has Dean ever said why he quit medicine?

[bearfartinthewoods]

such an investment of time and money, most people don't walk away.
has he ever said why he did? thanks

[SoCalDem]

1. Our family doctor did just that...at age 52

His sole surviving parent died, and he decided that life was short and he retired..

Of course his parent was wealthy and he was an only, so he bought a new house and joined the country club:(.. We realllllly liked him :(

[eyesroll]

2. He was still a practicing physician when he was a legislator

and lieutenant governor. Those are part-time jobs in Vermont.

He was in the middle of examining a patient when he was told that the governor had died, and he was to be sworn in shortly. Governor is a full-time job.

I have no idea if he would have run on his own, but that's the short answer.

[Don_G]

8. My Lt. Governor Is A Practicing Physican Also

Gov. Patton got caught up in a scandal last year and, for a while, I thought he might resign. I can easily see it happening.

[bearfartinthewoods]

11. thank you very much

a short, to the point answer with no bs attached.
i apprechiate it.

[salin]

14. no offense

but the way you framed the question had bs within it. Implied a dark reason - either a problem within a practice, or a blind ambition. Thus you set it up that you would receive editorializing in the responses.

Could have removed your own biased editorializing (your wording presumed something beyond a normal explanation.. afterall people don't just walk away from that kind of investment....) by simply asking:

What was the career progression from private physician to full time Governor?

[NicoleM]

18. I think you're reading a bit much into the question.

I'm a Dean supporter, but I didn't see any "dark reason" behind the question.

[salin]

20. Presumed - based on the "people don't just walk away"

that either "there was a problem" with the practice, or "blind ambition" and thus that the practice of medicine and all its investment was just a stepping stone.

Without the editorializing about how people don't just walk away from the investment... I would agree with you.

Folks on GD have gotten great at implied innuendo. So good that I don't think they always "see" their own presumptions. In this case the one option that clearly didn't enter the poster's mind - was the actual scenario. Guess it couldn't be so logical or "innocent".

[bearfartinthewoods]

24. jeeeezus...nitpickery

so if i had used the word quit, you wouldn't have assumed i was implying he was a quiter eh?

or if i had used the word switched , you wouldn't have assumed i was implying he was subject to flip-floping?

and if i used the word leave his practice you wouldn't assume i was trying to say he abandoned his patients?

all of these would be logical ways to ask my question and all of them could be misread if someone were determined to misread.

please oh please...inform this lowly poster the proper form of the question. never mind...i think this is a case of some people being shell shocked from too much battling. i think some people need some R&R.

[salin]

27. are you even trying to 'see'

the point I am making? Not just about you. It is about 2/3 of the candidate posts made these days. There is almost always an implied slant.

There were ways of asking the same question without the implication.

You can come up with better ways for people to respond, but are unwilling to consider that you could also have found a better way to ask.

[bearfartinthewoods]

34. what i see is me getting angry

and i refuse to stoop to the level that GD has been sinking to.

you have a created a bias where none existed and accused me of something i am not guilty of. i've explained and you will not accept the explaination so i'm through with you because i refuse to be your whipping post.

[HFishbine]

26. After

just having done battle over the legitimacy of a question I had about Clark, I think it was a fair question. Who cares if posts are perceived as sinister? If they pose a legitimate question, they deserve an honest answer -- and one was offered.

[salin]

29. the legitimate question

without the baggage... or with an explanation explaining the question, I agree.

the baggage = the WHY after all the investment.

why is it baggage?

Because there are only 2 implied answers. As if it would never just "happen" as it did.

[cjbuchanan]

3. I'm not sure

But I think he was a doctor until he became governor. I seem to recall reading that he was giving a physical when he got the call that the governor (he was Lt. Gov) had died.

[Northwind]

4. yes, he has

Dean was a practicing Physician all during his early political career. Lieutenant Governor of Vermont is a part time position, as were his earlier political jobs, and so he was able to remain a Doctor. He was actually in the middle of examining a patient when he got word that the Governor had died of a heart attack, and he became Governor. He had an obligation to fulfill at that point, and ended his medical practice.

[madfloridian]

5. For God sakes, he became governor.

While he was a doctor, he became governor. Can't do both. Good try, though.

[bearfartinthewoods]

10. i have resisted, to the best of my ability, the desire to paint Dean

with the attributes of his supporters but honestly, this is too much.

there are many reasons why a person switches careers in mid stream.
few of them have any conotation of "bad" associated with them.

i posted a neutraly worded question from a desire for insight into a candidate an get 50% rude replies.

May i suggest that some Dean supporters need to take a break or get a grip because this sort of aggression is not doing your candidate any good.

[salin]

17. pssssst

While I am impressed with the campaign built by Dean, I am also impressed with attributes of other candidates. I am undecided.

I read bias oozing from the question.

Am getting really good at seeing it pointed against ALL candidates and am really concerned about it. Why? Because some folks are letting their bias color their read of ALL aspects of candidates - this will make coming behind a single candidate very difficult. But if we want to get rid of bush - we not only have to get behind a candidate (as in vote) we will HAVE to hit the streets - talk one on one with folks - it will be the only way to reach people to fight off the media and pushpoll negative campaigning that will be waged by bushco and supported by a fundraising advantage which will far surpass the 2:1 advantage bush had against gore.

[bearfartinthewoods]

21. any oozing bias came from the act not towards the actor

please see below. she-bear, on occasions, regrets not pursuing medicine as a career and was curious as to why someone would quit a medical career.

given what i know now, here is how i would have answered the question.

after establishing himself in private practice in Vermont, Dean had a desire to do more to serve the people of his state. the legislature in Vermont is a part time position and Dr. Dean, being high energy, knew he could handle the job of legislator and maintain his medical practice.

he continued this duel carrer track as he ran for and served as Lt Gov. However, when the governor died and he was propelled into the cheif executive position, he, regretably had to give up his practice to attend to the more demanding job of Governor,

now see? isn't that a better way to answer the question?

[salin]

23. but given what you know now

how would you have asked the question?

[bearfartinthewoods]

25. see above....

[salin]

31. the explanation of the question

re: she-bear - would have changed the tone of the question. Also would have changed the tone of the responses.

[madfloridian]

41. No, I will not "get a grip".

That kind of question is just too obvious to need a "defense", as you say. If you ask a sincere question, I will be most happy to answer with facts.

So, since you don't like me, then don't vote for Dean. Ok? Great way to make a decision.

This is the type of stuff that is destroying this board. Most of us knew the answer, and it was phrased by you as an Uh Oh thing. Like gotcha.

I see this and I lose hope for the Democrats. If this board is indicative of the party, then we are in deep trouble.

[bearfartinthewoods]

49. i said SOME Dean supporters

if the shoe doesn't fit, why are you wearing it?

[LizW]

47. As a Dean supporter in need of a "grip"

I must point out that at the time you posted this you had five very nice, to the point and informative answers to your question, then one person took mild offense to it. Not even close to "50% rude replies."

And yet "Dean supporters" as a whole, need to "get a grip" because we're turning you off?

[bearfartinthewoods]

48. at the time i began composing the get a grip message

the 50-50 stat was accurate. i wrote and rewrote to tone down my post and obviously others posted in the interim. and i believe i used the word SOME Dean supporters. NOT ALL.

[mandyky]

6. Not sure Dean himself has addressed this but

he was still practicing medicine as a Lt. Gov, was examining a patient when he was notified that his predecessor died, and he has to leave and get sworn in.

What I think probably happened is once he became governor, and had to spend more time in Montpelier, rather than Burlington, where his practice was, that he slowly closed out his practice. Then once he became head of the Democratic Governors Associaition, he definitely was to busy to practice. I read somewhere he let his license lapse, somewhere in between those two happenings.

[madfloridian]

7. This is just plain silly to ask that when you could have looked it up.

Another question that implies Dean bad.

[bearfartinthewoods]

13. so sorry to have bothered you with a question about your candidate

of course you needn't have bothered to reply since you seem to resent my asking.

[madfloridian]

39. Oh, stop rationalizing what you said.

I have seen that posted here over and over. In fact this place is where I heard how he became governor.

You wanted to get us mad, you did. What have you accomplished by the question? Just more division?

[bearfartinthewoods]

50. i wanted to know why he quit medicine............period

if i wanted to make you mad i would have asked why he couldn't hack being a doctor or if he had his license pulled or any of the other possibilities that OTHER PEOPLE alluded to.

i simply asked why and got jumped on for it.

finally, and i DO mean finally, just because you know it does not mean everyone knows it. everyone does not read every thread here and i, in particular, do not read most Dean threads because a) he is not currently my first or second choice and b) because oddly enough many of the Dean threads seem to be full of the same kind of bullshit that SOME people brought to this thread.

ON EDIT...IF as some have alluded, i already knew what the answer was and was just asking the question to stir up trouble....where is the trouble?

if i knew why he quit, i would know that there was no story there, right?

nothing controversial about it whatsoever so why in the hell would i try to start controversy by asking about this particular uncontroversial subject?

if i were up to no good, i could have picked any number of subjects which have caused controvery but i didn't did i?

is it possible...(gasp)...that someone just wanted the answer to a freakin question?

[clar]

9. Sorry

No scandal here. No malpractice suits. Nothing.

[salin]

12. No offense, but this question is asked in a way

that implies something ominous. Why are we all so ready to believe evil or deepsecrets lay behind the various candidates? I know we are growing more than cynical in these years of the boyking, but sometimes I think that we have lost any objective perspective.

And yes, the scenario described by others is widely known and easily looked up.

Sometimes we don't see how heavy our "anti" bias is - until we look at the way we frame our own questions. That is - we can "see" what it is we think might be there. This is when we need a gut check.

I do it myself with at least one candidate - and when I realized the inherent bias I carried, I started thinking through before responding to news stories with those biased assumptions about this candidate. Still not a favorite of mine by a long shot, but over the past year + I have come to have a much more balanced view of the candidate including some of the pluses of the candidate.

Pulling out our own biases/assumptions and then checking them - make us a much better consumer of the news - as in we stop reading in what we think is there and force ourselves to be more objective to read what really is said. One of these candidates - even perhaps one we are very biased against - will be the candidate for president. Learning now to challenge our own preconceived biases against candidates will make us be able to unite more easily and work for the defeat against bush. Why? Because in the intervening time we will have forced ourselves to be able to 'see' some of the positives of even those right now we are predisposed to be against.

[bearfartinthewoods]

19. ominous...how?

i read here, just yesterday, about the dedication it takes to endure
what must be endured to be a doctor. she-bear and i were just talking about it because at one time she considered medicine as a carreer but the money and certainly the years and years of schooling turned her away. we wondered why, after investing all that time in and money in training, someone would just walk away? it's a pretty logical question to my mind and the fact that people read something else into it is their problem and not mine!

i repeat, and salin, i have read many of your posts with resounding agreement, if you start jumping on neutral questions, you need to take a break to regain your perspective or whatever it takes to not attack PRE-EMPTIVELY. you assumed a bias that i hope i have shown was not there and we know what happens when we assume.

[salin]

22. it wasn't a neutral question.

The one option - clearly not considered - was the real explanation.

So tell me instead - what was your presumed answer to that question?

It implied- due to that great investment - "that there is more to meet the eye".

Someone just posted that Clark, is spending "the last day of the quarter with "DC INSIDERS" as opposed to with "grassroots", again with the same kind of implied undertones. Took that to task as well.

It is important that we realize when we have an inclination to see something that is not there. Because then we realize that as we read other things we read it through that same skeptical lens - and maybe quite unfair to the whole picture.

There are so many biases floating around GD these days it is sad. SOme are blatant. For others it is subtle. In the end, I do believe that it harms us all.

The new rules will force us to try to word things in ways that force us to read our own words, and see our own presuppositions. This, I think, will be good not only for the tone of the forum, but for those of us having to think about what we are writing. I know, that when I realized my own bias - and had to force myself to try to read things and divorce my natural inclination to read things a certain way about a candidate - I was able to get a much more fair/balanced view. Heck - I see a little to admire in that candidate. Still not my choice, but certainly not quite what I had created in my mind.

[bearfartinthewoods]

30. oh gee...yes...how could i have been so dumb

how could i not assume that he did both until the governor died.

that should have been my first guess since it is such a common occurance.

[salin]

32. so instead you presumed

that there is 'something we don't know...." (ala "more to the story") that is the ominous tone that I refer to. The same one on the Clark thread that implied the trip today to DC was ominous.

[Padraig18]

33. Please chill, salin

I think the question was innocent. Peace out, 'K? :)

[salin]

36. The issue is more than the question

and isn't directed just at the poster.

It is the number of threads started with presumptions that point in one direction and are biased. The issue grows to when personal biases are so strong that folks read threads and news items with such heavy tinted lenses that they can no longer see the anything that is legitimate or positive about specific candidates.

I have never seen as much clouded, illogical thinking as I have on GD in the past couple of weeks.

If the poster had not gone off on those asking why the question was asked - as if THEY had the problem, I would probably have posted my one point and left it. Instead, unable to see how the thread was read as it was, the poster goes on the attack.

If we don't figure out our own biases - so that we can begin to read stories more clearly (and recognize when we are having a knee jerk reaction based on our biases - and force ourselves to re-read things trying to check teh bias - and therefor get a more clear read) - this thinking will leave a whole lot of people so angry, biased and completely convinced that there is something WRONG/EVIL etc about the person who wins (because each candidate has their cotorie of biased detractors). It all gets bred now. I full year before the election.

Want an indication of how deep this crud goes? Check out the silly polls that ask if Dean supporters would vote for Clark or Bush, or if Clark supporters would vote for Dean or Bush - and in each case - there are a growing number of folks picking BUSH. Get it? We are pushing people into camps of near HATE. Two months ago - polls such as these got one or two or NO votes for bush. Who KNOWS what would really happen in the ballot box - but feeding into folks antipathy seems to harden various sides (pro and anti). Not healthy.

So even the "innocent" question that does show bias (which with the explanation of the question would have been a better question) feeds the irrational hate. So bet your bottom dollar the question gets picked up by the anti Dean folks as an example of the BLIND ambition of the Doctor- or as an example of why we shouldn't give him credit for being a doctor. Whatever. It feeds this growing HATRED of democratic candidates - among democratic and democratic leaning voters.

Bigger point.

Probably the wrong thread to make it on.

No one seems to be trying to see the point of our own held biases (and we ALL have them whether we chose to see them or not), and how it feeds into this insanity.

[Padraig18]

40. I concede your point, no problem

The vitriol I see being thrown around here, some of it naked, some poorly-disguised, amazes me. People seem to have this bizarre idea that they somehow 'help' their favored candidate by tearing down the others. As you point out, all it's doing is fracturing and alienating people who should be natural 'big picture' allies.

I grew up in the rough-and-tumble of Chicago ward politics, so I have a very thick hide, and usually just slough off this sorta stuff, although I *will* correct blatant factual errors/distortions.

The initial question (which I honestly DO think was innocent) could have been answered by a Dean supporter in a calm, rational manner, and this would likely have been one of the shortest threads in GD history. What makes us all want to FIGHT so much--- esepecially each other? :(

[madfloridian]

42. It should have been answered skeptically and with suspicion.

That issue has been discussed here over and over and over. This is just typical of what is going on.

It is tiring, and it is an issue that deserves to be addressed very soon.

[Padraig18]

43. Question "A", for the 12306th time...

I agree that seeing the same topic/question/talking point posted again and again and again and again get tiresome and on one's nerves, but I don't think we do Howard much good *overall* by prickly, testy responses. When you allow yourself to be baited, you concede the bait-er an important advantage. "A soft answer turneth away wrath" is sorta how I *try8 to do it--- although I don't always succeed. :)

[madfloridian]

46. Baloney.

I am not speaking for "Howard". I am being testy for myself, because I am so tired of the infighting.

This is NOT allowing myself to be baited. This is called pointing out the obvious.

[bearfartinthewoods]

35. if you have a prroblem with the Clark thread, take it up with that thread'

originator.
hint...that would be someone other than me.

[salin]

37. I did.

And I have elsewhere with others. Didn't get into a spat because others were all duking it out. So my post just sits there - to be read or not.

Truthfully, had you given the explanation (origin) of the question - it would have changed the tone and the tone of the responses.

Had you not jumped on those who saw the same tone I did, and therefor answered it with a bit of attitude. I would have made my one post and let it go. The point is - you wanted them to reflect (geez why read it that way) without being willing to do the same.

If we all start reflecting more - or giving more insight into why we are asking - we would stop feeding into the dynamics which, I fear, will lead to some funky outcomes in the general election.

[salin]

38. My point is made

I will let it die.

Carry on. and Peace.

[Ripley]

44. You made a very good one.

Some people have a tendency to subtly instigate flames. And they have been doing so since they came on DU. Of course they will tell you they are a centrist trying to have an honest debate. :eyes:


Salin, I appreciate your concise and correct description of the behavior.

[w4rma]

15. Dean was Lt. Gov and doctor. Gov. died. Dean became Gov (full-time)..

Dean went on to win 5 terms as governor of Vermont. He's never lost a race, although in his most recent race he barely won a majority. Under the Vermont Constitution, if no candidate in the races for governor, lieutenant governor or treasurer wins a majority of the vote, the Legislature decides the outcome. Typically, the Legislature just affirms the results of the popular vote and elects the person who got the most support. On occasion, however, the Legislature has not elected the general election winner.

It's was still a landslide win for Gov. Dean, though. The Republican opponent took about 40%. The Progressive Party opponent took about 10%.

[madaboutharry]

16. Any doctor or relative

of a doctor knows that the medical profession now has a very high level of dissatisfaction. Physicans are retiring early if they can. Many who can not are not too happy these days. This is a non-issue.

[Padraig18]

28. Simple answer

He succeeded to the Governor's office when the then-Governor died, and simply didn't have the time to continue practicing, as he still had when he was Lt. Governor. :)

Pardon my prickly/thin-skinned brethren; some of us are a bit 'gun shy' at this point. Hehehe...

[KaraokeKarlton]

45. He was practicing throughout his political career, until...

Snelling died of a heart attack while cleaning his pool. Dean practiced while in the state legislature and while he was Lieutenant Governor. In fact, he was in the middle of examining a patient when he learned that Snelling had died. He finished up the exam and went to Montpelier to be sworn in. That was when he stopped practicing medicine. I'm thinking he really probably didn't intend for things to happen that way, and perhaps he intended on continuing medicine while dabbling in politics part time. Fate took over and gave him no other choice. There you have it...

[UnapologeticLiberal]

52. Do you remember when that happened?

Were you in Vermont at the time, and do you remember when Snelling died and Dean became governor?

One more bat to go!

[UnapologeticLiberal]

51. Because he became governor

He continued to practice medicine while serving as lieutenant governor, which in Vermont is a part time position. One day, he was examining a patient when someone called and told him that Governor Snelling had died. So Dean finished the physical, figuring he would not be able to see the patient again for a while, and then drove down to Montpelier and was sworn in as governor. Being governor is a full time job, so he could not continue to practice medicine.

Who knows? Maybe if he does not get the nomination he will practice medicine again.

One more bat to go!