. He said "I think we've learned that we don't need a learning curve in the presidency on foreign policy and security." Which is true considering the mess Bush has made. And Kerry has been criticizing Bush and his policies before Dean ever even decided to run.

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_0216.html

[KaraokeKarlton]

78. Wrong

Kerry fans have been incessantly whining about Dean implying that those who vote for Bush's agenda are behaving like "Bush Lite". He's right. Why on earth should we vote for someone who agrees with Bush on the big issues? If we agree with those votes why not just vote for Bush?

Kerry is the one who chose to support Bush on these things and he deserves the criticism for those votes. It's also why he won't win the nomination. He screwed up and it's his own damn fault. He isn't "owed" the nomination as he seems to think he is entitled to it. You have to earn the votes, and falling in line with Bush on votes Kerry's constituents don't agree with isn't what earns those votes. Kerry betrayed Democrats with those lousy votes, and he's paying the price for it now.

Kerry has also, on several occassions claimed that Dean is not fit for the presidency. I'm sure I could find the links if I need to, but the vast majority of people reading this already know, as you most likely do as well. Kerry doesn't criticize Dean's policy, he makes personal attacks. But he's desperate for attention, so he's grasping at straws now. It won't work, though. He's still going to lose.

[sandnsea]

88. What votes?

When did Kerry line up behind Bush? And don't give me the IWR, that's been beat to death.

And Kerry has never said Dean is not fit for the Presidency. He has only said Dean has no foreign policy experience and he doesn't. And pointed it out specifically when Dean said soldiers are the same thing as terrorists. And if you think that's going to win an election, you're way out of touch with mainstream Americans.

[KaraokeKarlton]

93. Is there enough bandwidth to post them?

No Child Left Behind.
Some of the tax cuts.
War.
Patriot Act.

He abstained from the Partial Birth Abortion vote.
He skipped out on the mini-nukes.
He's missed a shitload of others as well.

Those are just some of the big ones.

So, Kerry voted to destroy education and raise local and state taxes to pay for the debacle of No Child Left Behind.

Kerry voted for some tax cuts knowing full well our economy couldn't afford them.

He voted for the war which we all know has led to death, destruction, a black hole of lost US tax dollars.

Kerry voted to help Bush strip Americans of freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.

And you think I should just give this guy my vote simply because he was in Vietnam and caught Oliver North being naughty ages ago? Nope. I want someone with executive experience and some balls, thank you very much.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

99. Kerry did not vote for 'some of the tax cuts' -

are you refering to the Democratic substitute? Because on the Bush tax cut, Kerry voted NO.

[KaraokeKarlton]

102. The "substitute" was still a tax cut we couldn't afford

And it was still a vote that gave Bush most of what he wanted. So yes, I'm including that vote too. It doesn't matter to me what party came up with the compromise, because our country couldn't afford ANY of the tax cuts.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

108. You are for Dean but are opposed on principle to legislative compromise?

That makes no sense. If Dean becomes President he's going to have to ally with the Republicans in Congress to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=51804&mesg_id=54206&page=">cut Medicare the way he wants to. Is'nt one of Dean's 'shining achievements' the way he worked with Republicans in Vermont?

[KaraokeKarlton]

112. There are time for compromise and times you don't compromise

You don't give tax breaks when the country is on the path to having the largest debt in the history of the world. That's called mismanagement. There were plenty of Republicans who opposed the tax cuts. John Kerry and the others should have joined alliances with those Republicans on this issue and stopped the cuts altogether.

Dean doesn't intend to "cut medicare". He intends to FIX it so that it covers more people, provides better care and works better. He will also be able to do that in a more cost effective way.

