And yes we know the republicans are really good at shaping perception through lies.
They're already starting on Dean... floating the lie that Dean performed abortions in the 70's when he was a med student.
And he's already stated that he and his wife have never performed an abortion... even though they are pro-choice.
The other fallacy is that they're going to portray him as an elitist snob from park avenue. Which is hard to be when you've lived in the most rural state in the country for 25 years.
I just hope he can make up for his probable loss of moderate swing voters with new voters. Dean has the worst position on tax cuts of any of them - he wants to repeal all of Bush's tax cuts, even the ones that weren't Bush's to begin with. He's going to raise taxes on the middle and lower classes. There's such a good fiscal responsibility argument to be used against Bush, and Dean can make it as a budget-balancing governor. But he just makes it that much harder to get that message out if he's saying he's going to raise taxes on everyone. That one position alone has lost him the general election already.
The only actual problem with Dean as a Democratic candidate is that he has had the 'unelectable' tag hung around his neck (Rove must love this)...but I don't see that this is necessarily the case. He's smart, charismatic, dedicated and has integrity. Granted, he's not as telegenic as Clarke, but he has more political experience. He's not as much a part of the Democratic establishment as Kerry, but has better policies. His policies aren't as good as Kucinich's, but he doesn't look like a weird gnome person.
So - and this is directed at trumptman and SDW2001 in particular - why do you think he is unelectable? What (partisan politics aside for the moment) abilities and leadership qualities does Bush have that Dean does not?
The ideologues gathered around the President have an ambitious goal Ñ to repeal the progressive legacy of the twentieth century. They want to return to a time when private wealth was insulated from the graduated income tax, and the many labored for the benefit of the few. They would ignore the widening gap between rich and poor, shred the safety nets that provide at least some protection for the unfortunate, and dismantle the safeguards that protect consumers and workers alike.
My economic policies for America are based on four fundamentals:
*\t
Repeal the Bush tax cuts, and use those funds to pay for universal health care, homeland security, and investments in job creation that benefit all Americans.
*\t
Set the nation on the path to a balanced budget, recognizing that we cannot have social or economic justice without a sound fiscal foundation.
*\t
Create a fairer and simpler system of taxation.
*\t
Assure that Social Security and Medicare are adequately funded to meet the needs of the next generation of retirees.
I know what it takes to generate economic growth. As President, I will work tirelessly to put the American economy back on the road to prosperity not just for the favored few, but for all.
The only actual problem with Dean as a Democratic candidate is that he has had the 'unelectable' tag hung around his neck (Rove must love this)...but I don't see that this is necessarily the case. He's smart, charismatic, dedicated and has integrity. Granted, he's not as telegenic as Clarke, but he has more political experience. He's not as much a part of the Democratic establishment as Kerry, but has better policies. His policies aren't as good as Kucinich's, but he doesn't look like a weird gnome person.
So - and this is directed at trumptman and SDW2001 in particular - why do you think he is unelectable? What (partisan politics aside for the moment) abilities and leadership qualities does Bush have that Dean does not?
The real reason Dean is unelectable (in my humble opinion) is because most Democratic positions (and his too) are really criticisms followed by plans that believe in perfection.
When you have someone who comes from a privleged background as Dean has, (so did Gore too by the way) it just makes these positions even more unbelievable.
So Bush is a draft dodger who got a perk type position flying planes in the national guard. Dean took some time off and was a ski bum who's back ailment didn't allow him to serve, but did allow him to hit the slopes everyday.
The Bush criticism is, well see, he got that because of his background. He got that because his family is rich.
And we look at Dean and... say pretty much the same thing. In fact I would bet there were plenty of poor men who had ailments similar to Dean but who's families couldn't afford the array of specilists it took to find and identify it. They just went off and served, and also possibly died.
So the rich are privleged, including the Democratic rich, but we have to somehow believe that Dean, who obviously took advantage of his status is some how going to end it for all after him. It just doesn't float.
How about how Bush critics complain, in conspiratorial tones that Bush has secret deals for friends in all areas. That his policy is always slanted toward his interests. Then we look at Dean who has sealed up the bulk of his business while working as governor. So much for operating with open doors.
Let's take a look at a few of these since Chu posted them.
Quote:
Repeal the Bush tax cuts, and use those funds to pay for universal health care, homeland security, and investments in job creation that benefit all Americans.
Might fly, but only if they can prove that they will tax all to give something for all. If the plan is full of exceptions and free rides, it will sink. People will not trust the health care they receive today to be replaced by something corrupt and that they end up paying more for.
