Dean's allusion of "Bush Lite" - read on

[Hawkeye-X]

I had to post a seperate thread because blm's thread was way too long and full of useless crap, so I wanted to post and explain what I think Dean was referring to when he said "You can't beat Bush by being Bush-lite".

Dean was referring to the congresscritters (NOT just Kerry) who was towing the * line when they voted the wrong way in such acts like the Homeland Gestapo Act, PATRIOT Act, Blank Check War, and much more. That's why he was referring to people who are just *SLIGHTLY* to the left of the Chimp, but still quite wrong on the ideology of *.

Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, Edwards can be alluded as Bushlite.

But, Dean NEVER directly pointed to anyone that was being Bushlite. He was merely referring to those who vote the Resident's way.

Hawkeye-X

[blm]

1. He was talking about the other candidates.

And what about when he mocked Kerry after his speech and said (paraphrasing) that Democrats don't want Bushlite, they don't want Deanlite, either ?

To clarify for dsc...Kerry and Dean both spoke at an event and Kerry's speech was very rousing and Dean followed him and mockingly thanked Kerry for giving his speech, then made the comment saying they didn't want Bushlite or Deanlite. It was very rude. It started the Kerry is copying Dean meme.

Sorry you don't remember that incident either.

[Hawkeye-X]

2. Dean was trying to explain

that he doesn't want people to imitate him. He has his own unique style, and so far that style seems to be working. Howard Dean knows how to get people involved. All Kerry has is people who believe in him, but the problem is that Kerry is, in fact, Bushlite based on his voting patterns as of recent on very important issues. I know based on his records that he is liberal, but the problem here is that Kerry has voted the wrong way and have ignored his consitutents. My cousin in Boston said she is not voting for Kerry because he waffles far too much for her liking.

Hawkeye-X

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. He flinched on 3 important votes when we NEEDED him most.

That's it in a nutshell.


He's an excellent liberal Senator. But when earth-moving choices were laid in front of him, he flinched. That's what Bush-lite means for Kerry. Lieberman is in a whole different category.

[sandnsea]

18. Dean's the exact same

Dean's position is no different. He's not going to dismantle Homeland Security. He's not going to repeal the Patriot Act. And he said he supported the UN going to war or a unilateral invasion by the US if Saddam didn't disarm within 30-60 days.

That's the insanity of it all. What does Dean offer that's different from Kerry that would give any justification to the Bush Lite label? NOTHING. Especially when Kerry is more of a traditional liberal than Dean could ever hope to be.

[blm]

26. And Biden-Lugar would be what? Bushlite-lite?

IWR-lite?

[sandnsea]

27. That came up for a vote?

What's the point in bringing up Biden-Lugar? Kerry much preferred it, just like Dean. Maybe that was your point.

[blm]

33. It never came to vote, but Dean said he'd vote for it

if he was in the congress.

[Nicholas_J]

56. If pig had wings

There would be bacon in the trees.

Typical Monday morning quarterbacking.

Biden Lugar was an amendment to the October Resolution, not a replacement bill. Which meansin order to pass Biden Lugar, you hadto pass the October Resolution AMended by Biden Lugar.

Since Buden Lugar made NO substantive changes to the October Resolution, but actually added to the presidents authority in the context of the bill the amendment was attached to, Dean was basically winging it, as he did not know what he was talking about.

(BIDEN wrote most of the text of the October Resolution, and the BIden Lugar amendment was a REPUBLICAN modification of the Bill, rathher than a Democratic Alternative.

The original bill had little to push the president into the diplmatic route at all. That was added by Kerry and Gephardt.

[salin]

28. Biden-Luger?

sounds like a German resort town to me ;-) {levity is a good thing everynow and again)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

30. If Dean is no different...

why all the outrage?

I'm not saying Kerry is evil. I'm not saying Dean is a saint. We disagree on who would better implement the ideas. If their positions are the same, why all the acrimony?

[sandnsea]

32. Because he says he's not

He slams all the other candidates and says he's different. It's his entire campaign. It's been the mantra around here for months. And it's not true. If you want an anti-war candidate, vote Kucinich. If you want a pragmatic liberal, vote Kerry. If you want a labor guy, vote Gephardt.

I haven't figured out what Dean really stands for because he says he's not like the other candidates but when you read what he actually says and does, he is. And he's actually more centrist than most of the others and that is not what I want at all.

[blm]

34. Those votes are what YOU hold against Kerry.

I don't hold Dean's centrism against him just for being a centrist. I distrust how he's roping people in who are convinced he's a populist based on his rhetoric, when his record is clearly NOT that of a populist.

[Nicholas_J]

57. Because

And lets go back to the original premise of this post, that Deans "Bush-Lite" statememts are limited to "The Iraq Resolution and Patriot Act", isnt he BUSH-LITE as well if his position is the same, then HE is the same....BUSH-LITE.

