Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Positions defended by Dean

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
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:37 AM
Original message
Positions defended by Dean
CLAREMONT, N.H. The New Hampshire press secretary for Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., was the first to greet reporters at the Earl Bourdon Senior Center Monday morning. Was she lost? After all, it was the Howard Dean presidential campaign that was holding a morning event with about 140 senior citizens at the center.

No, Kathy Roeder wanted reporters to see Saturdays story in the Manchester Union Leader, criticizing the former Vermont governors stand against the rate of growth of Medicare, based on a 1995 article in the Barre-Montpelier Times-Argus.

snip>

The seniors didnt ask Dean a single question about his commitment to Medicare, despite the Gephardt campaign visitor. The Gephardt campaign has been pushing the Medicare question at Dean for several weeks now.

Instead, the residents wanted to know what Dean thought of the mornings headlines about the Middle East and Iraq. Dean repeated an earlier statement that if he were president, the first thing he would do would be to have former President Clinton act as a special negotiator to get both sides together and talking.

snip>

In a courtyard outside the student center, close to 1,000 people crowded to hear Dean talk about his signature issues. The loudest applause came on renewable energy and the countrys failed energy pollicies.

The campaign of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., which had attracted fewer than 100 students at a similar rally at the college less than two weeks ago, was busy nonetheless. Kerry campaign workers were busy handing out frozen waffles to the Dean crowd, a not-so-subtle reference to increasing criticism that Dean has switched his stand on several key issues from Medicare to Social Security to trade policies.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/72756.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. I love it
The other campaigns just don't understand what the voters want. Campaign tricks just don't work. The Gephardt campaign could have handed out a newspaper to each and every person in attendance, could have had a person read the story to all the people there, but it wouldn't have changed anything. Everyone knows the Dean alone can't alter Medicare and the Dean won't attempt to initiate any significant changes unless it was necessary and then he'd still have to work with Congress.

Dean is what voters want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Democratic voters want electricity deregulated?
That sounds more like Libertarian and Republican voters to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. The article you usually post about that
says that dereg ended up not being a motive. In fact, VT is not deregulated:

Was deregulation a contributing factor to the blackout? It was the major contributing factor in the blackout. Deregulation left us vulnerable in many ways. In a deregulated market, maximizing profits is the main goal. Supply margins are manipulated to keep supply very low so that prices and profits are high. Maintenance and new construction are stopped and thousands of skilled workers are laid off. 160,000 were laid off in the deregulated markets of Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York and Ontario. The blackout happened in these areas but not in Vermont and Quebec which are still regulated. Deregulation has such a dismal record that 22 States have now shelved plans to deregulate. Even the World Bank now says, that water and electricity should not be privatized.

http://electricitycoalition.org/resources/Q%20for%20can...

If Dean actually favored dereg, don't you think that in all his years as a successful gov it would have happened?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
95. He couldn't push it past the legislature.
And he finally backed off of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Where in Dean's Campaign Does He Support Deregulation
of electricity?

In fact I just did a google search on "Howard Dean"+deregulation+electricity and another search replacing electricity with energy. Nothing tangible came up, though this 'damning' quote did appear:

DEAN: Yes, reinstating controls over how many outlets you can own in any particular media market. The media has clearly abused their privilege, and it is hurting our democracy. Deregulation in many areas has simply proved to be bad for America, bad for the American economy, bad for the average working person, and bad for democracy. We need to take a different view. Some deregulation is a good thing. We went too far, and now we need to cut back.

The only other 'damning' piece I found was this attack piece (http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2003/030803howard_dean.ht... ) from Lyndon LaRouche whom I don't consider credible in any form.

This piece was slightly damning, but clearly states he backed away from deregulation (had to grab it from google cache - sorry for the long url):
http://216.239.37.104/custom?q=cache:2SjVaraqGskJ:times...


Overall, I'm a Democrat and I think Dean has consistently acted in the best interest of his constituency of Vermont and they must have felt the same way, seeing he kept getting elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. How are Dean's positions and record as governor not relevant?
Are you really saying we shouldn't look at Dean's record because it is in the past?

Incredible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sean Reynolds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Yes they should
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 02:29 PM by Sean Reynolds
But how the hell is that relevant to the damn article posted? Moreover, why does blm continually post the exact same crap over and over in every damn Dean thread? You can bring up the past, but when you keep harping on a subject that is YEARS old, you're either grasping at straws or have issues with LETTING things go.

How about I harp on Kucinich's pro-life history? How about I continue to harp on Kerry's, Edward's, Lieberman's, Gephardt's support of an UNJUST war? Every candidate has a past - problem is, I'm not going to continue to lace MY posts with such hated rhetoric. I wish some here at DU would do the same, but it aint gonna happen.

blm can't find MUCH true dirt on Dean, so they've stuck to ONE single issue, an issue that most of the time isn't even relevant to the damn thread. THAT is sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. Bring up any topic you wish; that's what a free debate is all about.
You are welcome to 'harp on' anything you want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sean Reynolds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. I just think it's sad and shows hatred for the candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Some of us are here to discuss issues.
Not just to say "My candidate is wonderful!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sean Reynolds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. You've missed the point again.
We've discussed this issue on electricity to death. Why should every thread about Dean coordinate around this SAME fucking issue? I'm all for talking 'issues', but I'm not for hijacking threads and spewing the same shit over and over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. No, you missed my point
which is that this is a discussion site, where folks with varied opinions on the issues discuss those issues. If you don't want to read about what others who don't agree with you have to say, try deanforamerica.com

As far as energy deregulation in Vermont, it is far from the most discussed issue here, in fact, this thread is the first time I've seen it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sean Reynolds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #40
49. SO you're ok with people spamming threads?
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 08:58 PM by Sean Reynolds
Cause that is all blm has done. Every single post as of late in a Dean thread has been the same; HOW the fuck is that a solid discussion?

It's utter BULLSHIT and I'm sick of it. I guess I shall go into every Kerry thread and piss on them for supporting a candidate that supported Bush's unjust war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 04:49 AM
Response to Reply #49
53. I'm OK with whatever: just follow the rules.
and everything will be fine.

I couldn't care less what you do. Your attempt at a 'threat' is laughable and pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sean Reynolds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #53
60. It isn's a threat.
I'd never stoop to your low. I also find your hatred for Dean to be laughable and pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. Then stop saying it as if it is supposed to scare somebody.
This is a discussion board for discussing issues. Not a forum for talking about each other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sean Reynolds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #62
69. BS
Last I checked it was against the rules to BAIT a member into a fight. It is my belief blm's intent is to bait members into fighting over an issue that is horribly trite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #69
72. Rule violations should be addressed by clicking 'Alert'
If someone violates the rules, click 'Alert' and the offending post will be removed by the mods.

Kind of like the post (#11) you made that started this back and forth between us. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #72
80. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Sean Reynolds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #80
100. Good to see a message that didn't break any rules was deleted.
Yet DU allows this OTHER shit to be posted? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #17
96. It IS relevant, Sean. It shows how LITTLE people know
about Dean's record and his coziness with the energy industry. If it was relevant to Dems that Bush was for deregulation and attentive to his energy donors, then why isn't it relevant about Dean's own record?