Oh, and "working with Republicans" in Vermont is essentially the same as working with Centrists in Washington because the vast majority of Republicans in Vermont are moderates and good people. Those in Washington could learn a lot from Vermont politics. Voters reward honesty and a good job, regardless of your party. Oh, and everyone pretty much works together for the good of all of us. Republicans here value the environment, health care and social programs. Dean taught Vermont's more liberal Democrats the value of fiscal responsibility, too. Our state is too busy getting work done and progress made to have partisan pissing contests. You should really learn more about Vermont politics and politicians before assuming that the parties actually working together here is a bad thing. :eyes:

[DrFunkenstein]

113. He Taught Them The Value of Nabbing 21% Of The Budget

From Federal coffers. And that's one to grow on.

[KaraokeKarlton]

118. Link please

and also how about a source that shows where Vermont compares to other states. Now, I believe that Vermont comes in at number 49 for the amount of Federal money the state gets for Medicaid. Iowa is number 50. Where is Massachussetts on that list? What percentage of the other states' budget funding comes from the federal government? The only way to make this a valid argument is to show where all of the country falls onto the list.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

135. Maybe you're right; maybe Dean will get his Medicare cuts passed

[KaraokeKarlton]

140. And maybe Kerry will get that slave labor for kids he wants too

[Feanorcurufinwe]

142. Dean is on the record for cutting Medicare:

Russert: When the Republicans tried to limit the growth, the Democrats said that was an actual cut.
Dean: Well, they’re going to say what they’re 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 don’t go where the money is—Social Security, we’re going to fix differently. We’re not talking about Social Security. We’re talking about Medicare.
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp

So who is going to help him do that? Ted Kennedy or Trent Lott? Tom DeLay or Dennis Kucinich?

[KaraokeKarlton]

150. Who's going to help him keep the rate of spending

from going higher than the raite of growth? Who's going to help him fix the program so that more people get help, the care is better and people get home care if they want it? The same people who helped Clinton fix the mess the first Bush made...Democrats. You do realize that the quality of something doesn't depend on how much money you pump into it, don't you? Let's look at heating a house, for instance. Someone could pump thousands into heating their house every winter and still be cold if the house doesn't hold the heat inside. It's the same thing with Medicare. A lot of money gets pumped into the program, but most of it goes to put people in nursing homes who don't necessarily have to be there or want to be in there. Dean would make it possible for those who want it and are suitable for it to have home care instead, which saves a huge amount of money. From that savings, more people could receive the extra help they need and it would still be cheaper to run.


Now, why does Kerry want to force children to work without pay in order to get a high school diploma? Why does Kerry want to aggressively pursue recruiting kids into the military?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

153. Republicans -- they came up with the plan Dean is in favor of

and they are going to have to be the ones to get it passed for him.

Democrats who aren't so starry-eyed about Dean are going to be fighting hard to save Medicare.

If Dean has some cost-cutting ideas for Medicare, great, we can use those savings to expand coverage. We need more people covered by Medicare in this country not fewer.

[sandnsea]

36. The Democratic Wing

He started off his campaign saying he was from the Democratic Wing, as if everybody else was Bush toting lackies. And the disgusting thing is that he's nowhere near the Democratic wing. He's a centrist and everybody in Vermont knows it.

Then he goes off on the 'they're picking on me' bullshit with comments like "They’re not very welcoming of outside candidates; it is a bit of a club down there."

He has done nothing but appeal to a minority of anti-war at all cost people who have a natural tendency to hate anything that comes from D.C. That's his campaign and that's all it is. Vilification with no substance to support it, once you check his record.

[LuminousX]

42. Your assumption

He said he was the Democratic Wing... etc. You say he implied the others weren't. I say you infered that. All Dean was trying to do with that and with the Bushlite (a phrase I still use as a wonderful prod against candidates) is to reawaken the progressive base of the Democratic party who were being lulled into a coma with all the mealymouthed support of Bush the other Democratic candidates were doing.

[Speck Tater]

46. Clearly what we Democrats need is...

... is a candidate that nobody dislikes. And while we are waiting for such a candidate to come along, we can just cede the 04 election to George Bush, the 08 and 12 elections to Jeb Bush, and so on down the Bush dynasty.

Maybe by 2048 we'll find that perfect candidate that nobody disagrees with.