Again, there is never any clarity on DEANS part when he throws those idiotic statements into the air without stating exactly what he means by them when he makes them.

Above all, the president should be a diplomat. Deans big yap could cause more international problems than Clarks thoughts about attacking the Russians in Kosovo at the Pristina Airport.

Even Reagan in the beginning stages of Alzheimers showed more self control. How many times has Dean already had to "CLARIFY" propr statements he has made? Ten or twelve at least, probably more. I have stopped counting. The one thing that is obvios at this point is that Dean says what his audience wants to hear. This is not "MISINTERPRETATION" on the part of the audience. It is carefully crafted deception on Deans part.

The BBC is not composed of fools with a tendency to "MISINTERPRET"

When listing the political leanis of the candidate. they ranked Liberman as the Conservative Democratic Candidate,
Kerry as the most Liberal, and DEAN AS THE LEFTIST.

Where'd they get that idea..From Deans interviews with THEM of course.

Other politicians in Vermont have made this statement about Dean, that he never allow himself to be pinned down on a p
Vermont was drained ofr a lot of money by Deans supposed health care programs in Vermont, which did not add much in service or in any way LOWER the level of those who were unisured in Vermont, but when Dena came to office, Vermonts Budget was 980 million, and ten years later it had increased to 3.5 billion, with almost 2 billion going to health care, yet half of Deans tenure, the rate of uninsured went up, tho others, were the same as they were for the yearsbefore Dena came to office and in only ONE year did they drop below the 4 years prior to Dean coming to office. The main beneficiaries of Deans health care programs were not the citizend, but the large health care corporation who got the bids to administer the programs paperwork, and the pharmaceutical companies who Dean served by wiggling around all attempts to get Vermont the kind of discount relations with the pharmaceutical companies that other states have. Dean did this by supporting republican and conservative opposition to the attempts and vaguely speaking about liking the idea of cost control, but in actuality doing nothing to move billd to get Vermont better Deals forwards.

Why? Simple. Almost all of Deans campaign financing came from Health Insurance industries and the Pharmaeutical companies. His "TOUGH LAW" on the pahrmaceutical companies did nothing to control costs ,and was a bogus bill designe to prevent the companies form giving gifts to doctors, which was a very small part of what was going on.

All means of dealing with the increases to the xowst of health care on Deans part was comprised of paying the doctors and hospitals less, making the patients pay more, but DID NOT TOUCH his buddys who were funding him

In most campaigns, Dean raised more from the Pharmaceutical Industry alone than his opposition could rasei for their entire campaign.

How did Dean get elected five time? Corporations bought the state for him

[blm]

10. So the press says.

MWO and the Daily Howler have time and again refuted that charge.

[dsc]

4. a what about some semblence of a link

since you even admit here you are paraphrasing. I literally have no clue what you are talking about here. The use of his could refer to Kerry or to Dean so I don't even know where to begin to look.

[Northwind]

5. It must suck to be backing a candidate

That abdicated his duty and authority as a Senator in order to kowtow to bush and his right-wing agenda, not to mention a candidate that cannot come up with a single idea for his campaign and has to steal them from the only real choice in the race.

Dean in '04.

[blm]

11. Challenge: Read Kerry's foreign policy and environmental speeches

and then read Dean's. Then come back and and accuse Kerry of copying Dean.

[Northwind]

12. Kerry's speeches are irrelevent.

Just like the man himself.

[blm]

13. Except Kerry worked on those issues for over 30 years -

Dean did not, yet Dean's speeches closely resembled Kerry's.

Dean must have found Kerry's speeches relevant.

[Northwind]

16. And threw all 30 years away

By pissing on the electorate and backing the Bush machine.

It does not matter if Dean's speeches resemble Kerry's. Don't you get it? Kerry's campaign has been effectively branded as being a copycat to Dean's. Speeches are not a campaign. Policy statements are not a campaign. Issues are not a campaign. Maybe that is why kerry is running such a horrible campaign, if the people who back him are all that clueless about what politics is really all about.

Politics is perception. As of a month ago, Kerry became perceived as running a copycat campaign. The perception, in politics, makes it true. You need to stop blaming Dean that your candidate ran a shitty campaign.

[sandnsea]

17. Lying is just a good campaign

It doesn't matter if they're all Kerry's issues and policies and Dean just copied them. Whichever one lies better in their campaign is all that matters. Is that what you're saying?

[Northwind]

20. Answer your own question

Who is in the White House right now?

The hard working public servant and man with a proven record of doing good work in Congress?

Or the drunken frat boy pathological liar?

The same drunken frat boy pathological liar that, until VERY recently, a vast majority of the country thought was "trustworthy." The same one, I might add, that Kerry recently referred to as a "good man trying to do good things."