I think the REAL problem is that so many of you are MORTIFIED that Dean was on the deregulation bandwagon, and would rather pretend it doesn't matter.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/43125.htm...


Dean raises money from energy sources

February 27, 2002

By David Gram

ASSOCIATED PRESS

MONTPELIER When Gov. Howard Dean wanted to raise money for a possible presidential bid, he followed the example of a former governor of Texas and called on his friends in the energy industry.

>>>>>>>
Administration actions going back some years betray an inappropriate coziness with the utilities, said Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Service Research Group. I am not prepared to say its a result of contributions given. But these contributions present the appearance of impropriety or appearance of influence that it probably would have been better to avoid.

Deans close relationship with utility representatives dates back to the day he became governor in 1991. A lobbyist for Green Mountain Power and a GMP employee were among the first people Dean called in to help his transition.

A list of the Governors Council of Economic Advisers includes Green Mountain Power Corp.s chairman, two company board members and a vice president, all of whom made donations to the Fund For A Healthy America. It also includes two longtime utility lobbyists.

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

After years of pushing for the companies to absorb the excess costs of their expensive contract with Hydro-Quebec, Deans Department of Public Service agreed to let ratepayers be billed for more than 90 percent of what those excess costs are expected to be in the coming years. The extra costs will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
>>>>>>>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #96
109. Actually, they don't WANT to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indigo32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #96
111. And Dean backed off that position
when he saw what it did to CA...
but I don't see you posting anything about that HMMMM
He absolutely IS NOT in favor of energy dereg.

See we do know a few things about his record and platform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. Is 20/20 hindsight what we mean when we say 'a leader with vision'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gully Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
51. Or John Kerry...
http://www.nonprofitwatch.org/heinz/extended.html

"Senator John Kerry often bashes President Bush as to how Enron and other power companies have influenced the administration's energy policy. Kerry has used Enron as a pejorative adjective to describe dubious policies. Moreover, he gave $1000 to an Enron worker's relief fund because it had originated as a campaign donation from a wind company which was an Enron subsidiary. On the campaign stump, he charges corporations with having adversely impacted American democracy.

NonprofitWatch.org agrees with the Senator regarding his critiques of Enron and corporations, but suggests that this criticism should also be directed at his wife Teresa Heinz.

For eight years Teresa maintained a close relationship with Ken Lay. Since 1995 Mr. Lay served as a trustee of the Heinz Center for Economics, Environment and Science which Teresa founded to memorialize her late husband. Teresa, as well Fred Krupp the executive director of Teresa's main environmental philanthropy Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), also served as trustees."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 04:55 AM
Response to Reply #51
54. So they've both given to the same charities; what do you suggest
should be done to 'correct' this 'injustice'?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meshuga Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
103. Dean is who...
Bush wants to run against.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
2. From the O-Blog
Hey everyone a story you will love!

Did you know that at a lot of Dean events around the country Students for Kerry (I call them Kerry's Kids) and other Kerry volunteers show up at Dean events with WAFFLES.

When me and my friends first heard this, we were trying to come up with a way to counter it. I suggested having a six of Busch Lite on hand to offer to the J.K. people in exchange for the waffles -- but my friends figured it out today.

Apparantly there were waffles (from Kerry's Kids) at the GenDean even at UNH. My friends figured out what to do -- how to counter.

EAT THE WAFFLES.

Hahaha -- the were hungry so they just got a bunch of Dean supporters to go and eat all their waffles!!!!!!!! The faster they are eaten the less the silly symbolism means anything AND you get good food!

I suggest we all take soem time to write the Kerry Campaign an email or a letter thanking them for CATERING our events. I wonder if it counts as an In-kind contribution for Dean ... or Kerry!

What do you think??? I"m still giggling here!

Posted by Mister T in AZ at October 6, 2003 09:22 PM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Make sure you bring Vermont Maple Syrup
to eat those waffles.

I love that idea. Find a way to cook 'em and serve them up with Vermont maple syrup and you've got yourself a meal. Just make sure you say that you are eating Kerry's waffles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. LOL
Talk about making lemonade out of lemons. If the Kerry students insist on doing something that silly (and meaningless to almost everyone outside a small number of dedicated partisans) then they deserve an equally silly response. It's all harmless fun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Excellent response! Taking that ol' lemon and making it
into a lemonade stand!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
8. more local coverage on the NH visit

KEENE, N.H. -- Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean told an audience of 700 at Keene State College Monday that those between the ages of 18 and 30, dubbed "Generation Dean" by his campaign, have the power to take the country back.
Invoking the political and social changes of the 1960s, the former governor of Vermont said today's youth have the opportunity to change the political spectrum in the coming years.

Approximately one third of his campaign donations come from supporters between the age of 18 and 30, Dean said, and that force is driving his campaign forward.

snip>

"I think people like his grassroots mentality," Nichols said. "It's appealing for the people in a small town like Keene."

Then suddenly, Dean was gone, the trio of vans taking a right turn off the campus and heading toward Main Street.

"When you see someone like him running for the presidency, it gives you a good feeling in your stomach," said Rep. Tim Dunn, D-Keene, to Rep. John Pratt, D-Walpole, as they watched him go.

http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8860~1681679...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Awesome, all I can say, really
is how awesome I find the Dean campaign.

They do it right. They know their audience and know how to appeal to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
13. 'Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up'
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 12:38 PM by Feanorcurufinwe
His issue Monday morning was campaign finance reform, but he never got to ask his question. When he was told that Dean no longer was firm in his commitment to limit spending, Gilmour was undeterred.

Im impressed with Dean. I think this man has the integrity to be president, Gilmour said.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/72756.html


That seems to be the hallmark of the Dean supporter. They fill Dean with their own ideas of what he should be, and when the reality is different, they ignore it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Dean is committed to campaign finance reform; Bush is not.
Until Bush can be bridled, any Dem who can raise more money than the FEC will allow them to spend, would be stupid to abide by the rules that severely handicap your spending but allow your opponent to run rampant over you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Dean an enemy of reform
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 02:39 PM by Feanorcurufinwe
The Dean administration has long been opposed to public financing, if not always in words then in actions. In the 2000 elections, Dean had promised to run a clean campaign, but as soon as the spending caps were struck down by the courts, Dean reverted to his old ways. He raised the most money in Vermont gubernatorial history, by promising the health industry, among others, his support. Now he is attacking the existence of public financing for any candidate. He has threatened to raid the public financing fund and hand this state over to corporations who have no allegiance to it.

Tell Dean that you want citizens of Vermont controlling our elections, not his corporate buddies.
http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/41007


Dean made headlines in March for vowing to attack any candidate that didn't commit to public financing like he was.
http://timesargus.nybor.com/Local/Story/61946.html
Then he made headlines in August for backing off his pledge:
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/24hour/politics/story/96...

