Howard Dean's legacy revealed

[DustyBottoms]

Monday Dec. 22, 2003; 12:23 a.m. EST
Legislator: Dean is New England's Gray Davis

Never mind Howard Dean's wild-eyed statements charging President Bush with complicity in the 9/11 attacks, his pandering to fans of the Confederate flag and his nutty claim that America is no safer now that Saddam Hussein has been captured.

Vermont Republicans say Dean's record governing their state should be enough to disqualify him from ever winning the White House, with one ex-state legislator calling him "the Gray Davis of the East."

According to the Dwinnell Political Report, which kept tabs on Dean's record until he left office earlier this year, the Democratic presidential frontrunner left his state with:

* Skyrocketing electricity rates, exploding health insurance costs and nearly the highest workman's compensation rates in the nation.

* A falling per capita income, with the state's nationwide ranking slipping from the mid-twenties to the mid-thirties on Dean's watch.

* Net job losses in 2002 for the first time in a decade.

A former state legislator tells NewsMax that during Dean's last six years in office, Vermont has lost nearly 20 percent of its manufacturing jobs.

Meanwhile the Green Mountain state now has the sixth highest welfare spending per capita in the nation.

Vermont also ranks sixth in per capita education spending, but has only average graduation rates and a below-average SAT scores.

Said the ex-legislator, "They don't call Howard Dean 'The Gray Davis of the East' for nothing."

[aclu14]

And who might this ex-legislator be?

[w1che]

ACLU would it matter to you who the ex-legislator is?:lol

[DustyBottoms]

Hey Tig - Would you define this as a lie? :)

PEMBROKE, N.H. — Howard Dean came under criticism from an Iowa newspaper last weekend for an answer to a questionnaire in which he implied that his brother was serving in the military when he disappeared in Laos 29 years ago. His brother had been traveling in Southeast Asia as a tourist.

[aclu14]

Originally posted by w1che
ACLU would it matter to you who the ex-legislator is?:lol

Yes - maybe the ex-legislator has a record of his own, and is therefore a huge hypocrite, or sometimes sources are just made up! And considering that this story doesn't even have a link, I'm tempted to believe that it was written out of the air!

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by aclu14


Yes - maybe the ex-legislator has a record of his own, and is therefore a huge hypocrite, or sometimes sources are just made up! And considering that this story doesn't even have a link, I'm tempted to believe that it was written out of the air!

ACLU - Google is your friend... :)

[Ateo]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
Hey Tig - Would you define this as a lie? :)
Doesn't matter what I think. You've already made up your mind. :)

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Doesn't matter what I think. You've already made up your mind. :)

Thought so. :lol :lol :lol

BTW - Merry Christmas. I hope you really enjoy the holidays! :clap

[w1che]

Well you see ACLU the point was .. No matter who the ex-legislator is you would disagree with him/her anyway so it doesn't matter... Yep I could send you a link to google if you need it... :lol :wave

[aclu14]

No thanks, Wunch.

I'm sure everyone around here is aware of Bush's own preprez records.

[Ateo]

I did a Google search--on the title of the article. You know what came up? Just a bunch of partisan right-wing websites (PRWW's).

Sorry. I don't believe what PRWW's say. Unless there's some independent corroboration.

[w1che]

Quote from Tig.. I did a Google search--on the title of the article. You know what came up? Just a bunch of partisan right-wing websites (PRWW's).
>>>>>>>>>

Why would they lie Tigger? We want Dean to win the nomination. I could even beat that 5ft 5in pug radical Liberal in the general election.. When he starts trying to move to the center to get votes, Rove & Bush will smash him like a bug... You have to remember the average person doesn't even know who Dean is now but they will... :eek:

[King Solomon]

Originally posted by aclu14
...I'm sure everyone around here is aware of Bush's own preprez records.

Just in case they aren't aclu here (http://www.dumblaws.com/forums/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2679&perpage=15&pagenumber=1) is the link to refresh their memories :smash Or how about this (http://www.ibew.org/JustTheFact0309.pdf) :)

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by King Solomon


Just in case they aren't aclu here (http://www.dumblaws.com/forums/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2679&perpage=15&pagenumber=1) is the link to refresh their memories :smash Or how about this (http://www.ibew.org/JustTheFact0309.pdf) :)

My thread is about Howard Dean.

Why not start your own anti-Bush treads?

Can't you find anything positive to say about Dean? :lol :wave :lol

[sinecure]

Dean has already sown the seeds of his own political destruction.... that, and he's a Democrat, pretty-much puts the cork in it .:wink

Me? I'm voting for Sharpton 'cause I like his HAIR.. :lol :lol

[Ateo]

Originally posted by w1che
We want Dean to win the nomination. I could even beat that 5ft 5in pug radical Liberal in the general election.. When he starts trying to move to the center to get votes, Rove & Bush will smash him like a bug... Like I said...for you guys it's all about maintaining power. You pretend it's about doing what's good for the country, but that's BS. It's about monopolizing the system. It's pretty transparent.

Hopefully enough voters will catch on to this crap before the election.

So if you wanna keep on bashing Dean with lies & distortions, be my guest. You'll be doing it at your own peril. :)

[sinecure]

Tig-- here's a flash for you.... YES... ELECTIONS ARE ALL ABOUT "POWER"!

Always have been... always will be.