Perception is everything in politics. The truth does not even exist. If you think that the guy who is most honest wins the White House, then you have not been paying attention for, oh, say, the entire history of the human race.

[sandnsea]

21. So you're voting for a liar

knowing he's a liar. Rather than another hard working public servant with a stellar record in Congress. Just want to clear that up.

And Dean said he'd trust Bush too. Throwing out these little crumbs that are nothing more than manners is really stretching.

[Northwind]

22. We are all voting for liars, that is the point

No one makes it that far in political by being honest, NO ONE. The system is built to prevent it from happening.

Dean sure did say he'd trust Bush. Do you think he did? Do you think Kerry really thinks Bush is a "good person?" BOTH men said what needed to be said in order to get the message out without angering too many people who still like Bush. It had nothing at all to do with "manners." I very much doubt Dean trusts Bush or that Kerry thinks he is a good man, but both men bowed to the political realities and recognized the danger, at the time they made those statements, of attacking Bush too directly. When they said that, Bush was still polling high, they were both just hedging their bets.

[sandnsea]

23. Nice diversion

The Bush comments weren't the issue.

But if you want to vote for a liar, go ahead. I'm voting for Kerry.

[Northwind]

37. Kerry is also a liar.

All politicians are liars. They have to be. As I said, the system is designed to prevent an honest man from getting far.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

39. So when they tell you

they are lying, does your head explode?

http://www.voyager.cz/tos/epizody/42imuddtrans.htm

[sandnsea]

40. I checked his record

That's why I'm voting for him, because of the work he's done and the causes he's supported for over 20 years. I don't really need to listen to him, although everything he says matches his record so I have no reason not to trust him. Especially on something as silly as 'Bush is a nice guy'.

[KaraokeKarlton]

48. Oh for God's Sake blm, just stop it already!

Kerry didn't lose a single person over the "Bush Lite" comment. You act as if Dean "stole" support Kerry was entitled to. Kerry has to work for votes, just like everyone else. He knew he was running for president when he made those shitty votes. He THOUGHT that it would help him politicially, which is exactly why he voted differently than he otherwise would have. He only voted with Bush because he wanted to be able to have something to argue with when he got called a "liberal" if he won the nomination. He made the wrong choice and it's his own damn fault. Deal with it. If he hadn't of made those votes with Bush then the Bush Lite label wouldn't apply to him. Sure, lots of people refuse to support him because of the war vote, but it's NOT because of the "Bush Lite" comment they aren't supporting him. Do you honestly think no one would notice Kerry wasn't doing what those who elected him wanted him to do? Get real. You need to stop blaming Howard Dean for the fact that John Kerry made a stupid political mistake just because he didn't want to get called a liberal.

[blm]

51. That's YOUR version which is too simple

and has no comprehension of 20 years of actual work and policy factored in.

[KaraokeKarlton]

58. Jesus H. Christ

Do you even realize how ridiculous it is to harp, harp and harp some more over this? It's simple and you're trying to make it more than it is. You are also enabling and excusing Kerry's shitty votes. Let's do this in "See Spot Run" style, shall we?

See Kerry.
See Kerry vote.
See Kerry vote with Bush.
See Democrat voters.
See Democrat voters get mad.
See Democrat voters get mad at Kerry.
See Democratic voters vote for someone else.

The fact that Dean coined the term "Bush Lite" is totally irrelevent because those who agree with him would NOT have supported Kerry anyhow because they were already pissed at him.

There you go, case fucking closed.

[blm]

60. Closed to all with closed minds who cannot understand

nuance or the complexities of 20 years of foreign and military policy.

[KaraokeKarlton]

67. See Kerry vote with Bush...See voters run.

It's all quite simple, and has nothing to do with Dean.

[blm]

70. You better check on which issues Dean supported Bush

over the years. Plus, he supported Bush over Gore and Kerry on MTP when Russert asked him about their heavy criticisms of Bush in July 2002.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the military operation in Afghanistan has been successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: Yes, I do, and I support the president in that military operation.
       
       MR. RUSSERT: The battle of Tora Bora was successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: I’ve seen others criticize the president. I think it’s very easy to second-guess the
       commander-in-chief at a time of war. I don’t choose to engage in doing that.

[janx]

49. Are you STILL bent out of shape over this?

Good grief. Dean lit a fire under the backsides of some of his fellow Democrats.

It was a very good thing he did.

[blm]

52. By misrepresenting them.

And for your information, Kerry was criticizing Bush much more substantively than any other Dem with the exception of Al Gore, throughout 2002. The press refused to acknowledge it BECAUSE it was too substantive and devastating to Bush.

