Dean calling for more regulation

[Ksec]

I was big on Clark but this has won me over .

[ramapo]

1. Of?

Regulating what?

[Ksec]

4. all corporations.

They took my job to China, they have been part of the biggest corporate rip off in history, they own media and use their power to push their agenda. They all need it.

Saw it on Dobbs.

[SahaleArm]

49. Anybody actually read what he said?

In an interview around midnight Monday on his campaign plane with a small group of reporters, Dean listed likely targets for what he dubbed as his “re-regulation” campaign: utilities, large media companies and any business that offers stock options. Dean did not rule out “re-regulating” the telecommunications industry, too.

The telecom industry is moving to wireless and internet phoning so I'm not sure what Dean plans to do there. It's a pretty broad brush which could mean anything from expensing stock options to full government control. He certainly left himself lots of wiggle room. The rhetoric seems to be working though, just look at this thread:).

[Rose Siding]

72. .

my error

[THUNDER HANDS]

2. boy,

didn't take much, did it? :D

[xultar]

3. Now that proves it, Dean is GOOD!

[chimpymustgo]

5. Too much deep thinking here...LOL

nt

[Ksec]

7. why complicate?

Its a big enough issue to sway me over to his side.

[blm]

16. It's also a 180 from the way he governed in Vermont.

Here's high praise from the CATO Institute for Dean's deregulating ways:

The Appeal of Howard Dean
From the September 15, 2003 issue: Why he could be Bush's more dangerous opponent.
by Stephen Moore
09/15/2003, Volume 009, Issue 01

SEVERAL YEARS AGO an obscure Democratic governor from the politically inconsequential state of Vermont was the guest speaker at a Cato Institute lunch. His name was Howard Dean. He had been awarded one of the highest grades among all Democrats (and a better grade than at least half of the Republicans) in the annual Cato Fiscal Report Card on the Governors. We were curious about his views because we had heard that he harbored political ambitions beyond the governorship.

Dean charmed nearly everyone in the boardroom. He came across as erudite, policy savvy, and, believe it or not, a friend of free markets--at least by the standards of the Tom Daschle-Dick Gephardt axis of the Democratic party. Even when challenged on issues like environmentalism, where he favored a large centralized mass of intrusive regulations, Dean remained affable.
"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.

He left--and I will never forget the nearly hypnotic reaction. The charismatic doctor had made believers of several hardened cynics. Nearly everyone agreed that we had finally found a Democrat we could work with. Since then, I've watched Dean's career with more than a little interest and we chat from time to time on the phone.
>>>>>>>
But he weathered the storm. Dean is nothing if not a survivor--as well as an iconoclast. Even as he pursued wild-eyed social experiments, Dean carefully nurtured a reputation as a "business-friendly" governor. On numerous occasions he pragmatically swept aside onerous environmental regulations and last-use restrictions (this is the greenest state of all) to make room for business expansion and jobs, jobs, jobs. He supported electricity deregulation to take monopolistic pricing power away from big utilities. He even launched one of the nation's most progressive voucher programs for high school students.
>>>>>>>

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp 

[Zynx]

20. Oh big bad behemoth Vermont corporations.

I'm so scared of Vermont Milk&Cheese, and Mom&Pop's maple syrup companies coming after me.

[blm]

27. He pushed to deregulate electricity.

Thankfully, the legislature wouldn't budge.

Do you know Dean as well as you think?

[Zynx]

63. Yes I do.

I heard of the energy deregulation thing, but that doesn't bother me. I used to support it. I turned that opinion around in 2000-2001. Many people have been let down by the corporate sector.

[Skwmom]

41. Remember during the 2000 election when people

argued that the Republicans were only focusing on what Bush said, not his record. It seems like the Democrats have the same problem.

[blm]

44. They ignore Dean's record the same way moderates ignored Bush's.

Amazing. The same people who were disgusted by the failure of so many to scrutinize Bush's record of far right conservatism in Texas and dismayed at those who believed Bush to be a moderate Republican, and they'll buy into every word that Dean says on the campaign trail.

No scrutiny of his record will go unpunished here at DU.

