Why Americans Must Support Kerry

[Nicholas_J]

yup...its true

http://www.hermes-press.com/kerry_yes.htm

[junker]

1. first tell me that this fellow

ain't no skull and bones, ain't a member of the CFR, et al. And then I might consider him even though he has no original ideas and stands for all the same damn sheeit that Mad King Geo. wants to do....

[magatte]

7. uhhhh....

even though he has no original ideas and stands for all the same damn sheeit that Mad King Geo. wants to do....

junker, stop trollying around.... please.

:spank:

[Uzybone]

2. I must agree

Kerry is the best chance we have to remove Bush from the White House.

[gully]

5. hmmmmm

Welp, Ima Dean fan, but I'd happilly vote for Kerry.

[belab13]

28. Ditto, Kerry has the best chance for a number of reasons.

experience in the Senate and his service in the military.

[keek]

36. I disagree

I think that his experience in the Senate is what makes him a horrible match for Bush. Look what happened to all of those congressmen/women who tried to run against Bush and the republicans but they voted with them on key issues. Is it just me or does Kerry expect to win by running against bush and agreeing that we should have gone to Iraq?

If the american people think that we should have gone to Iraq and invaded and occupied the country, then they will vote for Bush, if they disagreed or if they changed their minds, why would they have to choose from two candidates who both wanted to go to war in Iraq? It will be one of those annoying campaigns where both people are trying to be like one another again. We need to offer a strong candidate that offers an alternative to Bush's vision of America. We need someone that has never caved into bush no matter what and someone who has the record to back it up. We need someone who will call Bush out on everything him and his radical cronies have been up to.

[blm]

60. Not that simplistic.

It's way more effective to point out where Bush lied directly to those who he promised evidence existed. Kerry was also a prosecutor and debate champ at Yale. He knows how to build and present the case against Bush.

[keek]

62. no way

I disagree. This isn't a debate tournament. This is real life. yes or no, war or no war. yes, kerry thought that Bush should go to war. That was the vote. I think that the type of fight kerry wants to get into with bush is not the type of fight that the democrats need to start. "I voted yes, but I don't want you go to go war unless..." and then they turn around and say, "I TOLD YOU that I wanted you to do it this way.." Bush shouldn't have invaded Iraq and he did because people like Kerry told him to.

[Jim Sagle]

3. Sorry...I don't feel like it.

[MercutioATC]

4. Me either...nice link to an opinion piece, though...

.

[Nicholas_J]

20. Not much different

That posting Deans press reports, as indicating support from in the media, which most of the pro-Dean posts consist of.

[MercutioATC]

24. Seems to me that we've had this discussion, Nick...

We have a difference af opinion as to what is fact. I'll happily submit to you a handmade "everybody else sucks" flag for every Dean bashing post you make.

You posted "Why Americans must support Kerry"..."yup...its (sic) true"

It's not "true" that "Americans must support Kerry". That's an opinion. I have no problems with opinions. You state op/ed pieces as fact on a regular basis, however, and I DO take issue with that. I fully appreciate your right to support Kerry (and, as I've stated, I agree with some of his positions). I just don't understand why you have to do it by attacking Gov. Dean.

Look, I really don't want to continue a dialogue with you, I'm just expressing my position. I'll agree not to directly reply to any of your posts if you'll do the same. We really have no vested interest in wasting bandwidth arguing with each other.

[Nicholas_J]

52. I attack Dean because:

Because Dean is a poseur...


his entire record as governor reeks of conservatism...Pro Gun, reinstitutes the Death Penalty(Weeks later federal courts declare the Death Penalty unconstitutional in Vermont), Kills popular medical marijuana legislation several times, kill prison methadone programs, will not allow methadone clinics, allow himself to be thought of as anti-war, has made statements that allowed the exact same thing as the Iraq Act that he condemned, kills and threates to veto progressive taxation legislation, raises consumption taxes that favor the rich, and hurt the poor. Poor enforcement of environmental legislation, keepts trying to institute use of coal for utilities, keeps trying to get a natural gas pipeline to cross the state( gives up becasue the people in the areas the pipline would run are about to lynch him).

OP Ed are valid. ALL of politics is opinion. And in op ed pieces, quotes from Dean himself are used, so those quotes are valid indications of things Dean HAS said.

All you have in politics, is what a politician has said, and what other people think of what he has said. So op-eds are as valid as anything else. Certainly FAR more valid than press releases from Deans own campaign. What Dean says is far less relevant, than what political comentators, political journalists, and other liberal politicians THINK about what he has said.

My arguments with you are not to argue with you. Support who you want.

But to let those who are undecided to see ALL of Dean, not only what Dean wishes them to see.

You are free to not respond to my posts at all. If i what is, in my opinion, an incomplete, inaccurate, or mistrepresentative statement. I will respond.

[thermodynamic]

6. Mostly true...

Lot of good credibility in that article.

Until the typical "Let's use Nader as a scapegoat" bit.

It is up to the candidate to present his/her best case to the people. And the people vote for who they think is the best candidate. That's how the process should be/envisaged as.

It's not Nader's fault that some people are tired of Democratic capitulation to the big corporations or that some people thought Nader would have made a better President. That's up for the voter to decide, not the pundits who want an easy scapegoat. We need to respect the voter, even if they don't think like the rest of us. Don't they have a right to vote? (and before you even think it, I voted for Gore.)

And even you must admit that Gore had more balls when recently criticizing the Bush administration than he did during his campaign. His campaign was fairly lax; presumable because he thought he'd be a shoe-in because of (a) the economy that Clinton created, and (b) the fact Bush* couldn't compose himself like a good President should. Oops, Gore was wrong. Gore was to blame for not being able to capture the hearts and votes of the voters who decided to vote for Nader instead. THAT is the truth.

Also, most people want the candidate they vote for to win. SPINNING the issue to make it sound like the Green voters wanted Bush to win is just a liter of concentrated cow manure.

Also, how come a guy whose party can't get 5% of the votes be such a threat? Surely we ought to concentrate on the folks who are trying for 50% or more, hmmm?

Besides, the SCOTUS' partisan antics combined with the criminal actions of bastard Jeb Bush and bastardette Katherine Harris are the real issue here. Why is anybody naive enough to keep blaming Nader and that small handful of "delusional voters" when the real culprits are dancing in the streets, destroying everything they touch?! :mad: Good grief, it just gets too silly...

