Dean Invites More Scrutiny By Switching Key Stances

[CADsortaGUY]

Howard Dean, who sells himself as the presidential campaign's straightest shooter, is starting to throw voters some curves.

<snip>
As he transitions from insurgent to the man to beat in the Democratic primary, Dean is modifying or switching his positions on several political issues. In recent weeks, Dean, the former Vermont governor, has softened his support for lifting the trade embargo on Cuba -- an important issue in voter-rich Florida -- and suggested he might opt out of the public campaign finance system he endorsed weeks earlier.

Dean also has backed off his support for raising the age at which senior citizens can collect their full Social Security benefits, a change that would save the government money by trimming monthly payments to thousands of older Americans. Dean initially denied he ever supported raising the retirement age, but later admitted he did.
</snip>

Yep, just the same old same old in Washington politics. So much for that straight shooter image he was trying to build.

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Hmm . . . I wonder how Bush stands on WMD as the rationale for invading Iraq . . .

 

[SuperTool]

Still better than Bush. And rightwingers taking time out of their labor day weekend to bash Dean means he is a serious candidate.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Hmm . . . I wonder how Bush stands on WMD as the rationale for invading Iraq . . .

Seems to me that if you question Bush in supposed flip-flops or "softenings" - you need to ask the same when picking a candidate to try to replace him.

Kerry, Lieberman take shots at front-runner Dean Seems that atleast two people are calling Dean on them - I wonder if Dean supporters will even notice/care or will thier hatred of Bush blind them?

CkG

Edit - Supertool - read the link in this post. Did you watch Meet the Depressed this morning? Kerry is a right-winger?

 

[ClueLis]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Hmm . . . I wonder how Bush stands on WMD as the rationale for invading Iraq . . .

Seems to me that if you question Bush in supposed flip-flops or "softenings" - you need to ask the same when picking a candidate to try to replace him.

Kerry, Lieberman take shots at front-runner Dean Seems that atleast two people are calling Dean on them - I wonder if Dean supporters will even notice/care or will thier hatred of Bush blind them?

CkG

Edit - Supertool - read the link in this post. Did you watch Meet the Depressed this morning? Kerry is a right-winger?

Lieberman is a conservative, and Kerry very much a moderate. So, compared to Dean, Kerry is a relative conservative.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Hmm . . . I wonder how Bush stands on WMD as the rationale for invading Iraq . . .

Seems to me that if you question Bush in supposed flip-flops or "softenings" - you need to ask the same when picking a candidate to try to replace him.

Kerry, Lieberman take shots at front-runner Dean Seems that atleast two people are calling Dean on them - I wonder if Dean supporters will even notice/care or will thier hatred of Bush blind them?

CkG

Edit - Supertool - read the link in this post. Did you watch Meet the Depressed this morning? Kerry is a right-winger?

I didn't see Lieberman, but I watched Kerry on Meet the Press. I'd still take him over Bush-lite, but it was enough to convince me that the Dems have better candidates. Kerry reminded me too much of Bush, waffling, spinning, refusing to accept responsibility for inconvenient comments he's made in the past. He appears to be focused on being politically correct instead of taking a position and standing by it. Not impressed.

Kerry and Lieberman are stuck between the same rock and a hard place. They pandered to popular opinion last fall by vocally supporting Bush's war. Now that they realize they were lied to and that this invasion is becoming a quagmire, they want to distance themselves, but they can't be honest and admit they screwed up. Instead, they straddle the fence and try to talk around the issues. They're both paying the price for their lack of political backbone.

That's Dean's biggest strength. He doesn't have that baggage. His biggest liability is that the Dems have a history of trashing each other in the primaries, crippling themselves for the election. It looks like they may be starting down that road again.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Hmm . . . I wonder how Bush stands on WMD as the rationale for invading Iraq . . .

Seems to me that if you question Bush in supposed flip-flops or "softenings" - you need to ask the same when picking a candidate to try to replace him.

Kerry, Lieberman take shots at front-runner Dean Seems that atleast two people are calling Dean on them - I wonder if Dean supporters will even notice/care or will thier hatred of Bush blind them?

CkG

Edit - Supertool - read the link in this post. Did you watch Meet the Depressed this morning? Kerry is a right-winger?

I didn't see Lieberman, but I watched Kerry on Meet the Press. I'd still take him over Bush-lite, but it was enough to convince me that the Dems have better candidates. Kerry reminded me too much of Bush, waffling, spinning, refusing to accept responsibility for inconvenient comments he's made in the past. He appears to be focused on being politically correct instead of taking a position and standing by it. Not impressed.