[zeemike]

46. And it is also180

From every other politician in this country. To me that says it all, he is not your standard politician that is lusting for the corporate donation. And if he had a change of heart so what, didn’t even Clark (from voting repug) and we said that it was good.

[blm]

50. Baloney. He was a corporatist his entire tenure as governor.

This is electioneering by someone who can't stand on his core principles. He has altered almost every one of his former stands, and some of them drastically, like this one.

[zeemike]

53. But that is my point

If he did as you say and has changed then we should celebrate the change not deride it
Just like Clark changed from the repugs to the demos was a good thing, it is even more righteous to change a fundamental policy that pervaded politics all these years.

[AP]

60. Should we celebrate when he changes right back to being a privatizing de-

regulator if he gets elected?

He's already laid down the groundwork. Any change in position is a commendable reassessment based on new facts. Do you think he's going to retire that mantra if he gets elected? Probably not.

[blm]

68. What about BELIEVE IT? He's changed on so many issues

this year that his core principles are suspect.

[Kahuna]

97. Amen.

nt

[ozone_man]

69. You have enlightened reasoning,

Dean can change to be even better, how about that?

I have to think that he learned alot as governor about the perils of deregulation. It didn't go anywhere, since he was rebuffed by the legislature.

But, at this point in time, especially nationally, there is great need for regulation and Dean knows this.

[TorchTheWitch]

96. uh.... who's "we"?

Yes, some Dean supporters were forgiving of Clark voting Republican for the last time like 2 decades ago, but pardon me, there's plenty that still use that information to declare he's a repug plant... right here in this thread even.

Now, I can't say that I have a problem with someone voting Republican for the last time that far back in the past, particularly seeing as (to my everlasting shame) if I hadn't been sick in bed with the flu on election night, 2000, I would have probably voted for Bush (that mean I'll be declared a freeper and banned post haste?... I must have a real mammoth pair of shiny steel balls to dare to admit such a thing here, eh?).

What I have a great deal of trouble understanding among the Dean supporters here is that not a one has so much as raised an eyebrow at the fact that Dean did support deregulation as recently as TWO MONTHS ago according to the previously posted article...

<snip>
The Appeal of Howard Dean
From the September 15, 2003 issue: Why he could be Bush's more dangerous opponent.
by Stephen Moore
09/15/2003, Volume 009, Issue 01

...

Dean charmed nearly everyone in the boardroom. He came across as erudite, policy savvy, and, believe it or not, a friend of free markets--at least by the standards of the Tom Daschle-Dick Gephardt axis of the Democratic party. Even when challenged on issues like environmentalism, where he favored a large centralized mass of intrusive regulations, Dean remained affable.
"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.

<snip>

Not ONE Dean supporter has the slightest urge to ask him what caused this sudden 180 degree turn or even finds it worthy of note?

This Pied Piper absolute blind following of any candidate is just bizarre... and frightening. If you can't look at your candidate of choice with even the slightest bit of objectivity, how does that make you any different then a freeper? The whole reason they're scorned is because they have that leaming mentality no matter what. I'm often seeing a lot of the same freeper leaming logic applied here by Dem candidate supporters about their candidate of choice, and it's just unbelievably alarming. Yes, I've seen this here among supporters of a few candidates, but overwhelmingly among the Dean supporters. Please realize you aren't helpful to the party or your candidate of choice while wearing the tri-color extinct hamster-like rodent suit... the same suit that we point and laugh about when worn by a Bush supporter.

[Cha]

8. It's all personal! Wait until some more of the repukes

start losing their jobs to China. And then more jobs are lost and they see how we are losing our Country to the corporations.

[dsc]

6. a link here would have been nice

I am not even totally sure what you are talking about.

[Ksec]

10. It was on Moneyline and they called it a BOLD move

[blm]

30. And Brownstein said Dean softened it with reporters afterwards.

Also said that dean has had to do that throughout the campaign, he says something that sounds bold and then backs off a bit later with reporters.