NADER AND THOSE WHO VOTED FOR HIM ARE NOT THE PROBLEM SO GET OVER IT! Geez, how much power can a man getting 5% of the population have? :eyes:

[RIindependent]

8. When Kerry takes off his pink tutu I might consider

Where is the fire in his gut. I am angry and this anger started in 1993 when the right wing attacked the President and the dems did not stand behind him. Witch hunt after witch hunt and then dim son was selected, etc, etc, etc,... DUer's know the feeling. What has Kerry done to energize the democratic party and to make us feel like we have a representative in Washington that will stand up for our principles? Jeffords quit the republican party and stood up for his principles and he made a great sacrifice. Why did't Kerry stand up to * when 911 happened. I was watching tv while * was at that school and I knew something was not kosher. Where was he on Iraq? I know he had access to more information then those of us who searched the web for the truth and he still he gave * carte blanch!! Kerry has alot to answer to before I can support him.

[Nicholas_J]

17. Kerry did stand up

ON 9/11, and before Dean said a word...

Just you chose not to look for what he said, and likely listened to another candidates misinterpretation of it.

Which is usual for the supporters of one candidate in particular.

We Still Have a Choice on Iraq
>
>September 6, 2002
>By JOHN F. KERRY
>
>WASHINGTON - It may well be that the United States will go
>to war with Iraq. But if so, it should be because we have
>to - not because we want to. For the American people to
>accept the legitimacy of this conflict and give their
>consent to it, the Bush administration must first present
>detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass
>destruction and then prove that all other avenues of
>protecting our nation's security interests have been
>exhausted. Exhaustion of remedies is critical to winning
>the consent of a civilized people in the decision to go to
>war. And consent, as we have learned before, is essential
>to carrying out the mission. President Bush's overdue
>statement this week that he would consult Congress is a
>beginning, but the administration's strategy remains
>adrift.
>
>Regime change in Iraq is a worthy goal. But regime change
>by itself is not a justification for going to war. Absent a
>Qaeda connection, overthrowing Saddam Hussein - the
>ultimate weapons-inspection enforcement mechanism - should
>be the last step, not the first. Those who think that the
>inspection process is merely a waste of time should be
>reminded that legitimacy in the conduct of war, among our
>people and our allies, is not a waste, but an essential
>foundation of success.
>
>If we are to put American lives at risk in a foreign war,
>President Bush must be able to say to this nation that we
>had no choice, that this was the only way we could
>eliminate a threat we could not afford to tolerate.
>
>In the end there may be no choice. But so far, rather than
>making the case for the legitimacy of an Iraq war, the
>administration has complicated its own case and compromised
>America's credibility by casting about in an unfocused,
>overly public internal debate in the search for a rationale
>for war. By beginning its public discourse with talk of
>invasion and regime change, the administration has
>diminished its most legitimate justification of war - that
>in the post-Sept. 11 world, the unrestrained threat of
>weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein
>is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow in inspectors
>is in blatant violation of the United Nations 1991
>cease-fire agreement that left him in power.
>
>The administration's hasty war talk makes it much more
>difficult to manage our relations with other Arab
>governments, let alone the Arab street. It has made it
>possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the
>implications of war for themselves rather than keep the
>focus where it belongs - on the danger posed by Saddam
>Hussein and his deadly arsenal. Indeed, the administration
>seems to have elevated Saddam Hussein in the eyes of his
>neighbors to a level he would never have achieved on his
>own.
>
>There is, of course, no question about our capacity to win
>militarily, and perhaps to win easily. There is also no
>question that Saddam Hussein continues to pursue weapons of
>mass destruction, and his success can threaten both our
>interests in the region and our security at home. But
>knowing ahead of time that our military intervention will
>remove him from power, and that we will then inherit all or
>much of the burden for building a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq,
>is all the more reason to insist on a process that invites
>support from the region and from our allies. We will need
>that support for the far tougher mission of ensuring a
>future democratic government after the war.
>
>The question is not whether we should care if Saddam
>Hussein remains openly scornful of international standards
>of behavior that he agreed to live up to. The question is
>how we secure our rights with respect to that agreement and
>the legitimacy it establishes for the actions we may have
>to take. We are at a strange moment in history when an
>American administration has to be persuaded of the virtue
>of utilizing the procedures of international law and
>community - institutions American presidents from across
>the ideological spectrum have insisted on as essential to
>global security.
>
>For the sake of our country, the legitimacy of our cause
>and our ultimate success in Iraq, the administration must
>seek advice and approval from Congress, laying out the
>evidence and making the case. Then, in concert with our
>allies, it must seek full enforcement of the existing
>cease-fire agreement from the United Nations Security
>Council. We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum
>to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections
>without negotiation or compromise. Some in the
>administration actually seem to fear that such an ultimatum
>might frighten Saddam Hussein into cooperating. If Saddam
>Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international
>community's already existing order, then he will have
>invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at
>the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if
>the Security Council fails to act. But until we have
>properly laid the groundwork and proved to our fellow
>citizens and our allies that we really have no other
>choice, we are not yet at the moment of unilateral
>decision-making in going to war against Iraq.
>
>
>John F. Kerry, a Democrat, is a senator from
>Massachusetts.


http://www.massgreens.org/pipermail/needtoknow/2002-September/000206.html


"It will take only one mega-terrorist event in any of the great cities of the world to change the world in a single day."

Sen. John Kerry wrote that in 1997. In 2001, he saw it happen.

And while scientific reports indicate it was burning jet fuel that doomed the World Trade Center, Kerry blames a lack of military intelligence.


http://www.jewishsf.com/bk020405/us12.shtml

Kerry was also the FIRST to call the Bush administration on the carpet, because three weeks before 9/11, George Tenet told to Kerry that they had stopped a terrorist attack at the world trade center. They claimed to have stopped an attack, there were bomb siffing dogs in the center, adn they then let down their guard. On SEPTEMBER 12th, Kerry criticised the ADministration for getting cocky and letting down its guard, resulting in 9/11...

Set this information against the fact that Osama bin Laden, now prime suspect, said in an interview three weeks ago with Abdel-Bari Atwan, the editor of the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper, that he planned "very, very big attacks against American interests." On the night of September 11 Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts told CNN that CIA director George Tenet informed him before the attack that the Agency had recently thwarted an attack by bin Laden's organization.

So, was there an attempted attack some time in August, or was it merely a feint by the bin Laden units, to prompt an alert, then a relaxation of US security procedures?

US intelligence agencies, stung with charges that they are responsible for a failure of catastrophic proportions, are successfully pressing for bigger funding, with the likelihood that the present $30 billion outlay will soar upward.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0912-01.htm

Long before Dean or anyone else.


There is Dean...one step behind John Kerry in EVERYTHING.

[CTLawGuy]

48. 1, 2, 3, 4...

Kerry voted for bush's war!

Nice talk from Kerry up there in your post, but when it came down to when it counted, Kerry, Lieberman, Ewdards, Gephardt folded......

