Daily Kos

Dean's speech is done - thoughts? (transcript added)

Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 09:20:08 AM PDT

Realplayer isn't working for me, and sadly there is no iTunes option for some reason.  Anybody watching it and free to do a running report for us unlucky ones?

I've heard he's going to argue for a better geographic approach (reach out to the South, etc.), but hoping for more details.

Here is the link to the webcast from DFA's blogforamerica.com:

http://www.blogforamerica.com

Update [2004-12-8 12:30:45 by VirginiaDem]: looks like he's done w/ his speech - anybody care to give a summary? Thanks in advance.

Update [2004-12-8 13:7:36 by VirginiaDem]: Here is the text of the speech link here:

Thank you for that introduction. It's a pleasure to be here.

Let me tell you what my plan for this Party is:

We're going to win in Mississippi

...and Alabama

...and Idaho

...and South Carolina.

Four years ago, the President won 49 percent of the vote. The Republican Party treated it like it was a mandate, and we let them get away with it.

Fifty one percent is not a mandate either. And this time we're not going to let them get away with it.

Our challenge today is not to re-hash what has happened, but to look forward, to make the Democratic Party a 50-state party again, and, most importantly, to win.

To win the White House and a majority in Congress, yes. But also to do the real work that will make these victories possible -- to put Democratic ideas and Democratic candidates in every office -- whether it be Secretary of State, supervisor of elections, county commissioner or school board member.

Here in Washington, it seems that after every losing election, there's a consensus reached among decision-makers in the Democratic Party is that the way to win is to be more like Republicans.

I suppose you could call that philosophy: if you didn't beat 'em, join them.

I'm not one for making predictions -- but if we accept that philosophy this time around, another Democrat will be standing here in four years giving this same speech. we cannot win by being "Republican-lite." We've tried it; it doesn't work.

The question is not whether we move left or right. It's not about our direction. What we need to start focusing on... is the destination.

There are some practical elements to the destination.

The destination of the Democratic Party requires that it be financially viable, able to raise money not only from big donors but small contributors, not only through dinners and telephone solicitations and direct mail, but also through the Internet and person-to-person outreach.

The destination of the Democratic Party means making it a party that can communicate with its supporters and with all Americans. Politics is at its best when we create and inspire a sense of community. The tools that were pioneered in my campaign -- like blogs, and meetups, and streaming video -- are just a start. We must use all of the power and potential of technology as part of an aggressive outreach to meet and include voters, to work with the state parties, and to influence media coverage.

The most practical destination is winning elective office. And we must do that at every level of government. The way we will rebuild the Democratic Party is not from consultants down, but from the ground up.

We have some successes to build on. We raised more money than the RNC, and we did so by attracting thousands of new small donors. This is the first time in my memory that the DNC is not coming out of a national campaign in debt. We trained tens of thousands of new activists. We put together the most sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation our Party has ever had. We registered millions of new voters, including a record number of minority and young voters. And we saw those new voters overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

Now we need to build on our successes while transforming the Democratic Party into a grassroots organization that can win in 50 states.

I have seen all the doomsday predictions that the Democratic Party could shrink to become a regional Party. A Party of the Northeast and the Pacific Northwest.

We cannot be a Party that seeks the presidency by running an 18-state campaign. We cannot be a party that cedes a single state, a single District, a single precinct, nor should we cede a single voter.

As many of the candidates supported by my organization Democracy for America showed -- people in places that we've too long ignored are hungry for an alternative; they're hungry for new ideas and new candidates, and they're willing to elect Democrats.

Since we started Dean for America last March, we raised over $5 million, mostly from small donors. That money was given to 748 candidates in 46 states and at every level of government.

We helped a Democratic governor get elected in Montana and a Democratic mayor get elected in Salt Lake County, Utah.

We helped Lori Saldana in San Diego. Lori, a Latina grassroots environmental organizer was outspent in both the primary and the general, won a seat on the state assembly.

We also helped Anita Kelly become the first African-American woman elected to her circuit court in Montgomery Alabama.

Fifteen of the candidates who we helped win last month never ran for elective office before.

And in Texas, a little known candidate who had been written off completely ran the first competitive race against Tom Delay in over a decade.

There are no red states or blue states, just American states. And if we can compete at all levels and in the most conservative parts of the country, we can win ... at any level and anywhere.

People will vote for Democratic candidates in Texas, and Alabama, and Utah if we knock on their door, introduce ourselves, and tell them what we believe.

There is another destination beyond strong finances, outreach, and campaigns.

That destination is a better, stronger, smarter, safer, healthier America.

An America where we don't turn our back on our own people.

That's the America we can only build with conviction.

When some people say we should change direction, in essence they are arguing that our basic or guiding principles can be altered or modified.

They can't.

On issue after issue, we are where the majority of the American people are.

What I want to know is at what point did it become a radical notion to stand up for what we believe?

Over fifty years ago, Harry Truman said, "We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don't need to try it."

Yet here we are still making the same mistakes.

Let me tell you something: there's only one thing Republican power brokers want more than for us to lurch to the left -- and that's for us to lurch to the right.

What they fear most is that we may really begin fighting for what we believe -- the fiscally responsible, socially progressive values for which Democrats have always stood and fought.

I'll give this to Republicans. They know the America they want. They want a government so small that, in the words of one prominent Republican, it can be drowned in a bathtub.

They want a government that runs big deficits, but is small enough to fit into your bedroom. They want a government that is of, by, and for their special interest friends.

They want a government that preaches compassion but practices division.

They want wealth rewarded over work.

And they are willing to use any means to get there.

In going from record surpluses to record deficits, the Republican Party has relinquished the mantle of fiscal responsibility.

And now they're talking about borrowing another $2 trillion to take benefits away from our Senior Citizens.

In going from record job creation to record job loss, they have abandoned the mantle of economic responsibility.

In cutting health care, education, and community policing programs... and in failing to invest in America's inner cities, or distressed rural communities... they certainly have no desire to even claim the mantle of social responsibility.

In their refusal to embrace real electoral reform or conduct the business in government in the light of day, they are hardly the model of civic responsibility.