[burrowowl]

9. Re-regulating

the neo-liberal Capitalists.
Damn straight there should be a re-regulating of the M#%#%&F%(#$*%&s.
Scraping of NAFTA, review of the WTO, etc.
(For the uninformed, Google neo-liberal, laissez-faire and see how liberal might be a good thing, but not neo-liberal.)

[xultar]

15. Didn't Clinton spear head NAFTA

[SahaleArm]

43. Didn't you know Clinton was a neo-con liberal facist?

:wtf: blah blah blah...

[Zynx]

11. Here is the link:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/995462.asp?0cv=CB10

Go Dean! Its about time somebody stood up to these guys.

[Ksec]

13. Thank you Zynx

[Zynx]

14. Anything I can do to help.

[sfecap]

12. Lou Dobbs Poll: 86% Say yes....

Once again, Howard Dean is in touch with the people!

[Cha]

19. Yeah!

http://www.msnbc.com/news/995462.asp?0cv=CB10

"Dean also continued his clear break from Clinton’s “New Democrat” philosophy of trying to appease both business and workers with centrist policies. Earlier in the campaign, Dean reversed his prior support for Clinton’s free-trade agreements with Mexico, Canada and China."


"He also said a Dean administration would mandate new workers’ standards, a much broader right to unionize and new “transparency” requirements for corporations that go beyond the recently enacted Oxley-Sarbanes law"

[ozone_man]

83. Dean has his finger on the pulse.

If he keeps on listening to people, he will surely win. The people have the power.

[Ksec]

17. I see this as his defining moment

it further separates him from Clark and the rest. They all criticized this move.

[Closer]

18. Trippi responds to Lieberman and Clark attacks

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 19, 2003

Contact: Dean for America Press Office [phone]

Campaign Manager Joe Trippi Responds to Clark, Lieberman Attacks

BURLINGTON - "Under the Bush Administration, the balance of power has
shifted away from the American people and toward the special interests
and large multinational corporations. When energy corporations write our
laws in the Vice President's office and media monopolies run roughshod
over consumers, not only do people suffer, but so does the innovative
spirit which has made our economy the envy of the world.

"Governor Dean has traveled the country and has heard time and again a
mistrust and concern about the power of large corporations over our
democracy and our markets. He believes we need a public dialogue to
ensure that our system works for consumers, workers and investors - not
simply to line the pockets of the special interests.

"If Dean's democratic opponents aren't concerned with protecting
consumers, investors, workers and the average American, then they are truly
out of touch."

[Cha]

21. Purrfect!

Like the man said..."Howard Dean is in touch with the People."

[Bertrand]

24. What Clark Attacks?

specify.

[Ksec]

25. Clark questioned his move away from the Clinton Nineties of free reign

I think we have gone too far. This ship needs turned . The country cant take much more of this corporate whorism

[SahaleArm]

57. So make Spitzer AG and enforce existing legislation.

If no one enforces laws then they might as well not exist (Ashcroft). If you read what Dean said carefully, you'll realize the amount of wiggle room he has.

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. Must have missed it somehow

What attacks is Trippi responding to exactly? "Attacks" from Lieberman and Clark are mentioned in the title line, but all I see is a veiled attack on all the other Democcrats...

"If Dean's democratic opponents aren't concerned with protecting consumers, investors, workers and the average American, then they are truly out of touch."

...which implies that all the other Democrats oppose protecting consumers, investors, workers, and the average American, or at the very least, aren't concerned about them. I'm sorry but this "defense" almost smacks of red baiting (figuratively, not literally). In the guise of defending himself against some unspecified charge Dean is making a sweeping insinuation that all the other Democrats, in general, and I suppose Lieberman and Clark in specific, are either "out of touch" or against the interests of the average American. That's painting with a pretty broad brush. I guess all the other Democrates are Republican "fellow travellers".