[keek]

54. you miss the point again

kerry voted for the war. this article is talk. his actions tell me that he was willing to give * authority to go to war, he felt that there was enough evidence, that he had exhausted all other options, and that we needed to go to war. If kerry is a man of his word,then he must have felt that * abided by his conditions and going to war was the only option.

I disagree.

Kerry said that "We are at a strange moment in history"

I disagree, I think we are in a horrible moment in history, a moment that future generations will look back, as my generation looks back on the cold war, and they will say, "why on earth did they buy into Bush's lies and propaganda? How could they let this happen?" The Iraq situation awful, Kerry gave him the approval to go to war, before there was a solid coalition and before the UN had a chance to decide whether they wanted to enforce their own resolution by force.

[keek]

53. I have the same questions

and the truth is that he was going along with the Bush war game, playing along because he wanted to run for president. Dean didn't agree with the war and wasn't trying to oppose the war so that he would become more popular, because clearly 70% of the people trusted Bush. His anti-war stance was not a politically smart move, but following your gut, your conscious, and your instinct is. Kerry follows his conscious and gut when he knows that its safe to do so and then he tries to gloss over the times that he caved by playing the political game. A leader doesn't play by other's rules, legislators are in the position where they sometimes have to, but Presidents don't. Kerry's "compromises" he made by giving his votes to Bush, won't make him electable. kerry won't be president because if he wins the nomination, Bush will do to him what the repubs did to the dems in the midterms and kerry will be toast.

[RIindependent]

9. When Kerry takes off his pink tutu I might consider

Where is the fire in his gut. I am angry and this anger started in 1993 when the right wing attacked the President and the dems did not stand behind him. Witch hunt after witch hunt and then dim son was selected, etc, etc, etc,... DUer's know the feeling. What has Kerry done to energize the democratic party and to make us feel like we have a representative in Washington that will stand up for our principles? Jeffords quit the republican party and stood up for his principles and he made a great sacrifice. Why did't Kerry stand up to * when 911 happened. I was watching tv while * was at that school and I knew something was not kosher. Where was he on Iraq? I know he had access to more information then those of us who searched the web for the truth and he still he gave * carte blanch!! Kerry has alot to answer to before I can support him.

[RIindependent]

10. Sorry about the dupe

I was given an error message and was told I had to repost

[clar]

11. Nope, it's not true

And speaking of things that aren't true, I'd like to take this opportunity to inform you about a couple of people you've taken to quoting: Michael Colby and Sean McKeon. The latter first: Sean McKeon who you quote in order to criticize Howard Dean's environmental record, specifically the Champion land deal and the experimental core environmental area, is a right wing anti-environment republican. This guy is all for clear cutting and repeal of act 250. Michael Colby is on the other end of the spectrum. He was part of some group in 2000 called Environmentalists Against Gore. Michael believed that Bush being elected would be good for the environment. Environmental groups, he posited, would be galvanized by his policies. We all know how well that's worked out.
I like Kerry, but when you quote people like Colby and McKeon to diminish Dean you're not doing Kerry any favors, not to mention that doing so is dishonest. Dean's environmental record in Vermont is good, not perfect. If you really want to know about it, I suggest you contact some of the folks at the Conservation Law Foundation in Montpelier. One place not to bash him is on the Champion land deal. You won't find any Vermont environmentalists who didn't support it. We recognize that Dean spoke out for it even when the going got tough.

[Nicholas_J]

13. Well

It seems that those on th left AND right are not terribly happy with Deans environmental record. Quite a feat.


Former Vermont governor Howard Dean has sided most closely with the Bush administration, endorsing the National Governors Association policy, which opposed the Kyoto Protocol unless it included mandatory emissions cuts for developing countries. The policy recommended that the United States "not sign or ratify any agreement that would result in serious harm to the U.S. economy."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0610-01.htm


Dean replacing critics on environmental advisory panel

April 8, 2001

(from the Regional news section)

By JOHN DILLON

Staff Writer

MONTPELIER - A leading environmentalist was asked to leave Gov. Howard Dean's council of environmental advisers after she criticized the governor's short-lived proposal for a coal-fired power plant in Vermont.

Elizabeth Courtney, executive director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council, was one of 20 members of the governor's environmental council, which meets about once every three months with the governor.

But after Courtney wrote a newspaper opinion piece faulting Dean for his brief advocacy of a coal plant, she learned she was no longer welcome on the council. David Rocchio, the governor's legal counsel, wrote her late last month to say she will be replaced on the council by VNRC's board chairman. The move came after she had written the governor on energy issues and showed his staff her draft newspaper piece, Courtney said.

"From the tone of your letter (to the governor), the content of your (newspaper) essay, and your rejection of the concerns we have raised with you in conversation, it appears that you do not seek a dialogue," Rocchio wrote to Courtney and to VNRC's board. "The governor sees little point in continuing to try to discuss these issues with you."

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Archive/Articles/Article/23996


Dean’s environmental record rests more on his efforts at land conservation than on strict attention to regulatory enforcement. He pushed conservation through his support for the Housing and Conservation Trust Fund and through the Champion land deal in the Northeast Kingdom. He has been less inclined to hold business to a hard line with regard to state regulations, preferring to find compromises that would be less onerous for entrepreneurs. That’s why he has never won the hearts of some of the main environmental advocacy groups.

He has frequently mentioned, however, that the permanent easements and long- term deals designed to protect lands scattered widely across the state will be a legacy that will last long after his administration is forgotten.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Archive/Articles/Article/33318

Governor talks about coal-fired power plant

By Nancy Bazilchuk
Free Press Staff Writer
Vermont ought to consider building new electric power plants in the northwestern part of the state, even a coal-fired power plant, Gov. Howard Dean said Tuesday.
"We need (electric) generating capacity in northwestern Vermont, and we are overly dependent on natural gas," Dean said. "This is not a proposal, but this is intended to spur discussion. The whole point is to get Vermonters to think about having a power plant in their back yard. We are going to have to have one."
Dean's comments came in reaction to the rolling blackouts that hit California on Tuesday. He says Vermont is in no immediate danger of such problems but policymakers need to face the future.
In the next 15 years, the state's two biggest long-term sources of power, the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon, and hydroelectric power from Hydro-Quebec, will cease to supply the state with power.
Vermont Yankee is licensed to operate until 2012, and Hydro-Quebec is under contract to sell power to Vermont until 2015. The two energy sources account for about two-thirds of the 1,000 megawatts of electricity Vermont needs.
Dean said he doesn't want to import dirty coal-fired power plants from the Midwest to solve Vermont's problems, but he thinks new technology is available to build coal plants that could provide power with a minimum of pollution.
Dean's comments sent shudders through the environmental and energy conservation communities. Vermont has a long-standing history of battling with Midwestern coal plants over the pollutants that bring acid rain to Vermont.
Vermont also vigorously opposed a modern coal-fired power plant proposed in the early 1990s for a small town outside Albany, N.Y. The state argued that even the diminished emissions from a clean coal plant would hurt Vermont's air quality. The argument helped defeat the proposal in 1994.
Vermont's Comprehensive Energy Plan, adopted in 1998, cautions against clean coal technology because it cannot eliminate carbon dioxide pollution, a substance that's one of the chief culprits in global climate change.
David Blittersdorf, a wind energy expert and chief executive officer of NRG Systems in Hinesburg, said he was deeply troubled to hear that Dean was even saying the word "coal."
"That is absolutely wrong," he said. "We have been trying real hard to get the governor and the state to become aware of what renewables can do. I think people don't want to listen."