In their willingness to change the rules so that their indicted leaders can stay in power, they have even given up any claim on personal responsibility.

And in starting an international conflict based on misleading information, I believe they have abdicated America's moral responsibility, as well.

There is a Party of fiscal responsibility... economic responsibility.... social responsibility... civic responsibility... personal responsibility... and moral responsibility.

It's the Democratic Party.

We need to be able to say strongly, firmly, and proudly what we believe.

Because we are what we believe.

And we believe every person in America should have access to affordable health care. It is wrong that we remain the only industrialized nation in the world that does not assure health care for all of its citizens.

We believe the path to a better future goes directly through our public schools. I have nothing against private schools, parochial schools and home schooling. Parents with the means and inclination should choose whatever they believe is best for their children. But those choices must never come at the expense of what has been -- and must always be -- the great equalizer in our society -- public education.

We believe that if you put in a lifetime of work, you have earned a retirement of dignity -- not one that is put at risk by your government or unethical business practices.

The first time our nation balanced its budget, it was Andrew Jackson, father of the Democratic Party, who did it. The last time our nation balanced its budget, it was Bill Clinton who did it. I did it every year as Governor. Democrats believe in fiscal responsibility and we're the only ones who have delivered it.

We believe that every single American has a voice and that it should be heard in the halls of power everyday. And it most certainly must be heard on Election Day. Democracies around the world look to us as a model. How can we be worthy of their aspirations when we have done enough to guarantee accurate elections for our own citizens.

We believe in a strong and secure America... And we believe we will be stronger by having a moral foreign policy.

We need to embrace real political reform -- because only real reform will pry government from the grasp of the special interests who have made a mockery of reform and progress for far too long.

The pundits have said that this election was decided on the issue of moral values. I don't believe that. It is a moral value to provide health care. It is a moral value to educate our young people. The sense of community that comes from full participation in our Democracy is a moral value. Honesty is a moral value.

If this election had been decided on moral values, Democrats would have won.

It is time for the Democratic Party to start framing the debate.

We have to learn to punch our way off the ropes.

We have to set the agenda.

We should not hesitate to call for reform -- reform in elections, reform in health care and education, reforms that promote ethical business practices. And, yes, we need to talk about some internal reform in the Democratic Party as well, and I'll be discussing that more specifically in the days ahead.

Reform is the hallmark of a strong Democratic Party.

Those who stand in the way of reform cannot be the focus of our attention for only four months out of every four years.

Reform is a daily battle.

And we must pursue those reforms with conviction -- every day, at all levels, in 50 states.

A little while back, at a fundraiser, a woman came up to me. She identified herself as an evangelical Christian from Texas. I asked her what you are all wondering -- why was she supporting me. She said there were two reasons. The first was that she had a child who had poly-cystic kidney disease, and what that illness made it impossible for their family to get health care.

The second thing she said was, "The other reason we're with you is because evangelical Christians are people of deep conviction, and you're a person of deep conviction. I may not agree with you on everything, but what we want more than anything else from our government is that when something happens to our family or something happens to our country -- it's that the people in office have deep conviction."

We are what we believe. And the American people know it.

And I believe that over the next two... four... ten years...

Election by election...

State by state...

Precinct by precinct...

Door by door...

Vote by vote...

We're going to lift our Party up...

And we're going to take this country back for the people who built it.

Update [2004-12-8 13:30:0 by VirginiaDem]: My thoughts finally after reading his speech: This man gets it. Plain and simple. Everything I've been thinking since the election - reframing, need to create GOP fatigue, need to win from the ground up, need to challenge in every state/district/home, etc. - was captured in this short speech. Specifically, notice the smart framing in the speech: "reform" is the exact language we need to bring that GOP fatigue to a boil in the next few years. I am now charged up for the Dean takeover of the DNC. (I could settle for Rosenberg - he gets it too.) But none of this "we need to move right" crap. I'm not a liberal progressive extremist in any sense - I'm only a reform Democrat. After watching the GOP take over all branches of the government ... isn't everyone?

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 365 comments

  •  What's he saying?! (none / 0)

    I'm at work and can't watch- I was hoping to find an audio feed but the Blog for America link is for video which my boss would notice. So.. what's the scoop? I figured there'd already be 10 diaries with running commentaries...
  •  Some quotes (4.00 / 3)

    "Honesty is a moral value.  Health care is a moral value.  If the election had been about moral values, the Democrats would have won."

    "We need to be talking about reforms....and yes, we need to be talking about reforms within the Dem. party, and I'll be talking more about that in the days ahead."

    •  Need to say WHY it's a moral value (none / 0)

      That's what's missing, and it's a distinction that's easily missed.

      "Doing X is the Right Thing"   Why is doing X the "right thing"?   And how is that related to your daily life?

      •  This is a single speech (none / 1)

        You can't say everything in a single speech.  So it isn't the speech you would have given.  Fine.  I am interested to read the transcript to the last speech that you gave.  Then I can comment on all the things that you didn't say either.  

        Sheesh.  

        By the way, this is only partially directed at you.  There are lots of criticism of this type being thrown around.  Very Nedra Pickler:  Dean "neglected to say" [insert pet issue that is related but not really germane here]

        The chips are down. Find your outrage.

        by sj on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 04:55:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are completely misinterpreting my intention (none / 0)

          Don't put me in some Dean bashing box.   The primaries are over.   I'm talking about communication and how we can do it better.   I don't think this is successful at speaking to anyone but the converted,  that's all.

          Comparing me to Pickler is a cheap shot.   I'm interested in getting us all to really talk to voters, to frame issues, to speak our beliefs and justify our choices.   This is the work we must do.

          Saying "X is moral" is NOT the same as and not nearly as effective as saying "X is moral because we believe in Y".      Or saying, "We must do X because of Y."   Big difference.

          I'm trying to be constructive.   Why don't you ask me if that's my intention rather than just assuming I'm bashing Dean?    