[KaraokeKarlton]

59. Misrepresenting what, exactly?

Kerry voted for war. Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. Kerry voted for tax cuts. Kerry abstained from the Partial Birth Abortion vote. Kerry missed the mini-nuke vote.

These are the facts, whether you like them or not. Kerry has changed because he thinks the only way he can get elected president is to be a sell out. People don't want to support sell outs. It's that simple.

[blm]

62. Kerry did not vote for the taxcuts. None of them did.

The only taxcuts they voted for were for the working class to assure that if a taxcut did pass, that the working class would get some benefit. But NONE of the candidates voted for the overall final bill. Dean just wanted his audiences to believe that his opponents were one of the 12 Dems that did vote yeas.

YOUR version is the version of those who have no longterm handle on ANYTHING that Kerry represents over the last 30 years.

Dean would have voted for the Patriot Act according to his entire record of being a hardliner on security, and even brought up the curtailing of rights HIMSELF, just THREE days after 9-11.

Kerry is the only lawmaker who was actively campaigning AGAINST the mini-nukes program. He will cut them out of the budget along with Star Wars.

[MercutioATC]

65. The fact that none of them voted for the tax cuts, coupled with

Dean's assertion that voting for the tax cuts was a "Bush-lite" thing to do might lead some to believe that Dean wasn't calling THEM "Bush-lite", but was calling the VOTES (by MANY dems) "Bush-lite"

...seems there have been a few people who have tried to make this point before.

[blm]

66. Too bad, you know Dean was talking about his opponents.

And he specifically said those four guys in Congress and that they supported Bush's tax cut for the wealthiest. HE LIED.

He told his audience not to vote for Bushlite. UH...who are the other candidates in the primary? He also directly called Kerry Bushlite last week and it made the headline.

The spinning that you all are doing to prove that Dean DIDN'T do it (when he obviously did) just proves that you don't really want Dean talking like this, and that it is a false representation that makes you uncomfortable.

[MercutioATC]

68. Y'know? I'm done with this...I maintain that Dean isn't singling out the

candidates, he's talking about the direction the party has taken. You believe otherwise. Fine.

I can't count the number of times we've had this discussion...I guess we'll just have to chalk it up as a disagreement.

[KaraokeKarlton]

69. Huh?

None of them voted for the tax cuts in one breath and then "the only tax cut they voted for was" in the next. That "only" vote is STILL a tax cut vote.

[DrFunkenstein]

3. Ouch Ouch!!!

My eyes are spinning too far back in my head!!

:crazy:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. Then STOP spinning.

That usually takes care of the spinning.


Just say NO to spinning- Nancy

[sandnsea]

8. Oooh, I see

He said they were Bush Lite but not really. Just like he said he was from the "Democratic Wing" but didn't really mean he was a liberal. And like when he said the UN should disarm Iraq and we should give Saddam 30 or 60 days and then do it unilaterally, but didn't really mean he would support the war. And just like he says he's against the Patriot Act, but didn't really mean he'd repeal it.

:crazy:

[babzilla]

9. I think his intention regarding bush-lite

was to acknowledge feedback from his exploratory travails.

He had just spent a year on the campaign trail and had to have heard an earful by then from people who were dissapointed with the actions which have been described on this board and others as pink tu-tu.

We all saw what happened in 2002, that strategy doesn't work for us.

[blm]

24. Jan. 23...

How you all can spin it that he was talking about the Dems in general when he was specifying "those four guys from Congress" is just absurd.

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/local2003/012303dean_2002.shtml

I can't wait for those four guys from Congress to come up here and explain to us why they wanted to raise your property taxes after they supported a tax cut for the wealthiest people in America," he said.

Dean also criticized his opponents for voting to give Bush a "blank check" on military intervention in Iraq - and, now, changing their tune on the issue.
"Today, they're running around telling you folks they're all anti-war," he said. (Later, he acknowledged that Lieberman's vote was consistent with the senator's comparatively "hawkish" position on Iraq.) "We're never going to elect a president that does those things. If I voted for the Iraq resolution, I'd be standing in favor, supporting it right now in front of you."

Dean said he would have voted instead for the Biden-Lugar resolution, which he said supported disarming Saddam using multilateral action, and which did not call for a "regime change."
>>>>>>
So Democrats, he concluded, must nominate a candidate who can win.
"Remember," he said, "we're not going to beat Bush with Bush lite."

[stickdog]

14. What he meant was that it was high time that Democratic leaders stopped

being such wusses.

Thank God some of them finally got the point when his poll and fundraising numbers started shooting through the roof.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. That's another way to put it.

I'm surprised that everybody doesn't understand this yet.

[Nicholas_J]

19. Dean is well know as being deceptive

And just saying ENOUGH to not be nailed on...