http://www.vtce.org/coal.html

In March, 2000, the Governor of Vermont, Howard Dean, said "I give up. The pipeline route is dead. At some point you have to listen to the voters."
In response, the pipeline company indicated they are disappointed in the governor's statement but do not intend to give up on the route through private property. Power plant developers say the reason they have not filed is because they have not lined up the financing. They are still looking for $800,000,000, and say they plan to file by the fall of 2000, or perhaps in 12 to 18 months. It is likely that investors have seen the opposition and are putting their money into projects that are not so strenuously opposed.

http://www.vtce.org/power.html

Elizabeth Courtney, executive director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council, applauds the land purchases, but adds, ''Gov. Dean has put too many of his environmental eggs in the land-acquisition basket.''

"What we have lacked over the last 10 years is leadership on the tough issues of growth management,'' Courtney said. ''There has not been an overarching vision to resolve the differences on economic and environmental issues.''

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/specialnews/dean/12.htm

O.K. Yeah! your right....Vermonters LOVE Deans environmental record.

[clar]

21. You didn't address my concerns. You don't listen

Although I absolutely refuse to let over the top supporters of any candidate turn me off, it's possible that I'm more forebearing than some. You do Kerry no favors. It's impossible to have a dialogue with you. I give up. But, whenever and wherever I find you posting quotes from dubious sources, I'll call you on it. No wonder so many people here at DU have expressed their frustration with your dubious tactics. I join their ranks.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

22. It's okay, Clar

This particular poster has showed his hand a bit too much, calling Dean a "small arrogant little tyrant" "a petty mediocrity" "monsterous"(sic) "dictatorial" "bastard" "in a way far worse than Bush". And that was just in one post.

There is no point in entertaining such biased postings.

[MercutioATC]

25. I'm proud of you, Amerikav60...

you're showing remarkable restraint...

:evilgrin:

[RevolutionStartsNow]

26. Heh

...I am trying

:hi:

[Nicholas_J]

42. I do not need to address your concerns

Dean and his suppoters need to address the issues, and not from Deans own campaign propaganda.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

Find resources that do not come from Dean himself, or Dean supporters, from Vermont environmental groups that counter what the person here have said, or accept them. Or the other articles, which are valid sources for info.

The environmentalist worked with Dean, on an environmental board. You did not. They are far better suited to form an opinion on Dean and his environmental policies than any garden variety Dean supporters is. Provide counterpoint, or just be quiet.

[Egnever]

12. Kerry is one of my last choices

Mosely braun comes in ahead of him.

Hes great at telling little bedtime stories though. Puts me to sleep every time.

I once went to a housing project blah blah blah

[DrFunkenstein]

14. This Site Seems More Geared Toward The Deanie Mentality

It is unnecessarily antagonistic and dismissive of the other candidates, making Norman seem unreasonable and a little stuck up. Although he tries to weakly dismiss the Skull & Bones theory, it is clear that he buys into similarly knuckleheaded conspiracies.

His love of simplistic and polarizing language makes him seem more along the lines of Dean and Kucinich's more embarassing devotees (which are more than adequately represented here at DU). Maybe this Z Mag/Chomsky-lovin' may play well in certain corners of the Left, but honestly it leaves me cold.

Dean is trying to put these types of supporters in the closet, now that he has enough credibility as a player. I think the last thing we need to do is to scrape some of them up.

We need to build a coalition of both the undecided and supporters of the other candidates. Kerry cannot win without them. Telling people not to bother with those other loser candidates seems smug and divisive.

Notice how long it takes Norman to get to Kerry's strengths. I would personally take out all the crap smearing the other candidates and lampooning Bush, and get straight to what makes Kerry such an excellent choice. There is a ton of stuff to highlight - certainly enough to fill a website. Kerry's record is incredible! Let people know it!

[polpilot]

15. Kerry's 'incredible' record doesn't appear to be enough.

Dean '04

[DrFunkenstein]

30. How Funny That You Responded, Of All People!

"His love of simplistic and polarizing language makes him seem more along the lines of Dean and Kucinich's more embarassing devotees (which are more than adequately represented here at DU)."

There are a handful of people around here who seem to do little more than deliver succint (to put it nicely) attacks on other candidates. At least I can at least say they are consistent.

However, when it comes time for the general elections, if Dean is stll around, you can be sure that he is not going to be flaunting his zealots on the Left as a reason to vote for him. He is going to try to switch himself from a centrist to a moderate. Moderates don't have drum circles and giant puppets. I have a feeling that quite a few Dean supporters are going to be quietly scraped off like so much clinging barnacle. And they probably won't realize it.

Dean is already denying himself as the anti-war candidate (he sure wasn't doing THAT a few months ago!), and pushing himself as a tough-talking centrist. The funny thing is that the progressive anti-war movement may suddenly find themselves zealously defending a candidate entirely removed from their own passionate causes, ignoring the centrism in favor of the tough talk.

[RogueTrooper]

32. How is Dean distancing himself from his anti-war

views?

[killbotfactory]

37. He's always said he wasn't a pacifist...

Pretty much in every interview during the lead-up to war when he was asked about it. The media was just tyring to pigeonhole him as an unelectable kook.

And the people opposed to the Iraq-war were more than just progressives, unless you think pacifist progressives make up 1/3 of the country. The war never had much strong support until Bush made the war inevitable.

[DrFunkenstein]

49. Thank You For Answering For Me

Dean is no pacifist. That is a good thing, and I don't knock it for him. But when he was Mr. Longshot, he made his name by making himself Mr. Anti-war. He used the term "anti-war" himself. However, since he has established a degree of legitimacy in the race, he has reversed his stridency and has done nothing but qualify his position - the very thing Kerry has always taken heat for as "waffling." Funny, since their positions are virtually identical. The main difference is that Kerry was up front about his conditions while Dean was still banging on the podium.

About progressives, let's get something clear - not all people that disagreed with the conditions of the invasion are Dean supporters. Hardly. My comment referred to the activist-minded on the Left that transferred their allegiance from Nader-style reformist politics to Dean's camp, largely because of Dean's activist rhetoric. In doing so, many have abandoned the progressive politics they once championed to put their weight behind a centrist.