Quote:
Set the nation on the path to a balanced budget, recognizing that we cannot have social or economic justice without a sound fiscal foundation.
So this means he will get rid of tax credits as well that pay out money to folks who haven't even paid in? It is hard for me to become outraged that someone who makes $200k gets to keep 1.5-2% more of their money when someone who make 30k also gets to keep 2% more of that someone's money via a earned income tax credit, child credit, etc.
If we all must suffer then share the pain, but I seldom see plans that call for that on the Democratic side.
Quote:
Create a fairer and simpler system of taxation.
The only way to do this is to make it less progressive. It is nice rhetoric that will never see the light of day on the Democratic side. The reason we have these huge fluxs in tax revenue is because the base is too narrow. To widen it you have to be willing to raise taxes on everyone instead of seeking more from the "rich." Sounds good, but I doubt the follow up reflects what I have stated.
Quote:
Assure that Social Security and Medicare are adequately funded to meet the needs of the next generation of retirees.
Good luck... unless the program goes back to only trying to be a subsidy and this also goes for the big REPUBLICAN boondoggle of prescription drugs, these programs will go bankrupt. Dean at one times advocated means testing for medicare and social security and also raising the retirement age. Those were real solutions that have now been jettisoned.
The hardest thing about winning against Bush, and I DON'T like this as a Republican, is that he spends like mad. It is going to be really hard to run as the "I'm not going to take more, just give more and oh, they'll be no pain for anyone." type of guy. Bush has done well here even though I don't agree with how he has done it.
The real reason Dean is unelectable (in my humble opinion) is because most Democratic positions (and his too) are really criticisms followed by plans that believe in perfection.
I think trumptman is being too deep here. People just don't think like this about candidates. The vast majority of voters won't even know the vast majority of his plans. It's all about taxes, plain and simple. It's a perfect point to play into the Republican attack machine, and people will have seen the ads and think "Dean - hmm, I think I heard something about him raising taxes on me." End of story. See you in 2008.
What is this bizarre notion that Dean is too much of a "hard core leftist" to be elected? By any reasonable historical standard he is a moderate to slightly conservative candidate.
It wasn't very long ago that his brand of pay as you go budget management was the very mantra of the Republican (aka tax cut and spend) party. Thinking Bush's big Iraq adventure is a cluster$$$$ hardly puts him amongst the Stalinists (viz the many conservative voices saying the same thing), his gun control ideas are fairly to the right of many Dems, being pro choice is solidly in the mainstream of American public opinion, and he might be slightly to the left of the majority when it comes to civil unions for gays. Supporting Medicare and Social Security (as actual ongoing programs) is maybe now considered the secret brand of a fellow traveler?
I think any effort to portray Dean as some kind of liberal devil-man will back-fire when people get a chance to evaluate his platform. It may get people thinking, "Gee, if this is liberalism, why fear it? Seems pretty straight forward and reasonable".
Writing for the Washington Post, neocon honcho Bill Kristol basically lays out why Dean should win, while apparently trying to sound a wake-up call to the conservative faithful not to get to complacent.
Quote:
Could Dean really win? Unfortunately, yes. The Democratic presidential candidate has, alas, won the popular presidential vote three times in a row -- twice, admittedly, under the guidance of the skilled Bill Clinton, but most recently with the hapless Al Gore at the helm. And demographic trends (particularly the growth in Hispanic voters) tend to favor the Democrats going into 2004.
But surely the fact that Bush is now a proven president running for reelection changes everything? Sort of. Bush is also likely to be the first president since Herbert Hoover under whom there will have been no net job creation, and the first since Lyndon Johnson whose core justification for sending U.S. soldiers to war could be widely (if unfairly) judged to have been misleading.
And President Bush will be running for reelection after a two-year period in which his party has controlled both houses of Congress. The last two times the American people confronted a president and a Congress controlled by the same party were in 1980 and 1994. The voters decided in both cases to restore what they have consistently preferred for the last two generations: divided government. Since continued GOP control of at least the House of Representatives seems ensured, the easiest way for voters to re-divide government would be to replace President Bush in 2004. And with a plurality of voters believing the country is on the wrong track, why shouldn't they boot out the incumbent president?