Dean did not come out and state what he meant by Bush-Lite. He threw it out there and as Dean himself has said:

Dean the candidate has different profile than Dean the governor


By ELIZABETH MEHREN and MARK Z. BARABAK Los Angeles Times

Which explains why many people back home scarcely recognize Howard Dean the presidential candidate, who has stirred liberals across the country with his blunt talk and passionate antiwar speeches.


"A lot of us laugh and say, 'Howard, we hardly knew you,' " said Elizabeth Ready, the state auditor and a liberal Democrat. Added Bob Sherman, a Democratic lobbyist, "The Howard Dean I see running for president is a lot different than the Howard Dean who . . . governed Vermont. He was a moderate."


Asked about his emergence as the champion of disaffected liberals, the former governor said he would leave the labeling to others.


"I am liberal about some things and not liberal about others," he said. "I don't characterize myself as anything. I think people need to make up their own minds."

http://www.nhprimary.com/stories/07-2003/072003-dean.htm

Or from the Progressive perspective about Dean:

Howard Dean: the Progressive Anti-War Candidate?
Some Vermonters Give Their Views
By DONNA BISTER, MARC ESTRIN
and RON JACOBS
(The Editorial Collective of the Old North End RAG)



I know that a lot of you are going to vote for Dean -- he talks a good game; he can be charismatic and charming. But I'm warning you. This man will tell you what you want to hear, or at least tell you something that has some little kernel of something that you can interpret as support for the things that are important to you. But when the time comes to stand up and lead on the issue, to take on the money interests and backsliders in his own party, that stiff little spine will turn into a slinky.

If you vote for him, it's your job to stand behind him with a poker and keep him headed in the right direction. Don't give him any honeymoon period, either--keep the pressure on from the second you drop that ballot in the box. The minute you relax, he's going to turn right back into what he really is...a privileged, arrogant, middle of the road republican. Put your political energy into getting some truly progressive folks into the House and Senate, and into State legislatures around the country so that there will be more pressure from more directions. We need to get together our sophisticated progressive thinkers to develop policy ideas in every area, so that we're ready with real, well-thought out counter-proposals for the incremental changes a Dean administration might put forth. If you feel you must, support Dean, do--but then go do the work necessary to make real change.

http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs08292003.html

There is ONE clear rule in politics. If you or yor supporters have to come back and EXPLAIN what you meant, you have just screwed yourself.

But I am glad to see Dean compared to the politician his fiscal policies most closely resembled. Good old Newt.

[Octafish]

25. Still a smear, coming from a draft-dodger and all.

Kerry is a good Democrat. He's supported working people and unions, small businesses and farmers, public education, public works, protecting the environment, balancing the budget by taxing the well-off, protecting Social Security and a whole lot more that in no way can be classified as Bush-lite. Come to think of it, none of the other eight Democratic candidates I can think of has been against those things. Dean, though, hasn't always lived up to being "that" kind of Democrat.

So who is Bush-lite? Maybe Dean IS "winging it?"

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

29. So Dean is against

working people and unions
small businesses and farmers
public education
public works
protecting the environment
balancing the budget by taxing the well-off
protecting Social Security

Right?

[Octafish]

46. Dean inferred (called) Kerry "Bush-lite"

John Kerry has supported all those programs and areas which can be considered the traditional issues (and strengths) of the Democratic Party.

A case can be made against Dean's lukewarm support of several of those — Social Security, working people and unions, balancing the budget at the expense of the poor.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

47. He wasn't calling Kerry "Bush-lite" on THOSE issues.

And you know it. Try the IWR and PA and get back to me.




A case can also be made that Dean strongly supports that list of issues, as well. We'll agree to disagree on that. Let's stick with the subject of the original post.

[Nicholas_J]

55. Again

Dena NEVER makes it clear what he is stating and then falls back on the statements that he meant something else, and he cant help it if he is misinterpreted. Well you need to clearly state what you mean because Dean has done thins in the past:


"A lot of us laugh and say, 'Howard, we hardly knew you,' " said Elizabeth Ready, the state auditor and a liberal Democrat. Added Bob Sherman, a Democratic lobbyist, "The Howard Dean I see running for president is a lot different than the Howard Dean who . . . governed Vermont. He was a moderate."

Asked about his emergence as the champion of disaffected liberals, the former governor said he would leave the labeling to others.

"I am liberal about some things and not liberal about others," he said. "I don't characterize myself as anything. I think people need to make up their own minds."


Dean was throwing out the Bush lite stuff and NOT stating what he was referring to. HE left it out in the airwaves, to be interpreted in ANYWAY people decide to, as the counterpunch article indicates, Dena is known for just letting a peson hear JUST ENOUGH of what he thinks they want to hear, and leaving it to them to interpret it in ways that make them beleive that Dean is "ON THEIR SIDE".