Kerry and Lieberman are stuck between the same rock and a hard place. They pandered to popular opinion last fall by vocally supporting Bush's war. Now that they realize they were lied to and that this invasion is becoming a quagmire, they want to distance themselves, but they can't be honest and admit they screwed up. Instead, they straddle the fence and try to talk around the issues. They're both paying the price for their lack of political backbone.

That's Dean's biggest strength. He doesn't have that baggage. His biggest liability is that the Dems have a history of trashing each other in the primaries, crippling themselves for the election. It looks like they may be starting down that road again.

So you are just dismissing Dean's "waffling" on certain issues lately? Isn't that just what you said you dislike about Kerry and Bush?

But yes, the primaries will be interesting to say the least. I've stocked up on popcorn for Thursday night when the official fireworks begin

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So you are just dismissing Dean's "waffling" on certain issues lately? Isn't that just what you said you dislike about Kerry and Bush?

Cad, perhaps I'm taking this comment more seriously than you intended. If so, I apologize. When you say things like this, however, it makes me wonder whether you're legitimately reading-impaired, or if you are simply a liar. Stop putting words in others' mouths.

I am not dismissing Dean's so-called "waffling" at all. Based on what I've seen, it isn't a big issue ... yet. Unfortuanately, with an ignorant, inattentive, sound-bite-driven electorate, successful politicians must be somewhat pragmatic. Time will tell how well Dean strikes the balance between being political and being true to his beliefs. The more he spins, the less likely I am to support him. I doubt he is capable of spinning himself down to Bush-lite's vacuous depths. We'll have to see how he stacks up against the other Dems.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So you are just dismissing Dean's "waffling" on certain issues lately? Isn't that just what you said you dislike about Kerry and Bush?

Cad, perhaps I'm taking this comment more seriously than you intended. If so, I apologize. When you say things like this, however, it makes me wonder whether you're legitimately reading-impaired, or if you are simply a liar. Stop putting words in others' mouths.

I am not dismissing Dean's so-called "waffling" at all. Based on what I've seen, it isn't a big issue ... yet. Unfortuanately, with an ignorant, inattentive, sound-bite-driven electorate, successful politicians must be somewhat pragmatic. Time will tell how well Dean strikes the balance between being political and being true to his beliefs. The more he spins, the less likely I am to support him. I doubt he is capable of spinning himself down to Bush-lite's vacuous depths. We'll have to see how he stacks up against the other Dems.

Bow - You never cease to amaze me.

I was asking a clarification question - quit getting your panties in a bunch. The FACT is that Dean has waffled and changed his positions lately as reported and documented in the media. I am just providing people with the information they clamor for. People report Bush's "so-called" waffles all the time in the media and here - I feel that to be consistent they need to hear the whole story which includes their own sides waffling you know...open-minded and all that. If you feel that Dean's waffling isn't a big issue - so be it. You just didn't address it in your other post except to call it a strength and say that he didn't have that kind of baggage - which seemingly contradicts the media reports and I was seeking clarification of such.

CkG

 

[BOBDN]

After what we've seen from Bush over the past 3 years from his broken campaign promises to his claim he's a compassionate conservative to his continuous changes on the reasons we attacked Iraq I really think Dean changing his position on a few minor details is a non-issue.

Why don't you hold Bush to the same standard, CkG? Why not question Bush's flip flops.

This is just another example of the Republican double standard. Question the opposition on minor details while they tell another big lie every day.

Must be looking pretty bad for Bush when they have to stoop this low to deflect attention from Bush.

Ask Bush about his combat experience. I always liked that story. Even though it's a total fantasy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
After what we've seen from Bush over the past 3 years from his broken campaign promises to his claim he's a compassionate conservative to his continuous changes on the reasons we attacked Iraq I really think Dean changing his position on a few minor details is a non-issue.

Why don't you hold Bush to the same standard, CkG? Why not question Bush's flip flops.

This is just another example of the Republican double standard. Question the opposition on minor details while they tell another big lie every day.

Must be looking pretty bad for Bush when they have to stoop this low to deflect attention from Bush.

Ask Bush about his combat experience. I always liked that story. Even though it's a total fantasy.

Hey - I report the report - you decide Seems to me that Kerry, Lieberman, and the media were "attacking" him. I don't care who people pick on that side because none of them come close to mirroring my beliefs, values, AND stances on issues. Bush isn't without fault - and I've stated such. Why is it that whenever something is pointed out about the left - they immediately bring up Bush? Are they deflecting attention? We(Republicans) seem to have our candidate(wether or not he is the best candidate), and now it's time for the Dems to pick theirs. If they really don't want someone like Bush then they have to ask the same hard questions about their candidate's "waffling" as they claim Bush does.
Well, maybe they don't - maybe their hatred of Bush will just carry them through.....but I'm not holding my breath

CkG

 

[sMiLeYz]

Sorry CkG, gotta do better than that.

