Double-Talk Could Derail DEAN Machine -- & Thanks Newsguy

[abu afak]

(And Thanks Newsguy.. for taking my suggestion to open a section on US Politics/Election 2004, so we Americans and others could discuss it and still stay here)


DOUBLE-TALK COULD DERAIL DEAN MACHINE

By DEBORAH ORIN

September 11, 2003 -- DEMOCRATIC 2004 front-runner Howard Dean is starting to get a reputation for talking out of both sides of his mouth - and not just on Israel.
That could become a big problem for a guy who's running on a "tell it like it is" platform - it may be the first hint of an Achilles heel that might slow Dean's surge to the Democratic nomination.

For instance, Dean called for raising the Social Security retirement age, then denied it, then belatedly admitted it - but said he wasn't for it any more. Last week, he said U.S. troops "need to come home" from Iraq - now he says we shouldn't pull out.

He demanded that all U.S. trading partners meet U.S. labor and environmental standards - when reminded that would halt trade with countries like Mexico, Dean said he only meant the far lower international standards.

But that's not what Dean told the Washington Post or the online magazine Slate, which wrote that Dean emphatically took the "exact opposite" position this summer.

Dean said "it's not our place to take sides" in the Mideast - but then took sides on settlements, saying Israel must give up an "enormous number." Under fire, Dean now insists he takes sides in favor of a "special relationship" with Israel.

In most campaigns, doublespeak hurts big time - just look at how Dean has zapped Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) for his Iraq doublespeak since Kerry voted yes on the war and now blasts it. But some say double talk won't bother Dean's true believers.


"Dean isn't running a traditional campaign. It's a cross between a populist campaign and a movement," says Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore's 2000 race.

"It may not matter to the Dean constituency because it's not a traditional constituency. You may be playing into his hands by saying he's flip-flopping," Brazile adds - meaning criticism just makes Dean fans more intense.

True enough. Dean fans sent more money - not less - when he had a disastrous time on NBC's "Meet the Press." But the question now is whether doublespeak stops Dean from lining up new recruits. That would be big trouble.

Meanwhile, both the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the Anti-Defamation League have said Dean's remarks on Israel are "troubling" and a break with U.S. policy.

The ADL faxed him a request for clarification, saying: "To dictate to Israel the terms of concessions on any issue [like settlements] is inappropriate." So far, no response from Dean-land.

http://www.nypost.com/commentary/5505.htm

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by abu afak
(And Thanks Newsguy.. for taking my suggestion to open a section on US Politics/Election 2004, so we Americans and others could discuss it and still stay here)
I should have mentioned that the credit for this concept goes to Abu Afak who made the suggestion to me. Thank you.

btw - I'm also considering your other suggestions.

As for Dean, I'd say that next to Sharpton and Brown, he's my last choice (although I'm a Republican anyway).

Dean really represents the radical Left, which is pro rewarding Arab terrorism. Therefore, Dean backs the Palestinian national cause, which is to exterminate the Jewish residents of Israel.

It is outrageous, though, that the Democratic party has not dissociated with Dean's anti-Israel position. I think that I'll be seeing even more of my fellow Jewish voters become Republicans very soon.

The Democracts have really put forth a lousy list of candidates, none of whom has any innovative ideas or charisma.

If the economy continues to improve, Bush is sure to stay in office.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
I should have mentioned that the credit for this concept goes to Abu Afak who made the suggestion to me. Thank you.

btw - I'm also considering your other suggestions.

As for Dean, I'd say that next to Sharpton and Brown, he's my last choice (although I'm a Republican anyway).

Dean really represents the radical Left, which is pro rewarding Arab terrorism. Therefore, Dean backs the Palestinian national cause, which is to exterminate the Jewish residents of Israel.

It is outrageous, though, that the Democratic party has not dissociated with Dean's anti-Israel position. I think that I'll be seeing even more of my fellow Jewish voters become Republicans very soon.

The Democracts have really put forth a lousy list of candidates, none of whom has any innovative ideas or charisma.

If the economy continues to improve, Bush is sure to stay in office.


I agree.

More than 80% of Jews voted for Gore/Lieberman in the last election. I think Bush will do better on 2004.

It's not just Israel either; I think the Democrats are becoming a Shriller- further left party, that alienates Jews like it hasn't in the Past.

Jews have remained (rainbow-) Democrats far past the point where most other successful minorities have because there is always the uncertainity of acceptance and insecurity basd on 2000 years of Persecution.
I hope that is slowly changing based on enlightened self interest.

[minusthejihad]

I just found out that Dean has a Jewsih wife and he is rasing his kids Jewish?!?!?!

What!?!?!?

With his anti-Israel position, this has really thrown me for a loop!

[takeo]

A considerable part of the Dean-public is Jewish, and his remarks weren't any different from the remarks of the Israeli left, which tends to get the sympathy of the majority of non-politically active American Jews, who prefere Labour over Likud.