I agree with the anti Bush sentiments expressed in the first paragraph. Nice rhetoric and I believe Dean is sincere about it. I resent however that Trippi as a lead in talks about attacks on Dean from Lieberman (who I don't care for but fair is fair) and Clark. The natural assumption is that those gentlemen somehow are blasting Dean for being upset that Cheney writes energy laws, or some such non sense. I suspect the more subtle sub text might be to lump Clark together with Lieberman, who is unpopular with progressive democrats, as a way of dinging Clark. This appears to be a misleading press release that supposedly is defending against some unamed "attacks" but only promotes Dean as caring about workers and consumers and all that is wonderful about America (after throwing aa sucker punch). Geeze. Defending against an attack is fair enough, but you have to at least reference the specific attack and rebut it specifically. Otherwise it is just a campaign speech packaged inside a smeer.

Could some Dean supporter please explain what is going on here before I get more upset than I already am?

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. OK I found it

So the PR no longer seems so way out of left field, but it still goes overboard in blasting other Democrats as uncaring etc. etc. It would be fair to point out they are wrong, if that is what Dean thinks. But this is a policy debate about how the interests of the average American will be better served, Clark likened his position to the Clinton Administrations, not Bush's. Over the top Dean. That's a reason why backers of other candidates get upset with the Dean campaign, it creates bad blood where there needn't be any. Go ahead and have the policy debate but stop making other Democrats out to be Cheney's allies.

[Julien Sorel]

39. Remember, it's them against the world. Dean has been treading

water, while Clark's been getting good traction, so Dean needs some populist fireworks and a good Emmanual Goldstein or two to keep the faithful in line. When one isn't around, invent it (a few days ago it was the specter of Hillary running), and the more hysterical and divisive the rhetoric, the better. Seriously, think of a cult, think of how cults keep their members fired up, and look for those patterns when analyzing the Dean campaign.

[Upfront]

89. Sorry

but you are full of it. lol

[Skwmom]

42. Yeah I'm sure that Clark thinks the corporations

should write our laws.

[Renew Deal]

58. This says nothing.

It is a bunch of broad statements. It doesn't say what he's going to do about anything.

[AP]

22. The devil's in the details. What does HoHo think is a "regulation"?

Does anyone have any clues as to what he's talking about?

Gotta say, I wasn't too impressed with his education plan. Details. They make a difference.

[SahaleArm]

67. Even Dean doesn't know what he means.

Until he comes out with a concrete plan it's just rhetoric. Seems to be effective on this thread.

[mzmolly]

23. Dean listens to his supporters....

This is proof. I find one more reason to support him every day!

GO DEAN :toast:

[blm]

29. Then that begs the question, what are his CORE principles?

If he pushed for deregulation in Vermont, and especially electricity, boasted about his efforts on deregulation to the CATO Institute, what are his CORE principles in this area?

[madfloridian]

32. I think you just don't like him.

No matter what he said or believed. You just don't like him. It is very clear.

[chimpymustgo]

37. Another "election-bed" conversion from Howard Dean.

Has he no shame...

[blm]

47. I don't TRUST him, mf. You found that you can.

I find that I cannot. His election year conversions to populism make me distrust him more.

I trusted him more when he was more honest about his conservative centrism. At least he was being himself. Now, it seems he's prepared to say and do anything to make himself into a populist crusader. I don't believe he's being sincere so why should I reward him with a trust I don't feel?

[AP]

61. Furthermore, this is about policy, not personality.

Notice that this is a mantra used by Bush fans: stop complaining about his policies -- you just don't like the man personally.

[Ksec]

64. people change

Ya cant deny that. When they do you think trust in them must go?

[DemBones DemBones]

54. I think you just like him and don't care what his policies or

principles are. Lots of people operate that way, look at those who think Bush seems to be a "nice guy." I care more about what a candidate is for, what he believes, what he proposes to do and how -- and that he's consistent in his statements.

[AP]

62. Well said.

[Julien Sorel]

26. Check out Clark's issues pages.

He also calls for reform of corporate regulation. Kerry and Edwards also touch on the subject; in fact, Edwards has a whole section on it in his economic plan, including the problems with stock options Dean seems to discuss in this interview, going beyond Sarbanes-Oxley. This is a whole lot of puff over a subject that has been worked over already; perhaps more was said in this discussion than was discussed in the Post piece.

[madfloridian]

34. You need to read the USA article.

In the other thread.