This is not a crime. For instance, many progressives (myself included) supported Clinton, the triangulating corporate-hooker. It was pragmatic given Clinton's position in the political world of the 90's. However, it is still early in this race, and I don't see why people are flocking to another centrist-with-liberal-tongue who doesn't have half of the personal charisma the Big Dog had.

While I can, I am promoting the real progressive in this race - no not Kucinich! The other one! When the time comes, if I need to support Dean then I will have little problem doing so. As much as I think Kerry is a better candidate than Dean, I think Dean is a far better candidate than any others in the race.

[MercutioATC]

50. He's always supported military action in Afghanistan

and he's always said so. He doesn't support the war in Iraq, specifically. It was his detractors that started the "Dean is weak on defense because he's anti-war" thing.

[Nicholas_J]

18. What I find most interesting about Deans supporters

IS their continual demand for links to proof about things that are not GLOWING in theri reporting on Dean, but come out with BLANKET statements about the other candidates and WILL not provide documentation that verifies their OPINION. FOR that is all it is in most cases.

And in response to the statement about Kerry's record not being enough...

At least he has a record. Dean has none. Or at least Dean has not initiated anything of note on his own accord.

[polpilot]

39. 'Dean has none'.........Are you referring to GOVERNOR Dean.

Dean '04...The relentless march to Pa. Ave.

[Nicholas_J]

45. To applaud

When another candidate takes the White House.

[genius]

16. Kucinich has the best chance of beating Bush

because he is uniting the party. Last year 68 percent didn't vote and next year those 68% will all vote for Kucinich. However, I would back Kerry before Dean since Dean is more conservative than Kerry. Personally, I don't think anyone but Kucinich has a chance.

[Nicholas_J]

19. Look close genius

Dean record is more conservative than Lieberman's.

If you compare Deans record of opposing liberal legislation in Vermont, and compare Liebermans record in Congress, Old Joe come out light years ahead on the Liberal scale.

[keek]

38. interesting...

you know, I am concerned myself about how many people in this country do not vote. I do know many of those people myself. They all seem to really like Dean.

Let me explain to you why I think people call Dean a conservative. Dean is not a tax and spend Democrat. This is just as wreckless as the borrow and spend Neo-conservatives we have in power right now. There is such thing as a healthy balance and I think that both sides should be fiscally conservative and wise about how they spend our money. I don't believe that in order to fix something you just flood the system with money and it will be all better. I don't think its realistic to say that we should drastically cut military spending, while we have troops all over the world and in combat in several countries. That makes no sense. It would be nice to cut it and give all of that money to poor people, but that is not realistic at all. There is a better way.

Dean is not about standing up and saying that he is going to do all of these drastic things with our tax dollars because even if he wanted to, he couldn't. So, he is wise about how he decides to spend the people's money. This is not conservativism in the same sense that Bush calls himself a conservative. This is a qualitative and responsible style of leadership. Bush sees a problem with something and he wants to privatize it, people like Kuchinich see a problem and they want to throw tons of money into it. Didn't Cincinati go bankrupt? or was that just a rumor? and look at Texas's record under Bush. Now look at Vermont under Dean.

[Nicholas_J]

43. There is a great difference

Dean is not a tax and spend Democrat.

But he was a tax cut and proram cut conservative in Vermont, contrary to the New Democrat Platform of the Hyde Park Declaration.

DLC | Key Document | August 1, 2000
The Hyde Park Declaration: A Statement of Principles and a Policy Agenda for the 21st Century


Publisher's Note: Last May, at the invitation of the Democratic Leadership Council, elected officials from across the country met at Franklin D. Roosevelt's estate in Hyde Park, N.Y. Their goal was to begin drafting a statement of New Democrat principles and a broad national policy agenda for the next decade. This manifesto, The Hyde Park Declaration, is the result of their work.

The Hyde Park Declaration has a historic antecedent. At their 1990 annual meeting, held in New Orleans, DLC members -- chaired by then-Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas -- issued The New Orleans Declaration. That statement of principles became the guiding philosophy of Clinton's 1992 run for the presidency and later that of his presidential administration. The New Orleans Declaration's call for a citizen-government relationship based on the values of opportunity, responsibility, and community subsequently became the main organizing principle of Third Way political movements in Britain and around the world...


DLC | Key Document | August 1, 2000
The Hyde Park Declaration: A Statement of Principles and a Policy Agenda for the 21st Century


Publisher's Note: Last May, at the invitation of the Democratic Leadership Council, elected officials from across the country met at Franklin D. Roosevelt's estate in Hyde Park, N.Y. Their goal was to begin drafting a statement of New Democrat principles and a broad national policy agenda for the next decade. This manifesto, The Hyde Park Declaration, is the result of their work.

The Hyde Park Declaration has a historic antecedent. At their 1990 annual meeting, held in New Orleans, DLC members -- chaired by then-Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas -- issued The New Orleans Declaration. That statement of principles became the guiding philosophy of Clinton's 1992 run for the presidency and later that of his presidential administration. The New Orleans Declaration's call for a citizen-government relationship based on the values of opportunity, responsibility, and community subsequently became the main organizing principle of Third Way political movements in Britain and around the world.

"Because of the work done in New Orleans and the fact that the American people gave us a chance two years later to test it, we have proven that ideas matter, and that for the decade of the '90s our ideas were the right ones," President Clinton told the Hyde Park gathering. "They have put the Democratic Party at the vital center of American life."

"Now, I think we have a rare opportunity to identify and move on the big, long-term challenges the country faces in the new century," he continued. " both the opportunity and the responsibility to put forth a declaration here which will guide our party and should guide our nation for the next 10 years. ... I've done everything I could to turn the ship of state around. Now you've got to make sure that it keeps sailing in the right direction."

A partial list of signatories of The Hyde Park Declaration appears at the end of the document. The full list will be available at a later date.

To order additional copies of The Hyde Park Declaration, call the DLC at 1-800-546-0027.

Al From
President
Democratic Leadership Council



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A New Politics for a New America

At the beginning of a new century and new millennium we see a nation in the midst of a great transformation.

As modernizers of the American progressive political tradition, we call for a new politics for the next decade to reflect new realities.

These new realities include:


An information-, technology-driven, and ever more global New Economy that is changing the way Americans work, live, and communicate with each other.

A population that is rapidly becoming more diverse, more affluent, more educated, more suburban, more "wired," less political, and more centrist.

The emergence of a new social structure, in which the "learning class" of well-educated and skilled citizens prospers while those without education and skills are at risk of being left behind.

The aging of the population, creating new intergenerational tensions over resources for schools, retirement, and health care.