And:
Quote:
Thus, on domestic policy, Dean will characterize Bush as the deficit-expanding, Social Security-threatening, Constitution-amending (on marriage) radical, while positioning himself as a hard-headed, budget-balancing, federalism-respecting compassionate moderate. And on foreign and defense policy, look for Dean to say that he was and remains anti-Iraq war (as, he will point out, were lots of traditional centrist foreign policy types). But Dean will emphasize that he has never ruled out the use of force (including unilaterally). Indeed, he will say, he believes in military strength so strongly that he thinks we should increase the size of the Army by a division or two. It's Bush, Dean will point out, who's trying to deal with the new, post-Sept. 11 world with a pre-Sept. 11 military.
But what about Sept. 11? Surely Bush's response to the attacks, and his overall leadership in the war on terrorism, remain compelling reasons to keep him in office. They do for me. But while Bush is committed to victory in that war, his secretary of state seems committed to diplomatic compromise, and his secretary of defense to an odd kind of muscle-flexing-disengagement. And when Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., said on Sunday with regard to Iraq, "We're going to get out of there as quickly as we can, but not before we finish the mission at hand," one wonders: Wouldn't Howard Dean agree with that formulation? Indeed, doesn't the first half of that sentence suggest that even the most senior of Bush's subordinates haven't really internalized the president's view of the fundamental character of this war? If they haven't, will the American people grasp the need for Bush's continued leadership on Nov. 2? If not, prepare for President Dean.
This thread contains only the opinion of the author and nothing more.
First of all I believe that if Dean is the choice of the democrats he will lose against Bush. That is reason enough that Dean is bad for America.
If Dean were to win over Bush as attacks in Iraq may get worse to ruin Bush's chances for re-election then here are reasons why I am not impressed with Dean any more so than Bush:
SnipTo Howard Dean, they are a symbol of everything that is wrong with George W. Bush?s America: wealthy executives who move their businesses to tax-free tropical islands. The kind of people who pocket the president?s big tax cuts and ?then move their corporations to Bermuda and their jobs offshore,? as Dean told Chris Matthews on ?Hardball? last week. People like Ian Cumming, a reclusive mogul who runs Leucadia National Corp. in Salt Lake City. Leucadia was one of several companies that sparked controversy last year by announcing plans to head to Bermuda to escape paying millions in U.S. taxes. The banking conglomerate later hired a high-priced Washington lobbying firm to block congressional efforts to crack down on the tax tourists. SO WHO IS Cumming supporting in next year?s race for the White House? Howard Dean. In May, Cumming threw a fund-raising party at Leucadia?s headquarters that brought in around $25,000 for the campaign. He also donated something more helpful: use of his corporate jet to fly the former Vermont governor to campaign events. Cumming?s jet even ferried Dean and his family to Hawaii recently to retrieve the remains of his brother, who died in Laos during the Vietnam War. When NEWSWEEK first contacted the campaign about Leucadia?s largesse, Dean?s aides said they were entirely unaware of its Bermuda plans and blamed the oversight on a lapse in vetting.Snip
So even before he is actually president he is taking money from people and groups he does not fully research? This indicates he is either not aware of the background of those he takes money from or that he is fully aware of their dealings but does not care as he needs money (at any cost) to fund his campaign of deception. I say campaign of deception because Dean is missing integrity where if on the one hand he campaigns against "evils" that in practice he employes in secret.
SnipAs NEWSWEEK reported last week, Dean has locked about 140 boxes of his own Vermont records in a remote state warehouse for 10 years to keep them from prying reporters and oppo researchers. State officials say these papers represent around 40 percent of his records, and include most of his communications with advisers, officials and lobbyists.Snip
Why is this? What is Dean afraid of? What is he hiding from the public?
SnipAmong the papers under lock and key, NEWSWEEK has learned, are the records of Dean?s meetings with utility executives about the controversial sale of a Vermont nuclear plant to Entergy Corp. Dean?s lawyers refused to release the papers to an environmental group last year, citing ?executive privilege?Snip
I just hope he can make up for his probable loss of moderate swing voters with new voters. Dean has the worst position on tax cuts of any of them - he wants to repeal all of Bush's tax cuts, even the ones that weren't Bush's to begin with. He's going to raise taxes on the middle and lower classes. There's such a good fiscal responsibility argument to be used against Bush, and Dean can make it as a budget-balancing governor. But he just makes it that much harder to get that message out if he's saying he's going to raise taxes on everyone. That one position alone has lost him the general election already.
Comments
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I seem to recall that the last president was a two-term democrat.
So they do win. And they even win the popular vote.
I don't find it ironic at all... the rich get richer.