And it's the side with the bleakest outlook-- the one with the dismal prospects-- that usually resorts to the "it's all about POWER" statement using it as both a revelation of some sort as well as a complaint. Like it was some never-before-seen phenomenon. :eek:

To keep within your recent experience-- It was all about POWER when Clinton won each time, and when the Dems had Congress all sewed-up...

Get a grip, son...! This is the RealWorld™ you're living in. :p :lol :lol :wave

[Ateo]

I understand all that Sin. All administrations want to stay in power, and all candidates want to take that power away. I know.

What ticks me off is, I'm willing to vote for a Republican candidate, or a Dem, or an independent--party makes no difference to me, as long as a candidate is intelligent, insightful, actually READS newspapers and has a balanced view of the world, isn't an extremist, is able to make his own decisions without aquiescing to some creepy, smirking, pasty-faced puppetmasters lurking behind the curtain...I've said it a million times before, I would have voted for McCain over Gore. Despite my occasional ranting I really try to be fair-minded.

W1che represents a segment of society that would never consider voting for a Democrat, in fact sees all Democrats and liberals as vile, traitorous collaborators with the enemy. This new-age neo-con world view is rotting Democracy from the inside out. It's creating lethal amounts of polarization--and yes, the right started it with Limbaugh and the anti-Clinton crusades in the early 90's. It's poisoning the national discourse. Librals are now resorting to using the same dirty rotten tactics, maybe because they feel the only way to fight fire is with fire.

This admin is unprecedented in it's willingness to distort facts, lie to congress, mislead the populace and use spin and fear and false patriotism to get away with it. (yeah, I know I'm ranting, bite me)

All these little neo-con sheep like Wunch who embrace the party line to the letter, buy the Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, Goldberg hate books, are simply on a mission to mischaracterize people they disagree with politically, labeling them as traitors, anti-American, evil, etc etc, all in an effort to render them impotent politicially. It may work, it may not. One thing for sure--thanks to people like this, we're now--ALL of us-- wallowing in our own sh*t.

Anyway, hope you had a good Christmas. :) :wink

[sinecure]

Jeez! Tig...

Off your meds? Or was that just a much-needed catharsis of some kind? :question :wink

You do make some logical points... even after all that crap is sifted through the sieve of rationality. :wink

However-- saying that Bush's gang is "unprecedented" in it's "willingness to lie" is both wrong and only an immediate one of several FINE examples of how YOU , ol' buddy, are doing [i]precisely what you are accusing W1che and the rest of us of. Do some thinking on it.

And this stance of "well, the Demos are only responding to the Repubs...THEY started if FIRST" is both juvenile and short-sighted... this stuff has been evolving over the past several decades in the Right... Used to be you only heard harsh criticism from the Left and particularly the followers of Ol' Commie Noam's bunch of LibElites. Now that the Right has their own "stars" it kinda puts you off your feed, doesn't it?
:clap

...and as far as "we're now--ALL of us-- wallowing in our own sh*t." --- I don't know about YOUR personal situation, but I worked hard, kept out of trouble and invested/saved wisely... I'm doing really OK. If this is "sh*t" to YOU then go away and leave me alone to wallow away, you little doom-and-gloom Cassandra!
:p :rolleyes: :wave

...and yeah... I hope you had a great Christmas as well. :wink

[aclu14]

Originally posted by sinecure


Me? I'm voting for Sharpton 'cause I like his HAIR.. :lol :lol

Sharpton's hair is a pittance - look at KERRY's hair! It's going to jump off his head and kill someone! I think it sometimes talks for him! That's why there's such a prominent part in it!

[sinecure]

Originally posted by aclu14


Sharpton's hair is a pittance - look at KERRY's hair! It's going to jump off his head and kill someone! I think it sometimes talks for him! That's why there's such a prominent part in it!

Izzat Kerry's HAIR?... I figured he was still wearing his VietNam steel helmet... painted it gray or something.

You DO know that he was in VietNam, right? If you've ever heard him talk, you know it. He can't seem to say three sentences without somehow mentioning his VN time. :rolleyes:


DANG!! aclu--- this is the second agreeable post-exchange we've had.

I kinda like it!
:) :wave

[Ateo]

Originally posted by sinecure
...and as far as "we're now--ALL of us-- wallowing in our own sh*t." --- I don't know about YOUR personal situation, but I worked hard, kept out of trouble and invested/saved wisely... I'm doing really OK. If this is "sh*t" to YOU then go away and leave me alone to wallow away, you little doom-and-gloom Cassandra! Now, now. I'm only talking about politics, silly. I actually had a very nice Christmas, and am not really a gloomy guy. But when it comes to 2003 politics, I gets a little passionate. It says a lot when 99% of liberals in this country would feel better having Nixon in office than Dubya. That's one little indication that things are going awry. Just one. Just a teeny tiny one. Of many.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort
It says a lot when 99% of liberals in this country would feel better having Nixon in office than Dubya. That's one little indication that things are going awry. Just one. Just a teeny tiny one. Of many.

Is THAT a reliable and true statement ? Shows how far off-the-bubble [or out-of-date :p ] you Libs actually are!

However... Nixon DID get us out of the Democratic jam-up they made of Viet Nam... Hmmmm? :question

[Ateo]

Originally posted by sinecure
However... Nixon DID get us out of the Democratic jam-up they made of Viet Nam... Hmmmm? :question After spending how many fruitless years wasting how many American lives?

At one time Nixon was the personification of how low national politics could go. In comparison to the Bushies, he's a pansy. He's a girly-man. Seriously.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort
After spending how many fruitless years wasting how many American lives?