A generational change in attitudes as the New Deal/World War II generation gives way to the baby boom and GenX generations that are far more skeptical about politics and government, even as they crave a "higher politics" of moral purpose.

A rapidly changing global environment in which American values and interests are predominant, but in which we face a new series of international challenges based not on a monolithic threat from another superpower, but on regional instability, economic rivalries, ethnic conflicts, rogue states, and terrorism.
Where We Stand

In keeping with our party's grand tradition, we reaffirm Jefferson's belief in individual liberty and capacity for self-government. We endorse Jackson's credo of equal opportunity for all, special privileges for none. We embrace Roosevelt's thirst for innovation and Kennedy's summons to civic duty. And we intend to carry on Clinton's insistence upon new means to achieve progressive ideals.

As New Democrats, we believe in a Third Way that rejects the old left-right debate and affirms America's basic bargain: opportunity for all, responsibility from all, and community of all.

We believe in free enterprise to stimulate economic innovation and growth and in public activism to ensure that everyone can share in America's prosperity.

We believe that government's proper role in the New Economy is to equip working Americans with new tools for economic success and security.

We believe in expanding trade and investment because we must be a party of economic progress, not economic reaction.

We believe that global markets demand global rules and institutions to ensure fair competition and to provide checks and balances on private power.

We believe that fiscal discipline is fundamental to sustained economic growth as well as responsible government.

We believe that a progressive tax system is the only fair way to pay for government.

We believe the Democratic Party's mission is to expand opportunity, not government.

We believe that education must be America's great equalizer, and we will not abandon our public schools or tolerate their failure.



LET US LOOK AT TWO KEY ECONOMIC STATEMENT IN THIS DECLARATION:


We believe that fiscal discipline is fundamental to sustained economic growth as well as responsible government.

We believe that a progressive tax system is the only fair way to pay for government.



Deans stance and performance as governor was something very,very different


Progressives call for higher taxes for rich
January 25, 2002

By JACK HOFFMAN

Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER — Vermont Progressives renewed their call Thursday for higher taxes on the wealthy in order to avoid some of the budget cuts that Gov. Howard Dean outlined earlier this week.

The Progressives, with support of a couple dozen Democrats and one Republican, proposed two new income tax surcharges. Taxes would go up 12.5 percent on taxable income between $43,000 and $158,000. On taxable income above $158,000, taxes would be increased 25 percent.

Taxable income is the amount left after personal exemptions and deductions have been subtracted from wages, business earnings and other types of income.

Currently, Vermont’s highest income tax rate is 9.5 percent. That is the rate paid on taxable income above $283,000. Under the plan the Progressives proposed Thursday, the highest Vermont tax rate would be 11.88 percent.

The coalition also called for a change in the tax on capital gains. Currently, Vermont treats long-term capital gains as the federal government does and taxes it at a lower rate. The highest rate Vermont collects on capital gains is 4.8 percent.

The Progressives said Thursday that gains on investments should be treated the same as salaries and wages that people are paid for their labor. They said the tax rate should for capital gains should be the same as it is for ordinary income...

Dean reiterated his opposition to raising the income tax shortly after the Progressives unveiled their tax plan. Dean contends Vermont’s marginal income tax rate — that is, the top rate paid by those in the highest income brackets — already is too high.


http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/41293.html


Dean's belief was that the rich paid too much, but an analysis of Vermonts taxation revealed something quite different:

Vermont’s Tax Code: No Breaks for the Poor and Middle Class
When all Vermont taxes are totaled up, the study found that:

The richest Vermont taxpayers—with average incomes of $686,000—pay 9.7% of their income in Vermont state and local taxes before accounting for the tax savings from federal itemized deductions. After the federal offset, they pay only 7.1%.

Middle-income taxpayers in Vermont—those earning between $27,000 and $44,000—pay 9.8% of their income in Vermont state and local taxes before the federal deduction offset and 9.5% after the offset—much more than what the rich pay.


# Vermont families earning less than $16,000—the poorest fifth of Vermont non-elderly taxpayers—pay 10% of their income in Vermont state and local taxes, one and half times the share the wealthiest Vermonters pay.

“Vermont’s income tax is not progressive enough to offset the regressivity of its sales and excise taxes,” McIntyre said. “Taxes ought to be based on people’s ability to pay them, which means that the share of income paid in taxes should rise as income grows, not fall as is the case in Vermont.”

http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:fJRaEEEPn3gJ:www.itepnet.org/wp2000/vt%2520pr.pdf+Vermont+Taxation+regressive+Tax+institute&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Deans stance is only fiscaally responsible in the sense that consrevatives hold it to be conservative, that you cut taxes and cut services to balance the budget.

The New-Dem DLC platform is something quite different. A progressive tax system that taxes the wealthy at a higher rate than the middle class or poor is called for to support social legislation in order to
Support programs instead of cutting them.

Again, editorials are criticized, bt this one quotes those who had to deal with Dean:

Those who know Dean say he’s no classic liberal
By ROSS SNEYD

Associated Press Writer

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — Howard Dean may be many things, say those who worked with him over nearly a dozen years as Vermont governor, but an elitist liberal is hardly one of them.

He’s actually a lot more moderate — many would say conservative — than the reputation he’s built during his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Many of the people who were his allies and adversaries in Montpelier over his 20-year political career have been quietly bemused by the liberal persona he’s built as he campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire, especially through his outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq...


Dean kept his distance from his party’s liberals during his governorship.

"He seemed to take glee in attacking us at every opportunity and using us as a way to form alliances with more conservative elements," said former state Sen. Cheryl Rivers, a leader of the state Democrats’ liberal wing and former chairwoman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee.

Dean fashioned himself a position in the political center of Vermont politics even as the state has moved steadily to the left.

"He’s socially progressive on issues of human rights and all the social issues and he’s fiscally very conservative. To me, that makes him a moderate," said former Sen. Nancy Chard, a member of the DLC who was chairwoman of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee during some of the years that Dean was pushing the Legislature to expand access to health care.

Many back in Vermont have shrugged their shoulders as they’ve watched Dean allow himself to be cast as a liberal. They know it’s not the first time politicians have miscalculated his political leanings.

Dean served in the Vermont House for four years and was in the midst of his third term as lieutenant governor in 1991 when the incumbent governor, a Republican, died.

The state was in a fiscal crisis at the time, working its way out of the biggest budget deficit in its history. Then-Gov. Richard Snelling had pushed a series of temporary tax increases and budget cuts through the Legislature and Dean took up that austerity plan as his own.

To the anger of more liberal members of his own party, he insisted that the tax increases be rolled back on schedule and then went on to work for additional tax cuts later in his tenure.

By the same token, though, he also supported raising taxes — as long as it wasn’t the income tax — when school funding crises and other issues arose that required it...