          •  In this instance... (none / 0)

            In this instance, I think the speech WAS directed towards the converted and could be converted. This wasn't a message to popular voters, and it wasn't the message of a presidential candidate. This was a message to DEMOCRATS, a marching call to get the party back on track, and on the RIGHT track, not just hitched to the caboose of the Bush Train.

            While I had my misgivings about Dean during the primaries (I was an Edwards man, myself), he has consistently stood behind his convictions, stayed in the party after some HARSH thrushings from his fellow Dems, and continued to push a message of reform. And even if Dean is not elected to the chair position, I think he will stay in the party, and keep pushing that message, and stay involved and try to keep the party going in the direction of his vision for a better party, a vision that I think is more and more connecting with my own.

            So, I'll officially say that I support Dean for the DNC chair nomination. That should have the entrenched and ass-kissing checking their rear-view mirror more often, at the very least. And I for one think that there are a number of Democrats who are waiting for a big voice and a clear, consistent message to hitch themselves to. Not every Dem is a big 'idea' person, and they just do their job, which is to represent the will of the constituents who voted for them. No problems with that. But they would be willing to support a strong voice, and I think Dean might just be that in this role.

            --------------
            Condemnant qui non intelligent.
            Economic: -6.75
            Social : -5.03

            by cognizant on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 06:15:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  right, but... (none / 0)

              the best ones do it all the time.  

              I'm saying the  sign of someone who really  gets message is when they are never 'off.'     I want as many people as possible to see why non politicos think Dems have "no beliefs."

              and I have no problem at all with Dean as DNC chair.

      •  It's funny (none / 0)

        I don't need Dean, or anyone, to explain moral values to me. And if they did try to explain, I'd feel they were either preaching, talking down or making some assumption I don't have sufficient morality.

        If he says "Health care is a moral value" then I'm perfectly clear with what he said. It's succinct, clear, and true.

        Elaboration is possible, but not really necessary.

        Where I would elaborate however, is upon the _im_morality of the Repubicans and their screwing Americans to pay back their big campaign donors. That needs exposure. When people realize that the GOP votes against the interests of sick and suffering people to favor Merck and Aetna, then they'll remember the immorality of the GOP the next time their premiums go up or they have to pay $135 for a bronchiodialator available in Canada for $25.

  •  Recommend! (none / 0)

    W00T1

    Iowa and New Hampshire; YOU'RE FIRED!

    by AmericaIsBetterThanBush on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 09:16:55 AM PDT

  •  YES YES! (none / 0)

    Listen up Kos!
    He is a "Reform Democrat"!

    YEAAARGRGGGGHH!!!

    Iowa and New Hampshire; YOU'RE FIRED!

    by AmericaIsBetterThanBush on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 09:17:53 AM PDT

  •  More quotes (none / 1)

    Dean talked about an evangelical Christian who was at his fundraiser, who said that she was there becausse evangelicans want someone with deep conviction.
  •  I only caught (none / 0)

    the last 4 minutes of the speech.  Anyone know were/how I can watch it again?

    Iowa and New Hampshire; YOU'RE FIRED!

    by AmericaIsBetterThanBush on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 09:18:34 AM PDT

  •  I came in at the end... (none / 0)

    ...but I'm not sure if he's overtly running for DNC chair or not.  He didn't say anything about that, other than saying he'd talk more about the need to reform the Dem. party in the upcoming days.
  •  Sigh... What could have been (2.73 / 15)

    Dear Kerry supporters during the primaries...

    I D I O T S !!!!  YOU BLEW IT

    I know I know... We are on the same team.
    Sorry.

    /Post-Iowa-Depression-Comming-Back

    Iowa and New Hampshire; YOU'RE FIRED!

    by AmericaIsBetterThanBush on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 09:24:10 AM PDT

    •  Riiiiiight (3.46 / 15)

      Because they wouldn't have smeared DEAN.

      They wouldn't have turned DEAN'S well-oiled machine into a campaign on the defensive.

      They wouldn't have defrauded the voters in Diebold districts if it had been DEAN on the ballot.

      Assume for just a MOMENT that the smears and the dirty tactics hadn't come into it. You seriously think this election was won fair and square? No one will ever convince me that the reason we are not saying "President-elect Kerry" right now is because the fucking Republicans rigged the goddamned election.

      Which means Jesus motherfucking Christ himself couldn't have "won" this "election."

      •  Jesus would (4.00 / 3)

        have been labeled a peacenic and soft on defence. I think he would have lost worse than Kerry.
      •  Dean wouldn't have (4.00 / 6)

        given up when there were still ballots to be counted in Ohio.

        Iowa and New Hampshire; YOU'RE FIRED!

        by AmericaIsBetterThanBush on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 09:54:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nice to see you back, Maryscott... (3.71 / 14)

        but you're wrong. :)

        Okay, maybe Bush stole the election from Kerry (though I don't believe that, myself).  But Bush didn't cause the race to be a dead heat the entire way through.  Bush didn't cause Kerry to be lackluster or to waffle or to flipflop.

        The truth is, I am ashamed of the candidate my party foisted upon me.  I am ashamed of the fact that I was forced by my own party to vote for the lesser of two evils.

        Bush may have stolen the election, yeah.  But it's not Bush's fault that I and millions like me are considering leaving the Democratic Party for good.  That blame lies squarely at the feet of John F***er Kerry and the fat cats who supported him over a true visionary.

        •  Absolutely. (none / 0)

          I'm moaning "Yes, yes, YES!" like the woman in the shampoo commercial.
        •  Disagree. (4.00 / 11)

          Kerry didn't waffle and flip-flop. That was another Republican lie--and one of the more desperate ones, the kind you only try if you don't have anything better.  ANY long-serving legislator worth his weight in chinchilla spit has a record that can be selectively portrayed as inconsistent.

          And I ain't buying the "lackluster" thing, either. To me, Kerry had real charisma. Especially next to George the Shit.  You could see it every time the media was forced, kicking and screaming, to let him appear without their filters, like the debates and the convention.  People saw him as "lackluster" because the GOP's handmaidens in the media outlets kept saying he was, over and over, like a mantra.