That cuts both ways, because Dean is now going to have to EAT his own words about supprting Newt GHIngrichs policies on Social Security and Medicare.


THe other candidates have a STRONG history of supporting those programs and fighting ANY idea of cutting them. Deans support for Newt's ideas can be read as Dean not changing his mind, but saying anything to cover up his prior support of Republican cuts. He now can be viewed as WAVERING or even just saying ANYTHING to get votes.

Dean supporters call it evolving, well Dena is still supporting some kind of constraints on those programs as of June 22nd and Meet the Press.

Dean did not CHANGE his mind before he was trying to hustle votes at the national level.

Another interpretation can be, if Dean has changed his mind once, he can change it back again once he has what he wants. And this would be more in keeping with Deans past behavior as governor.

[Hawkeye-X]

38. Ahem.

Dean got a Y-2 deferral.

Not a draft dodger.

Try again.

Hawkeye-X

[Octafish]

45. Dean got a 1-Y deferment. Then he went skiing.

Some insight on Dean’s BACKground. Cough — character! BTW: I don't blame him for avoiding the draft. I do blame him for not standing up and publicly opposing the war in Vietnam, like Bill Clinton and John Kerry did.

The Worst of Howard Dean

A troubling tale from his past. Is it true?

By William Saletan and Ben Jacobs
Posted Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 8:15 AM PT

EXCERPT...

Charge: In 1971, Dean, who had been a wrestling team captain in high school, received a draft deferment for an unfused vertebra in his back. In the Aug. 15, 2002, Aspen Times, Dean said he "skied 80 days" in Aspen during the winter of 1971-72. The Times reported that Dean "loved skiing bumps," otherwise known as moguls. (Some health publications note that moguls can put particular stress on the spine.) "It was a great time to be a kid and do something relatively fun," Dean recalled. He added that he also worked that year "pouring concrete." Time reported on Aug. 11, 2003, that Dean spent the year "skiing and bumming around. … He hit the slopes, tried pot, washed dishes, poured concrete and drank impressive amounts of beer." On June 22, 2003, Tim Russert asked Dean on Meet the Press, "Why were you able to ski on Ajax Mountain, pounding your back, and pouring concrete, and not serve in the military?"

Defense: Dean told Russert, "I was given an examination. I had a previous back problem, which is evidently congenital, which prevented me from doing any sustained running, a problem that I've had since then, since that time, which requires that when I get out of the car I often have some pains up and down my leg and back and so forth. But I have been able to exercise a vigorous athletic life except for some things. One of those is long-distance running, which is how the problem came to my attention in the first place. I noticed the pain when I was in high school running track. … After the physical, I received a 1-Y deferment, means you can only be called in times of national emergency. I didn't have anything to do with choosing any draft deferment. … The United States government said this is your classification. I'm not responsible for that."

In the May 25, 2003, Washington Post, Dean's campaign manager, Joe Trippi, said, " view is, 'Look, I went in, got a physical and was rejected, and then I went on with my life.' "

http://slate.msn.com/id/2087543

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. When is a false statement intended to deceive not a lie? When Dean says it

[stickdog]

35. Dude, your candidate was being a wuss.

Luckily, Dean's popularity woke all of them up.

It's one of the main reasons this coming election is now winnable.

So your candidate finally took Dean's constructive criticism to heart --after he saw the way Dean's popularity took off), but you want to whine about it?

Please.

[polpilot]

50. Without Dean the shrub would have a cake walk. Dean changed it all.

Dean '04...The New Democratic Leader of The NEW Democratic Party.

[MercutioATC]

36. THANK YOU!!! I've been trying to make the same point, but

the anti-Dean folks see it differently.

He did NOT single anybody out. He simply said that we have to take the party in a new direction (than it had been going the past few years) and not be afraid to be Democrats. I felt EXACTLY the same way. Before Dean, I was looking for the least objectional Dem to vote for because I felt they were all just rolling over to our then-popular President to save their political asses. I loved what Dean had to say about making the message clear again.

I still maintain that Dean was offering a Party strategy, not singling out any particular candidates.

[Andromeda]

41. I heard Dean's speech...

and he was talking about all the Dem house and senate members who voted for the Patriot Act, and the Iraq war resolution---the war resolution being the worst vote of the bunch. If I'm smart enough not to trust Bush on his preemptive war and if I am smart enough to know there were not WMD and that Bush was conning us then why in the hell didn't congress know it?

Because they were afraid of being called unpatriotic. The Democrats wanted to be seen as hawks just like the Republicans.

Maybe they were right, but I don't think they should have voted for the war because they should have known that Bush would go it alone and to bloodly hell with everyone else. They shouldn't have trusted him to keep his word when he said he would work with our allies, or I should say former allies.