Yeah, well... all those DEMOCRATIC years of the VN war were certainly "fruitless". And of course it was the Democrats who got us into the whole mess in the beginning.

At one time Nixon was the personification of how low national politics could go. In comparison to the Bushies, he's a pansy. He's a girly-man. Seriously.

Bush has an 19 or 20-minute-gap in his tapes?

:rolleyes: :lol :lol

[Ateo]

Originally posted by sinecure
Bush has an 19 or 20-minute-gap in his tapes?

:rolleyes: :lol :lol [/B]
Tapes? Ha ha ha ha ha! (evil laugh). You think the Bushies would be dumb enough to tape themselves?

Rove is much smarter than that. He's very prudent and methodical in his deviousness. :)

With Nixon it was a personality flaw. With the Bushies it's modus operandi.

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Now, now. I'm only talking about politics, silly. I actually had a very nice Christmas, and am not really a gloomy guy. But when it comes to 2003 politics, I gets a little passionate. It says a lot when 99% of liberals in this country would feel better having Nixon in office than Dubya. That's one little indication that things are going awry. Just one. Just a teeny tiny one. Of many.

99%? I would like to see the source. Oh - nevermind it's not important.

What I really want to say is:

I hope we (me and Bush :wink) do run againt Dean. I am going to stop taking shots at him until he gets the nomination. I worry that you guys will pull a contender out of the woodwork before election time. Dean's the Man!:)

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Like I said...for you guys it's all about maintaining power. You pretend it's about doing what's good for the country, but that's BS. It's about monopolizing the system. It's pretty transparent.

Hopefully enough voters will catch on to this crap before the election.

So if you wanna keep on bashing Dean with lies & distortions, be my guest. You'll be doing it at your own peril. :) Yea, thats why they demand all those activist judges be insatlled and subvert the constittuion to do it .
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by aclu14


Sharpton's hair is a pittance - look at KERRY's hair! It's going to jump off his head and kill someone! I think it sometimes talks for him! That's why there's such a prominent part in it! Did'nt his hair serve in vietnam?????

Originally posted by sinecure


Izzat Kerry's HAIR?... I figured he was still wearing his VietNam steel helmet... painted it gray or something.

You DO know that he was in VietNam, right? If you've ever heard him talk, you know it. He can't seem to say three sentences without somehow mentioning his VN time. :rolleyes:


DANG!! aclu--- this is the second agreeable post-exchange we've had.

I kinda like it!
:) :wave say, since the left hated vietnam somuch and everyone who served was [i]Originally posted by tigsnort

Tapes? Ha ha ha ha ha! (evil laugh). You think the Bushies would be dumb enough to tape themselves?

Rove is much smarter than that. He's very prudent and methodical in his deviousness. :)

With Nixon it was a personality flaw. With the Bushies it's modus operandi. [/QUOTE]Well according to you guys he is dumber than concrete , so yes. Or are you admitting he is not so dumb as you all want us to think now.A bit of a capitulation there tig????????

[DEAD ZONE]

http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000644.html

DEAN ON TORT REFORM. Be nice if he we really knew what he ment ,huh.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Now, now. I'm only talking about politics, silly. I actually had a very nice Christmas, and am not really a gloomy guy. But when it comes to 2003 politics, I gets a little passionate. It says a lot when 99% of liberals in this country would feel better having Nixon in office than Dubya. That's one little indication that things are going awry. Just one. Just a teeny tiny one. Of many. Being as he is dead and they know it cant happen I bet they would rather have hitler as well. :rolleyes:

Or maybe osama??

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean says he's not sure Osama bin Laden is guilty of anything – even though the leader of the al-Qaida terrorist network has boasted of his attacks on the U.S., including the one Sept. 11, 2001.

Dean made the stunning comments in an interview published today in New Hampshire's Concord Monitor.

The Monitor asked: "Where should Osama bin Laden be tried if he's caught?"

According to the paper, Dean said he didn't think it made any difference, and if he were president he would consult with his lawyers for advice on the subject.

[Ateo]

What toilet-level right wing tabloid rag did you dig that one out of, DZ? I see your standards are sinking even lower. Sad.
Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean says he's not sure Osama bin Laden is guilty of anything
So what's the implication here...Dean approves of the 9/11 attacks? Yeah, that's real unbiased, substantive reporting there. I see a Pulitzer in that writer's future.

Are you intelligent enough to know the difference between defending the rule of law in this country and being an Osama supporter? No? Maybe you ate some bad beef recently...

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
What toilet-level right wing tabloid rag did you dig that one out of, DZ? I see your standards are sinking even lower. Sad.

So what's the implication here...Dean approves of the 9/11 attacks? Yeah, that's real unbiased, substantive reporting there. I see a Pulitzer in that writer's future.

Are you intelligent enough to know the difference between defending the rule of law in this country and being an Osama supporter? No? Maybe you ate some bad beef recently... Personal attacks are increasing instead of dealing with the facts. Tig, you are hanging around w1 to much.

Big News flash for you my leftist political hack. OSAMA ADMITTED TO THE ATTACKS. Why would you even contemplate defending such a jack *** remark .I posted nothing aboute due process and he said nothing in context that changes the fact he said osama may not have done anything. He even retracted the entire thing latter because he saw just how stupid it was.

Dean made the comments in an interview published in New Hampshire's Concord Monitor.

The Monitor asked: "Where should Osama bin Laden be tried if he's caught?"

According to the paper, Dean said he didn't think it made any difference, and if he were president he would consult with his lawyers for advice on the subject.