          I say Kerry ran a good campaign, that failed do to factors outside his sphere of influence: to wit, the dirty tricks of the media/GOP machine.

          Yeah, "lackluster flip-flopper" wouldn't have worked on Dean. Instead, they'd have used "dangerously unbalanced loose cannon with no experience who hates the troops and wants mandatory abortions", over and over, like a mantra. With the same results.

          Depending on who runs in 2008, I'd consider giving Kerry another shot. Certainly over some of the other political Chernobyls they're considering, like Hillary or Lieberman.

          "...And I woulda got away with it, if it hadn't been for that meddling Kos!" ---attributed to Tom DeLay

          by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 10:34:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  the difference is in the reaction (none / 0)

            Kerry let the Swift Boat stuff linger for too long.  I hate to play monday morning QB, but somehow I think Dean would have had a more combative campaign, and fought off the poo-based attacks with more vigor.
            •  We're not playing Monday-morning quarterback (4.00 / 5)

              We're playing Sunday-morning quarterback.  We knew all this stuff about Kerry before Coach even let him on the field, and we said so very loudly, and Coach ignored us and told us to go back to the stands where we belong.  That's what so frustrating.  We were told to go back and SYFPH and close our eyes and our mouths to the truth.  And we lost by doing so, and now people want us to blame it all on Diebold.

              As for me, I'm contemplating firing Coach.

              •  SYFPH? (none / 1)

                In any event, as someone who was an observer (as opposed to activist) of the primary contest, I recollect that no one really said anything about Kerry other than the Vietnam vet schtick.  People were more interested in hearing stories about Dean, Wes Clark, and Edwards.  From my memories, everyone else was politics-as-usual, and lumped into one amorphous category.

                In the immortal words of Judith Miller: "[We were] proved fucking right!"

                •  "Shut Your Fucking Pie Hole" (none / 0)

                  I was for Dean, too, until he lost enough primaries that the handwriting was on the wall. Then I put everything I had behind the one running against the Republican. That's what we're supposed to do.

                  You know, if Dean couldn't beat Kerry among the Democrats (you know, where the liberals are), what makes people think he could have beaten Bush?

                  "...And I woulda got away with it, if it hadn't been for that meddling Kos!" ---attributed to Tom DeLay

                  by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 11:40:39 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  aoeu (4.00 / 4)

                    It does not follow that if Candidate D1 cannot beat Candidate D2 then Candidate D1 cannot beat Candidate R1.

                    turtles consider
                    every single vote deeply
                    yet always vote dem

                    by TealVeal on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 11:50:07 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Dean lost to "the big Mo"... (none / 0)

                    ...more than he did to Kerry.

                    If it was lieberman who won iowa and NH, dean would have lost.  People did not choose Kerry for the positions (liberal/centrist) he had, they chose him because he was 'electable'.

                    Dean is less liberal than Kerry, if you take history as a guide.  The progressives in VT weren't in love with Dean by any stretch of the imagination.

                    I think Dean's biggest task right now is to show people how being a partisan democrat is different than being a liberal democrat.  If that case can be made/proven, then we're golden.

          •  no (4.00 / 8)

            You are wrong.

            Kerry obviously played politics with several of his positions.

            Take the death penalty for example. He is against it, then all of a sudden close to when he decides to run for president, he is for it.

            His vote for war authorization was clearly a political move. If the war on Iraq had gone well, you know damn well that he would have highlighted his support for the President on that issue.

            Don't tell me that it was a vote for war authorization and not war. That is revisionist history. Everybody in America knew what Bush's intentions were. That vote was clearly a yea/nay on the war.

            Then lets look at his attack on Howard Dean, blah blah blah anybody who says capturing saddam has not made us safer is unfit to be president blah blah blah.

            Fast forward a few months and I hear him saying pretty much exactly the same thing.

            Look, I believe deep down that Kerry is a man of strong convictions, especially in his youth. However in this campaign and in the lead up to the campaign, he did nothing but analyze the political ramifications of his positions and actions, and that is why he got his ass handed to him.

            Sorry.

            •  Kerry had Positions? (4.00 / 2)

              Actually, I'm quite curious about this. One of the more common complaints about him was that people didn't know where he stood on issues. Thinking about it, I'm not sure I did either. Take gay marriage - Kerry steadfastly refused to take a stand on it. Or the war on Iraq, or the doctrine of pre-emptive invasion. Or the continued infringement of civil liberties by the Repugs. Or abortion. Or anything else for that matter.

              Every single one of the positions that I can remember being clearly articulated was forced on him or the platform by Edwards or Dean.

              No more hairpieces in 2008!

            •  Tell you what (4.00 / 3)

              Instead of arguing about the past when it's too late, let's both back Dean for DNC chair. 2004 nominee or not, I want to see the party act more like him, just like you do.

              "...And I woulda got away with it, if it hadn't been for that meddling Kos!" ---attributed to Tom DeLay

              by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 01:07:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well... (none / 0)

                Deal, lets forget about the past, but I would rather have Howard reserve the right to run in 08.

                Not to say that that would be the best thing for the party. But if Iraq falls apart, which it will. Dean will have a powerful I told you so position. And all of the other potential candidates i see floating around did not oppose the war.

          •  The deal is (none / 0)

            that a lot of 3rd party voters held their fire and voted for Kerry, as did a lot of stauch dems for life, with the idea he fostered that he would stand and fight.  Well he didn't.  He didn't even stand, he just went back to BAU.  Now that was his choice.  But now my choice is - do I close my eyes to the betrayal of my efforts and close my eyes to the ignominy of becoming a dem in name only since we have no real party ideals anymore or do we have a fighter (and Dean is a fighter) in the position of making some real differences.  I know that a lot of you think that Simon Rosenthal, I believe his last name is, is a good choice.  But I know nothing about him.  None of the rest of the candidates for DNC have even considered that I have any say in what the dems do.  Well WTF?  After putting money into campaigns, I damn well better have a little say or a little knowledge about what is going on here.  Otherwise, I'm looking at the color Green!
          •  Actually, flip flopper would have workd on Dean (none / 1)

            And in a number of ways, without using the term itself it did.