As for me, I don't like Clark, I don't like Kerry, dispise Lieberman, and I think Gephardt is slimy. The rest are OK by me, with Dean taking first place, and Kucinich and Graham tied for second.

But, of course that doesn't matter, because somebody in the party dislikes the guy I like, and so we might as well throw in the towel and turn the whole government over to the Republicans.

"I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat" -- (who said that?)

[indigo32]

49. LOL

Too true

[Punkingal]

79. Will Rogers......

said that. :toast:

[sandnsea]

50. spin, spin, spin

So let's see, Dean is the only one who has done anything on the environment or health insurance. My god, how fucking arrogant. And another thing that sets him apart from the other candidates is that he's the only one willing to stand up for the Democratic Party. Logic, if we dare to apply it, dictates the others aren't because otherwise Dean couldn't be doing it. His campaign has been all about vilifying the rest of the field, from the gate.

"PITT: There are nine candidates running for the office of the Presidency in 2004. What sets you apart from them?

DEAN: There's bunch of things. First of all, I am a Governor and a physician. The other candidates talk about the environment, and I have actually done a lot of environmental work. Everyone is going to talk about health insurance, but our health insurance plan is modeled after what worked in Vermont. That is an advantage, having been in a position to get things done, rather than just vote, introduce bills and all that. The second thing that is setting me apart, and is probably responsible for why we are doing as well as we are, is that I am really willing to stand up for the Democratic party. I don't think we can beat this President by being like the Republicans."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/052203A.shtml

[KaraokeKarlton]

45. You can't be that clueless...

I wasn't "anti-war" and I've supported Dean right from the start. I'm not a liberal, either. I'm a swing voter, registered Independent and he appeals to me. Anyone who honestly believes that Dean just attracts "anti-war" liberals isn't paying attention at all. The only thing Dean being against the war did was lead the anti-war people to take a look at him. They liked what they saw and stuck with him. If he were not a good candidate, people would have looked, and then left. Another thing people like you (who think Dean only attracts anti-war liberals) fail to realize is that the entire primary voting base has changed. Dean has brought so many new voters into the primary process that it's NOT the "liberal base" anymore. Bottom line, criticizing people will only get you so far if you don't have anything to offer voters. Dean DOES have a lot to offer and THAT is why he's got so much support...because he offers the most and isn't afraid to say what the rest of us are thinking.

[JoAnnSimon]

70. Dean is Legit

---"And the rest of the candidates have been fighting for
their principles for 20 - 30 years, but we're supposed to
believe they're just phony, manufactured candidates? This
article is the biggest crock of shit I've ever read."--

The complaint of most grass roots Democrats is that the
current Democratic contenders from the Senate and House
HAVEN'T BEEN STANDING UP TO DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AT ALL. 
Since Bush was selected, they've been total WIMPS.

Dean is NOT a wimp.  He says what most of these other
Democrats (Kucinich and Graham exempted) bozos have been
afraid to say for fear of their political futures. I've seen
Dean speak in person, and let me tell you that he ENERGIZES a
room.  His best comment perhaps is, "It's time to take
our country back, and only YOU can do it."

[DrFunkenstein]

104. Dean Is Running on 4 Years of Grassroots Activism?

Seriously, how far can an anti-Bush platform go?

Secondly, you obviously haven't been paying attention since the midterm elections. Not only have the Democrats been standing up to Bush - not just words, but with actual filibusters - they have actually been winning tough votes in the minority.

[Duder]

27. Not all voters are the same...

For example, I'm convinced that Kerry has cornered the bitter old spinster vote. :)

Otherwise, good article about the establishment versus the non establishment Democratic front runner.

[DrFunkenstein]

48. Dean Has Two Angers

One is the stump theatrics that calls on his merry band to rage against the machine, the second is the personal out-of-control temper that has nothing to do with political indignation.

The first is stagecraft, the second is unsettling. In a position of power where snap judgements are made all the time, do you want someone who is prone to snap?