Yes and that two term Democratic president said Iraq was a threat with WOMD and regularly, unilaterally bombed aspirin factories to prove so.
Which candidate is that position closer to... Bush... Dean... hmmm...?
Nick
And I know he would not let his VP have a personal intelligence wing.
And yes we know the republicans are really good at shaping perception through lies.
They're already starting on Dean... floating the lie that Dean performed abortions in the 70's when he was a med student.
And he's already stated that he and his wife have never performed an abortion... even though they are pro-choice.
The other fallacy is that they're going to portray him as an elitist snob from park avenue. Which is hard to be when you've lived in the most rural state in the country for 25 years.
So - and this is directed at trumptman and SDW2001 in particular - why do you think he is unelectable? What (partisan politics aside for the moment) abilities and leadership qualities does Bush have that Dean does not?
also:
The ideologues gathered around the President have an ambitious goal Ñ to repeal the progressive legacy of the twentieth century. They want to return to a time when private wealth was insulated from the graduated income tax, and the many labored for the benefit of the few. They would ignore the widening gap between rich and poor, shred the safety nets that provide at least some protection for the unfortunate, and dismantle the safeguards that protect consumers and workers alike.
My economic policies for America are based on four fundamentals:
*\t
Repeal the Bush tax cuts, and use those funds to pay for universal health care, homeland security, and investments in job creation that benefit all Americans.
*\t
Set the nation on the path to a balanced budget, recognizing that we cannot have social or economic justice without a sound fiscal foundation.
*\t
Create a fairer and simpler system of taxation.
*\t
Assure that Social Security and Medicare are adequately funded to meet the needs of the next generation of retirees.
I know what it takes to generate economic growth. As President, I will work tirelessly to put the American economy back on the road to prosperity not just for the favored few, but for all.
Seriously, you don't have to be so defensive. I'm just pointing out the pitfalls of Dean's probable nomination, adding some levity to the scene.
Originally posted by BR
Hooray. One politician endorses another politician. Excellent news. Really.
Am I the only one that responds to this with a giant:
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO cares?
Al Gore is on Apple's Board of Directors, which automatically makes him a demigod.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
The only actual problem with Dean as a Democratic candidate is that he has had the 'unelectable' tag hung around his neck (Rove must love this)...but I don't see that this is necessarily the case. He's smart, charismatic, dedicated and has integrity. Granted, he's not as telegenic as Clarke, but he has more political experience. He's not as much a part of the Democratic establishment as Kerry, but has better policies. His policies aren't as good as Kucinich's, but he doesn't look like a weird gnome person.
So - and this is directed at trumptman and SDW2001 in particular - why do you think he is unelectable? What (partisan politics aside for the moment) abilities and leadership qualities does Bush have that Dean does not?
The real reason Dean is unelectable (in my humble opinion) is because most Democratic positions (and his too) are really criticisms followed by plans that believe in perfection.
When you have someone who comes from a privleged background as Dean has, (so did Gore too by the way) it just makes these positions even more unbelievable.
So Bush is a draft dodger who got a perk type position flying planes in the national guard. Dean took some time off and was a ski bum who's back ailment didn't allow him to serve, but did allow him to hit the slopes everyday.
The Bush criticism is, well see, he got that because of his background. He got that because his family is rich.
And we look at Dean and... say pretty much the same thing. In fact I would bet there were plenty of poor men who had ailments similar to Dean but who's families couldn't afford the array of specilists it took to find and identify it. They just went off and served, and also possibly died.
So the rich are privleged, including the Democratic rich, but we have to somehow believe that Dean, who obviously took advantage of his status is some how going to end it for all after him. It just doesn't float.
How about how Bush critics complain, in conspiratorial tones that Bush has secret deals for friends in all areas. That his policy is always slanted toward his interests. Then we look at Dean who has sealed up the bulk of his business while working as governor. So much for operating with open doors.
Let's take a look at a few of these since Chu posted them.
Repeal the Bush tax cuts, and use those funds to pay for universal health care, homeland security, and investments in job creation that benefit all Americans.
Might fly, but only if they can prove that they will tax all to give something for all. If the plan is full of exceptions and free rides, it will sink. People will not trust the health care they receive today to be replaced by something corrupt and that they end up paying more for.
Set the nation on the path to a balanced budget, recognizing that we cannot have social or economic justice without a sound fiscal foundation.
So this means he will get rid of tax credits as well that pay out money to folks who haven't even paid in? It is hard for me to become outraged that someone who makes $200k gets to keep 1.5-2% more of their money when someone who make 30k also gets to keep 2% more of that someone's money via a earned income tax credit, child credit, etc.
If we all must suffer then share the pain, but I seldom see plans that call for that on the Democratic side.
Create a fairer and simpler system of taxation.
The only way to do this is to make it less progressive. It is nice rhetoric that will never see the light of day on the Democratic side. The reason we have these huge fluxs in tax revenue is because the base is too narrow. To widen it you have to be willing to raise taxes on everyone instead of seeking more from the "rich." Sounds good, but I doubt the follow up reflects what I have stated.
Assure that Social Security and Medicare are adequately funded to meet the needs of the next generation of retirees.
Good luck... unless the program goes back to only trying to be a subsidy and this also goes for the big REPUBLICAN boondoggle of prescription drugs, these programs will go bankrupt. Dean at one times advocated means testing for medicare and social security and also raising the retirement age. Those were real solutions that have now been jettisoned.
The hardest thing about winning against Bush, and I DON'T like this as a Republican, is that he spends like mad. It is going to be really hard to run as the "I'm not going to take more, just give more and oh, they'll be no pain for anyone." type of guy. Bush has done well here even though I don't agree with how he has done it.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
The real reason Dean is unelectable (in my humble opinion) is because most Democratic positions (and his too) are really criticisms followed by plans that believe in perfection.
I think trumptman is being too deep here. People just don't think like this about candidates. The vast majority of voters won't even know the vast majority of his plans. It's all about taxes, plain and simple. It's a perfect point to play into the Republican attack machine, and people will have seen the ads and think "Dean - hmm, I think I heard something about him raising taxes on me." End of story. See you in 2008.
What is the conservative economic theory?
Starve government and give the rich a tax break?
I think a lower income family probably pays well over 2% in payroll taxes and sales taxes.
The tax system must be MORE progressive... not less.
It wasn't very long ago that his brand of pay as you go budget management was the very mantra of the Republican (aka tax cut and spend) party. Thinking Bush's big Iraq adventure is a cluster$$$$ hardly puts him amongst the Stalinists (viz the many conservative voices saying the same thing), his gun control ideas are fairly to the right of many Dems, being pro choice is solidly in the mainstream of American public opinion, and he might be slightly to the left of the majority when it comes to civil unions for gays. Supporting Medicare and Social Security (as actual ongoing programs) is maybe now considered the secret brand of a fellow traveler?
I think any effort to portray Dean as some kind of liberal devil-man will back-fire when people get a chance to evaluate his platform. It may get people thinking, "Gee, if this is liberalism, why fear it? Seems pretty straight forward and reasonable".
Writing for the Washington Post, neocon honcho Bill Kristol basically lays out why Dean should win, while apparently trying to sound a wake-up call to the conservative faithful not to get to complacent.
Could Dean really win? Unfortunately, yes. The Democratic presidential candidate has, alas, won the popular presidential vote three times in a row -- twice, admittedly, under the guidance of the skilled Bill Clinton, but most recently with the hapless Al Gore at the helm. And demographic trends (particularly the growth in Hispanic voters) tend to favor the Democrats going into 2004.
But surely the fact that Bush is now a proven president running for reelection changes everything? Sort of. Bush is also likely to be the first president since Herbert Hoover under whom there will have been no net job creation, and the first since Lyndon Johnson whose core justification for sending U.S. soldiers to war could be widely (if unfairly) judged to have been misleading.
And President Bush will be running for reelection after a two-year period in which his party has controlled both houses of Congress. The last two times the American people confronted a president and a Congress controlled by the same party were in 1980 and 1994. The voters decided in both cases to restore what they have consistently preferred for the last two generations: divided government. Since continued GOP control of at least the House of Representatives seems ensured, the easiest way for voters to re-divide government would be to replace President Bush in 2004. And with a plurality of voters believing the country is on the wrong track, why shouldn't they boot out the incumbent president?
And:
Thus, on domestic policy, Dean will characterize Bush as the deficit-expanding, Social Security-threatening, Constitution-amending (on marriage) radical, while positioning himself as a hard-headed, budget-balancing, federalism-respecting compassionate moderate. And on foreign and defense policy, look for Dean to say that he was and remains anti-Iraq war (as, he will point out, were lots of traditional centrist foreign policy types). But Dean will emphasize that he has never ruled out the use of force (including unilaterally). Indeed, he will say, he believes in military strength so strongly that he thinks we should increase the size of the Army by a division or two. It's Bush, Dean will point out, who's trying to deal with the new, post-Sept. 11 world with a pre-Sept. 11 military.