            Gephardt's campaign did a very good job of showing how Dean the presidential candidate was a bit different than the Dean the governor.

            Gephardt accomplished this by simply publishing numerous articles that referred to decisions and philosophies Dean held as Governor.

            Stating with the fact that the Vermont Progressive party was essentialy started as a  a rebellion amongVermont's liberal Democratic Party wing against Dean's conservative policies and decision which became obvious to the liberal democrats within the first year of Deans tenure as governor. Most Democrats expected him to run the state in keeping with Democratic Party ideology, but were immediately angered by Dean's rejecting of the progressive and liberal platform of Vermont Democrats, and his forming of coalitions with the most conservative members of the Democratic Party, and Moderate Republicans. As a result, Deans most outspoken critics while he was governor were liberals and progressives, and the Republicans were notefd for their lack of criticism of Dean until 2000 when he signed the civil unions legislation. Up until 1998, when Dean had to support a Vermont Supreem Court decision to overturn tax legislation that Dean supported, in favor of a much more liberal progressive tax scheme, Dean was actually rated by the Cato Institute as one of the nations five top conservative governors.

            Running a more liberal and progressive candidate was the first issue which led to Deans support starting to fall away as the actual selection for the party nominee began in earnest (people actually voting for someone)

            Then going back to the early days before the legislation to go to war with Iraq was signed shows Dean as an avid supporter of unilateral action to attack Iraq if the United Nations would not act within a well defined period.

            In a number of interviews prior to the war, Dean stated in a number of places that what he would do was go to the U.N. and try to get them to deal with Saddam and the issue of WMD's but if they did not act within a period of 30 to 90 days, it would be regretable, but he would support the U.S. going it alone and start unilateral action against Iraq. This is a far cry from Deans later statements that he was the only Democratic candidate who opposed the war in Iraq from the very beginning.

            Ither issues, such as Deans past statements regarding raising the age of returement, and placing both Social Security and Medicare funds on the chopping block when considering budget cuts in order to be fiscally conservative. When Dennis Kucinich pointed out that Dean had repeatedly made such comments, in several interviews with Tim Russert, starting in 1995 and continuing up until just a few weeks before the South Carolina debates where Kucinich pointed thisout. Dean immediately denied ever having made sttements regarding raising the reirement age and other ideas which would have altered these programs by either freezing or cutting funds to the programs, but within days, the media had printed quoted from all of the times that Dean had made such suggestions, along with the times as Governor, Dean had cut social spending to state programs that provided aid to retirees, the poor, and the disabled. One of the greatest criticisms of Dean that Vermont Liberals and progressives had was that there was not a single year in which Dean sent budgets to the legislature which were intended to cut out, and even eliminate many state programs regarding the social safety net.

            Vermonter's noted with much bemusement, that they didnt recognize Howard Dean the presidential candidate,. because it was not the same person who was their govenor for 11 years. Vermonters seem to have a very dry sense of humor about this issue when discussing it. Articles entitled "Howard we hardly knew ye!" or articles in a similar vein cropped up all over the place once the primaries and caucuses began.

            Another problem is that the attacks against Kerry as being a waffler were not started by Bush, but by Dean. While Dean was the media darling, they media allowed Dean to define the issues and then it was Dean who could create the image of Kerry as a flip-flopper. Though on most critical issues, there was not all that much to divide Dean and Kerry. Once the Iraq legislation was passed, Dean insisted that he would have preferred Biden - Lugar to the legislation that finally passed. There was little difference between the two bills, other than the fact that Biden -Lugan used the term that the president could attack Iraq in order to disarm Saddam of WMD's while the legislation that passed included another reason for attacking Iraq, which had to do with attaking Iraq if it was determined that there was actual evidence that Saddam either had som active part in the events of Septemeber 11th. or if he was found to be harboring people involved with the perpetration, planning or financing of the events of September 11th. Once Biden Lugar failed to pass,Kerry and other democrats voted on the final legislation which was altered from the orignal house legislation by including sections that required thepresident to exhaust all peaceful and diplomatic means to disarm Iraq. Both Biden Lugar and the Act that pased allowed the president to circumvent diplomatic measures and the United Nations if the presenident, in his determination, decided that Iraq constituted and imminent threat to the United States or its interests overseas. Neither act required the president to come back to congress to get another vote, or go back to the U.N. for a second resolution. The only legislation offered as an alternative to these that required a second congressional or U.N. vote was the Levin Amendment.

            So it would have been very easy for the Bush Administration to tag Dean with "flip-flopper" while it is the media that is largely responsible for ignoring Kerry's repeated statements that unless it were proved without any chance of being incorrect that Saddam actually possesed WMD's or actually proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that Saddam had anything of substance to do with the events of September 11th, or it could be proven that he was harboring anyone who had anything to do with it, then there were absolutely no good reasons to attacks Iraq, and that before sidestepping the U.N. tyhe president would have to prove the truth of Iraq's danger to the U.S. or participation with terrorism And both Biden Lugan and the Authorization of the Use of Military Force in Iraq Act stated that if the President decided to attack Iraq without U.N. support, he was going to have to present Congress with his evidence in regards to Sadams bvehavior in order to congress to support him

            Neither act mentioned actually regime change, but on the day that the legislation was signed Ari Fleischer gave his daily speech to the media in which he said the president equated the elimination of WMD's and the threat of Iraq with regime change.

            AS early as a month before the final legislation was signed. Kerry stated in an op-ed piece to the New YOrk times that just being a rotten dictator was not a valid reason for attacking Iraq and only substantial proof of Iraq's imminent threat to the U.S. or involvement with Al Qaeda would have to be parts of any legislation that gave the President authorization for the use of military force.