Ok, I didn't think it was a big deal, Dean just miscalculated by claiming the moral high ground in the first place. But then I found out it wasn't the first time he backtracked on such a pledge, he'd done so in an earlier governor's race. http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/70402.html

And going even farther, he tried to permanently remove funding for Vermont's public financing system altogether.

Governor Dean's Plan to Remove Funding

Early on in the 2002 legislative session, Democratic Governor Howard Dean targeted the public financing provision of the law for elimination. VPIRG led the effort to preserve funding for public financing of qualifying candidates. The Governor claimed that the law was not working and therefore should not be funded until a final court decision has been reached. Working with Republicans, Progressives and Democrats, VPIRG was able to keep public financing alive (although hundreds of thousands of dollars were taken for other unrelated uses). Read more on this issue.
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page11...



This is Dean being 'committed to campaign finance reform'? Is this the resolve with which we should expect to seem him stand by his other committments?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JaneQPublic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. You skipped the response from the VT Dem Chairman
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 02:18 PM by JaneQPublic
http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/70402.html

Vermont Democratic Party Chairman Scudder Parker said the purpose of public funding and spending limits was to avoid the situation in which the candidate is beholden to very large money special interests.

Deans surprising ability to raise money in small increments, especially over the Internet, makes him less beholden to the wealthy and may justify foregoing spending limits to make him competitive with President Bush, Parker said.

============
That's right: campaign finance laws were intended to keep fat cats from weilding too much influence -- a non-issue when Dean collects donations averaging $60-80.

Last I checked, Dean hadn't decided yet whether to stick with public financing. He said his staff is strongly urging him to abandon it, but he's not so sure yet.

Either way, it would be merely a change in campaign strategy, not the monumental moral flaw you make it out to be. When he started the campaign, he was was the ultimate long shot with hardly two nickels to rub together. so he wanted to level the playing field. Now there's a chance he might eventually have to go up against Bush's money machine, so he has to play to win.

(edited for typos.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. So Dean fought public financing -- but he is committed to it?
Governor Howard Dean Pulls the Plug on Democracy

Governor Howard Dean has proposed to permanently gut Vermont's campaign finance reform law eliminating our landmark public financing option for governor and lieutenant governor. VPIRG opposes removing any money from the Fund because it sets a dangerous precedent for undermining democracy in Vermont and limits the legislature's options to strengthen the law in the future.

The Governor's move will simply open another door for access by corporations and other wealthy donors seeking generous tax breaks, permission to pollute our air and water, boondoggle electric rate contracts and other special interest perks. As Lieutenant Governor Doug Racine said at a public forum on December 11th "I do believe money is corrupting the political process."

<snip>

Dean's proposal is currently being debated in the Vermont House of Representatives. VPIRG is lobbying the House of Representatives to reinstate the entire $1.3 million to the Fund and to remove Governor Dean's proposal to permanently remove all funding for the law. It will then be up to the Senate to improve on the House's actions and reinstate any remaining parts of $1.3 million that belongs in the Campaign Finance Fund.

We recognize that while these are clearly tough budget times, investing in democracy is still a good deal and urge Governor Howard Dean and legislative leaders Senate President Peter Shumlin, House Speaker Walt Freed, Lieutenant Governor Racine and the rest of the Vermont Legislature to do the right thing for democracy and preserve public funding for Vermont elections.
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/deangutcfr...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JaneQPublic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. VT's campaign finance law was tied up in a court case
Since the public campaign monies couldn't anyway while the court case drug on, Dean wanted to use it in the general fund to plug holes in the budget.

http://timesargus.com/Legislature/Story/40827.html

Gov. Howard Dean has proposed extending what was a temporary proposal to redirect public funds to pay for campaigns for the foreseeable future or at least until a court weighs in on the battle over the states campaign finance law.

In the new proposal, Dean suggests siphoning all of the funds that would otherwise pay for candidates seeking public financing and putting that money into the General Fund. It represents a change from his earlier proposal to take that money an estimated $1.3 million for one year to help fill a hole in the budget and extends it possibly several years until the court case is resolved.

---snip

(Secretary of State Deborah) Markowitz... said Deans proposal did not obliterate the existing law. Rather it just delays any kind of decision until the state has a clearer understanding of what the boundaries are.

Right now the campaign finance law is up in air until the court rules, she said. Its hard to make a final decision about what to do; this puts off that final decision.

The states campaign finance reform law, passed in 1997, set up a fund to allow candidates who abide by regulations set out in the law to be eligible for public finance grants to pay for their campaigns.

The law was challenged in court for infringing on the constitutional rights of candidates who did not seek public money because it set spending limits for all candidates in the campaign those who seek public money and those who do not.

A federal judge in turn threw out the spending limits for those candidates who do not apply for the grants and lifted the caps on the amount of money political parties could contribute to candidates. An appeal of the ruling is pending.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Dean tried to PERMANENTLY remove funding
Governor Howard Dean has proposed to permanently gut Vermont's campaign finance reform law eliminating our landmark public financing option for governor and lieutenant governor. VPIRG opposes removing any money from the Fund because it sets a dangerous precedent for undermining democracy in Vermont and limits the legislature's options to strengthen the law in the future.

The Governor's move will simply open another door for access by corporations and other wealthy donors seeking generous tax breaks, permission to pollute our air and water, boondoggle electric rate contracts and other special interest perks. As Lieutenant Governor Doug Racine said at a public forum on December 11th "I do believe money is corrupting the political process."
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/deangutcfr...


This was not a temporary measure; indeed your own quote points out that it was a change from the earlier, temporary measure.

The legacy Dean tried to leave for Vermont: no public finance fund. Luckily, he was defeated.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acerbic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Just another piece of crap spammed relentlessly by Dean haters...
The reality is that after the courts didn't allow using the fund as intended, Dean put the money to good use instead of just letting it sit there. The reality is not changed by spamming the same smear pieces of shit even a million times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. It is a fact of history.
The change Dean tried and failed to put through was permanent. Ignoring that fact won't change it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acerbic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. An actual fact is that A FEDERAL JUDGE gutted the campaign finance law
...so that the fund would not be used, but Dean haters spinning at 10000 RPM just keep claiming that Dean did it... and claiming and claiming and claiming and claiming and claiming and claiming... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. Don't you wish there were no references - so no one could check your spin
but anyone who does read the material provided will learn the facts for themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acerbic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. My facts can be easily checked from NEWS ARTICLES:
Example:
http://www.rutlandherald.com/election2000/limits.html

You've got nothing but opinion smear pieces. It's that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. You can say that the news articles I posted aren't news articles.
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 06:58 PM by Feanorcurufinwe
But that won't change reality.

The one article you posted is from August 11, 2000 -- don't you wish we didn't have the record of what Dean did after that? But we do, and that's what I've posted.

