Dean cribs a page from the G.W. Bush playbook

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Many were expecting fireworks at the WSJ-sponsored debate over Gephardt's attacks on Dean for his mid-nineties comments on Medicare, Social Security, and the 'Contract with America'. But seasoned political watchers may have experienced a sense of deja-vu.

GEPHARDT: Howard and I just have a basic disagreement. He said in, I think, 1993 that Medicare was the worst federal program ever. He said that it was the worst thing that ever happened.

He also supported, at our darkest hour--when I was leading the fight against Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America, he was shutting the government down--Howard, you were agreeing with the very plan that Newt Gingrich wanted to pass, which was a $270 billion cut in Medicare.

Now, you've been saying for many months that you're the head of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. I think you're just winging it.

This is not the view of Democrats, in my view.

This program has been under attack from the Republicans since the beginning. And we need a candidate against George Bush that can take the fight to him on it, not someone who agreed with the Gingrich Republicans.

WILLIAMS: Governor Dean?

DEAN: That is flat-out false, and I'm ashamed that you would compare me with Newt Gingrich. Nobody up here deserves to be compared to Newt Gingrich.

(APPLAUSE)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A433-2003Sep25.html

Note that Dean gets applause for his 'outrage' at being compared to Gingrich, without addressing the actual charge that he agreed with Gingrich something he admitted to George Stephanopoulos last week:

STEPHANOPOULOS: (Gephardt) also says that in 1995, you specifically supported the 270 billion dollars or so in tax cuts that were called for by Newt Gingrich --

DEAN: I think that's very unlikely.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here's the document…And it's pretty clear that you said you would accept a seven- to ten-percent cut in the rate of growth of Medicare, which is --

DEAN: Oh, a cutting the rate of growth is much different --

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, except that the cut in growth rate in 1995 came to 270 billion dollars.

DEAN: I've got to find out…but I fully subscribe to the notion which is to reduce the Medicare growth rate to ten percent or less, I'm sure I said that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's what Newt Gingrich was calling for in 1995.

MR. DEAN: Well, then, Newt Gingrich probably also called for a strong America and I believe in that, too.
http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/091403.htm#091603

Dean's handlers must have been scrambling to find a way to deflect the damage from this admission, and it looks like they found inspiration in the Bush 2000 campaign. It was the South Carolina primary, and Bush was facing a strong challenge from Arizona Senator McCain, who had taken the extraordinary step of pointing out the dishonesty and untrustworthiness of the former Texas governor:

All right, Governor, what do you make of all these past two weeks, the charges and countercharges? You go and then the senator.

BUSH: Well, it's kind of politics. And John and I shook hands and we said we weren't going to run ads and I kind of smiled my way through the early primaries and got defined. I'm not going to let it happen again. And we shook hands and unfortunately he ran and ad that equated me to Bill Clinton -- he questioned my trustworthiness.

KING: Are you saying he broke the agreement with you?

BUSH: Well, I'm just saying, you can disagree on issues, we'll debate issues, but whatever you do, don't equate my integrity and trustworthiness to Bill Clinton. That's about as low a blow as you can give in a Republican primary.

KING: And that's...

(APPLAUSE)
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/15/lkl.00.html

Bush's one liner and mock outrage -- totally avoided the core issue by making it seem that any questioning of his integrity was 'over the top' because it invoked the name of the Republican's arch-nemesis, Bill Clinton.

And the tactic seemed to work just as well for Dean in the debate yesterday.

[EagleEye]

1. Wow, a compliment for Dean? Have you lost your way?

Dean has addressed the issues. He has stated that back then everyone was looking for ways to balance the budget or at least get run away defecits under control. As he said, he has done more for health care than Gep could even hope to do.

[Karmadillo]

2. So when Dean said Gephardt's charge regarding the $270 billion cut

in Medicare was flat-out false, what exactly did he mean?

[Duder]

3. Perhaps this will help...

http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/092103.htm#092603

[deutsey]

9. Thanks for this link!

They do a good job (fair and balanced, even, and not in the Fox sense of that phrase) putting the issue in context.

I don't go to Liberal Oasis often enough...something I'll have to rectify.

[Karmadillo]

83. Thanks for the link. I don't think the article justifies Dean's assertion

Gephardt's charge was flat out false. While the article goes to some length to point out Dean disagreed with much of what Gingrich stood for, that wasn't the basis for Gephardt's comparison. As Kerry noted, Gephardt wasn't saying Dean was "like" Gingrich.