            This was repeated in January of 2003 by Kerry at the CFR, with the addendum that unless evidence of this was found, that the U.S. and U..N. should simmply rely on the sanctions that were in place
            to keep Saddam in control, and all attention should be placed on Afghanistan and the capture and destruction of the people who Kerry said were actually responsible for September 11th, and likely to be responsible for planning future September 11th. This sould be the primary goal of the administration and the use of military force, not Iraq, according to Kerry's speech. This was repeated again in March, just prior to the attack on Iraq, as well as in June and July of the same year. These were esentially the positions that the media and other who discussed Kerry said were too complex and nuanced. In fact they were fairly much stated like that. Anbyone who took the time to read Kery's speeches would read that Kerry stated very clearly. Osama First, Saddam second, unless you can prove that Saddam actually has WMD's or was closely involved with September 11th. That is almost exactly the way Kerry stated it. Yet at the time, the media didnt even bother reading it, muhch less reporting it, because they were simply too anamored with Dean as the dark horse whose campaign had come from no where to knock all of the other candidates out of the way. By the time Dean had lost, the image of Kery as a flip flopper had been created, becasue Dean created the media image that he was the only candidate totally opposed to the war from the day that congress started to consider the differnt legislation that they were going to vote on.
            Unfortunately this came back to haunt Dean when the media actually started comparing Biden Lugan and Deas assertions that the president would have to go back to congress for a second vote if things didnt work out with the U.N. When the media discovered that it was not Biden Lugar, but the Levin Amendment that had these requirements, Dean had more problems in the public eye as the media saw fit to adjust it.

            No, the idea tha Kerry wa a flip flopper was not true. The fact that this was an impression created by one of the democratic opponents to those who unfortunately had to vote on something that would have placed some sort of constraint on the president using military force which he could have done at any time without going ot the U.N, or congress. Deans changing presentation of his position as towhat he would have don (primarily because he never actually had to DO anything) allowed Dean wiggle room that none of the other candidates had.

            •  Biden-Lugar (none / 0)

              "Both Biden Lugar and the Act that pased allowed the president to circumvent diplomatic measures and the United Nations if the presenident, in his determination, decided that Iraq constituted and imminent threat to the United States or its interests overseas. Neither act required the president to come back to congress to get another vote, or go back to the U.N. for a second resolution." (Emphasis added.)

              This is untrue.  Under Biden-Lugar:

              "Before exercising the authority granted by subsection (a), the president shall make available to the speaker of the House of Representatives and the president pro tempore of the Senate his determination that (1) the United States has attempted to seek, through the United Nations Security Council, adoption of a resolution after Sept. 12, 2002, under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorizing the action described in subsection (a)(1),and such resolution has been adopted; or (2) that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary pursuant to subsection (a)(2), notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution described in paragraph (1)."

              The president would have no war authorization under Biden-Lugar without, at minimum, some attempt to pass a Security Council resolution after 9/12/02 and, failing that, without determining that the threat from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or ballistic missiles was so grave that the use of force was necessary.

              •  Both the final act and Biden Lugar (none / 0)

                Contained the same passages requiring the president to go report to the Peaker of the House and the President of the Senate-Pro Tempore in them.

                Resolution 1441 met the terms of the establishing of a United Nations resolution as noted in the Biden Lugar Amendment:

                SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

                The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

                (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

                (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

                SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

                (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

                (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

                (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

                (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

                (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

                (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

                (c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

                (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

                (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

                SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

                (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

                (b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

                (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

                http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107NSCl9O::

                Essentially, there is no difference in these two acts. Resolution 1441 was passed after September 12th 2002 and met the criteria set in Biden Lugar

                This was noted in the introductory sections of the act that was finally passed here:

                Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

                http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107NSCl9O::

                These resolutions say the same thing with regards to the president having to work through the United Nations and is restricted to only attacking Iraq IF the president can provide can provide evidence that workng through the Uniteds Nations will not result in adequate protection of the United States from any threat posed by Iraq which is what the portions of the Biden Lugan resolution authorizes as well.

                Note, that Biden Lugar authorizes the president to act on his own judgement upon presenting HIS Determination that Iraq presents a threat to the security of the United States AND its allies. The final resolution doesnot take into consideration threats to U.S. allies, only the U.S. itself.

                The final resolution supports the president in working with the United Nations and only supports the use of force if the president does the something similar...presents his "Determination that Iraq constitutes a threat to the United States or its security (scratch allies)and only authorizes use of military forrce if exhausting diplomaitc measures can be said to not be adequate in order to protect U.S. Security, or will not result in enforcement of UNited nations resolutions regarding Iraq.

                Biden Lugar does not require a second United Nation resolutions after resolution 1441 which was designed under the U.N. Charter, to get Saddam Hussein to disarm himself. Resolution 1441 Was the resolution pased after Septemeber 12, 2002. It was passed on November 2, 2002.

                Neither resolution requires the president to provide PROOF that Iraq posseses WMD's or Missile Systems. Both present the president with options to ciircumvent the United Nations ("notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution"):

                Definition of Notwithstanding
                Not`with`stand´ing
                prep. 1. Without prevention, or obstruction from or by; in spite of.

                http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/notwithstanding

                So in spite of failure of the United Nations to actually pass such a resolution, on the DETERMINATION of the president:

                that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary

                The president gets to attack Iraq without either a resolution other than Resolution 1441 OR a vote by Congress authorizing the use of force, which is moot anyway. Congress has not authority to authorize or not authorize the use of force by the president. In fact, the War Powers Resolution itself only requires that the president "consult" with Congress when he intends to use force, and requires that he report the status of the use of force every 60 day to the congress.

                It also establishes the conditions in which the president is can use force without having to consult with Congress.

                Essentially. congress can declare War, which is something entirely separate from the utilization of force by the military.

                As noted by a organization examining legislation regarding the various amendments which were being considered at the time:

                The BUSH-LIEBERMAN WAR RESOLUTION is the Senate version of the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution.

                The BIDEN-LUGAR AMENDMENT would authorize the use of force only to disarm Saddam Hussein, not depose him.

                The LEVIN AMENDMENT, introduced by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), would curtail the broad powers provided by the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution by requiring the President to first secure a UN Security Council authorization of the use of force in Iraq.
                It would require a second vote in the Senate pending action or inaction by the UN Security Council.

