Lies, foibles and misrepresentations of Howard Dean.

To quote Prince George in Blackadder III:
"...and I have a truly enourmous pair of trousers!"

PDiddie,

Bien dicho!

<edited>

The Era of Bill Clinton Is Over
Howard Dean triangulates the triangulator.
By William Saletan
Updated Thursday, Dec. 18, 2003, at 2:59 PM PT
Depends on what your definition of Clintonian is ...

"While Bill Clinton said that the era of big government is over, I believe we must enter a new era for the Democratic Party?-not one where we join Republicans and aim simply to limit the damage they inflict on working families. … I call now for a new era, in which we rewrite our Social Contract. We need to provide certain basic guarantees to all those who are working hard to fulfill the promise of America."

So declares Howard Dean in a speech today outlining his governing philosophy. It's a perfect homage to the man he belittles: an embrace disguised as a repudiation.

Everyone remembers Clinton's 1996 proclamation that "the era of big government is over." What everyone forgets are the words that followed: "But we cannot go back to the time when our citizens were left to fend for themselves. Instead, we must go forward as one America, one nation working together to meet the challenges we face together." In other words, big government wasn't really over. Clinton was bashing "big government" so that his audience?-congressional Republicans and the moderate voters who had put them in power?-wouldn't think of his programs as big government.

Dean is doing the same thing. When he claims to stand for a "new era" different from Clinton's, he isn't really ditching Clinton's agenda. He's just bashing Clinton so that his audience?-liberals, angry Democrats, and disgusted nonvoters?-won't think of his agenda as Clintonism.

Dean's speech doesn't libel Clinton; it plagiarizes him. Clinton advocated a "New Covenant." Dean advocates a "New Social Contract." Clinton promised basic guarantees to all those who worked hard. Dean promises "basic guarantees to all those who are working hard." Clinton proposed $10,000 a year in college aid. Dean proposes $10,000 a year in college aid. Clinton proposed a retirement savings program. Dean proposes a retirement savings program. Clinton created Americorps as a model of community service. Dean calls Americorps a model of community service.

Clinton said his economic regulations would be pro-business and pro-jobs. Dean says his economic regulations will be "pro-business and pro-jobs." Clinton accused Republicans of trying to privatize Social Security, dismantle Medicare, and end public education. Dean accuses Republicans of trying to "privatize Social Security, dismantle Medicare, and end public education."
Clinton renounced profligate spending. Dean renounces "profligate spenders." (HELLO?--per Sofia) Clinton said balanced budgets led to economic growth. Dean says "balanced budgets … lead to economic growth." Clinton said social progressives should be fiscal conservatives, because only fiscal responsibility guaranteed that Americans would have the government they needed when they truly needed it. Dean says, "Social progressives should be fiscal conservatives, because only fiscal responsibility guarantees that the American people will have the government they need when they truly need it."

So, what's the difference between Dean and Clinton?
I see two differences. One is that Clinton ran for president promising tax cuts for the middle class. Dean is running for president promising to repeal tax cuts for the middle class and everyone else. Dean says the rich got most of Bush's tax cuts, and he's right. He says the tax cuts came with a hidden price tag?-state budget crises, higher property taxes, higher state college tuition, higher national debt?-and he's right again. But the first point solves the second. If the rich got most of the money, then the government can get that money back?-and alleviate the hikes in tuition, debt, and property taxes?-by repealing the tax cuts that went to the rich, while preserving the tax cuts that went to the middle class. That's the position taken by Wesley Clark, John Edwards, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and even Dennis Kucinich. But not Howard Dean.