Gephardt was specifically referring to the $270 billion cut in Medicare that both Dean and Gingrich supported. That Dean supported the $270 billion cut contained in Domenici's bill and not the similar (identical?) $270 billion cut contained in Gingrich's bill is not a defense I'd personally want to try to make. I think the lawyers might be tempted to call that a distinction without a difference.

$270 billion is $270 billion and both Dean and Gingrich supported cutting Medicare by that much. While Gephardt was technically incorrect in saying Dean supported the "very plan" Gingrich supported, in the context of his charge, this is, at best, a trivial objection. It certainly isn't sufficient to support Dean's claim the charge was flat out false. According to the facts presented by Liberal Oasis, it appears, instead, to be true.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. He must've meant he was lying in the Stephanopoulos interview

or maybe he meant his position has 'evolved' in the week or so since then.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boxster]

5. Hell, I'm leaning Clark, but I feel like I have to defend Dean here.

What is this world coming to? I digress.

You have to look at this in the context of Howard Dean. He believes in balancing the budget, and he doesn't seem to have any fear whatsoever in making very unpopular decisions if he thinks it's the only way to do that.

I took this whole issue to mean that he believed that it was necessary to make the cuts in the larger scope of the budget issue. I could be way off.

Did he waffle a little? Probably. Does that mean he's Newt Gingrich. Certainly not.

Though, I can't completely give him a free ride, because the Contract with America was evil. :evilfrown:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. The point is he isn't being 'compared' to Gingrich -

Gep is just pointing out where Dean agrees with Gingrich. And Dean, as far as I know, is standing by his view on cutting the Medicare growth rate -- at least I haven't heard any backtracking from him on this, yet.

[indigo32]

11. He pointed out the fact that Gingrich was implying

he disliked Medicare. He stated clearly that what he disliked about it was the beauracracy. Having worked with it as a MD maybe he knows something of the frustration, and has some ideas of fixing it. Cutting the medicare growth rate isn't exactly Anti-Medicare.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. "Cutting the medicare growth rate isn't exactly Anti-Medicare."?

Really? Here's what some Democratic activists had to say about that argument at the time:

Medicaid/Medicare. How does one begin to understand the
rationale for the drastic cuts being proposed to both of these
programs? When Congressional members are confronted here in
Washington, they always come back with slick rhetorical
answers suggesting that these are not cuts, they're simply
slowing the growth rate. There is absolutely no way to
compute that 270 billion out of Medicare is not a cut/gut.
Beneficiaries will pay more out-of-pocket expenses, and most
likely will receive less benefits for their money.
Alert: Act During August Recess! Posted: Tue, 08 Aug 1995 19:59:09 GMT

[indigo32]

25. No it isn't

it's acknowledging an issue that exists, the rising cost of healthcare vs tax revenue.
BTW That statement offers no figures whatsoever for who would be paying more for what.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. Less money for Medicare, but it's not a cut.

Yes, that was the Republican rhetoric, all right.

[indigo32]

29. Cute

Where did I say anything like that?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. Just look back in the thread.

In post 11 you say:

"Cutting the medicare growth rate isn't exactly Anti-Medicare."

I respond in post 13 by pointing out that you are making the same argument the Republicans where making in 1995 and that we fought so hard against.

I disagree. I believe that cutting Medicare the way Gingrich and Dean wanted IS Anti-Medicare. I guess the opposite position would be that cutting Medicare is Pro-Medicare? Doesn't make much sense to me.

But splitting hairs about what words you or I use is just an attempt to deflect from the larger issue, that Dean sided with the Republicans on this in 1995 and he still affirms the same position today.

[indigo32]

35. in post 11

I DID address the issue... and you proceed to put words in my mouth and say I'm using repub arguement tactics (I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT IT NOT BEING A CUT). In post 30 I state that I won't dispute Deans stand on the issue. In post 11 I address some of Deans REASONS for that stance. But you ignore that fact and push forward that the arguement that if Repubs are in agreement for any reason at all its AWFUL. I don't consider that a valid arguement.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

44. As far as putting words in someone's mouth

if you are going to make that charge, rightly or wrongly, it might come across better if you didn't do just that same thing in the same paragraph.