Throughout, he held a tight rein on state spending, repeatedly clashing with the Democrats who controlled the Legislature for most of his years as governor.

Dean trimmed spending or held down increases in areas held dear by the liberals. More than once, Dean went to battle over whether individual welfare benefits should rise under automatic cost of living adjustments. Liberals were particularly incensed when he tried that tactic on a program serving the blind, disabled and elderly, which he did several times.

Dean turned often to the bully pulpit to belittle and berate them.

Last year, in a news conference tirade that was typical of his budget feuds with the Legislature, Dean lambasted the Senate. "The Senate budget is in la-la land," Dean said last May. "They’re pretending there is no recession."

In the end, he got his way and proposed spending was cut before the budget was enacted.

"Certainly the Democratic caucus was never 100 percent behind him and where there were differences, it was around how progressive or how moderate he was," Chard said.

Rivers blames Dean for helping a third political party to flourish in Vermont that many say siphons votes from Democrats. "The Progressive Party gained some momentum during his years as governor because he was so conservative," Rivers said, although she said she still may support Dean for president.



http://www4.fosters.com/News2003/May2003/May_19/News/reg_vt0519a.asp



So Dean, as governor, was fiscally responsible, but not in the way that adhered to the principals of the democratic party. republicans were far more comfortable with his fiscal stance.

[keek]

59. blah blah blah nicholasj

"he was a tax cut and proram cut conservative in Vermont"

okay, if you aren't a tax and spend democrat, then what are you? how do you balance the budget and also ensure that the tax dollars benefit the people? Qualitative spending....

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[Duder]

23. The wealthiest candidate...

...and this is the best he can come up with? Doesn't look like a winner to me and it was kind of shameful the way the Kerry supporter picked on poor Dennis:

'Representative Dennis Kucinich's "run" for the presidency is a scam: his candidacy will terminate in March 2004, the deadline for filing for re-election to his House seat.

Kucinich's reported assets are between $2,002 and $32,000, which means that however much you may like the guy, he simply can't win the 2004 election against Dubya.

Kucinich's recent election-year conversion into a defender of a woman's control over her body is contradicted by his past performance as co-chair of the House Right-to-Life caucus.

He also plays disciple to his anti-rational, New Age guru, Marianne Williamson, going to the extreme of organizing a "peace conference" with her at the start of his campaign (for an expose of Williamson's outlandish views, see Wendy Kaminer's book, Sleeping With Extraterrestrials).'

Truth? Maybe for Kerry but others might disagree.

[IndianaGreen]

27. And Kerry was, and is, Skull and Bones

UFO people have never invaded other countries, murdered their people, and raped their natural resources.

Skull and Bones people have done of all of those crimes!

Give me Dennis and his UFO!

[DrFunkenstein]

29. Flawless Logic There, Champ

You can also say the same about Americans. Americans have held slaves, Americans have sexually abused animals, Americans have eaten human flesh.

Hey! I just read a book that says Kerry is...gulp...an American! He must be a perverted cannibal slave-holder!

Members of Group A perform act X.
Person K is a member of Group A.
Person K must have performed act X.

[gottaB]

35. unfair

some actions are performed as, by or for a group; membership in some groups is not a matter of being arbitrarily assigned to some catagory. People choose to affiliate themselves with groups that have ideological and political aims. That's fair game.

1. some acts which people perfom they perform as a group.
2. (many other acts which people perform are not performed as a group)
3. an act that is performed by a member of a group may (or may not) be due to their being a member of the group.


Therefore you should ammend your conclusion to read that Kerry must be slave-holder.

[gottaB]

46. emendation

too late to edit, meant to add a :-) just in case it wasn't obvious.

For the record, I believe John Kerry has been on the right side of issues like the Confederate flag and Affirmative Action, and I have no reason to believe he supports or condones or excuses slavery in any way. In fact, he has spoken of racism in America's past, and the need to overcome it in the right now. My post was about goofy reasoning, and the implication that America is a nation of slave-holders was informed in part by Frederick Douglas' oration on the occasion of the Fourth of July, which was ringing in my head for several days. Once again, I have no reason to believe that a President John Kerry would represent anything but a step forward on the road to freedom and equality for all Americans.

[LWolf]

31. It seems to me that

this is exactly what keeps voters from the polls in droves. The conventional wisdom that says, if you want to win, you can't vote for what or who you believe in. So even if you win, you lose.

In the general election, I will cast my vote for whoever is opposing *. Kerry, Lieberman, Spiderman, whoever. The job is to oust *.

In the primary, I will vote for whoever I feel would make the best president. Period. That is honoring and celebrating the process. If the candidate of my choice does not win the nomination, that's fine. The people have spoken. That is, some of us will have spoken, if we voted for the person we feel best matches the issues.

Frankly, any one of the 9 would be better for the country than *. And whoever is nominated will get plenty of votes from the "ABB" crowd. "Anybody But Bush." Given that, trying to convince people to spend their primary vote on someone other than the candidate of their choice through the use of fear tactics (Bush will win if you don't vote for ________), is ____________(enter your own adjective here; I've edited mine out in the interest of civility).

[PATRICK]

33. Strong candidate

Walks a convincing tightrope that everyone thinks is a broad safe path, so easily he skirts the principle of military strength and liberalism.
He can appeal to both convincingly though not as satisfying against the absolute mockery of principle that is Bushco. THAT extreme should cause anyone to revolt easily the other way for mere salvation.

He is strong, yet it only gets worrisome when he needs to shake soemone off his tail with scare tactics. If Bush needs to be defeated so badly it might have been better to fight him more furiously in the Senate when the life and death issues were built on obvious(to us?) lies and selfish terrifying interests.

And Skull and Boones is only a frat, only a frat. However, a small issue no one mentions is this. During the "secret" initiation the candidate is supposed to make a full personal confession of every misdeed of his past. I take it Kerry and his personal biographer, The Boston Globe are comfortable with all that?

He reminds me of Muskie, only stronger and better spoken, tending to come on strong and centrist instead of charming liberals outside his fan club. I am sure traditional politicking calls for stick then carrot until the nomination is won but....

[DrGonzoLives]

34. This is an opinion piece, not fact

Don't tell me who I "must" support, the only candidate I "must" support is the one who gets nominated.

[DrFunkenstein]

40. No, Really, You Must Support Him

You have no choice. Either support Kerry or we're gonna steal your bicycle again.

[curse10]

41. I already do

[Nicholas_J]

44. Good for you!

n/t

[polpilot]

47. Dean supporters would never post "Why American MUST support

Dean.

We understand that many are proud of Kerry's actions and would be excited about him being the president. I don't share this enthusiasm and am bored by the prospects of a Kerry presidency.