Bush stole the election. Where were all those wonderful house and senate members when that happened? Where was Senator Kerry, Representative Gephardt or anybody else when the people in the country were betrayed by their own representatives.

Silent and cowardly.

They claimed that Al Gore wanted to play nice and didn't want to make waves because it wouldn't be good for the country. As much as I like Al Gore I think he made a big, BIG mistake.

The people were suffering and all our elected representatives could say to us is "GET OVER IT."

Some media pundits get it now. Gee, they say, a certain percentage of people are in a rage over this "election." No shit Sherlock. Now they say, the Democrats absolutely HATE Bush. They are just now getting it.

The people always "got it." Dean gets it. He is just the catalyst for our fears and hopes. He put into words what we were feeling. He wasn't afraid to speak up and tell it like it is.

Nobody else was there for us. Nobody. And it's damn hard for me to forget that.

[blm]

42. Dean was a governor and head of the Dem governors..

and did he lead the coalition of Dem governors to stand up against the issues you hold against others?

Do you even KNOW that Dean brought up the curtailing of civil rights THREE days after 9-11? Look at the transcript from July, 2002 MTP. Russert mentions it and TIPS which Dean said he "tends to agree with the president."

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

44. "Tends to agree" or DOES agree.

2 scenarios.


1. The POTUS* states something as a fact. You can either give him (or his office) the benefit of the doubt, or you can assume he's lying. Most people, if asked, would say that they "tend" to give the POTUS* the benefit of the doubt (or "tend to agree" with the statement).

2. The POTUS* states something as a fact and also wants your vote. This is a more serious situation that requires a little investigating. You ask around and find that there are several well-respected Senators in your party that believe the case has not been made and they intend to not give the POTUS* support. Now what do you do? Byrd or Chimp? Chimp or Byrd? You decide to talk with the senior Senator from your state, who happens to be your political mentor. He also intends to withhold support. Now what do you do? You do what your heart tells you. You vote "Aye." Affirmative, concrete "agreement."


Which one is more serious?




edit- missing word

[blm]

53. Gee...it would be so much easier if Dean actually talked straight

and didn't dance around with his words, eh? The onkly answer he ever gave straight was that he would have voted for Biden-Lugar...every other fucking thing is a DANCE. And you are left to project your best spin for what he said in his empty answer.

[Andromeda]

63. Where was Kerry after election 2000?

Was he joining other senators to stand up for our democracy and denounce Bush? I don't remember ANY senator standng up to the way Bush seized the office of the presidency. It was "yes, Mr. Bush, anthing you say, Mr. Bush."

The only voices of opposition were the Congressional Black Caucus.

Democrats were cowed into silence after the election fiasco. There were no demontrations of courage within the Democratic ranks at that time. Maybe there was plenty going on behind the scenes, but it seemed like they were more concerned about covering their own asses, pretending to be nonpartisan and funding their own election campaigns.

They didn't stand up for us and they ignored our cries.

Dean was a governor during at that time (2000) and you are bringing up a strawman arguement. So now he should have "lead a coalition of governors" after 2000? That's just plain silly. And how do you know he didn't speak out. Were you monitoring everything he said and did?

As for Dean agreeing with the president on something. You need to be more specific. What did he agree with the president on? Taken out of context that could be just about anything. Just about every Dem in Congress agreed with the president after 9/11. It was an unprecedented event and they wanted to present an image of unity and bipartisanship. Every governor in the country was worried about security and funding for that security in their respective states and civl rights curtailment was a prominent subject that everybody was talking about. How far should we go? Should we do racial profiling?, etc.

You hold it against Dean if he even discusses something. It's a far cry from actually doing it. Did you also look into the actions of other governors? The senator and house members in Congress went further than discussing it. They passed legislation. Governors can't pass Federal legislation---only state law.

Your arguments don't have any substance and they're vague in their meaning. You only insinuate and that is not factual.

[blm]

64. I just used your argument back at you.

That's all.

BTW...Kerry was one of the few who came out to help Gore publically during the recount.

Kerry voted against Ashcroft and Gale Norton and led the fight against drilling in ANWR.

As for staying on top of Bush, noone was doing it better. You and others, and especially the media weren't paying enough attention. But the media was doing it to preserve Bush. Why you didn't dig for facts is another story.

Let's see what Joe Conason said in August 2002:

Kerry Shows Courage In Challenging Bush
Thursday, August 8, 2002 By: Joe Conason
New York Observer

New York -- The most rousing speech at the Democratic Leadership Council's New York conference--according to both journalistic consensus and the applause meter--was given by Hillary Clinton, who definitely isn't running for President. Her poise and passion on the stump have grown exponentially since her Senate campaign, and she blew the doors off the Hilton ballroom.
But it was John Kerry who delivered the most interesting, substantive and challenging message. His subject was George W. Bush's shortcomings as a world leader.