[polpilot]

63. Prone to snap? ...the personal out-of-control temper? Just say it Funky..

Maniacal madman crazy psycho loon!!!!!!!!!!!! Bomb shelter construction will create 4 million new jobs the 1st year!!

Dean '04'...Psycho Prezo!! 'Push the button goddam it!!! Push it!!!!!!!!!!

[weepy_and_liberal]

66. At least Dean won't be going 'weepy and liberal' on us.

[TheDonkey]

67. The last straw for me on Dean

I cannot tolerate anyone who uses "liberal" as a dirty word.

Dean should appologize and his supporters should question that comment. But of course they won't.

[JoAnnSimon]

72. Liberal as a dirty word

When exactly did Dean refer to 'liberal' as a dirty word? Quote/Context please.

[weepy_and_liberal]

80. See this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=53739&mesg_id=53739

[DrFunkenstein]

117. John Kennedy On Being A Liberal

"...if by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a liberal, then I'm proud to say I'm a liberal."

---

According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2002, Senator Kerry voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 87 percent of the Senators.

[KaraokeKarlton]

94. This is a huge misconception about Dean

He doesn't have an out of control temper. Hell, he doesn't really have much of a temper at all. He's scrappy in that he won't take any shit and let it stand unchallenged. What he DOES have is a lack of patience for what he considers to be "abject nonsense". He's big on getting things done, doing them right and not getting lost along the way. Temper? No. Impatience with foolishness, most definitely. Does that mean that he is unable to deal with that? Absolutely not. He deals with it quite well, in fact.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

97. Gee, he sounds so perfect

maybe sainthood would be more appropriate than the Presidency.

[KaraokeKarlton]

103. Not perfect, but definitely the best one running

n/t

[DrFunkenstein]

105. Your Tag Line Is Perfect

Democrats talking about "gun control" to hunters and gun rights people is the equivalent of Republicans talking about "regulating abortion" to pro-choice people. It goes over about as well as an elephant pissing on a flat rock...and they DON'T TRUST YOU!

First of all, I don't want someone who is going to put a states' rights man on the Supreme Court for the Federal issue of gun control. Second of all, Republicans (most) have no interest in "regulating abortion." They want to ban it.

I'm glad you have the colorful image of an urinating pachyderm, but your tag line makes no sense and is still wrong (if that is possible). I'm not surprised you're behind Dean's candidacy - sound and fury signifying nothing.

[KaraokeKarlton]

130. I love my sig line

and it makes perfect sense. It is intended to point out not only how badly the gun issue hurts Democrats, but also explains quite clearly why. Pro-choicers don't trust Republicans because they fear the Republicans want to ban abortion. Pro-gun people and hunters don't trust Democrats because they fear the Democrats want to ban guns.

Not all Republicans oppose abortion, by the way. Just like not all Democrats oppose guns. However, your post shows that you think Republicans want to ban abortion. Only the right wingers want to do that. The majority of Republicans support abortion overall, but might have a few concerns about it here and there. The two issues are a perfect mirror of each other when it comes to how the members of both parties not only don't trust each other at all, but also how they tend to be somewhat unfair towards each other on these two issues.

[peaceandjustice]

148. gun control is not a federal issue

unless you're interpreting the second amendment to protect the right to own guns. Otherwise, gun control reverts back to state jurisdiction under the ninth and tenth amendments.

[DrFunkenstein]

107. Give Me A Break!

The guy got pissed off at George "The Greek Softball" Stephanopoulus! Not to mention the fact that he couldn't even wait until Gephardt was finished at the debates before he opened his maw. He was even silly enough to challenge Kerry to a debate before he realized what a mistake that would be (I know, I know - it wouldn't be fair to the others...)

Don't give me that "doesn't suffer fools" crap - the guy can't keep his act together. He's fine when he's in monologue on the stump, but he can't handle someone disagreeing with him. I have yet to see him on a real television interview where he didn't do poorly or fly off the handle. The closest he came was in the debates when it was limited to 1 minute talks - but as soon as they introduced rebuttals Dean was losing it again!