                Senators should be urged to vote for the only resolution that would mandate a 2nd vote be taken before the President can launch a war against Iraq. Thus, implore your Senators to vote YES to the Levin Amendment and vote NO to the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution - S.J.Res.46.

                http://epic-usa.org/action/alert.php?n=33

                Biden Lugan required no second vote by Contress. Required no second resolution by the United Nations.

            •  Your post is full of too many (3.00 / 2)

              half-truths which only look at one side of the picture--the side that is favorable to your position.

              Kerry WAS a flip-flopper.  He has always been a flip-flopper.

              He is a man with NO political courage.  (What he did thirty years ago in opposing the war was THIRTY YEARS AGO.

              As the saying goes, "What have you done for me lately?")

              Kerry is a man who straddles the fence is always afraid of taking a bold, principled stand.

              That's not leadership.  That is sock puppet territory.

              "What is wrong with you?"--Jon Stewart to Tucker Carlson on "Crossfire."

              by PhillipG on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 05:54:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Great defense (none / 0)

              ...but he didnt fight for himself hard enough and didnt attack Bush hard enough and soon enough. He took a long time to say anything much about Iraq that would separate his position from the President's. He had NO memorable speeches - couldnt project the vision thing. Theresa was a drag - didnt even mention him in her speech at his nominating convention.  Topped it off by saying the current first Lady never had a real job. This was 2 weeks before the election. Petty - yes.  Its the petty little stuff mixed with a non aggressive approach to his campaign.

              You did a lot of typing just now - all of it true but cancelled out by 6 sentences I just wrote above.

              Stop Looking For Leaders - WE are the Leaders!!!

              by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 04:47:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  you have a right to your opinion (4.00 / 4)

          and John Kerry may be many things but a "f**ker" is not one of them.  He doesn't deserve that.
          •  John F***er Kerry (2.50 / 2)

            For evidence, I link to a quote from our very own Kos, January 29, 2004.

            ...The evidence suggests dirty tricks from the Kerry campaign. The thought literally makes me want to puke (some of the calls suggest Dean is not a real Christian because he's married to a Jew). None of the other candidates have faced this type of puke tactics, so there's only one guy engaging in it.

            God help Kerry if real evidence emerges.

            John F***er Kerry.  What I called him in the primaries.  What I will call him from now on.

            And don't come back at me and say I'm cannibalizing our party.  I'm taking it back, is all.  Just like Howard Dean said.

          •  No,"fucker" is too good for him (1.75 / 4)

            I think he's more like a compulsive masturbator.

            And I'm  no troll.  If you don't believe me, just look at my past posts and diaries.

            But, a lot of you IDIOTS will troll rate me anyway just because I pissed on your beloved Kerry's shoes.

            "What is wrong with you?"--Jon Stewart to Tucker Carlson on "Crossfire."

            by PhillipG on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 05:32:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  The Implications of Your Point (4.00 / 2)

        I guess we'd better just all give up because we can never win.  Time to pull the blankets over our heads, curl up in a fetal position and whimper "fuck" as our mantra.

        This aggression will not stand, man.

        by kaleidescope on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 10:30:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  not just a river in Egypt (4.00 / 13)

        I see you're still having some trouble accepting what happened on Election Day. Bush won, without any dispute, the all-important legitimacy battle.

        It is ironic, yet not surprising, that Democrats, who whined interminably about Bush's electoral win/popular loss in 2000, now act as if a 60,000 vote swing in Ohio would confer total and complete legitimacy on Kerry. Kerry lost the popular vote. It was close, but it was a loss. (I would also like to point out that there were no Diebold machines used in Ohio, and that almost all of the state uses the infamous punch-card system.)

        Sure, they would have tried to smear Dean. Maybe some of it would have even stuck. But Dean would have fought it, every second, every day. Dean would be out there putting the debate in his terms -- OUR terms. He wouldn't have been Bush-lite on Iraq, the economy, Social Security, or the war on terror. He would have offered concrete solutions to problems backed up by his own experience as governor. In short, he would have presented a real alternative to Bush on the most important issues of the day.

        As soon as Kerry won Iowa, the election was lost. Complain about voting problems and fraud all you like, and deservedly so because it's a seriously fucked up situation. But it's time for you, one of the most implacable of the Kerry-enforcers before 11/2, to face up to the fact that Kerry wasn't good enough and that the number of people who thought he wasn't good enough is way outside the falsifiable margin of ANY election.

      •  Besides the point. (4.00 / 6)

        Of course they would have smeared Dean, and tried to put him on the Defensive.  But it's not the smears themselves, but what you do about it.  Kerry handled the smears terribly - not responding to SBVFT; openly complaining in the media about the Bush campaign's negativity; taking Bush's bait on the whole whether he still would have supported the war if he knew then what he knows now.

        We'll never know what smears they would have unleashed on Dean or how he would have responded to them.  Personally, I thought Dean would have done a far better job, but Kerry did a terrible job.

      •  at least Jesus... (none / 0)

        could have pulled a few miracles out of his ass.
      •  I agree (4.00 / 5)

        While I like Dean more than Kerry, too, I don't think the loss of this election had much to do with our candidate.

        When Molly Ivins was interviewed on NPR, it was during one of the periods when it looked the most like Kerry might win.  The interviewer asked her what she thought the Bush team would do if they lost.  Ivins simply responded "They won't lose.  I know these people, they make the Sopranos look tame.  They will do whatever is necessary to ensure that they don't lose."  (my paraphrase, I don't have a transcript).

        What the GOP learned from 2000 is that when you steal an election, don't leave it close enough to be questionable.  If you "win" by a percent or so, then the doubters will just look like loonies.

        So this time, they made sure the margins were larger.  

        I'm as excited as anyone about Dean reforming the democratic party, but if you think it will make an ounce of difference unless we make our election system transparent and accountable, you're really living in a fantasy world.

      •  Maybe (none / 0)

        ---but Dean would have gone down fighting and counting if it had been close.  We will never know though and your point is taken.