In his speech, Dean concedes, "The average wage earner did get a few hundred dollars back" in Bush's tax cuts. He says he'll "get rid of the Bush tax program"?-notice the absence of the word cut?-"and repeal the 'Bush Tax.' " But don't fret about losing the few hundred bucks you got from Bush: Dean says his "New Social Contract … will include fundamental tax reform to ensure that every wealthy American individual and corporation is paying their fair share of taxes?-and that the tax burden on working families is reduced." He says he'll crack down on companies that use offshore shelters to avoid "$70 billion a year in taxes?-enough money to bring a real tax cut to every family." It sounds like Dean is going to offer you a tax cut in exchange for taking away the one Bush gave you. But he never does.

The other difference is that Clinton got elected.
William Saletan is Slate's chief political correspondent.
.................................
Um, another difference is Dean was caught plagarizing...

Whopper: Howard Dean
Oh, that bizarre and irresponsible remark!
Timothy Noah
Posted Saturday, Dec. 13, 2003, at 7:08 PM PT


Scott Spradling, WMUR-TV: Governor Dean, you had once stated that you thought it was possible that the president of the United States had been forewarned about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. You later said that you didn't really know.

A statement like that, don't you see the possibility of some Democrats being nervous about statements like that leading them to the conclusion that you are not right for being the next commander in chief?

Howard Dean: Well, in all due respect, I did not exactly state that.

?-Exchange at the Democratic presidential debate in Durham, N.H., Dec. 9.

Julie from Traverse City,* Mich.: [O]nce we get you in the White House, would you please make sure that there is a thorough investigation of 9/11, and not?-

Dean: Yes.

Julie:?-stonewall it?

Dean: There is a report which the president is suppressing evidence for which is a thorough investigation of 9/11.

Diane Rehm, WAMU (public) radio: Why do you think he's suppressing that report?

Dean: I don't know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I've heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory, I can't?-think it can't be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now, who knows what the real situation is, but the trouble is that by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and then eventually they get repeated as fact. So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the clear, the key information that needs to go to the Kean commission.

?-Exchange on The Diane Rehm Show, on WAMU in Washington, Dec. 1.

Discussion. In answering Spradling at the New Hampshire debate, Dean failed to acknowledge his Diane Rehm Show appearance, in which he introduced the bizarre and irresponsible accusation that Bush got advance warning about 9/11 (ostensibly as an example of the kind of speculation Bush lends credence to by not cooperating with the Kean commission). Dean's denial that he said what Spradling said he said is false and dishonest if you take the Diane Rehm appearance into account. Spradling's summary of Dean's remarks was more than adequate, with the trivial caveat that Dean said then and there (and not "later") that he didn't know whether the rumor was true.

Instead of talking about the Diane Rehm Show appearance, Dean pretended, at the New Hampshire debate, that the subject first came up when he appeared on Fox News Sunday six days later:

I was asked on Fox "fair and balanced" News that?-

[Audience laughter.]

?-I was asked why I thought the president was withholding information, I think it was, or 9/11 or something like that. And I said, well, the most interesting theory that I heard, which I did not believe [italics Chatterbox's], was that the Saudis had tipped him off. ... I did not believe [italics Chatterbox's], and I made it clear on the Fox News show that I didn't believe [italics Chatterbox's] that theory, but I had heard that. And there are going to be a lot of crazy theories that come out if the information is not given to the Kean commission as it should be.

By the time Dean appeared on Fox News Sunday, someone had obviously pointed out to him that his conspiracy-mongering on Diane Rehm made him sound like a nut. So, on Fox, Dean made sure to say what he most crucially had not said on Diane Rehm?-i.e., that he did not believe this rumor that he was passing on.

Incidentally, on Fox News Sunday, Dean wasn't asked "why I thought the president was withholding information" or "something like that." He was asked (by Chris Wallace) why he'd made that embarrassing gaffe on Diane Rehm, and whether, in light of what he'd said, he was "up to being commander in chief." Wallace even played the Diane Rehm clip. Two days earlier, Charles Krauthammer had savagely attacked Dean for what he said on Diane Rehm and pointed out that when Cynthia McKinney made the same accusation in 2002 it ended her career in Congress. So, it's inconceivable that in his New Hampshire debate remarks Dean sincerely forgot, or misremembered, what he said on Diane Rehm.