Boohoo, hes change positions on a few issues to get more votes. Wow this Dean guy has no scruples!

I know the rightwing smear artists everywhere are digging real hard to try to find all sorts of dirt to throw on this guy that the dems are rallying behind, but it's dissapointing with what they've come up so far. Well it's still early before the election, who knows what might pop up between now and then.
But knowing them, even if there is no real dirt they'll even make stuff up.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Sorry CkG, gotta do better than that.

Boohoo, hes change positions on a few issues to get more votes. Wow this Dean guy has no scruples!

I know the rightwing smear artists everywhere are digging real hard to try to find all sorts of dirt to throw on this guy that the dems are rallying behind, but it's dissapointing with what they've come up so far. Well it's still early before the election, who knows what might pop up between now and then.
But knowing them, even if there is no real dirt they'll even make stuff up.

Sigh - Once again - this isn't a "right-wing" conspiracy thing. Hell, the liberal press is stating it - isn't it? Did you miss the part about Lieberman and Kerry? Yep, some real "right-wingers" there.
On CBS' "Face the Nation," Lieberman also accused Dean of flip-flopping on some of his positions. "He's got to let the American people know exactly where he stands," said Lieberman.

Oh, but I guess turn about isn't fair play here...so much for staying informed and openminded...
It's news I read and saw - dismiss/ignore it if you wish though.

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Seems to me that if you question Bush in supposed flip-flops or "softenings" - you need to ask the same when picking a candidate to try to replace him

You are absolutely correct. The difference between you and me is that I would be critical of both. Clinton waffled on everything which I attribute to 1) he's not an ideologue so his decisions reflect current best evidence (or political winds) and 2) he's a politician they lie like dogs.

Bush waffles as well but it's more disturbing b/c 1) he IS an ideologue so his decisions reflect entrenched ideas that rarely yield to best evidence . . . but they do change with polling data. Unfortunately, #2 also implies. Hence this administration is worse than Clinton, IMHO.

Let me give you an example. Everyone with more than two cents worth of knowledge knows the CA blackouts were caused by 1) poor deregulation plan (that's NOT the same as deregulation), 2) corrupt utilities, and 3) FERC unwilling to act in the interest of consumers.

We recently faced another power outage which evolved from various structural and political/economic inadequacies in our power system. This time its a "national crisis" . . . which demands "instant intervention". At least one Bush stance is comparable between the two events, the administration will insist that consumers (typically taxpayers and homeowners) pay the majority of the costs for upgrading the system.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDocThe difference between you and me is that I would be critical of both.

You must have missed the times I disagreed with Bush. There have been plenty - plus there are things I have not posted about here that I am in disagreement with.
This thread is about the prospective DEMOCRAT candidate - not another thread about Bush. If you and others wish to divert attention from the topic that is fine - just be aware that it has been noted. Next time someone blasts one of us for bringing up Clinton's record and you call it a diversionary tactic - I'll kindly refer them to this thread Really - it's that simple.

Thursday night should be interesting to watch. It'll be great to see which ones try to beat up on who using what.

CkG

 

[BOBDN]

Candidates change their positions on issues to fit the region they're in, they change to adjust their positions to shifting polls. They change for any number of reasons.

Whether it's a candidate who changes their stance on Cuba or a candidate who says they won't become involved with "nation building" shifting positions on issues to gain votes is a political reality that won't change. It's as American as apple pie.

Candidates who run unopposed have an advantage over those who have to fight for their party's nomination.

When each party's nominees are finally chosen the differences important to voters become apparent.

Democrats are at a disadvantage with the wide field fighting for the nomination. But it's early in the race. The changes in position made by the Bush White House over the past 3 years will more than outweigh the changes candidates make in their positions this early in the race IMO.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Candidates change their positions on issues to fit the region they're in, they change to adjust their positions to shifting polls. They change for any number of reasons.

Whether it's a candidate who changes their stance on Cuba or a candidate who says they won't become involved with "nation building" shifting positions on issues to gain votes is a political reality that won't change. It's as American as apple pie.

Candidates who run unopposed have an advantage over those who have to fight for their party's nomination.

When each party's nominees are finally chosen the differences important to voters become apparent.

Democrats are at a disadvantage with the wide field fighting for the nomination. But it's early in the race. The changes in position made by the Bush White House over the past 3 years will more than outweigh the changes candidates make in their positions this early in the race IMO.