        Stop Looking For Leaders - WE are the Leaders!!!

        by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 04:32:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Rove v Dean (3.50 / 2)

      It woulda been a knockout. Look, I was a Dean guy, but when you saw what they did to a decorated war hero, just imagine what they'd have done to Dean, who was a bonafide draft dodger. It would have been ugly and I suspect we'd been looking for a new candidate by mid-August. No, this election cycle, during a "war time," Kerry was our best and only shot. Note, however, that all the good that came out of this thing for Demos, came out because of Dean's work. That should not be forgotten.

      If you aren't outraged, you're not paying attention.

      by bigskiphazzy on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 10:11:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  our "war hero" (4.00 / 4)

        Basically argued he wanted the same things Bush did, just a little less of them, at least on Iraq.

        W was elected to protect Them from Us.

        by Radical Middle on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 10:13:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ever so wrong. (4.00 / 7)

        Dean would have never let Rove own the debate like Kerry did. He would never have made this about Vietnam or deferments or anything that ginned up 527s could create. He was about health care. Jobs. Fiscal sanity. Sane foreign policy. Vietnam and horseshit like that aren't issues that affect American lives every day. Dean is always on that message.  He had a strong record of fiscal sanity that would appeal to a lot of non-Democrats, especially those who are disgusted by Bush.

        Frankness alert. Please read no further if you can't handle it

        Kerry lost because he's a hairdo.
        Kerry lost because he's a waffler without a spine, without vision, without clear, consise and consistent message.
        Kerry lost because in far too many ways he was like Bush.
        Kerry has never been a leader.
        Kerry has an extremely lackluster Senate record. All  Vietnam Band of Brothers in the world can't make people believe that Kerry has leadership when he's spent 30 years demonstrating the opposite.

        We can change horses for the race in 2008, but whoever we pick, it's got to be someone with vision, moral courage, leadership, spine, and message. John Kerry is not that man.

        •  Kerry was a leader (4.00 / 2)

          but he kept it hidden for fear of being soft on defense.

          I cannot think of a better person to take on the Iraq occupation than Kerry.  He had already done it.  He should have dusted off his post Viet Nam stance, updated it and rammed it down Shrub's throat.  He should have publicly owned up to being duped and/or being wrong, and fought against our imperial follies.

          Would've, could've should've; it's all moot now.

          Sharing and Caring are for Commies! They should be illegal. Drop by and support the Human Agenda

          by k9disc on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 11:00:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Your 'frank' comments are so much GOP spin. (none / 1)

          One of the big problems we have is Democrats eagerly repeating Republican attacks against fellow Democrats.
          •  GOP spin, my ass. (none / 1)

            I call it as I see it. I don't even listen to, watch, or read any form of GOP spin, CNN, FOX, other news, the GOP blogs, Rush Limbaugh, etc. How can I repeat what I don't even take in in the first place?

            I'm saying now in December 2004 the same things I said in June 2003, when I started looking at the Presidential race.

            I saw these things about Kerry before Kerry ever showed up on the GOP radar. This is how I see John Kerry. I don't need the GOP to tell me anything about him. I picked it up on my own. I gave Kerry, despite my misgivings,  my vote and money and time, but I never felt the need to lie to myself about him. And I never will.

            I wish all of this were merely GOP spin and not so damned true. I was desperately hoping to be wrong about him, to be surprised and delighted by him. I wanted so much for John Kerry to be who he had to be to beat Bush. He was not that man, so he didn't beat Bush.

            Agree or disagree with me, but don't come back to me saying I repeat GOP spin again. That is plainly wrong. Further, you mean it as an insult, I take it that way, and I will never have some anonymous snot on the 'Net call me a Republican. I've made myself clear on this. Take that frankness to the bank.  

            •  Just because you believe it's true (none / 1)

              doesn't mean it's not GOP spin.

              If you repeat the same no-content criticisms as Tucker Carlson, I will call you on it.

              •  Spin THIS (none / 1)

                If I never took in the GOP spin in the first place, then by definition I cannot be repeating GOP spin.

                But hey, by all means, don't let me speak for myself, for how I take in information, for how I formulate and articulate my own opinions.

                Of course, a lot of other Democrats were underwhelmed by Kerry, and enumerated the reasons why Kerry did not win their trust or meet their expectations. Are they all 'repeating GOP spin' too?

                Kerry criticism exists. The GOP is evil and slimy but they are not_stupid. They are very good at what they do. They found all of Kerry's weaknesses, and yes, on several issues, I'm positive they really twisted things around. It's the GOP. Of course they're despicable. But the basics? I suspect they got some stuff right. Like I said, I'm not versed in GOP spin, so I can't compare what I said to what they say.

                For all I know, the GOP is repeating _my words about Kerry. I got shoo'ed off the Kerry blog for snarking Big John. I threw out some pretty stinging verbiage there. Maybe someone was taking notes. I should ask for royalties.

                If Tucker Carlson reached similar conclusions about John Kerry then all I can say is that a broken clock is right twice a day.

                Kerry's campaign speaks to his weaknesses. He ran away from his Senate record. He couldn't even take what was his most admirable moments, as a Vietnam hero, and shake the GOP mud off them. Kerry and Edward's plan for America was an excellent one, and of course they flubbed it.   It was articulated in a 200+ page book that about 10 people downloaded and read. A pamphlet, or a 10 page summary, would have worked, you know? Clinton and Gore did a book in 92 and had a great little precis  of it for broad distribution. Plus, they communicated it, strongly, passionately, every time.

                John Kerry is no content. I'll criticize him until the day I die. What are you going to do about it? Stomp your little feet and say "You're repeating GOP spin!" until you're red in the face? Be my guest. Wait, don't start yet, I want to get my camera.

                •  It's GOP spin and it's bullshit. (3.00 / 5)

                  I don't care whether you independently came up with the same bullshit as the GOP or if they spoon fed it to you, it's still bullshit.

                  I'll criticize him until the day I die

                  And if you do so by repeating false and deceptive GOP spin I will continue to challenge you on it.  What are you going to do about it?  Stomp your little feet and say "no I'm not" until you're red in the face? Be my guest. Wait, don't start yet, I want to get my camera.