Dean '04

[primavera]

51. Kind of depends on what you think will be effective, doesn't it?

If Kerry wins the nomination, sure, I'll support him, maybe not as enthusiastically as I would Dean or Kucinich, but Kerry's a far cry from a candidate like Lieberpuke to whom lending my vote would involve a serious, soul-searching, crisis of conscience.

But I think it's a yet unanswered question whether Kerry is as electable as his advocates make him out to be. There's a strong argument I've heard made by any number of analysts to the effect that, when Americans feel their personal safety to be at risk, all other considerations will take a distant backseat to national security. Frankly, I think there's some validity to that argument and, if it's correct, Kerry's progressive stand on the environment isn't going to get him very far if all anyone cares about is homeland defense.

Right now, the shrub is holding all of the homeland defense cards - because almost no one is standing up and calling him on it. The shrub must be aggressively assailed on this issue, or he's going to walk away with the election, no matter how deplorable and inadequate his policies in every other area may be. If Dems are to have any hope of taking back the White House, they need to call attention to the weaknesses in the shrub's national insecurity plans: the fact that our policies have resulted in us becoming a universally loathed pariah state whom most of the world now considers a more imminent threat to peace than any terrorist ever was. This is not, repeat not helping our national security situation.

Kerry's going to have a tough time making that critical argument given that he went along with all of the shrub's antagonistic, imperial, crusader crap and, to a large extent, continues to do so to this day. So how electable is he if he's unable to distinguish himself from the administration on such a pivotal issue?

[GDK]

55. KevinJ: I think your wrong about Kerry

Kerry has not gone along with shrub's "antagonistic imperial, crusader crap" and certainly doesn't continue to do so today. It's true that Kerry was not as anti-war war as Dean or Kucinich was, but he was still highly critical of shrub (by the way, 2/3 of the public still support the war). Consider this passage from Kerry's statement at the outset of the war:



I find myself genuinely angered, saddened and dismayed by the situation in which this nation finds itself tonight. As the world's sole superpower in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world, our government's obligation to protect the security of the United States and the law abiding nations of the world could not be more clear, particularly in the aftermath of September 11th.

Yet the Administration's handling of the run up to war with Iraq could not possibly have been more inept or self-defeating. President Bush has clumsily and arrogantly squandered the post 9/11 support and goodwill of the entire civilized world in a manner that will make the jobs ahead of us - both the military defeat and the rebuilding of Iraq - decidedly more expensive in every sense of that word.

The Administration's indifference to diplomacy and the manner in which it has treated friend and foe alike over the past several months have left this country with vastly reduced influence throughout the world, made impossible the assembly of a broad, multinational effort against Saddam Hussein, and dramatically increased the costs of fulfilling our legitimate security obligations at home and around the world.

At home, the Administration has given too short shrift to the needs of homeland security, ignoring the advice of their own experts, doing the job on the fly and on the cheap. To this administration, homeland security is a fine political weapon, but not high enough a priority to force a reassessment of their tax cuts to the rich and the special interests. ***

It will take years to repair the needless damage done by this Administration, damage to our international standing and moral leadership, to traditional and time-tested alliances, to our relations with the Arab world, ultimately to ourselves.

[primavera]

57. I'm relieved to hear him say stuff like that

I hope he means it. I guess I wonder how much credibility he can have in making statements like that when he supported the Patriot Abomination which has figured so prominently in bringing us to our current dismal state of affairs, as well as approving the administration's blank cheque to carry out acts of piracy against Iraq based upon little or no evidence. But I hope you're right about Kerry. I'm also a little troubled by his stated policy positions on national security, homeland defense, and civil liberties as written up on his campaign website: they're pretty conspicuously lacking in criticism of the administration and the points he tends to highlight seem rather more peripheral than the more contentious central issues. For instance, in his section on national security, he talks about protecting women's rights. While women's rights need to be protected in the context of national security as much as anyone else's, he makes no reference whatsoever to the thousands of suspects we're indefinitely detaining, torturing, and even executing in Gitmo without access to legal counsel and basic due process protections. Next to that nightmare, is Kerry's concern for women in the context of national security really the key concern? Or is he intentionally shying away from our most egregious offenses because he knows they make Americans uncomfortable and he wants to play both sides of the fence at once?

On edit: p.s. You're right that 2/3 of the American public supports the war and - here's the deal - will continue to do so as long as the only side of the debate they're hearing is the shrub's all propaganda all the time, flag waving side of the story. Which is precisely why whomever runs against the shrub needs to be ready, willing, and able to forcefully and authoritatively contest, debunk, and thoroughly discredit the administration's mythological representations of global affairs and national security.

[blm]

56. May I suggest you google Rand Beers

and read his transcript from Nightline?


The transcript begins on page 8:
http://dca.boozle.net/odd/ntl30625.pdf



<1>23:36:13 TED KOPPEL (ABC NEWS)
(OC) Rand Beers, whom you will meet in just a moment, has an impeccable resume. A life of government
service that began with two tours in Vietnam with the Marine Corps and then more than 30 years, most
of those at the State Department, working in international narcotics and law enforcement affairs,
intelligence, and counter-terrorism. Most recently, until about three months ago, he served on the
National Security Council at the White House, as a special assistant to the President for combating
terrorism. He had also worked for the National Security Council under presidents Reagan, George Bush
the elder, and Bill Clinton. Like thousands of other public servants in this city, especially those working in
the field of intelligence, Mr. Beers might have left office in near total anonymity were it not for the manner
in which he left his last post. He was so frustrated by what he perceives as the Bush Administration's
ineffectiveness at combating terrorism, at home and abroad, that he quit. A few weeks after he resigned
from the White House, Rand Beers took another step that was bound to get some attention. He signed
on as National Security Adviser to the presidential campaign of Senator John Kerry, currently one of the
leading Democratic candidates for President. Mr. Beers has done a couple of newspaper interviews, he
has testified before Congress, but this is his first television interview since he left the government.

[blm]

58. more...

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/2003/06/

Ex-Bush terrorism aide slams his boss, joins Kerry
In a startling and unprecedented development Bush's former top counterterrorism adviser is not only coming out against his ex-boss, but has joined the John Kerry team in a bid to oust him. Rand Beers, once special assistant to the president for combating terrorism, says that Bush's so-called war on terror is misguided, myopic, and ultimately dangerous.
In a Washington Post article, Rand says "administration is 'underestimating the enemy'" and that "difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged and generally underfunded." By emphasizing war over domestic security, the White House has left Americans more vulnerable than ever.
Of Beers defection, Brookings scholar Paul C. Light says, "I can't think of a single example in the last 30 years of a person who has done something so extreme. He's not just declaring that he's a Democrat. He's declaring that he's a Kerry Democrat, and the way he wants to make a difference in the world is to get his former boss out of office."