A number of times.
While it was inporttant to be considered the Anti-War candidate, he said one thing, but as ity was becoming apparent that most Americans supported the war, Dean had to shift his stance and make statements like this:
Salon: On the campaign trail with the un-Bush
Salon (possibly in its death throes) pulls out a terrific profile of Howard Dean, the horse I'm backing for the Democratic nomination.
I have been concerned about his foreign policy stance. He's distinguished himself as the most anti-war candidate extant. But let's see how he says he would do it:
"
s I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.
Easy to say at this late date, but imagine if we'd gone to the UN in September with a timetable, backed with a clear threat of unilateral action. I think things would have gone rather differently.
Posted by howard at February 20, 2003 11:45 PM
http://www.howardsmusings.com/2003/02/20/salon_on_the_campaign_trail_with_the_unbush.htmlThough it comes from National Review, a conservative journal founded by William F. Buckley, and noted for its intellectual honesty due o Buckleys influence this is a list of Deans changes in his statements on the war in Iraq by Dean over a mere four day period:
What's up with Howard Dean?
Let me start by saying that I would not be criticizing Dean if he had not publicly criticized John Edwards and other Democratic candidates by name. However, given that he's started it, I think we need to drive Dean out of the primaries by showing him that the game goes both way. If you can give it, you can take it.
It seems I'm not the only one who's starting to wonder what Howard Dean is thinking. First he starts right off negative campaigning against the other Democratic candidates, something the rest have tried hard to avoid. Then he keeps shifting his own positions on issues depending on who he's talking to, and at the same time publicly accuses other candidates of doing the same thing, when they are not. He later apologizes for these accusations, admitting he did not actually hear what they said, and was merely speculating what he thought they might say. Then he keeps right on accusing them of the same thing.
I would not normally cite the National Review, as they are definitely not known for fair and balanced reporting, but Jim Geraghty has the most complete list of Dean's recent statements on Iraq, and why some describe him as incoherent:
On January 31, Dean told Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without U.N. authorization."
And then on Feb. 20, Dean told Salon.com that "if the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."
But a day later, he told the Associated Press that he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approves the move and backs it with action of its own. "They have to send troops," he said.
Four days later on PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Dean said United Nations authorization was a prerequisite for war. "We need to respect the legal rights that are involved here," Dean said. "Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them."
One Democrat, who is already supporting another candidate, is baffled that Dean is attempting to earn a reputation for principled views, labeling the former governor as "incoherent."
"Here's a guy posing as a McCainiac, but talking out of both sides of his mouth," the Democrat said.
http://www.topdog04.com/000071.htmlThe real problem with Dean is that he is beginning to finally appear to the media to be the political opportunist that most people in Vermont know he is:
Vermonters have been know to chuckle at the presentation of Dean in the media as a liberal for months and months but they also refer to being used to Dean playing that way:
Many back in Vermont have shrugged their shoulders as they’ve watched Dean allow himself to be cast as a liberal. They know it’s not the first time politicians have miscalculated his political leanings.
Dean served in the Vermont House for four years and was in the midst of his third term as lieutenant governor in 1991 when the incumbent governor, a Republican, died.
The state was in a fiscal crisis at the time, working its way out of the biggest budget deficit in its history. Then-Gov. Richard Snelling had pushed a series of temporary tax increases and budget cuts through the Legislature and Dean took up that austerity plan as his own.
To the anger of more liberal members of his own party, he insisted that the tax increases be rolled back on schedule and then went on to work for additional tax cuts later in his tenure.
http://premium1.fosters.com/2003/news/may%5F03/may%5F19/news/reg%5Fvt0519a.aspState residents see a new Dean in presidential race
Auditor: He was a moderate as governor
By ELIZABETH MEHREN and MARK Z. BARABAK
Los Angeles Times
SOUTH BURLINGTON, Vt. - As Vermont governor, Howard Dean was known as a buttoned-down and bottom-line chief executive. He fought higher taxes, cut programs over the cries of fellow Democrats and often sided with business when the choice was jobs versus the environment.
Which explains why many people back home scarcely recognize Howard Dean the presidential candidate, who has stirred liberals across the country with his blunt talk and passionate antiwar speeches.