For instance this article from January 17, 2002.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acerbic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Against your wishes, that article reveals the reality too
...in saying that Dean wants to put the money to other use "until the court case is resolved", the court case which meant that the money could not be used for campaign finance.

http://timesargus.com/Legislature/Story/40827.html

It gives a lot of blabber room for desperate spinners claiming that Dean just decided to disable campaign finance reform by raiding the funds, but the reality is still not changed, too bad for your kind...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Luckily we can read the whole article for ourselves
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 07:14 PM by Feanorcurufinwe
and don't need to rely on your spin or 6-word quotes.

Gov. Howard Dean has proposed extending what was a temporary proposal to redirect public funds to pay for campaigns for the foreseeable future or at least until a court weighs in on the battle over the states campaign finance law.
http://timesargus.com/Legislature/Story/40827.html


I suppose if you were to be thrown in jail 'for the foreseeable future' you would consider that temporary. lol

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acerbic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Since the meaning of "foreseeable future" depends on who is doing
the "foreseeing", it can be expected that to you it means that Dean is worse than Nixon, or whatever. :eyes:

I prefer facts that can't be "interpreted", like the fact that the funds couldn't be used for campaign finance reform because of a court decision, not because of Dean's decision. It still is that simple even if you speed up the spin to 20000 RPM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. We speak english here and we all know what it means. lol
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 08:06 PM by Feanorcurufinwe
We think this is really a slap in the face to campaign finance reform in Vermont, said Peter Sterling, coordinator for the Vermont Coalition for Cleaner Elections, a network of advocacy groups that has been lobbying to keep the campaign finance account in tact. Quite honestly, I think it undercuts the legislative process for the governor to propose this in his budget adjustment proposal.
http://timesargus.com/Legislature/Story/40827.html


The 2000 elections also saw the successful debut of Maine's law providing public financing for state senate and state house races. Over half of the Maine senate and one-third of the state house of representatives is now elected using clean public funds. Maine legislators, Republicans, Democrats and independents, all testify that using public funds freed them from the burden of constant fundraising and allowed them focus on meeting voters, not wealthy donors.

Dean's proposal is currently being debated in the Vermont House of Representatives. VPIRG is lobbying the House of Representatives to reinstate the entire $1.3 million to the Fund and to remove Governor Dean's proposal to permanently remove all funding for the law. It will then be up to the Senate to improve on the House's actions and reinstate any remaining parts of $1.3 million that belongs in the Campaign Finance Fund.
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/deangutcfr...


Early on in the 2002 legislative session, Democratic Governor Howard Dean targeted the public financing provision of the law for elimination. VPIRG led the effort to preserve funding for public financing of qualifying candidates. The Governor claimed that the law was not working and therefore should not be funded until a final court decision has been reached. Working with Republicans, Progressives and Democrats, VPIRG was able to keep public financing alive (although hundreds of thousands of dollars were taken for other unrelated uses).
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page11...


"VPIRG was able to keep public financing alive" - Dean lost this battle -- and the people of Vermont won.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acerbic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. ...and round and round it goes,
now back to desperately spamming the same claims, but the reality is still not changed: first came a court ruling which meant that those funds would not be used for campaign finance and because of it Dean proposed using the funds for other purposes.

Now back to your blather-rinse-repeat cycle... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. So?
Yes, first came the court ruling, then Dean's attempt to gut the fund.

A lot of people who cared about CFR fought Dean, and today Vermont still has a Campaign Finance Fund, no thanks to Dean.

So?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acerbic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. For all the blimpfuls of hot air...
...none of the people who "cared" seem to have been able to show any actual proposal by Dean to get rid of the Campaign Finance Fund instead of just using the money for other purposes while it could not be used for campaign finance because of the court rulings. Just claims, claims, claims...

...unless of course the claimers believe that because it's a fund, it's a one time lump sum and using the money means that there would never ever be any more money. :dunce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 04:47 AM
Response to Reply #50
52. Your post is totally incoherent.
Edited on Wed Oct-08-03 05:12 AM by Feanorcurufinwe
What are you trying to say?

I mean all the facts have been shown here, are you denying them?

the governor himself has said the donations buy access. People who think theyre going to buy a contract or buy some influence are mistaken, Dean famously said during the debate over a campaign finance reform bill in 1996. But they do get access theres no question about that. ...They get me to return their phone calls.
Dean raises money from energy sources

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acerbic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #52
56. That is called projecting. n/t
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #56
58. "they do get access theres no question about that." -- Dean
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JaneQPublic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. No, not "permanently"
http://timesargus.com/Legislature/Story/40827.html

Only "until a court weighs in on the battle over the states campaign finance law."

That VT Campaign Finance Law was passed in 1997, had been battled in court at a couple of different levels, and was seen as a potential Supreme Court case. The money to fund campaigns couldn't be used until it was finsihed being litigated.

By 2002, Dean figured it might be better to quit funding a law that had been stuck in limbo for 5 years and put the money back in the general fund.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #28
35. OK, "for the forseeable future" lol
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 05:48 PM by Feanorcurufinwe
Gov. Howard Dean has proposed extending what was a temporary proposal to redirect public funds to pay for campaigns for the foreseeable future or at least until a court weighs in on the battle over the states campaign finance law.

<snip>

The proposal, released this week, was not well received by lawmakers and advocates of campaign finance reform, who contended that the governor was trying to coyly slip through a drastic change in his latest budget proposal.

<snip>

The actions he is suggesting, if taken, totally gut the campaign finance fund, Westman said. It took a long time for that issue to pass the Legislature. I think there needs to be some kind of discussion about that ... and I dont feel the Appropriations Committee is the appropriate place for that to happen.

<snip>

advocates for campaign finance reform argue the law still has merit and should not be undermined by Deans latest proposal.

We think this is really a slap in the face to campaign finance reform in Vermont, said Peter Sterling, coordinator for the Vermont Coalition for Cleaner Elections, a network of advocacy groups that has been lobbying to keep the campaign finance account intact. Quite honestly, I think it undercuts the legislative process for the governor to propose this in his budget adjustment proposal.
http://timesargus.com/Legislature/Story/40827.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. 4 million people giving $50 each IS THE ULTIMATE CAMPAIGN
FINANCE REFORM!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Yeah who needs campaign finance reform
when we can just trust in the infallibility and honesty of Doctor Dean instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. No. Who needs campaign finance reform when a large number of concerned,
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 03:42 PM by stickdog
activist citizens decide to take back their country?

Dean's model has PROVEN that small donations can take on big corporate money. That's why the establishment needs to squash his candidacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Thank you for making my argument for me.
No campaign finance laws are needed -- all we need to do is place Dean in power, and trust him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Only corporate hacks would want Dean to lose
because his campaign of inspiring the common person to take their government back from special interests is embarrassing them. This is what it must have been like on the eves of the American and French Revolutions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Dean has a record of fighting against Campaign Finance Reform
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 05:38 PM by Feanorcurufinwe
which has been documented it this thread. Rather than address that record, you'd have us believe that because he is able to raise so much money, campaign finance reform is unneccesary.

If the purpose of campaign finance reform were to elect Dean, your argument might make sense. That is, except for the fact that the Republicans are just as opposed to CFR as Dean is, and they are also able to raise gobs of money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. Dean's campaign IS CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!
You care more about Kerry's career than about reforming American democracy.

Pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. You can do a lot of name-calling
but I don't hear any actual discussion from you explaining how Dean's plan to gut the Campaign Finance Fund actually shows he is in favor of CFR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #42
61. It wasn't Dean who pulled the plug, but a federal court
Dean realizing that the funds for campaign finance would wouldn't be doing any good transferred the money from CF fund to the general fund, where they were useful and where the funds could be gotten if CF was deemed legal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #61
64. Luckily Dean lost this fight and supporters of campaign finance reform won
Edited on Wed Oct-08-03 02:50 PM by Feanorcurufinwe
What were the arguments that campaign finance reform supporters used to defeat Dean's plan?

Even in a time of economic downturn, it is unwise to take money out of this dedicated fund, which was created for the express purpose of strengthening the state's electoral process and reducing the corrupting influence of money in the top state races. As you know, the money that funds public financing does not come from the general treasury. Only those taxpayers who make a voluntary contribution see their money used for this purpose. Most of the money comes from corporate fees. Is a healthy and vibrant democracy more important than road repair? Arguably yes, but that's not the point. This is a special fund, created by the Legislature for a specific use in 1997. It is inappropriate, and quite possibly illegal to use the funds for other purposes today.

The Governor's plan to remove all funds indefinitely is an affront to accepted legislative process. Governor Dean has proposed not only to remove all money from the fund for FY 02, but also to divert all funding from the corporate fees into the general fund until all court challenges are resolved and any necessary legislative activity following up on the final court decision is completed. This proposal is wholly inconsistent with the law as it stands and obviously has nothing to do with the state's economy. If the Legislature finds that the law needs to be changed, due to the federal district court's ruling or for any other reason, a separate bill should be drafted, debated and passed.

Most importantly, this is no time to be weakening campaign finance reform. Could Enron happen in Vermont? Well, given our size and common inclinations, it's easy to say 'Not exactly.' But big money, and the access and influence that come with it, is already an issue here. For example, the 2000 gubernatorial election was the most expensive in state history. Total spending by the two privately funded candidates - Governor Dean and Ruth Dwyer - exceeded $1.9 million. That's nearly twice as much as the previous record. The Governor received 57 percent of his money from the Democratic Party. Similarly, the Republican Party donated $600,000, or 62 percent of Ruth Dwyer's total contributions.

<snip>

If your motivation to alter the law is not fiscal, then we encourage you to consider using the normal legislative processes of the Senate and House. Since the Governor's proposal seems to have been prompted more by legal or political concerns, allow me to comment briefly on these.

As you know, the main components of the campaign finance law passed in 1997 included publicly financed campaigns for qualifying candidates for Lieutenant Governor and Governor, spending caps for all candidates, and strict contribution limits for individuals, PACs, corporations and political parties.

The US District Court found that while the spending caps and the very low limits on party donations were unconstitutional, the rest of the law was constitutional. In fact, the court practically invited the Legislature to fix one of these problems by creating somewhat higher limits on party contributions.

VPIRG has proposed closing the political party loophole, and legislation that would accomplish this is currently in Senator Doyle's committee. That would solve one of the two problems created by the court's decision.

The other problem relates to the unconstitutional spending cap. The solution is a relatively simple one. Following the example now used in the Maine public financing system, Vermont could establish a matching fund system that helps to level the playing field between public and privately funded candidates. This would encourage more candidates to utilize public financing, reduce big money influence, and create a more even process for Vermonters to hear and choose their candidates.
Testimony of Paul Burns, Executive Director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group January 25, 2002
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #67
70. Why don't you try addressing some of the points made?
Edited on Wed Oct-08-03 03:29 PM by Feanorcurufinwe
Specifically, one point that was made:
the money that funds public financing does not come from the general treasury. Only those taxpayers who make a voluntary contribution see their money used for this purpose. Most of the money comes from corporate fees. Is a healthy and vibrant democracy more important than road repair? Arguably yes, but that's not the point. This is a special fund, created by the Legislature for a specific use in 1997. It is inappropriate, and quite possibly illegal to use the funds for other purposes today.
Testimony of Paul Burns, Executive Director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group January 25, 2002

What is your response to that point?



Another point that was made:
This proposal is wholly inconsistent with the law as it stands and obviously has nothing to do with the state's economy. If the Legislature finds that the law needs to be changed, due to the federal district court's ruling or for any other reason, a separate bill should be drafted, debated and passed.
Testimony of Paul Burns, Executive Director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group January 25, 2002

What is your response to that point?





Another point that was made, was simply -- instead of defunding campaign finance reform because of the court decision -- why not try to fix the law? Why throw out the baby with the bathwater?

What is your response to that point?





Oh, and perhaps an English lesson is in order:
Main Entry: indefinite
Pronunciation: (")in-'def-n&t, -'de-f&-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin indefinitus, from in- + definitus definite
Date: 1530
: not definite: as a : typically designating an unidentified, generic, or unfamiliar person or thing <the indefinite articles a and an> <indefinite pronouns> b : not precise : VAGUE c : having no exact limits d of floral organs : numerous and difficult to ascertain in number
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=indefinitely


You have taken issue with the use of the word 'indefinitely' so, now that we have the definition of 'indefinitely' in front of us, I ask you:

What would the precise date of refunding the Campaign Finance Fund have been under Dean's proposal?


"until all court challenges are resolved" -- I think any educated American realizes that is pretty much a synonym for "having no exact limits".




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #70
73. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. OK, so you still don't want to address the points raised --
And you say:

It very much seems that you were the one hoping that "indefinite" means "for ever"

I know what indefinite means. It means indefinite. You are the one who took issue with the use of that word. So I ask you AGAIN:

What would the precise (as in 'definite' lol) date of refunding the Campaign Finance Fund have been under Dean's proposal?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acerbic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #74
78. Which part of "until all court challenges are resolved"
...don't you understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. The part with the definite date attached.
Edited on Wed Oct-08-03 04:30 PM by Feanorcurufinwe
:eyes:


Now that hopefully you have gotten over your fit of name-calling, would you care to address the points made in posts 64 and 70?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acerbic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. "Points"?
:silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #82
85. Yes. What is your answer to them?

Specifically, one point that was made:

the money that funds public financing does not come from the general treasury. Only those taxpayers who make a voluntary contribution see their money used for this purpose. Most of the money comes from corporate fees. Is a healthy and vibrant democracy more important than road repair? Arguably yes, but that's not the point. This is a special fund, created by the Legislature for a specific use in 1997. It is inappropriate, and quite possibly illegal to use the funds for other purposes today.
Testimony of Paul Burns, Executive Director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group January 25, 2002



What is your response to that point?