But what about Sept. 11? Surely Bush's response to the attacks, and his overall leadership in the war on terrorism, remain compelling reasons to keep him in office. They do for me. But while Bush is committed to victory in that war, his secretary of state seems committed to diplomatic compromise, and his secretary of defense to an odd kind of muscle-flexing-disengagement. And when Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., said on Sunday with regard to Iraq, "We're going to get out of there as quickly as we can, but not before we finish the mission at hand," one wonders: Wouldn't Howard Dean agree with that formulation? Indeed, doesn't the first half of that sentence suggest that even the most senior of Bush's subordinates haven't really internalized the president's view of the fundamental character of this war? If they haven't, will the American people grasp the need for Bush's continued leadership on Nov. 2? If not, prepare for President Dean.
Weird....
First of all I believe that if Dean is the choice of the democrats he will lose against Bush. That is reason enough that Dean is bad for America.
If Dean were to win over Bush as attacks in Iraq may get worse to ruin Bush's chances for re-election then here are reasons why I am not impressed with Dean any more so than Bush:
SnipTo Howard Dean, they are a symbol of everything that is wrong with George W. Bush?s America: wealthy executives who move their businesses to tax-free tropical islands. The kind of people who pocket the president?s big tax cuts and ?then move their corporations to Bermuda and their jobs offshore,? as Dean told Chris Matthews on ?Hardball? last week. People like Ian Cumming, a reclusive mogul who runs Leucadia National Corp. in Salt Lake City. Leucadia was one of several companies that sparked controversy last year by announcing plans to head to Bermuda to escape paying millions in U.S. taxes. The banking conglomerate later hired a high-priced Washington lobbying firm to block congressional efforts to crack down on the tax tourists. SO WHO IS Cumming supporting in next year?s race for the White House? Howard Dean. In May, Cumming threw a fund-raising party at Leucadia?s headquarters that brought in around $25,000 for the campaign. He also donated something more helpful: use of his corporate jet to fly the former Vermont governor to campaign events. Cumming?s jet even ferried Dean and his family to Hawaii recently to retrieve the remains of his brother, who died in Laos during the Vietnam War. When NEWSWEEK first contacted the campaign about Leucadia?s largesse, Dean?s aides said they were entirely unaware of its Bermuda plans and blamed the oversight on a lapse in vetting.Snip
So even before he is actually president he is taking money from people and groups he does not fully research? This indicates he is either not aware of the background of those he takes money from or that he is fully aware of their dealings but does not care as he needs money (at any cost) to fund his campaign of deception. I say campaign of deception because Dean is missing integrity where if on the one hand he campaigns against "evils" that in practice he employes in secret.
SnipAs NEWSWEEK reported last week, Dean has locked about 140 boxes of his own Vermont records in a remote state warehouse for 10 years to keep them from prying reporters and oppo researchers. State officials say these papers represent around 40 percent of his records, and include most of his communications with advisers, officials and lobbyists.Snip
Why is this? What is Dean afraid of? What is he hiding from the public?
SnipAmong the papers under lock and key, NEWSWEEK has learned, are the records of Dean?s meetings with utility executives about the controversial sale of a Vermont nuclear plant to Entergy Corp. Dean?s lawyers refused to release the papers to an environmental group last year, citing ?executive privilege?Snip
Snips taken from this
Newsweek Link
Anyone else find this a little troubling from a so-called "outsider" ?
Fellowship
Originally posted by BRussell
I just hope he can make up for his probable loss of moderate swing voters with new voters. Dean has the worst position on tax cuts of any of them - he wants to repeal all of Bush's tax cuts, even the ones that weren't Bush's to begin with. He's going to raise taxes on the middle and lower classes. There's such a good fiscal responsibility argument to be used against Bush, and Dean can make it as a budget-balancing governor. But he just makes it that much harder to get that message out if he's saying he's going to raise taxes on everyone. That one position alone has lost him the general election already.
BRussell supports Lieberman.
and as for locking up his records, both (then governors) clinton and bush did the same thing. he's just being honest about why.
he doesn't want any "willy horton's" popping up on the campaign trail. he said he'd release his records when president bush does.
i give him credit for being honest about it, but that's precisely why he can't win. he does the political trick and is too candid about it.
jeesh i feel like scott, except i explained myself.