The second question deals with due process not the first. Unless he had the questions beforehand and got the answeres confussed, he is giving osama a pass.

"As an American, I want to make sure he gets the death penalty he deserves," Dean hastily told the Associated Press.That was just hours after his attention was called to the bizarre comments made in the Concord Monitor.

Even he sees what he said as stupid. He is practising damage controle and trying to bring the second quetion on due process up into the first. Sorry. Too late old all seeing fortune teller.

[Ateo]

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/politics2003/deanside122603_2003.shtmlThe Monitor asked: Where should Osama bin Laden be tried if he's caught? Dean said he didn't think it made any difference, and if he were president he would consult with his lawyers for advice on the subject.

But wouldn't most Americans feel strongly that bin Laden should be tried in America - and put to death?

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said. "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials. So I'm sure that is the correct sentiment of most Americans, but I do think if you're running for president, or if you are president, it's best to say that the full range of penalties should be available. But it's not so great to prejudge the judicial system."


Once again, when you read the entire quote, rather than the breathless NewsMax/Drudge tabloid interpretation of it, you can see that Dean is making a rational statement.

He's simply standing up for the Constitution and the law.

So I guess this is the pattern we'll be seeing: Dean makes a statement; right-wing cretins then re-interpret it, by omission or implication, in order to twist it into an evil shape as a means of characterizing Dean as an anti-American terrorist sympathizer.

Pathetic.

Remember, DZ: patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Better check yourself.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/politics2003/deanside122603_2003.shtml
Once again, when you read the entire quote, rather than the breathless NewsMax/Drudge tabloid interpretation of it, you can see that Dean is making a rational statement.

He's simply standing up for the Constitution and the law.

So I guess this is the pattern we'll be seeing: Dean makes a statement; right-wing cretins then re-interpret it, by omission or implication, in order to twist it into an evil shape as a means of characterizing Dean as an anti-American terrorist sympathizer.

Pathetic.

Remember, DZ: patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Better check yourself. No it is not. Cnn has it also as do many other outlets so your set up does not work tig.Why did the old boy see fit to withdraw it and or "correct " his statement only hours later? He knew exactly what he ment and what hwe said.

question one:The Monitor asked: Where should Osama bin Laden be tried if he's caught? Dean said he didn't think it made any difference, and if he were president he would consult with his lawyers for advice on the subject.Context end of first question.

Question two;But wouldn't most Americans feel strongly that bin Laden should be tried in America - and put to death?

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said. "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials. So I'm sure that is the correct sentiment of most Americans, but I do think if you're running for president, or if you are president, it's best to say that the full range of penalties should be available. But it's not so great to prejudge the judicial system."
context end of second question.

Here is another deanism:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean has demanded release of secret deliberations of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force. But as Vermont governor, Dean had an energy task force that met in secret and angered state lawmakers.

Dean's group held one public hearing and after-the-fact volunteered the names of industry executives and liberal advocates it consulted in private, but the Vermont governor refused to open the task force's closed-door deliberations.

In 1999, Dean offered the same argument the Bush administration uses today for keeping deliberations of a policy task force secret.
Oh my gosh, Its not druge or news max either tig!!!!!!!

:lol :lol :lol :p :smash
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031228/D7VNLUIG2.html

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort

Remember, DZ: patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Better check yourself. [/B]I sugest you look up the context of THAT quote before YOU mis use it.

Boswell tells us that Samuel Johnson made this famous pronouncement that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel on the evening of April 7, 1775. He doesn't provide any context for how the remark arose, so we don't really know for sure what was on Johnson's mind at the time.

However, Boswell assures us that Johnson was not indicting patriotism in general, only false patriotism.

http://www.samueljohnson.com/patrioti.html

http://www.samueljohnson.com/qotw02q2.html#0630

Whats pathetic is this line always being used as a final fall back by those that despise patriotism in the first place.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
No it is not. Cnn has it also as do many other outlets so your set up does not work tig.Why did the old boy see fit to withdraw it and or "correct " his statement only hours later? He knew exactly what he ment and what hwe said.

question one:The Monitor asked: Where should Osama bin Laden be tried if he's caught? Dean said he didn't think it made any difference, and if he were president he would consult with his lawyers for advice on the subject.Context end of first question.

Question two;But wouldn't most Americans feel strongly that bin Laden should be tried in America - and put to death?

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said. "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials. So I'm sure that is the correct sentiment of most Americans, but I do think if you're running for president, or if you are president, it's best to say that the full range of penalties should be available. But it's not so great to prejudge the judicial system."
context end of second question.

Here is another deanism:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean has demanded release of secret deliberations of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force. But as Vermont governor, Dean had an energy task force that met in secret and angered state lawmakers.

Dean's group held one public hearing and after-the-fact volunteered the names of industry executives and liberal advocates it consulted in private, but the Vermont governor refused to open the task force's closed-door deliberations.

In 1999, Dean offered the same argument the Bush administration uses today for keeping deliberations of a policy task force secret.
Oh my gosh, Its not druge or news max either tig!!!!!!!

:lol :lol :lol :p :smash
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031228/D7VNLUIG2.html

I better clearify now the point so tig does not stray off on another tangent thats irrelavant.

ItsNot his exercise of executive privilege belief in needed secrecythyats troubling necessarily . they both may have perfectly legitimate reasons for pursuing such a course.

The point is if he can reconcile his own actions and statements.