"A lot of us laugh and say, 'Howard, we hardly knew you,' " said Elizabeth Ready, the state auditor and a liberal Democrat. Added Bob Sherman, a Democratic lobbyist, "The Howard Dean I see running for president is a lot different than the Howard Dean who . . . governed Vermont. He was a moderate."
http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/recent2003/0713%5Fdeanvermont%5F2003.shtmlHoward Dean: the Progressive Anti-War Candidate?
Some Vermonters Give Their Views
By DONNA BISTER, MARC ESTRIN
and RON JACOBS
Howard Dean the liberal, anti-war candidate? The laughter rings most loudly in Vermont.
As Dean's candidacy caught fire over the summer, a number of articles have appeared on the net examining his history and current stance on important national and international issues. They all point to a Clintonesque Republicrat whose stances are not far from that of the current administration....
I know that a lot of you are going to vote for Dean -- he talks a good game; he can be charismatic and charming. But I'm warning you. This man will tell you what you want to hear, or at least tell you something that has some little kernel of something that you can interpret as support for the things that are important to you. But when the time comes to stand up and lead on the issue, to take on the money interests and backsliders in his own party, that stiff little spine will turn into a slinky.
If you vote for him, it's your job to stand behind him with a poker and keep him headed in the right direction. Don't give him any honeymoon period, either--keep the pressure on from the second you drop that ballot in the box. The minute you relax, he's going to turn right back into what he really is...a privileged, arrogant, middle of the road republican. Put your political energy into getting some truly progressive folks into the House and Senate, and into State legislatures around the country so that there will be more pressure from more directions. We need to get together our sophisticated progressive thinkers to develop policy ideas in every area, so that we're ready with real, well-thought out counter-proposals for the incremental changes a Dean administration might put forth. If you feel you must, support Dean, do--but then go do the work necessary to make real change.
Ron Jacobs, Donna Bister and Marc Estrin comprise the OLD NORTH END RAG collective. The RAG is an agitational community newspaper serving the Old North End of Burlington, Vermont. This neighborhood is a primarily working class section of Vermonts largest city that has a history of political activism.
http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs08292003.htmlHe is champing at the bit to go after Dean at ths point, but must wait until other events occur, which will be unfloded until latre in this month or early October. That is what is behind Kerry's statements about the war in Iraq. The latest Ipsos/Cook polls show that most Americans swing voters support the war with Iraq, and now only fault Bush for the economy.
Ipsos/Cook Political Report Poll: Swing Voters For 2004 Presidential Election Believe Iraq Was Worth Fighting, But Doubt Bush’s Evidence About Weapons Of Mass Destruction And Doubt Bush’s Economic Plan
Democratic Presidential Candidates Succeed In Raising Doubts About U.S. Political Leadership
Category: US Public Opinion
Location: United States
© Ipsos-Reid
Public Release Date: July 28, 2003
Between July 8-10, 2003, and July 22-24, 2003, Ipsos-Public Affairs interviewed for the Cook Political Report a representative sample of 2,000 adult Americans nationwide, including 1,520 registered voters. The margin of error for the combined surveys is ± 2.2% for all adults, ± 2.5% for registered voters.
Washington, D.C. — In interviews with 1,520 registered voters conducted July 8-10, 2003, and July 22-24, 2003, the Ipsos-Public Affairs/Cook Political Report Poll finds the 2004 Presidential election taking shape as a key group of swing voters emerge. These swing voters:
Believe that the war with Iraq was worth fighting;
Believe the Bush Administration intentionally exaggerated its evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; and,
Are extremely negative about Bush’s handling of the economy and other domestic issues.
http://www.ipsos-reid.com/media/dsp_displaypr_us.cfm?id_to_view=1873The closer to the primaries that Dean can be hit with something really dirty, the more likely the public will be to remember it when they go into the voting booths.
So Kerry now must go back and keep repeating that Dean opposed the war in Iraq, and keep repeating it, and make it stick, that Dean originally opposed the war and that later coming out to try to modify that view was an after thought based on political opportunism...
You will hear Kerry repeat angrily, Dean was wrong to oppose the war, as most Americans being polled believe it was worth fighting and only
are bothered by the exageration on WMDs and the economy. What Kerry will begin to do is prevent Dean from trying to worm his way out of the ANTI-WAR candidate status he so eagerly sought to wear while the war protesters were out and swinging.
It is necessary to keep reminding people that Dean opposed the war, Dean opposed the war, to a bunch of people who beleive that the war should have been fought. This is a relatively large poll, with a very small margin of error.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(390 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