Ah yes, more ot the "well he did it but not to the same extent as Bush did" excuse. First Clinton and his pre-emptive attacks - now waffling on issues. Just admit it - he's a weasel just like all the rest of them that have been there for years. It doesn't change the fact that you can vote for him because he is still that leading Bush hater you know

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

You must have missed the times I disagreed with Bush. There have been plenty - plus there are things I have not posted about here that I am in disagreement with.
This thread is about the prospective DEMOCRAT candidate - not another thread about Bush. If you and others wish to divert attention from the topic that is fine - just be aware that it has been noted. Next time someone blasts one of us for bringing up Clinton's record and you call it a diversionary tactic - I'll kindly refer them to this thread Really - it's that simple.

Well it's not like I log your musings . . . rants . . . etc. Regardless of your intent or title we are talking about the prospective leader of our country after the next election. Any characteristic of the prospective Democratic nominees should be compared in tandem with the traits of GWB. The ever changing rationale for war and excuses for not finding WMD invites more scrutiny by switching key stances". Dean has a track record that should be explored in detail . . . and in the minutiae if he wins the Democratic nomination. But due to 9/11 and the general duplicity of American media . . . Bush has essentially gotten a pass on a myriad of empty campaign promises (debt reduction, humble America, protecting SS, reducing wasteful government spending) and initiatives (Faith-based, vouchers, Clear Skies) while in office.

But to avoid hijacking your thread . . . yeah, it sure looks like Dean is waffling on some issues. But he certainly waffles less than his hawkish Democratic foes.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

At least one Bush stance is comparable between the two events, the administration will insist that consumers (typically taxpayers and homeowners) pay the majority of the costs for upgrading the system.

Hear Hear.

Exactly what about putting some of all the massive profits over the years back into the system for upgrades? NOoooo, let's (Industry Execs) just pocket that money and live high and mighty, when the thing crashes we'll just get the poor saps (us, John Q Public) to pay up even more to fix while still proffiting huge amounts to boot!

 

[Nitemare]

Newsflash

All politicians are vote whores

 

[SuperTool]

CkG, I didn't say Kerry was a rightwinger, I said you were a rightwinger who thinks Dean is serious enough of a candidate to bash him on labor day. Rightwingers like to prebash potential Bush opposition in the press. I listen to Rush, Hannity, Scarborough, etc, and I know what's up.
These people don't miss a chance to bash anyone who Bush might face in the future. Wesley Clark, Dean, Gephart, Libermann, Hillary Clinton, etc. It doesn't matter if they are in the race or not.
Dean has ideas for America, but for him to be able to implement those ideas, he first has to win the presidency, and losing it over Cuba or retirement age is pointless. Cuban issue won't be resolved until Florida political demographics change, and retirement age issue will resolve itself when social security simply does not have enough money to pay for everyone over 65, and has to raise it to stay solvent.
Cuba is really not an important issue to most Americans not of Cuban descent, and the retirement age issue will "solve" itself. So what's the point of wasting political capital on these issues? Dean is absolutely right to focus on the important issues where he can actually make a difference.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
CkG, I didn't say Kerry was a rightwinger, I said you were a rightwinger who thinks Dean is serious enough of a candidate to bash him on labor day.

I know that - but that isn't the point of this thread. This thread is about the Leftys who are going after the leading far lefty. Seems to me that there are more than just "rightwingers" going after Dean - which is what is happening.

You know what? I hope Dean gets the nod. I truly do - Bush'll beat him alot easier than he would a Kerry, Graham, or Gephardt. Keep it up Dean nuts - keep it up

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
CkG, I didn't say Kerry was a rightwinger, I said you were a rightwinger who thinks Dean is serious enough of a candidate to bash him on labor day.

I know that - but that isn't the point of this thread. This thread is about the Leftys who are going after the leading far lefty. Seems to me that there are more than just "rightwingers" going after Dean - which is what is happening.

You know what? I hope Dean gets the nod. I truly do - Bush'll beat him alot easier than he would a Kerry, Graham, or Gephardt. Keep it up Dean nuts - keep it up

CkG

Wishful thinking.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
CkG, I didn't say Kerry was a rightwinger, I said you were a rightwinger who thinks Dean is serious enough of a candidate to bash him on labor day.

I know that - but that isn't the point of this thread. This thread is about the Leftys who are going after the leading far lefty. Seems to me that there are more than just "rightwingers" going after Dean - which is what is happening.

You know what? I hope Dean gets the nod. I truly do - Bush'll beat him alot easier than he would a Kerry, Graham, or Gephardt. Keep it up Dean nuts - keep it up

CkG

Wishful thinking.

"bring em on"

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Dean is the only real choice for Democrats. The rest are on record supporting Bush's failed policies, so it wouldn't make sense to run them as alternatives to Bush, since they are just a bunch of me-tooers. Come next year, the people will either want Bush or they will want an alternative, and the only chance Democrats have is to have a real alternative to Bush on the ballot.