[Julien Sorel]

48. Thanks. After reading it, I think we have the first

substantive issue disagreement in the campaign among major contenders outside the war -- assuming, of course, Dean isn't just mouthing rhetoric. His entire career, and all his rhetoric until this campaign, argue against this position. I'm curious to see if he fills this out with some details, or if it's going to be empty rhetoric. Of course, Dean has the luxury of taking whatever postion he wants now, knowing that it won't pass Congress anyway, a tactic he used in Vermont all the time. The problem with crapping on your credibility is that the stink doesn't go away for a long time.

For the record, I'm extremely suspicious about a candidate who is for more government regulation when they don't explain how they will do it.

[SahaleArm]

52. It's rhetoric - He's leaving himself lots of wiggle room.

What he really wants his expensing of stock options (FASB already proposes this), a half commitment to removing right-to-work, and a possiblity re-regulation or not.

[Ksec]

28. This is THE MAIN ISSUE in this campaign

To me this is it. No other issue can be more important than job exporting and corps running media.

[ozone_man]

74. You nailed it, corporate exporting of jobs is the biggest issue.

The country is being ransacked by corporations, a jobless recovery is not a recovery, and that will soon become apparent.

[madfloridian]

31. I am impressed with this.

:hi:

[frank frankly]

35. this is proof that his campaign is listening to the public

the Democrats are mostly out of touch. they don't get it.

NAFTA and deregualtion were 2 of Clinton's failures. it is good to seperate from them.

i applaud his statement. we have now seen the effects of our current trade policy and it must be changed. perhaps, like me, Dean has seen firsthand what happens without regulations.

great move, Dr. Dean!

[Ksec]

38. not one business has done well with Dereg

remember when Cable prices were supposed to come down, and electric would be cheaper, on and on. Dereg is a crock and all it does is give them licenses to steal from us.

[Julien Sorel]

56. Deregulation is about the customer, not just businesses.

I don't know how old you are, but I know how much cheaper phone service is now compared to what it was prior to de-regulation, especially long distance service. Competition fostered by a deregulatory environment drove prices into the ground. That's why I want to see details of Dean's plan -- until I do, I will remain highly suspicious, because Dean is bright enough to understand the benefits, as well as the costs, of deregulation. I suspect this is really empty rhetoric.

[Zynx]

65. The telecommunications industry has collapsed from Deregulation.

And it has caused the loss of hundreds of billions in wealth and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Smooth move.

[SahaleArm]

78. Global Crossing and Worldcom

collapsed becuase of mismanagement and accounting fraud. Land lines, outside of digital traffic is dead. There's no market as people all have cell phones or will move to cell-phone only solutions. Are you arguing financial deregulation or telecom deregulation?

[Zynx]

79. It wasn't just them. That is a narrow minded statement.

The industry in general from the Bells to the lower level fiber optics companies have either gone under in the case of the ladder or laid off hundreds of thousands of workers when you combine the Bells. That's not to mention the hundreds of billions of wealth that was destroyed.

Both sectors of what you mentioned need heavier regulation.

[SahaleArm]

80. Telecom over-supply.

Nothing to do with telecom deregulation. Can you not get the services you want at a reasonable rate (local phones are regulated)? The only part I don't like is local phone and cable monopolies. I currently have choice for cell phone providers, long distance providers, and internet-service providers.

[Zynx]

82. The oversupply came from the deregulation.

Everybody credited deregulation for all the new start ups and expansions a the time. There's a reason that the kind of companies that later collapsed took off after that Telecommunications bill around 1997. This was a direct result of deregulation. However, when the telecom start up bubble burst, everyone on Wall Street seemed to blame that on other factors. The same thing happened when railroads were unregulated back in the 1800s and banks were unregulated during the same period of time.

If anyone wants a good argument against deregulation, look at the completely unregulated economy of the 1800s and early 1900s. Do we really want to return to that?