I hope his doomed Iraq-adventure and the discovered lies will ruin the campaign of Bush, while the economy is still in worse shape than under the clinton-administration, and bush' reforms have lowered the living standards of millions of lower and middle class Americans.

I'm not American of course, but if you have the right to comment on French politics, i have the right to comment on American politics.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
A considerable part of the Dean-public is Jewish,

Your source for this?


and his remarks weren't any different from the remarks of the Israeli left, which tends to get the sympathy of the majority of non-politically active American Jews, who prefere Labour over Likud.

It's true that there is a common thread among radical Leftists worldwide, who believe that the Muslim threats of Jihad-genocide are just being said in jest.

I hope his doomed Iraq-adventure and the discovered lies will ruin the campaign of Bush, while the economy is still in worse shape than under the clinton-administration, and bush' reforms have lowered the living standards of millions of lower and middle class Americans.

No, the Bush tax cuts have not resulted in lowering the living standards of Americans. Rather, the fall of the Tech sector and the end of the dot-com boom, together with the natural economic cycle is what has caused a rise in unemployment.

But don't look now, takeo, yesterday it was announced that the U.S. economy in the last quarter had the biggest increase in GDP in 20 years. What will the Bush opponents do now?

And since to the best of my knowledge, the Bush tax cuts have not extended to Europe, what do you think is causing the French and German economies to fail so miserably?

I hear that both of those "Bush-free" countries are not even able to meet their basic economic obligations to the EC. At the same time, EU unemployment is to skyrocket for the first time since 1994.

Can't blame Bush, so who's to blame? America? Israel? A Zionist plot perhaps? :D

* * *

I'm not American of course, but if you have the right to comment on French politics, i have the right to comment on American politics.

That brings up a very good point.

In case you're wondering, this section is open to ALL our members and readers, no matter from which country.

American presidential politics affect the whole world, so please speak up no matter where you are.

[takeo]

Your source for this?

My friend in the university of Houston.



It's true that there is a common thread among radical Leftists worldwide, who believe that the Muslim threats of Jihad-genocide are just being said in jest.

Dean isn't exactly a radical leftist, neither is Labour or even less Shinui in Israel...
Radical leftists by the way DO believe that Islamism is a threat (for example that's why the soviets fought in afghanistan against us-supported islamists), but it doesn't support the way Israel and the US are handling this thread (actually israeli policy in Palestine and US policy in Iraq encourages islamism, by turning against the very forces that resist Islamism and threating the entire population as ennemies)


No, the Bush tax cuts have not resulted in lowering the living standards of Americans. Rather, the fall of the Tech sector and the end of the dot-com boom, together with the natural economic cycle is what has caused a rise in unemployment.

that's one of the reasons of course (as in Europe as well), but Bush did very little to encourage employment

But don't look now, takeo, yesterday it was announced that the U.S. economy in the last quarter had the biggest increase in GDP in 20 years. What will the Bush opponents do now?

as you said yourself it's part of the natural economic circle of capitalism, by the way there are encouraging signs that the economy in europe is improoving as well.
However the bush-policy was responsible for an enormous deficit in the budget by giving tax-cuts to his superrich friends and by launching an unnecessary unilateral war, which continues to cost the us-taxpayer an arm and a leg... (and this doesn't seem to change anytime soon). It means no more money is available for social and employment programs, which only affects the poor and the less than average middle class.



And since to the best of my knowledge, the Bush tax cuts have not extended to Europe, what do you think is causing the French and German economies to fail so miserably?

the european economy is slowly recovering, but as in the us it didn't translate yet in more employment.

I hear that both of those "Bush-free" countries are not even able to meet their basic economic obligations to the EC. At the same time, EU unemployment is to skyrocket for the first time since 1994.

the situation in Germany is much worse than in France, but in both countries the economic recovery is underway.
By the way living standard in France and Germany are higher than in the US, according to the UNDP, because unemployed or underemployed people aren't condemned to poverty as in the us.

That brings up a very good point.

In case you're wondering, this section is open to ALL our members and readers, no matter from which country.

American presidential politics affect the whole world, so please speak up no matter where you are.

ok, thanks, I appreciate free speech, not everyone has the same opinion...

[Mil]

By the way living standard in France and Germany are higher than in the US,


And they are even higher in Scandinavia. So?


according to the UNDP, because unemployed or underemployed people aren't condemned to poverty as in the us.


So? Our spending capacity is astronomically larger then anything you can provide in Europe. In Germany they are cutting welfare spending where the government is running out of money. The price of medicine, medical treatment (including servicing the elderly) and drugs is rising all over the industrialized world. Your 35 hour work weeks and other tricks to save some sort of employement will soon hit a dead end where a true restructuring of the economy will be needed.


As far as America and employement - globolization man!!!! I find it a good thing - well not before I'll loose my job - but at the moment it's giving others an opportunity and for us quite some capital.

[Mediocrates]

Hmm does he mean that permanently unemployed people are condemned to poverty? Unemployed not because of illness handicap substance abuse or other factors...? Just because?

I have a hard time understanding why that is a bad thing.

[Mil]

I guess. Med - it's weird.

[red crabtree]

While to many of those on this board the religion of a politican or his family may matter, to millions of American's it does not. It matters only if those religious views substancially impact their poltical views. I find that as time is going on there is more of a religious component in politics, thank the evangelical right for that, as they started it more than any other. The last time in American politics that I can think religion seemed to be so important was with the candidacy and then election of John Kennedy because he was Catholic and there was a fear from many that was Protestant and conservative who had a fear that the Pope would actually be the one running this country. That did not happen, though from an outside view the Kennedy family are devout Catholics.
Historically it is the fundamentalist right that have considered Catholism to be a cult, and the Jewish religion to be akin to devil worship. If I were either Catholic or Jewish I would not be too damn sure of ongoing support there. Support from right sided religious conservatives for Israel or Jewish people historically has been nonexistant. For their political purposes it works right now, but I would be very leery of it being an ongoing process because I feel this group will do whatever is politically expediant.
By the way, just in case you are interested I am an Episcopalian. You know, the group that just ordained a gay Bishop. For me my religious affliation means I believe deeply in my soul that all people should be treated the same regardless of religion, color, gender or sexual preference. I take to heart the passage in the Bible that Jesus says to take the log out of one's own eye before attempting to remove the speck from your brother's.
We all decide how we will vote based on issues near and dear to our hearts, and for some that is from a religious viewpoint. I would not vote for anyone that I feel is going to throw Israel to the dogs, but neither am I all the impressed with the Johnny come lately's that suddenly have decided that Jews or Israel may not be so bad after all, as long as it fit's their need to be reelected. My belief in the Nation of Israel is not religiously based, it is based on basic human rights. The disgust I feel for suicide bombing and such is based on people killing others because of religion. I imagine this causes God great pain every day. I just do not get the idea of killing someone based on their religion. As a kid I often wondered how in the hell the Nazi's knew who was Jewish and who wasn't since it was such an alien concept in this country to really give a damn what religion you neighbor was. You might know where your neighbor went for religious services but it mattered naught to you. But now it seems that politics have become steeped in religion as the right has fostered that more and more. It bothers the hell out me.
There is no way to totally remove it from politics, yet I don't believe it should be the main driving force to get one elected or not.

[abu afak]

Gephardt TV ad accuses Dean of Iraq Double-Talk

By Brian C. Mooney, Globe Staff, 11/22/2003

Responding to an Iowa ad attacking his support for the Iraq war and its funding, Representative Richard A. Gephardt today will begin airing a response spot in the state that paints his accuser, presidential campaign rival Howard Dean, as a double-talker on the issue.

The ad asserts that Dean is "attacking Dick Gephardt for a position Dean took himself."

Recent polls have shown Gephardt leading Dean in a close fight in the caucus state, which leads off the Democratic presidential nominating process on Jan. 19.

The 30-second spot, titled "Tough," juxtaposes video of Dean in a Sept. 25 debate and an Oct. 19 television interview. In the first, the moderator asks where Dean stands on the $87 billion appropriation to continue military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

"We have no choice, but it has to be financed by getting rid of all the president's tax cuts," Dean responds.

Nearly a month later, after he declared his opposition to the spending, video shows Dean telling reporters during an Iowa public television program: "I don't think this Iraq agreement frankly rises to the level of a big campaign issue, and I don't, I don't intend to make whether you voted for it or against the supplemental appropriation a campaign issue."

The spot closes with Gephardt saying "leadership is about making tough decisions and sticking to them."..""

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/dean/articles/2003/11/22/gephardt_tv_ad_accuses_dean_of_iraq_double_talk/

[MGB8]

I'm undecided, mostly on financial issues.

I'm a progressive democrat when it comes to taxes. Not that I believe in a lot of government - we need to keep that fiscally responsible and have as few regulations as needed to keep the public safe.

However, I think suppy side is truly "voodo economics" - in that investments only look good if DEMAND is there to buy goods, and DEMAND comes not from concentrated wealth but from distributed wealth - the middle class. DEMAND creates supply, not the other way around.

The US is on the wrong track on this, IMO. The Middle class has been declining since the 60's, while the poverty line in real terms has been getting lower (you have to be poorer to be poor) and is REALLY low to begin with (I believe $18,000/year for a family of 3 - I find it not so easy at $50K per year as an individual starting out, albeit tons of student loans effect that, and I do save quite a bit...)

"Free" but unfair trade has hurt the US greatly, because instead of rewarding mechanization and increased productivity, it rewards slave wages and uber-poverty standards of living, not to mention depressed currencies.

The lower US Dollar helps that, though, and should help bring back US Jobs.

Making other countries pay a tarriff in proportion to their lack of environmental and labor protections would be a great start, it would hurt overall profit margins, but not as much as you think since the majority of US Business is INTERNAL, and that would create more US Jobs to by more US goods.

BUT, on foreign policy, I don't trust any of the Dems except maybe Lieberman, and maybe even Edwards.