Ironically, if Dean had answered Rehm's question more carefully, he could have stated truthfully and non-hysterically that the Bush administration did receive various hints prior to 9/11 that something was afoot. These have already been documented. (Remember National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's description of pre-9/11 "chatter in the system," including a warning from the Federal Aviation Administration in July that terrorist groups might be planning hijackings?) Where Dean went astray was in failing to make clear that these advance warnings were not very specific.
-----------
Keep 'em comin', doc. :wink:

Get the Barf Bag out. Dean has started warming up his black pattens for the Hawkward Shuffle.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2092520/Dean Dancin' Right.

So, Sofia,would you care to give us the sources for the first two posts?

They're all from Slate, dear. Saletan wrote the articles, and the Whopper of the Week (at Slate) features a different victim each week. It is a left leaning e-publication, with writers of mixed political leanings.

Micheal Kinsey (so LEFT) is the Managing Editor.

thanks.

Click the last link Sofia gave (Dean Dancin Right) and you'll find an interesting new report there now: "Is Dean Toast? Saddam's capture doesn't guarantee Bush's re-election."

Have fun
Dubya and his gang of bungling thieves are sacking America and turning it into a 3rd world Hunta. This election will be down and dirty. It has started already. I see it here and all over the Net and Off Net. The only right left will be to carry guns. That might be a mistake.

Last post on this thread. Have fun.

Actually ... I got to read it now, and the ironic thing is - the article as a whole is pretty negative on the guy, right? But if Dean himself would succeed in summarizing his case in as clear, spot-on (and correct) manner as this article does in the paragraph below, he'd be sure to win points:

Nimh--
I think you'll see the case made very clearly by Bush during the campaign--that the world is already adjusting in the wake of the war--that former terrorists like Qaddafi are no longer secure in their murder and WMD production, and the dominoes are falling toward a more peaceable ME because of the first step taken by Bush.

At any rate, Dean has waffled and misspoken so many times about what he would have done--no one will believe him.

Nimh's quote from the article stated:

Be careful with slants and editorializing like this. This is not proven fact.

Bush will go into the debates armed to the teeth with knowledge about security, while Dean hardly has basic info. No one will trust that man with National Security.

Believe it or not, the Iraq War DID address global and National Security, in my opinion and in the opinion of what will be a majority of voters.

1. It is proven fact.
2. Good thing you said that that was your opinion.

In terms of what other regimes have had, and have, in weapons programs and terror connections, I'd suggest you read more international media - from all sides of the political spectrum.

ehBeth--
You are unaware of my reading habits. I also know opinion and slant from fact. The fact of how far-reaching Saddam's weapons program and terror connections have not been closed as a subject as of yet.

Now that he is in custody, the facts will most likely begin coming out. No matter what these facts are, I will accept them--if they can be proven. Until then, I wait for the facts.

.
This should show I know fact from opinion.... Now, maybe you should learn.

But the absence of any evidence of their existence is pretty telling.


Even if they contradict your preconceptions? I would love for eveidence of actual WMD to be found, because this would lend a small amount of credibility to what has instead seemed an exercise in imperialism.

In that post full of hilarity, this is the most hilarious.

Four years ago, Bush didn't know the President of Pakistan's name.

Happy Holidays, Sofia. :wink:

Yeah, and likely thought Kurdistan is a county in Wisconsin . . .

The lack of evidence has been disconcerting, and has given me pause--but I am waiting for something definitive.
Waiting...<broil>...<looks at watch>...

Four months ago, Dean didn't know where the US had service personnel stationed....Nobody knows everything...(except possibly you and I)(Maybe Setanta...)
Glad you can smile...
<Dean has committed hari-kari, attacking Clinton. His temper is starting to trip him up, finally...>
Meanwhile, Bush has learned all his graduate geography just in time!
Happy Holidays, PDiddie!