[slinkerwink]

84. for sure, I don't want a return to that

[SahaleArm]

86. Return to what, the 1990's or 1890's?

:shrug:

[SahaleArm]

85. With regulation they would still have existed and died

New startups were created to meet demand of the internet and digital traffic from cell phones. The problem is that it never materialized because dot-coms died out leaving companies with lots of supply, reduced demand, and heavy debt. That's life of building a business and the only way to prevent that would be to have the state run the telecom industry. By early 1900's, are you referring to the years where TRex was busy busting up Standard oil and other monopolies?

[Julien Sorel]

90. a couple of things.

Last things first:

If anyone wants a good argument against deregulation, look at the completely unregulated economy of the 1800s and early 1900s. Do we really want to return to that?

Who said the option was no regulation? Nobody is for that except libertarians. Easy to beat an argument you set up yourself.

We have lots of regulation already in our economic system; as a general rule, I'm for as little regulation as we can get away with, but not eliminating it entirely, which would eventually lead to disaster. But since you're comparing eras, I notice a giant economic boom that started in about 1984 and lasted for nigh 18 years, as first Reagan, and then Clinton, began selectively deregulating businesses. That's a pretty nice record. Competition builds stronger companies, reduces prices for consumers, and ensures the most efficient allocation and use of capital. Are things out of hand now? In the wake of Enron and WorldCom, one would think so, but there are laws in place that cover what happened in those cases, and stricter laws and enforcement of existing laws have been instituted since. Before we go and gum up the system with potentially more regulation, or even propose it (which has been an election-loser since Reagan), I want to see some evidence that what we've done hasn't been enough.

Everybody credited deregulation for all the new start ups and expansions a the time. There's a reason that the kind of companies that later collapsed took off after that Telecommunications bill around 1997. This was a direct result of deregulation. However, when the telecom start up bubble burst, everyone on Wall Street seemed to blame that on other factors. The same thing happened when railroads were unregulated back in the 1800s and banks were unregulated during the same period of time.

This is vague rhetoric and post-hoc reasoning at work: the collapse of WorldCom was due to accounting fraud, not the Telecommunications Act (1996, not 1997, a minor thing). When companies compete, of course some of them are going to fail -- but others will succeed, and they employ people. This is rather basic econonomics, by the way: you complain about some of these companies going out of business (although they are unnamed), but forget that they wouldn't have existed to employ people in the first place had it not been for the Telcom Act.

As I implied earlier, there might be room for some very intelligent regulatory tinkering, but I want to see what it is before passing judgment on it. For Dean to drop a bomb like this when he obviously lacks any detailed proposals for folks to examine is simply more pandering to the left on his part.

[sandnsea]

92. Aw damn, there's that thinking stuff again

SEC and banking deregulations, that was probably more responsible for the problems than anything.

I agree, the Telecommunications Act did alot of good. Just like tax investments in certain industries are necessary to stimulate growth, but once they're established, those tax incentives become pork.

I throw up my hands in despair.

[CWebster]

73. You just don't care for Democrats

You prefer Republicans who masquerade as Democrats. If Clark had his first choice as running as a Republican and he ran against Dean? Let me guess how you would vote.

Being a Democrat is not an entirely arbitrary position. There is a difference, or there is supposed to be, and there should be.

Some can be coached to assume all the poll-tested party positions, but when they slip-up it is glaringly obvious.

We do not need the Democratic party to echo Republican party priorities anymore. There is a line.

[Julien Sorel]

93. Really?

Which 'Republicans who masquerade as Democrats' are those? And I find myself asking this question of Deanites again and again, but never get an answer: just who are you to tell me what a Democrat is, and what types of candidates I prefer?

The truth is, you make exactly two kinds of posts: ones where you parrot whatever is Deanite propaganda du jour, and attacks on people who point out the ridiculous inconsistencies, dishonesty, and hypocrisy inherent in many of Dean's positions and speeches. You never have an intelligent argument to make, and in fact, I've honestly never seen a post out of you that a 12 year old couldn't write. Screw up your brain power, think for a couple of minutes, and make a real post. Who knows, it might be your first step on the road to thinking for yourself.