The New York Times reported that Mr. Kerry "offered a long attack on Mr. Bush's foreign policy," although the paper gave short shrift to the details in the Senator''s speech. What he began to articulate was a Democratic critique of this administration''s blunt and myopic unilateralism, and a vision that restores international alliances to the center of American diplomacy.

He agrees with the objective of removing Saddam Hussein, but objected to the vague plans for what will replace the Iraqi dictatorship. He called the latest arms treaty with Russia a "cosmetic" one that inadequately safeguards decommissioned weapons. He denounced the "Cold War" approach to North Korea that has undone the progress achieved by the Clinton administration. He expressed scorn for the administration''s disengagement from the Middle East crisis before Sept. 11.

>>>>>>>

He is, however, no naïïve internationalist who abhors military force. As he has done before, Mr. Kerry wondered aloud why the President didn't muster sufficient firepower in Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda''s army when the chance arose at Tora Bora.

And he sought to connect the trouble America encounters abroad to the oil-dominated energy policy of this oilmen's government. "We must search for clean, renewable resources," he said, "not just because it is in the interests of our environment, but because it is a demand of national security." Liberating the nation from oil "can liberate our foreign policy and empower the United States to tell the truth throughout the Middle East."

Mr. Kerry is staking out a politically perilous position at a time when conventional wisdom declares foreign and military issues to be the exclusive province of the President. As a Senator from Massachusetts--whose last Presidential nominee suffered humiliating defeat by a candidate named Bush--he risks highlighting negative assumptions about his own viability on a national ticket.
 
According to the scientific measurements made by political consultants, Mr. Kerry''s chosen path is marked "dead end." The safer domestic route is crowded with competitors who talk only about corporate responsibility, prescription drugs and Social Security. The boldest among them now criticize the lopsided tax cut that shouldn't have passed last year.

>>>>

There is, however, at least one benefit for Mr. Kerry in speaking out on those faraway places and problems. While his rivals sound as if they''re campaigning for the offices they already occupy, he sounds as if he is running for President.

In a sense, Mr. Kerry enjoys an unfair advantage that mitigates the burden of his home state. He''s a decorated Vietnam veteran whose Navy service may help shield him from attacks on his patriotism. Throughout his years in the Senate, that credential has allowed him to investigate and criticize disturbing excesses of American policy abroad, as he did when he probed U.S. aid to the contra gangsters in Nicaragua. (That rather lonely crusade made him a target of the notorious Arkansas Project, funded by Republican billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife to bring down President Clinton.)

Whether Mr. Kerry can engage the electorate in a discussion of America''s global responsibilities is far from certain. His own dispassionate style may hinder him. Yet he deserves great credit for reclaiming international leadership for his party when others cannot or will not.  

[Andromeda]

71. The only Kerry I remember ...

coming out for Gore during the elections was Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, who had just retired from the senate. Maybe John Kerry did too, but all I remember were Daschle and Gephardt doing that conference call with Gore during the whole hulabaloo to make it look like he had the Dems behind him.

Kerry is a good Senator and as far as I know his record is impressive and he does his job. Most of the others in the senate are well-meaning too but I will wonder till I die why none of them stood up to be counted. Kerry wasn't alone in that. Maybe he did try harder than the others, but the fix was in and nobody was listening to us, the people. My own senator, Diane Feinstein, answered my anguished letter with something about the "rule of law" and "we must go on and do the people's business."

I think one of the main reasons that Dean struck a chord was because he was so vocal and, speaking for myself, it was like somebody lifted a great burden off my shoulders. I'm still suffering from the residue of depression from that disasterous 2000 election, as I am sure many others are.

I hope Dean wins but I am realistic enough to know that might not happen. Kerry, Clark, Gephardt or even Edwards might win. I'm prepared to stand behind whomever wins this nomination.

Senator Kerry is lucky to have someone with your kind of loyalty to support him. If he is selected, then I will support him too.

[polpilot]

43. Dean was instructing the long time demo politicos in Politics 101. Stand

for something or prepare to crash and burn. Look who's crashing. Look who's burning.

Dean '04...The New Democratic Leader of The NEW Democratic Party.

[Loyal]

54. Can we please stop the candidate bashing?

Other Democrats are not the enemy. Policy differences are fine, but references to Bush lite thrown at other candidates serve the interest of no one. Karl Rove is definitely watching these debates.

[polpilot]

61. Karl Rove is a greedy lying fool with a psychopath for a client. I'm sick

of the Rove fear factor. 'If one quakes it matters not what one quakes from'

Greed and stupidity have delivered the Repubs to the edge of the cliff and it's 'jump time' for them all.

Dean '04...The New Democratic Leader of The NEW Democratic Party.