[Meshuga]

109. When Gephardt made the Gingrich remark...

I thought Dean was actually saying the word "bullshit" when I first saw his lips moving. I had to rewind it with my Tivo just to make sure and saw that he actually said "that's false"...

Still, Dean was crancky... He wouldn't even let Gephardt finish!

[KaraokeKarlton]

137. Honestly, it's impatience

But I do see how some would think it was a temper. I'm more impatient than he is, but I don't have a temper at all. I can sometimes come across as angry and in a fit of temper, but I'm not even mad at all. When I get impatient with someone, I can be a bit sarcastic and argumentative with them, and I see Dean as being somewhat the same way. Likewise, I can turn it on and off at will. I also am not one to take any crap. I have been known to send people into fits of fury when this side of me comes out. (See my exchange with your fellow Kerry supporter above for a perfect example) But oddly enough, not only am I not the least bit angry, but I am in complete control of my temperament. I see this same tendency in Dean.

[LuminousX]

155. He didn't challenge Kerry to a debate...

He challenged Kerry to a one-on-one in an alley somewhere.

[LuminousX]

154. Have we seen him snap yet?

I can't wait for it to happen. Man, maybe he'll Hulk up and beat someone to death. Yeah, that'll be cool. That will surely cost him the election. I guess that is the last hope some candidate have of winning, is if Dean does something to lose.

So they are all hoping and praying for him to 'snap!'

[Romberry]

71. What has happened to Charley Reese?

I recall Reese as being a wingnut extraordinaire from his "work" during the Clinton years. A quick Google on http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=charley+reese+bill+clinton">Charley Reese + Bill Clinton seems to verify my memory. So what the heck happened? Is Reese an actual conservative that knows Bush is a disaster and who will trust an honest liberal/moderate like Dean over a lying neocon like Dubya?

These are strange days. What else can I say when I find myself agreeing with people like Pat Buchanan and now Charley Reese? Strange days indeed.

[Meshuga]

100. I think he is good-tempered too...

except these people keep asking him tough questions all the time and he is not prepared enough to answer them. So what do you expect? For Dean to look happy and not to snap? Come on! Let's give Dean a break and not ask him any tough questions.

[DJcairo]

122. ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha-that's funny-ahahahahahahahaha

[DrFunkenstein]

125. No, Really, He Is A Good-Tempered Man!

Don't be fooled by the evidence!

My favorite part:

You don't see other candidates getting angry because they are all phonies. Their so-called convictions are just campaign positions manufactured by their staffs. They don't really believe in anything except getting elected, so they really don't care what is said. They are like trial lawyers. They are interested only in scoring points and winning. There's nothing personal, and the truth simply doesn't matter.

Your candidate has a 87% lifetime liberal rating! It's just a pose to win liberals! Trust Dean because he's been a liberal ever since the war! No stagecraft or theatrics there! Just pure unadulterated Dean, the man speaks his mind! Changes it the next day, but that's because he's so evolutionary!

Damn those trial lawyers!

[DJcairo]

129. Indeed-Dr.F check your DU mail.

[Mairead]

144. "An honest man with sincere convictions will get angry when he hears lies"

And, as not long ago I quoted a politically-savvy author: politicians have learned that people think anger reflects sincerity, so they feign anger as a way to get people to see them as sincere.

I.e., they use feigned anger as a political ploy.

[LuminousX]

156. What I don't understand

Is why people worry about this? For the anti-Dean folk, if Dean blows his cool on television, you would be pleased as punch. For the pro-Dean folk, if he blows his cool at the right moment, we will be off our seats cheering. We are hoping for something different, no more business as usual.

So why is this an issue? Both sides want it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

157. What I want is the best candidate for the Presidency our party can get.

That's what the primaries are about. It's not a horse race or a game show or a sporting event. It is a serious business of choosing a leader for our nation.