Another point that was made:

This proposal is wholly inconsistent with the law as it stands and obviously has nothing to do with the state's economy. If the Legislature finds that the law needs to be changed, due to the federal district court's ruling or for any other reason, a separate bill should be drafted, debated and passed.
Testimony of Paul Burns, Executive Director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group January 25, 2002



What is your response to that point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #64
81. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #81
83. Try reading the thread instead of ignoring the points already made
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acerbic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. "Points"?
Like that people don't actually have psychic powers to predict exact DATES for many kinds of events? I concede that point. Did you actually have any others? :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #84
86. No, these points:
Specifically, one point that was made:

the money that funds public financing does not come from the general treasury. Only those taxpayers who make a voluntary contribution see their money used for this purpose. Most of the money comes from corporate fees. Is a healthy and vibrant democracy more important than road repair? Arguably yes, but that's not the point. This is a special fund, created by the Legislature for a specific use in 1997. It is inappropriate, and quite possibly illegal to use the funds for other purposes today.
Testimony of Paul Burns, Executive Director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group January 25, 2002



What is your response to that point?



Another point that was made:

This proposal is wholly inconsistent with the law as it stands and obviously has nothing to do with the state's economy. If the Legislature finds that the law needs to be changed, due to the federal district court's ruling or for any other reason, a separate bill should be drafted, debated and passed.
Testimony of Paul Burns, Executive Director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group January 25, 2002



What is your response to that point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acerbic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. Answered helluva many times in this thread already...
...but let's repeat again: because the courts said that the fund could not be used for campaign finance for now, it makes all sense to put it to good use instead of just letting it sit there. The "points" are sanctimonious hot air.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #87
89. Let's examine how well your 'answer' addresses these points:
Edited on Wed Oct-08-03 05:49 PM by Feanorcurufinwe
Specifically, one point that was made:

it is unwise to take money out of this dedicated fund, which was created for the express purpose of strengthening the state's electoral process and reducing the corrupting influence of money in the top state races. As you know, the money that funds public financing does not come from the general treasury. Only those taxpayers who make a voluntary contribution see their money used for this purpose. Most of the money comes from corporate fees. Is a healthy and vibrant democracy more important than road repair? Arguably yes, but that's not the point. This is a special fund, created by the Legislature for a specific use in 1997. It is inappropriate, and quite possibly illegal to use the funds for other purposes today.
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfrtestimo...
Testimony of Paul Burns, Executive Director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group January 25, 2002


Your answer:

because the courts said that the fund could not be used for campaign finance for now, it makes all sense to put it to good use instead of just letting it sit there.


In what way does this address the fact that the money does not come from the general treasury, that only taxpayers who voluntarily made a contribution in order to see it used for the Campaign Finance Fund paid into it? How does this address the fact that this is a special, dedicated fund, created by the Legislature for a specific use in 1997?

Have you really answered the question, or avoided it?


Another point that was made:

The Governor's plan to remove all funds indefinitely is an affront to accepted legislative process. Governor Dean has proposed not only to remove all money from the fund for FY 02, but also to divert all funding from the corporate fees into the general fund until all court challenges are resolved and any necessary legislative activity following up on the final court decision is completed. This proposal is wholly inconsistent with the law as it stands and obviously has nothing to do with the state's economy. If the Legislature finds that the law needs to be changed, due to the federal district court's ruling or for any other reason, a separate bill should be drafted, debated and passed.
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfrtestimo...
Testimony of Paul Burns, Executive Director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group January 25, 2002


Your answer:

because the courts said that the fund could not be used for campaign finance for now, it makes all sense to put it to good use instead of just letting it sit there.


How does this address the idea that if a law is flawed, the correct way to fix it is through the legislative process?

Have you really answered the question, or avoided it?



Really all of this arguing by us is just a sideshow -- the basic facts of whether Dean fought for or against campaign finance reform are clear to anyone who looks at this information honestly.


Were Dean's actions an attempt to strengthen Vermont's Campaign Finance Fund, or to weaken it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acerbic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #89
90. What a surprise, you are right about one thing:
Edited on Wed Oct-08-03 05:58 PM by acerbic
the basic facts of whether Dean fought for or against campaign finance reform are clear to anyone who looks at this information honestly.

Indeed they are clear: he fought for campaign finance reform and only after the courts didn't allow using the fund for campaign finance, he proposed using it for other purposes until it could be used for campaign finance. It's that simple despite all the spinning and twisting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #90
91. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. And removing funding for a law
is fighting for it. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acerbic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #91
92. Blather, rinse, repeat...
Edited on Wed Oct-08-03 06:11 PM by acerbic
Temporarily removing funding (which could not be used anyway) for a law struck down by a federal judge is not supporting or opposing the law. It's just common sense, despite all the spinning and twisting and deliberate, stubborn ignoring.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acerbic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #81
93. Some people seem to be really scared of simply pointing out
...the pathological illogic of Dean haters. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-11-03 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #93
105. R.I.P. acerbic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xJlM Donating Member (955 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-11-03 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #105
108. Amusing
I read through that whole exchange without knowing what was coming. Well, I should have guessed, but then who can tell about some folks...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #30
65. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Duder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
32. You betcha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #32
94. Times Argus: "the governor himself has said the donations buy access"
When Gov. Howard Dean wanted to raise money for a possible presidential bid, he followed the example of a former governor of Texas and called on his friends in the energy industry.

Nearly a fifth of the roughly $111,000 collected in its first months by Deans presidential political action committee, the Fund for a Healthy America, came from people with ties to Vermonts electric utilities, according to a recent Federal Elections Commission filing.

It should be no surprise. Dean and utility executives have had a long and friendly relationship.

<snip>

the governor himself has said the donations buy access. People who think theyre going to buy a contract or buy some influence are mistaken, Dean famously said during the debate over a campaign finance reform bill in 1996. But they do get access theres no question about that. ...They get me to return their phone calls.

Advocates of public financing for campaigns complain about the message conveyed by the contributions.

Administration actions going back some years betray an inappropriate coziness with the utilities, said Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Service Research Group. I am not prepared to say its a result of contributions given. But these contributions present the appearance of impropriety or appearance of influence that it probably would have been better to avoid.

Deans close relationship with utility representatives dates back to the day he became governor in 1991. A lobbyist for Green Mountain Power and a GMP employee were among the first people Dean called in to help his transition.
http://timesargus.com/Archive/Articles/Article/43125


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #94
97. 2004 Donor Demographics
You can check the graphs here if you'd like to know who is doing what now:

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordems.asp?s...

Or one could get down to the Kerry level and cut & paste articles that make implications such as:

Kerry Carries Water for Top Donor By M. Asif Ismail

WASHINGTON, May 7, 2003 -- Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., whose largest campaign contributor lobbies on behalf of telecommunication interests, pushed the legislative priorities of its clients in the wireless industry on several occasions, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of campaign, lobbying and congressional records has found. That analysis is part of the Centers research for The Buying of the President 2004 (to be published by HarperCollins), which tracks the financial backers and interests of the major candidates for the White House.

Kerry, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, has sponsored or co-sponsored a number of bills favorable to the industry and has written letters to government agencies on behalf of the clientele of his largest donor.
Boston-based Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo P.C. has been the biggest financial backer of the Massachusetts Democrats two decades-long political career in elected office, with its employees contributing nearly $187,000 to various Kerry races, including his current presidential campaign.