[Armstead]

40. If Dean walks this talk I say Bravo

The main overwhelming FAILURE of the Democratic Party in the last 15 years has been their corporate whoring -- otehrwise known as jumping on board the Republican deregulation and privatization bandwagon.

It has sold this nation to the corporations, and left the majority of the population high and dry with no protection from the sharks.

These trends were the downside of the 1990's -- and it's why the Clinton economy fell on its ass so hard and so far in 2000/2001. And why workers today are getting screwed, Big media is so fascistic and why life in general is so fucked.

It's also why liberalism is dying. Because without the principle at its core, people see no reason to support it.

[Bertrand]

45. I disagree

the democratic failure or the last 15 years hasnt been because of "corporate whoring" but because they've been on the receiving end of the conservative cultural backlash to the liberal movement of the 60s and 70s. If progressivism wants to win again, it needs to do it through culture, and the politicians will follow.

[poskonig]

51. This may do it for me too.

I was waffling between Dean, Kerry, and Clark for sometime. Kerry's ridiculous Leno performance has confused me, and Clark's attacks on regulation are consistent with other free-trade comments he has made in the past.

Dean's not perfect, but he may be the best we have.

I now shall put back the Dean avatar. :p

[RevolutionStartsNow]

55. Damn that avatar looks good on you!

:)

[Ksec]

59. I dont want to waffle

but I was really looking seriously at Clark . When Dean spoke about dereging he spoke directly to me. Its something that needs done, corps without gov regulation are corrupt corps.

[Renew Deal]

66. It is a total generalization.

I still don;t see anything specific that Dean will do. Is it on his website?

[Ksec]

70. heres part of an article in USA Today that explains it a bit.

Dean, the former Vermont governor, said Tuesday that if elected president, he would move to re-regulate business sectors such as utilities and media companies to restore faith after corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom.

Responding to Clark's criticism, Dean spokeswoman Tricia Enright said Wednesday, "Under the Bush administration, the balance of power has shifted against the American people and toward greedy pharmaceutical companies, powerful energy corporations and media monopolies. If Democrats are not concerned with protecting consumers, workers and the average American, then they are truly out of touch."

Dean staked out a traditional Democratic position that was largely abandoned by Clinton and the new Democrats, who tried to build a coalition of labor and business in the 1990s. While appealing to the liberal base that he energized with his war opposition and support for civil unions for gays, Dean opened himself to criticism of class warfare from Republican and Democratic rivals.

[slinkerwink]

77. well.....it's really republicans that are waging

class warfare on US

[slinkerwink]

71. My aunt was let down by Enron and that's why regulation is

an important issue to me----my grandparents lost $30,000 in stock funds from the Enron debacle. I'm behind Dean all the way on this issue and many others.

[slinkerwink]

75. btw, welcome on board

Sometimes there are just issues that you have to go with a candidate on.....and regulation and disability rights are a few of them for me.

[Ksec]

76. Thanks and this issue is key in my mind

I honestly cant see any other issue that even comes close. Jobs goin byby , media becoming corporations mouthpiece, corruption in the boardrooms, wages going south, benefits becoming a thing of the past. What else could be more important?

[slinkerwink]

81. you're right...this is important

[RetroLounge]

87. Another reason Dean's message resonates.

bush* and his klan have dereg'd us even more in the past 3 years.

Can someone on the 'other' side of this issue explain to me how Dregulation has benefitted anyone?

Telecom? Energy?

Instead, all I see is attacks on Dean himself.

At least your candidate disagreed with the policy, and didn't attack Dean personally. Maybe you should emulate Clark more. Hmmm?

[slinkerwink]

88. I agree......

I can't wait for this deregulation issue to come up in the debate next week.

*rubs hands*

[Upfront]

91. Dean Gets It

With Bush acting President, class warfare is what you have. Bring it on, and Dean is the man to explain it in stright, blunt, no bull, terms that every American will understand. He is right again. Clark seems to be another Bush** lite.

[AP]

94. He gets that he's going to have to hide his fiscal conservativism if he...

...doesn't want to lose his liberal followers.

[slinkerwink]

95. I effing know his fiscal conservatism...

:nuke: :eyes: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: