Posted on 08/07/2003 3:17:48 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:15:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
August 7, 2003 -- SURPRISE! Democratic 2004 front-runner Howard Dean is starting to sound like Bill Clinton in a very un-good way: playing word games and waltzing with the truth.
Which doesn't quite suit his claim that his honesty sets him apart from rivals.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Former Guv of a small state that he screwed badly, lying his way to the rat nomination.
Chicago Debate Fallout: Gov. Dean's Denial on Social Security Age
Rep. Dennis Kucinich does not accept the media script that portrays Democrats as groveling before unions and civil rights groups. Quite the contrary, he sees Democrats who too often serve up vague and fuzzy rhetoric to loyal constituencies during campaigns and then govern against the interests of those voters once in office. That's why -- at the AFL-CIO forum in Chicago -- he tried to encourage fellow Democrats toward specificity.
That's why -- since Gov. Dean says he is committed to a balanced budget while keeping Pentagon spending off-limits to cuts -- Rep. Kucinich felt it was important and relevant to a union audience to question Dean's public statements about raising the Social Security retirement age. In arguing for his own position of returning the age to 65 at the nationally-televised forum, Kucinich noted that "Mr. Dean has said that he'd move the retirement age to 68. One time, he talked about moving it to 70."
A few minutes later, Dean simply offered a broad denial: "I have never favored a Social Security retirement age of 70. Nor do I favor one of 68."
Today, Congressman Kucinich said: "It's unfortunate that Dr. Dean was not forthright with labor leaders and activists concerning his statements on Social Security which had been discussed on a recent 'Meet the Press' program. I was surprised at his denial, which raises many questions. If he wants to clarify his earlier statements, fine. But don't deny them while appealing for union votes."
BACKGROUND
"The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. 'It would be tough but we could do it,' he said." (Times-Picayune, 3/5/95, "And Politicians Wonder Why They Aren't Trusted," by Miles Benson, Newhouse News Service)
Dean was asked about the comment on "Meet the Press" (6/22/03):
DEAN: ...I don't recall saying that, but I'm sure I did, if you have it on your show, because I know your researchers are very good."
RUSSERT: Well, Miles Benson is a very good reporter for the Newhouse News.
DEAN Yes, he is. No, no, no. I'm sure I did. I'm not denying that I said that.
A few minutes later on the same "Meet the Press," Dean said the following as he discussed budget balancing and Social Security: "I also would entertain taking the retirement age to 68. It's at 67 now. I would entertain that."
-------------
This damaging bit of research about a Dean flipflop that he "forgot" about is from the Kucinich website.
(I also posted this on yesterday's anti-Dean thread). I tell ya', there's something about Dean. Smooth, manipulating and hiding his record, saying what the folks want to hear,....it's all so Clintonesque. This guy should not be on the ballot come election day; who knows what he represents?
Does this mean that the guys in the back of the pack can lie with impunity????
Yeah, right - just like clintbilly and his evil wife were (are).
Truth only matters to RATS when it's convenient.
I'm starting to think "front-runner" is actually Howard's first name. LOL. I might be able to take that tag a bit more seriously if Dean were actually leading in national polls, but he noticeably trails Lieberman by a 2:1 margin. He's statistically tied with Kerry and Gephardt. Even with his decent shot at both IA and NH, he's not exactly my definition of a front runner.
Unfortunately I don't think the Dems will be dumb enough to let this occur. The rumblings of the power Dems are growing louder. Pulled from another thread:
Former Clinton (and current) Lieberman pollster Mark Penn predicts Dean would lose 49 of 50 states to Bush, while a former Clinton colleague (unwilling to be quoted by name) told me: "Mark is wrong. Dean would only lose 40 states."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.