Kerrys ties to the firm go beyond campaign contributions. His brother Cameron F. Kerry is an attorney at the firms Boston office, and David Leiter, who was the Senators chief of staff for six years, is a lobbyist for ML Strategies LLC, a Mintz, Levin affiliate that provides consulting and lobbying services.

http://www.bop2004.org/dtaweb/bop2004/default.aspx?Sect...

San Diego contractor accused of illegal campaign contributions to Cunningham
BEN FOX
Associated Press

SAN DIEGO ---- A San Diego defense contractor is accused of seeking to influence Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham and four other members of Congress with illegal campaign contributions, according to a federal indictment unsealed Tuesday.

The president of Science and Applied Technology Inc. solicited employees and others to make illegal contributions to Cunningham, R-Escondido; Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.; Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California; Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania; and Rep. Joe Scarborough, R-Florida.

The contributions, totaling more than $75,000 over eight years, were intended to help the company win lucrative U.S. government contracts for an air-to-ground missile system, the indictment alleges.

None of the members of Congress, or anyone on their staff, is charged with any wrongdoing, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Phillip Halpern.

But the company's president, Parthasarathi "Bob" Majumder of Poway, is charged with 40 counts, including conspiracy, making illegal campaign contributions, witness tampering and false statements. "He clearly has the potential for jail time," Halpern said.

http://www.nctimes.net/news/2002/20020731/54549.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. What did Dean's energy industry sponsors get for their money?
Over the years, the governor has sided with the utilities on many of the most pressing issues, including the push for deregulation of the electric industry, and later backing away from that as a goal. Among other major decisions:

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

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

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

The Dean administration knew explicitly (about the worries about emergency preparedness) and deliberately didnt do anything about it in order to help CV and GMP sell the plant, said James Dumont, a lawyer for the New England Coalition On Nuclear Pollution. They didnt bite the hand that fed them.
http://timesargus.com/Archive/Articles/Article/43125
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. What did Kerry's cousin get?
'After Kerry told USA Today, Nov. 24, 1992, that Vietnam should be "rewarded" for "extraordinary cooperation" in resolving MIA cases, news wire services reported Vietnam had "awarded" the "first real estate license" to Kerry's cousin, Stuart Forbes, chief executive officer of the Boston based Colliers International.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #99
101. I'm not sure what this is supposed to show,
of course, you haven't cited any article so I have no way of putting this in context. Could we have a citation please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #101
102. My apologies...
I had assumed that you would be aware of most of the stories about Kerry, as I am about Dean. Perhaps this will clarify it for you:

'In 1991 the Senate created the Select Senate Committee on POW/MIA Affairs to investigate the possibility that U.S. prisoners of war and soldiers designated missing in action were still alive in Vietnam. Acting as chairman, Kerry helped persuade the group to vote unanimously that no American servicemen still remained in Vietnam. In doing so, he helped begin the process of normalizing U.S.-Vietnamese relations.

But Kerrys participation in the Committee became controversial in December 1992 when Hanoi announced that it had awarded Colliers International, a Boston-based real estate company, an exclusive deal to develop its commercial real estate potentially worth billions. Stuart Forbes, the CEO of Colliers, is Kerrys cousin.'

http://www.bop2004.org/dtaweb/bop2004/default.aspx?SECT...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-03 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #102
104. I guess the answer to the question is
he got a contract to develop real estate in Vietnam. Is this supposed to imply that Kerry did something wrong? What exactly? I just don't see precisely what it is that Kerry is being accused of here and I find the idea of some kind of quid pro quo with the Vietnamese highly implausible. What is it that you are suggesting?

He was am integral player in the Oliver North Hearings, having launched an investigation in 1987, know as the Kerry Committee, that exposed the diversion of drug money from counternarcotic operations to the U.S.-backed Nicaraguan Contras. In 1992, Kerry coauthored a report for the Committee on Foreign Relations on the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), an elaborate corporate spider-web that defrauded depositors of billions of dollars, engaged in money laundering, arms trafficking, and allegedly facilitated the development of Pakistans nuclear arms program. Kerry pursued the charges against the Bank of Crooks and Criminals International, as it became known, despite the involvement of the late Clark Clifford, an advisor to four Democratic presidents. Clifford was the president of First American Bank, a Washington, D.C.-based, federally regulated bank that was secretly and illegally bought by BCCI with Cliffords aid in the mid-1980s.

In 1991 the Senate created the Select Senate Committee on POW/MIA Affairs to investigate the possibility that U.S. prisoners of war and soldiers designated missing in action were still alive in Vietnam. Acting as chairman, Kerry helped persuade the group to vote unanimously that no American servicemen still remained in Vietnam. In doing so, he helped begin the process of normalizing U.S.-Vietnamese relations.

But Kerrys participation in the Committee became controversial in December 1992 when Hanoi announced that it had awarded Colliers International, a Boston-based real estate company, an exclusive deal to develop its commercial real estate potentially worth billions. Stuart Forbes, the CEO of Colliers, is Kerrys cousin.

Kerry was a delegate to the Earth Summit in 1992 (where he met his future wife, Teresa Heinz, the widow of Pennsylvania Senator John Heinz), the Kyoto climate talks in 1997 and the Hague Conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2000.

Kerry has continuously criticized the Bush administration for its abandonment of the Kyoto protocol and encouraged the United States to promote what he views as sound and sustainable environmental policies. In an August 2002 Time article Kerry asserted, Americans deserve better choices than this Administration is offering. The United States must stop being an environmental isolationist and once again work with our global alliesFirst and foremost, we must lead at home, where Americans unrivaled ability to drive economic growth through innovation can protect the environment and create jobs.
http://www.bop2004.org/dtaweb/bop2004/default.aspx?SECT...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DannyRed Donating Member (509 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 05:51 AM
Response to Original message
55. You know,
It's threads like these that, back in the spring, convinced me to support Dean.

First, these threads spurred me to research the candidate through his website and through the available record.

Second, the clearly idiotic and plainly false spins put on the articles posted (often by the posters themselves!) coupled with the amazing degree of ignorance and moronic stubborness exhibited by the bashing bulldogs (like the usual suspects who shall remain nameless) convinced me that these people were totally irrational, illogical, and fanatical in their opposition.

No amount of argument, logic, evidence, or documentation ever seemed to (then) or seems to (now) gain a single bit of traction.

In contrast, MOST (not all) Dean advocates responded with fairly levelheaded arguments in favor of their candidate, pointed to the record, and pointed out the difference between "entertained" vs. "advocated" or "supported" or pointed out the difference between "for the foreseeable future" as opposed to "for the foreseeable future until the court case is decided"...