"Dean asserts that "the President of the United States ought to go the extra mile to maintain the public trust." He blasts the administration for failing to conduct deals "in a much more transparent way," for doing little "to avoid actions that could create even the appearance of impropriety," and for fostering an "atmosphere of secrecy."

Has he met his own standards?"

Keep in mind that this concern has no relevance to the administration's misdeeds wheteher true or not. Even if we Give in that Bush has been worse than Dean{which is a bad comparison given the differing scale of ofice}, you still must explain if the latter has fulfilled his vow to "expose the inner workings of his campaign to supporters." That explanation is vital to dean as he has cast himself as an outsider -- as the candidate who willbring real change to Washington.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
What toilet-level right wing tabloid rag did you dig that one out of, DZ? I see your standards are sinking even lower. Sad.

another right wing tabloid and right wing candidates.

http://nypost.com/news/nationalnews/14602.htm

[Ateo]

Jesus DZ, did you put Bush under the same exacting mircroscope when he was running in 2000? A lot of inconsistancies and an unwillingness to be open about past issues were apparent with Bush. A LOT. The right and the media are suddenly holding Dean up to extremely high standards, whereas they basically gave Bush a free ride. This is so biased it's laughable. Remember in 2000, all the fuss made--drum-beated daily on the cable pundit shows--about Gore "changing his shirts" all the time, as though he were pandering to audiences? But nothing, zero, nada about Bush's year AWOL in the military--a much more serious, relevent issue. Well, the same thing will be happening with Dean. He's definitely got a hard road ahead of him.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Jesus DZ, did you put Bush under the same exacting mircroscope when he was running in 2000? A lot of inconsistancies and an unwillingness to be open about past issues were apparent with Bush. A LOT. The right and the media are suddenly holding Dean up to extremely high standards, whereas they basically gave Bush a free ride. This is so biased it's laughable. Remember in 2000, all the fuss made--drum-beated daily on the cable pundit shows--about Gore "changing his shirts" all the time, as though he were pandering to audiences? But nothing, zero, nada about Bush's year AWOL in the military--a much more serious, relevent issue. Well, the same thing will be happening with Dean. He's definitely got a hard road ahead of him. Excuse YOU. They are holdding Dean to HIS OWN STANDARDS.

They did not give Bus a free ride ROFLMAO:lol :lol :lol :lol

there are archived threads everywhere dealling with Bush and his energy task force and policy. You are really showing your partison hack side here tig.:clap

What the heck does Gore and Bushes AWOl have to do withthis issue. Dean brought it up, Blame HIM. By the way, The AWOL thing was brought up.

Take note tig.This concern has no relevance to the administration's supposed misdeeds. Even if we give you that Bush has been worse than Dean, you still need to explain whether the latter has fulfilled his vow to "expose the inner workings of his campaign to supporters." And the explanation is critical because he has cast himself as an outsider -- as a candidate who can bring real change to Washington.

Instead you go off on wild irrelavant tangents.
Remember in 2000, all the fuss made--drum-beated daily on the cable pundit shows--about Gore "changing his shirts" all the time, as though he were pandering to audiences? But nothing, zero, nada about Bush's year AWOL in the military--a much more serious, relevent issue. Well, the same thing will be happening with Dean. He's definitely got a hard road ahead of him.
A daily show WHAAAAAAAAAA!?

What kind of argument is this? Bottom line is that if Dean is making this case against Bush, he should open up the books himself.
Whats the matter tig, is one man's veil another man's changing viewpoint.?

There's no time frame to live in like the unending present, huh tig.If Dean has changed his opinion, why doesn't he release the documents? Seems to me that he's changed what he says, but not what he does.

"The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may distort it; but there it is. " -Churchill

[Ateo]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
They did not give Bus a free ride ROFLMAO:lol :lol :lol :lol
Sorry, it's impossible to debate someone who's delusional :rolleyes:

[DEAD ZONE]

You just know your post was b.s. tig :smash :rolleyes:

[Ateo]

Take a deep breath and imagine...just imagine...that Dean was in the national guard in the early 70's and went awol for about a year, coincidentally right before he was supposed to take a drug test. You would also have to imagine that Dean came from daddy-is-a-politician privelege, because that's the only way he could do such a thing and get away with it.

Imagine the endless howls of outrage and chest-beating by all the right wing pundits, Fox News talking heads, Limbaugh, Hannity, W1che, all the right wing rags...DEAN THE DESERTER! DEAN ABANDONED AMERICA!...eventually the mainstream press would pick it up: "Dean Faces Harsh Criticisms Over AWOL Controversy". It would be a scandal. You guys would be all over him like flies on bad meat.

Do you remember Bush having to face any fire over that, other than an odd reporter or two asking him about it? Even then he didn't give a credible answer. But nobody pushed. Kid gloves.

Here's the thing--if someone who bashed Bush hard in 2000 brings up these Dean criticisms, I'll consider their merit. But I'm not gonna listen to this crap form hypocrites, Bush-worshippers. You guys want it both ways but you can't have it.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Take a deep breath and imagine...just imagine...that Dean was in the national guard in the early 70's and went awol for about a year, coincidentally right before he was supposed to take a drug test. You would also have to imagine that Dean came from daddy-is-a-politician privelege, because that's the only way he could do such a thing and get away with it.

Imagine the endless howls of outrage and chest-beating by all the right wing pundits, Fox News talking heads, Limbaugh, Hannity, W1che, all the right wing rags...DEAN THE DESERTER! DEAN ABANDONED AMERICA!...eventually the mainstream press would pick it up: "Dean Faces Harsh Criticisms Over AWOL Controversy". It would be a scandal. You guys would be all over him like flies on bad meat.

Do you remember Bush having to face any fire over that, other than an odd reporter or two asking him about it? Even then he didn't give a credible answer. But nobody pushed. Kid gloves.

Here's the thing--if someone who bashed Bush hard in 2000 brings up these Dean criticisms, I'll consider their merit. But I'm not gonna listen to this crap form hypocrites, Bush-worshippers. You guys want it both ways but you can't have it. Yes I remember it just look at this and other forum archives, press archives and you see it to. You just dont want to look and you dont want to stay on the actual issue either.
Here tig,kets throw some of your own boys ideas at you and see how you sqirm out of them:

Kerry has criticized Dean’s plan to roll back all of President Bush’s tax cuts, including those for the middle class. Clark has assailed Dean for heading to the ski slopes after getting a medical deferment to avoid military service in Vietnam. Lieberman has ridiculed Dean’s assertion that Saddam’s capture did not make Americans safer.John Kerry has been quoted about Dean wanting to tax the middle class.
Dean just went crying to McAuliffe because they are being mean to him. WHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

he even manged to insult McAuliffe in the process.
“If we had strong leadership in the Democratic Party, it would be calling the other candidates and saying somebody has to win here,” Dean said Sunday. “If (former Democratic National Committee head) Ron Brown were chairman, this wouldn’t be happening.”

Debra DeShong, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, dismissed Dean’s complaints, saying what he is going through is not unusual.

“Democratic primaries over the last 20 years have been just as tough and just as vigorous,” she said.Gephardt accused Dean of now wanting to change the rules of the game “as he makes a series of embarrassing gaffes that underscore the fact that he is not well-equipped to challenge George Bush.”


What a panty waist. Cant this guy even change his own diapers?

Again ;Take note tig.This concern has no relevance to the administration's supposed misdeeds. Even if we give you that Bush has been worse than Dean, you still need to explain whether the latter has fulfilled his vow to "expose the inner workings of his campaign to supporters." And the explanation is critical because he has cast himself as an outsider -- as a candidate who can bring real change to Washington.

Instead you go off on wild irrelavant tangents.

[DEAD ZONE]

Dean admitted a year ago that "future political considerations" drove his stonewalling on releasing his info: "We didn't want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time."
.

[Ateo]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Instead you go off on wild irrelavant tangents. Pot calling kettle black.

My tangents are relevent.

You're free to disagree.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Pot calling kettle black.

My tangents are relevent.

You're free to disagree. :rolleyes:

[DEAD ZONE]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/29/politics/campaigns/29DEAN.html
Dean... implied that many of his supporters, particularly young people, might stay home in November if another Democrat's name ends up on the ballot.

"I don't know where they're going to go, but they're certainly not going to vote for a conventional Washington politician," he said.

Though Dr. Dean has repeatedly said he would back whichever Democrat wins the nomination, he said Sunday that support was "not transferable anymore" and that endorsements, including his own, "don't guarantee anything."

Dean is huffy .this guy cant even take it from his own. How much of a pansie is he going to be with foreign leaders if he wins. We might as well surrender now.


Mr. Marshal calls it . Seems the dems have a oose cannon.


The price of admission to the Democratic primary race is a pledge of committed support to whomever wins the nomination, period. (The sense of entitlement to other Democrats' support comes after you win the nomination, not before.) If Dean can't sign on that dotted-line, he has no business asking for the party's nomination.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_12_28.html#002353

Go back and look at the attacks on McCain. Theyw ere just ad bad if not worse and he had the guts to stick with it.He did not pull this threaten crap.

They call Bush a cowboy????

[Ateo]

Dean's new at national politics. Maybe he needs to grow a tougher skin. He may over time, he may not.

At least he's taking some heat. Unlike some pansies who get a free ride all the way.

[Ateo]

revisit
Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Kerry has criticized Dean’s plan to roll back all of President Bush’s tax cuts, including those for the middle class. Clark has assailed Dean for heading to the ski slopes after getting a medical deferment to avoid military service in Vietnam. Lieberman has ridiculed Dean’s assertion that Saddam’s capture did not make Americans safer.John Kerry has been quoted about Dean wanting to tax the middle class.
Dean just went crying to McAuliffe because they are being mean to him. WHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!! You know who the pathetic losers are in this scenario?

A: Kerry. Clark. Lieberman.

Those three idiots know Dean is going to be the front runner, yet they create nice little sound bites the GOP can use in their political ads after Dean is nominated. Nice. What are they going to say after the nomination: "oh, I didn't mean it! I actually support Dean, for he represents my party!". Stupid fools.

That's why Dean was "whining".

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
revisit
You know who the pathetic losers are in this scenario?

A: Kerry. Clark. Lieberman.

Those three idiots know Dean is going to be the front runner, yet they create nice little sound bites the GOP can use in their political ads after Dean is nominated. Nice. What are they going to say after the nomination: "oh, I didn't mean it! I actually support Dean, for he represents my party!". Stupid fools.

That's why Dean was "whining". Yep. The repubs have already said they are just waitting to do that. They love it.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2093303/

Dean is no saint either however.

The latest fun started on Dec. 18. In a speech that day, Dean said, "While Bill Clinton said that the era of big government is over, I believe we must enter a new era for the Democratic Party—not one where we join Republicans and aim simply to limit the damage they inflict on working families." Was Dean belittling Clinton? Dean's aides said no. But on Dec. 22, Dean was at it again. He told an audience that to win the White House, he would need support from all Democrats, "even the Democratic Leadership Council, which is sort of the Republican part of the Democratic Party … the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. We're going to need them too."

Republican wing? The Democratic Leadership Council is the organization Bill Clinton co-founded in 1985 to represent moderate and conservative Democrats. Clinton called this constituency "us." Dean calls it "them."

When Dean was asked the next day about his jab at the DLC, he explained, "I was having a little fun at their expense. They've had eight months of fun at my expense. I figured I owed them a day of fun at their expense."

[sinecure]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
When Dean was asked the next day about his jab at the DLC, he explained, "I was having a little fun at their expense. They've had eight months of fun at my expense. I figured I owed them a day of fun at their expense."[/i]

Oh well... since it was just all in fun, :rolleyes: I suppose we can just forget it? Too bad there isn't a mechanism for Dean to insert "smileys" after one of his "fun" statements.

Just another example of a Dem doing the "Liberal Rumba" when they step on their own... ahhh.... "shoelaces." :wink

[actually, I suppose M. Albright's recent statements she eventually passed-off as "made tongue-in cheek" would qualify as well.... and I don't know if she wears lace-up shoes or not. :p :wink ]

[Ateo]

Originally posted by sinecure


Oh well... since it was just all in fun, :rolleyes: I suppose we can just forget it? Too bad there isn't a mechanism for Dean to insert "smileys" after one of his "fun" statements.

Just another example of a Dem doing the "Liberal Rumba" when they step on their own... ahhh.... "shoelaces." :wink "I was having a little fun at their expense. They've had eight months of fun at my expense. I figured I owed them a day of fun at their expense."

He was being light-hearted there, obviously...

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort
"I was having a little fun at their expense. They've had eight months of fun at my expense. I figured I owed them a day of fun at their expense."

He was being light-hearted there, obviously...

You have hit all around it but still no bullseye... It's not "obvious." Was he "light-hearted" when he originally made the statements...? Or did he decide thathe was "light-hearted" only in retrospect and after-the-fact?

'Cmon, Tig... I know you ain't that dense or "slow"! :smash

[w1che]

Quote from Sin... 'Cmon, Tig... I know you ain't that dense or "slow"!
>>>>>>>

Sin I think you're guessing. "You don't know".. Tig may very well be that dense & slow.. :lol :question

I don't think the mainstream Demos care what they say about Dead.. They just plain can't stand the thought of him getting the nomination.. Reason.. They know he can't beat Bush.. I'm sure by now the dem's have done their own polls & know the chance of Dean beating Bush is zero to none..

[Ateo]

Originally posted by sinecure


You have hit all around it but still no bullseye... It's not "obvious." Was he "light-hearted" when he originally made the statements...? Or did he decide thathe was "light-hearted" only in retrospect and after-the-fact?

'Cmon, Tig... I know you ain't that dense or "slow"! :smash
I thought I made it clear by the Dean quote I italicized, immediately before I said "He was being lighthearted there", what I was referring to.

Boy Sin, how much clearer do I have to be?? :wink

You seemed to take Dean's "I was having fun at their expense" seriously. I was just saying that comment, specifically, was lighthearted.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort

I thought I made it clear by the Dean quote I italicized, immediately before I said "He was being lighthearted there", what I was referring to.

Boy Sin, how much clearer do I have to be?? :wink

You seemed to take Dean's "I was having fun at their expense" seriously. I was just saying that comment, specifically, was lighthearted.

Then I'm afraid it still isn't "clear" to me... :wink :confused \shrug/

From DZ's post:

The latest fun started on Dec. 18. In a speech that day, Dean said, "While Bill Clinton said that the era of big government is over, I believe we must enter a new era for the Democratic Party—not one where we join Republicans and aim simply to limit the damage they inflict on working families." Was Dean belittling Clinton? Dean's aides said no. But on Dec. 22, Dean was at it again.He told an audience that to win the White House, he would need support from all Democrats, "even the Democratic Leadership Council, which is sort of the Republican part of the Democratic Party … the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. We're going to need them too."

Republican wing? The Democratic Leadership Council is the organization Bill Clinton co-founded in 1985 to represent moderate and conservative Democrats. Clinton called this constituency "us." Dean calls it "them."

When Dean was asked the next day about his jab at the DLC, he explained, "I was having a little fun at their expense. They've had eight months of fun at my expense. I figured I owed them a day of fun at their expense."

...and you are saying now that YOU think Dean was serious and forthright in his original Dec. 18th and 22nd statements???


Ohhhh Kayyyy...:question

I REALLY hope this guy gets the Dems' nod for top billing on their ticket!! :clap :clap

It's still Bush's election to lose.

[DEAD ZONE]

By Brendan Nyhan
December 17, 2003

Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, the front-runner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, has stated that he is "running as the candidate who is not afraid to tell the truth" and proclaimed that he is "going to be the John McCain of this race," referring to the Arizona senator who is famous for so-called "straight talk."

However, in the last few weeks, Dean has not lived up to his claims of honesty and candor, which are frequently cited as motivating factors by supporters. Most recently, as Slate's Timothy Noah has shown, he irresponsibly suggested President Bush had advance warning of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, failed to take responsibility for his remarks when asked about them and then dissembled about having done so. In addition, as two of Dean's rivals have pointed out, his attacks on the candidates who supported the October 2002 Congressional resolution authorizing military action against Iraq actually hinge on a fairly subtle distinction that he often fails to mention - namely, Dean supported an alternate resolution that would also have granted such authority, but the resolution he supported required that Bush make additional certifications to Congress before taking action.

...

Dean has also implied in a number of cases that he opposed giving the president authority to take action in Iraq. Yet on most of those occasions, Dean has not explained that, at the time, he supported an alternate Congressional resolution that would also have granted the president authority to take unilateral action if he made additional certifications to Congress before doing so. Dean contends having to make these certifications would have prevented Bush from taking action, but this subtle distinction is often lost in his rhetoric.

...


This pattern of misleading and contradictory remarks is damaging to Dean's reputation, which was previously hurt by a false claim about Edwards and dissembling about his support for Medicare cuts during the 1990s. It also sets back the debates over Sept. 11 and Iraq, both of which have been plagued with deception and misinformation. While Dean frequently tells his supporters that they "have the power to take this country back," the power to set the record straight lies in his hands alone.

Full article and some good stuff.
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031217.html

[DEAD ZONE]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/politics/campaigns/06HEAL.html?ex=1073970000&en=da3d555fb5a32885&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLEBy RICK LYMAN

Published: January 6, 2004


When Howard Dean was governor of Vermont, his administration was taken to task in a 1993 state audit that questioned the involvement of a top Dean aide in the awarding of a contract to a health maintenance organization. The aide, the audit noted, once represented the H.M.O. as a lobbyist.
The contract was canceled after the audit was made public.

Four years later, a second audit stumbled across a highly critical review of the same H.M.O., then the state's largest. The review had never been made public, as required under state law.

The 1993 audit, by Edward S. Flanagan, pointed out that a $900,000 contract to administer health claims for the state's 17,000 workers had been awarded to Community Health Plan at a time when Dr. Dean's secretary of administration, the top official in the cabinet, was David Wilson, a lawyer and lobbyist who had counted the H.M.O. among his top clients.

Also, the audit concluded, Mr. Wilson played a substantive role in the awarding of the contract, despite having vowed to recuse himself from any state business involving former clients.

[DEAD ZONE]

Dean uttered one of his most politically problematic comments way back in 1993, while explaining his proposal for welfare reform to reporters.

"Those [welfare] recipients don't have any self-esteem," the Vermont Democrat complained. "If they did, they'd be working," he added.

Then Dean essentially accused folks on welfare of trying to scam the taxpayers, saying they'd accepted the false message, "You don't have anything to contribute. Take our money and then go away and beat the system."

Dean's welfare gaffe horrified local advocates for the poor, and the next day he was forced to apologize.

"Those remarks really stepped over the line," the future presidential candidate told the Burlington Free Press. "When I realized my remarks were hurtful, I apologized. "

[DEAD ZONE]

"I think the problem with the Democratic Party in general is that they've been so afraid to lose they're willing to say whatever it takes it to win. And once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose — because the American people are much smarter than folks in Washington think they are. Do I still believe it? I think you have to be ready to move forward and not just try to hold on to what you've got. I truly believe that if you're not moving forward you're moving backwards in life. There's no such thing as neutral."
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040112fa_fact

Well he did nail that one .

[DEAD ZONE]

"It has come to our attention that your campaign in Iowa is engaged in an effort to violate caucus rules and send out-of-state supporters to pose as Iowa residents and caucus in cities and towns across the state." Steve Murphy,Richard Gephardt's campaign manager, in a letter to the Dean campaign. Joe Trippi, Dean campaign manager, calls the charge "ridiculous." So much for being "the party of inclusion."
really now,sneaking in non-Iowans for the January 19th Iowa caucuses posing them as state residents so they can vote for Dean.
So, seems the Democrats have to get in some early practice for the November election seeing as they botched it the last time.:p

[DEAD ZONE]

In the late 90's Dean is on tape saying : "If you look at the caucuses system, they are dominated by the special interests, in both sides, in both parties. The special interests don't represent the centrist tendencies of the American people. They represent the extremes."

Campaigning Friday morning in Rochester, N.H., Dean told reporters he had never believed Iowa was dominated by extremists.

NBC "Nightly News" aired clips thursday1-8-04.

Slamming Iowa Caucus: “If you look at the caucuses system, they are dominated by the special interests in both parties,” he said. “[And] the special interests don't represent the centrist tendencies of the American people. They represent the extremes. And then you get a president who is beholden to either one extreme or the other, and where the average person is in the middle.”


Worries about Al Gore: “He has a lot of attributes, but … there are some things that I am concerned about. One of them is being quick on your feet. He is not.”

George Bush: "George Bush, I believe, is in his soul a moderate." Dean now calls Bush a "radical."

Republicans and affirmative action: Dean said Republicans who question race-based preferences are "out-and-out racists."

On NAFTA: "I’m a little nervous about NAFTA. I was a big supporter four years ago. I’m worried about the condition of Mexican workers around the maquiladoras. And I had hoped that NAFTA would boost the Mexican standard of living."

On terrorist group Hamas: [There] "will probably be good and bad" if Hamas takes control over the Palestinian leadership. Yasser Arafat, he said, "is going to leave the scene. ... When that happens, I think Hamas will probably take over. There will probably be good and bad out of that. The bad, of course, is that Hamas is a terrorist organization. However, if they have to run a quasi-state they may actually have to be more responsible and start negotiations. So who knows what will happen."

My my how things change in an election.
:lol