In short, the Dean Bashers (as opposed to the Dean Critics, who as a whole raise useful questions that can be discussed to the point of a resolution of the issues at hand, at least for the moment) drove me into the Dean camp to check out their claims, turned me off with their fanatical illogic, and turned me off to the candidates they support -- especially when it came down to their "explanations" and defences of the IWR votes by various candidates. Their insistence on using the ancient record is one thing, the ancient record is certainly useful...especially when looking to see if a candidate can change their mind given new information, or is a waffler...to see if the candidate can learn, or is a poser...

But then, when someone points out the ancient record with respect to ANOTHER candidate (like Gep, or Kerry, or Kucinich, or Lieberman), suddenly the ancient record is not relevant....

Whoa! said candidate hunter (myself) these people are not only unfair, they certifiable. Demonstrably hypocritical, demonstrably irrational...wow.

And so, Dean Bashers, you are achieving the opposite of your goal.

Isn't it time you recognized that.

I was a nominal Kerry fan, with a lean toward Kucinich for his ideals.

I still like Kucinich, except for his record on abortion...which rational Kucinich supporters have explained to me satisfactorally and with grace and logic....

But Kerry lost me...and he lost me through YOU!

The same is happening with Clark...

I began supporting Dean in the Spring...when Clark started to come on the scene, I was extremely interested...the candidate himself has not really "wowed" me...but his campaign, and many of his supporters here, have completely turned me off.

Good job folks!

Keep it up....

Oh, and here in Tokyo, where I attend montly Dean Meetups, there a numerous other newly minted Dean Supporters who are saying the SAME DAMNED THING!

Get it yet?

Naw....the DLC NEVER gets it...witness the crushing of Davis and Bustamante by a sexual predator, hitler-loving, Enron-sucking scumbag in one of the most liberal states in the Union...

Why did he win so big...

BECAUSE THE DLC SUCKS, BECAUSE DEMOCRATIC POLITICS AS USUAL SUCKS...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #55
68. Thank you
for so clearly illustrating my original point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polpilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:32 AM
Response to Original message
57. 'Frozen waffles' and re-naming french fries 'freedom fries' The current
U.S. congress never ceases to surprise. Kerry needs to hand out more pink slips to his staff.

Dean '04...The New Democratic Leader of The NEW Democratic Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #57
59. Waffles? Did somebody say waffles?
"We have to stop terrorism before peace negotiations"
http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.11.22/news3.html

said he didn't "believe stopping the terror has to be a prerequisite for talking."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/elec04.prez.d... /

---------

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


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 dont have to do that now.
Russert: We have a $500 billion deficit.
Dean: But you dont 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 ofI mean, I dont recall saying that, but Im sure I did
-- Meet the Press June 22, 2003
http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp


"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 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/Politic...



Ugh, I'm getting sick of waffles. When will Dean get sick of them?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JaneQPublic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. Ask John Kerry about Waffles
I wonder why someone would publish a cartoon such as this. Apparently some people think he's waffled on the Iraq War issue.

http://www.sitnews.us/PoliticalToons/091503/091503_cart...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. Enlightening how you are unable to come up with any waffles from Kerry
and instead have to resort to a cartoon.

I'm challenging you right now to show any inconsistency in Kerry's position on Iraq. Put up or shut up. Let's see the quotes that show him saying one thing, then contradicting it, then denying he ever held the original position. Let's see it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JaneQPublic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #66
71. Well, for one....
Edited on Wed Oct-08-03 03:26 PM by JaneQPublic
...on the issue of whether Bush misled the public on Iraq:

Kerry said Wednesday that President Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Iraqs Saddam Hussein and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence. He misled every one of us, Kerry said.
--(Ron Fournier, Kerry Says Bush Misled Americans On War, The Associated Press, 6/19/03)

--BUT--

George Stephanopoulos: People are really upset that they feel misled by President Bush on this issue weapons of mass destruction. I know you said youre agnostic about whether or not he misled the public on weapons of mass destruction. But do you have a hunch on whether you think they hyped the intelligence?

John Kerry: George, again, I think it would be irresponsible of me at this point to draw conclusions prior to all the evidence being on the table. What I know is we have to get that evidence. We have to have an investigation to know to a certainty whether or not it was hype, whether we were misled (ABCs This Week, 6/15/03)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrFunkenstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. Compare Dean's Comments On Meet The Press
MR. RUSSERT: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if Saddam Hussein didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

DR. DEAN: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so.

MR. RUSSERT: What did you think of Senator John Kerry's comments that President Bush misled the country.

DR. DEAN: Well, I thought it was Senator Bob Graham that said that and I agree with that. And Bob Graham is in a position to know. He's a senior senator on the Intelligence Committee and...

MR. RUSSERT: No, John Kerry said the president misled us and...

DR. DEAN: Well, I wasn't aware that Senator Kerry said it. I knew Senator Graham had said it in Iowa. But I believe that. I think we were misled.

http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/~gabriel/dean2004blog/Dea...

<>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrFunkenstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #71
76. The Rest Of The Article You Cherry-Picked
As for the question about U.S. intelligence, Kerry said he has led the call for a congressional investigation and pledged, ''We will get to the bottom of this.''

Kerry said his service in the Vietnam war and his experience as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and former member of the Intelligence Committee of the Senate make him the Democrat best suited to question Bush's efforts on foreign policy.

''I believe I can hold President Bush accountable if they have misled us,'' he said.

Addressing senior citizens in Hanover later in the evening, Kerry said he supported a congressional investigation because it was not clear whether Bush acted on poor, distorted or politicized intelligence.

''I don't have the answer,'' he said. ''I want the answer and the American people deserve the answer. I will get to the bottom of this.''

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0618-09.htm

How do you like them waffles? Next!

<>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JaneQPublic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. So which does Kerry believe? He said both.
Does he think Bush misled us or not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrFunkenstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #77
88. Um...Uh...Gee...
Addressing senior citizens in Hanover later in the evening, Kerry said he supported a congressional investigation because it was not clear whether Bush acted on poor, distorted or politicized intelligence.

''I don't have the answer,'' he said. ''I want the answer and the American people deserve the answer. I will get to the bottom of this.''

--

Do you think this could mean that he thinks that Bush misled us, but "it was not clear whether Bush acted on poor, distorted or politicized intelligence?"

Don't insult your own intelligence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andromeda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-11-03 04:18 AM
Response to Original message
106. Well Gephardt and his team ...
seem to be beating a dead horse, don't they?

Dean addressed the Medicare issue during the CNN fiasco, whoops, I mean debate. I thought poor old Judy Woodruff would faint. She was all over the place and didn't seem to remember who she had asked questions of before interrupting and going on to the next person.

But I digress.

It would seem that the seniors pretty much had their act together and knew, like most thinking people should know, that Dean is not trying to make cuts to Medicare or trying to get rid of it altogether. He has explained over, and over, and over again what his stand is on Medicare. He wants to improve it and make it more efficient. Period. End of story.

The same for Social Security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-11-03 04:41 AM
Response to Reply #106
107. Actually Dean recently gave an interview with Stephanopolous
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
110. Real 'class' from the Gephart and Kerry campaigns.
All who are surprised raise your hands. :eyes:
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 Sun Dec 21st 2014, 11:17 PM
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