I never said 'its AWFUL' to ever agree with Republicans.

What I have said, is that Dean borrowed a tactic from Bush to deflect Gephardt's pointing out his past statements and current positions. Dean did in fact hold that view and re-affirmed that it is still his view in the 'This Week' interview. Then in the debate he said:

"That is flat-out false, and I'm ashamed that you would compare me with Newt Gingrich. Nobody up here deserves to be compared to Newt Gingrich." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A433-2003Sep25.html

That's what happened. And that's what I've pointed out.

[indigo32]

48. And I maintain that

the whole "You agreed with Gingrich" and your whole "Dean borrowed a tactic from Bush" arguement is based trying to associate someone with a name that the audience is sure to dislike. Dean had the right to try discredit the association as being inflammatory the way he did. If Dick had wanted to talk about medicare he should have left the inflammatory language out of it. Now maybe he shouldn't have said "Thats flat out false", or maybe it could be interpreted as denying an agreement with where Gingrich was at at that point in time. Maybe he had his own reasons.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

51. He did agree with Gingrich, he did borrow a tactic from Bush

and if people find that unappealing, I think they are just being perceptive.

[indigo32]

53. like I said before

if Dick wanted to talk about Medicare he could have just talked about Medicare. His only intent was to inflame. If you're OK with that tactic. FINE. We'll just have to disagree.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

55. His intent was to inform the electorate about the real Howard Dean.

Dean certainly isn't going to do it.

[indigo32]

58. Whew

and here I was worried you wanted to talk about issues. it appears you want to smear character instead. The real Howard Dean indeed. Look I've got to go... so have at it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

60. Once again, the argument is that repeating Dean's own words is a smear.

[indigo32]

61. No, the arguement is

that comparing him with Gingrich and Bush is smear. (I know I said I was leaving and I am I swear) AND Dean had a right to defend himself against that smear.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

62. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't make repeating them a smear

ps: "(I know I said I was leaving and I am I swear) " I know exactly how you feel. These debates can get addictive. It's a wonder I get anything else done.

[ModerateMiddle]

93. You do have to admit

that Howard Dean REALLY REALLY believes that balancing the budget should be a HUGE priority, yes? I mean, he says it, his supporters say it, that's the way he was in Vermont - I can't imagine that it isn't true.

So. We have a 1/2 trillion dollar deficit on a 2.something trillion federal budget. WHERE is Dean going to cut, and HOW is he going to balance the budget?

By repealing ALL of the tax cuts, even those that the Dems fought for? According to Dean, repeatedly, the middle class didn't GET a tax cut, so reversing it sure isn't going to provide any money to reduce the deficit.

So- let's hear some details. WHAT is Dean going to cut to balance the budget? He said it's going to be painful and unpopular. Bully for him! HOW painful? What will he cut?

IMO, the best indicators of what Dean will cut to balance the budget are the very same things he advocating cutting when they were trying to balance the budget back in 1995.

What would YOU use as the yardstick of what Dean will cut?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

94. On whose back will Dean do his balancing act?

That is the question that this issue raises. And of course how Dean responds goes to the credibility and integrity issues that we keep having to look at with Dean.

[boxster]

17. I have to respectfully disagree.

I don't mean this as a bash on Gep, but I personally believe that the entire intention of that statement was:

Dean = Gingrich.

It was a common debate ploy and one that has been used over and over in previous debates.

The idea is that people hear the statement and their minds fixate on:

Dean = Gingrich

even though they may intellectually understand that this statement is pure bull. They "hear" nothing after D = G.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. Straw man alert!

What Gephardt said:

"He also supported, at our darkest hour--when I was leading the fight against Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America, he was shutting the government down--Howard, you were agreeing with the very plan that Newt Gingrich wanted to pass, which was a $270 billion cut in Medicare."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A433-2003Sep25.html

Here comes the straw man:

DEAN: That is flat-out false, and I'm ashamed that you would compare me with Newt Gingrich. Nobody up here deserves to be compared to Newt Gingrich.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A433-2003Sep25.html

But of course, as anyone who honestly reads these words can see, Gephardt did not 'compare' Dean to Gingrich at all. He just pointed out that Dean was in favor of the Gingrich plan to cut the Medicare growth rate, a fact which has been well documented here and not denied by the Dean campaign, and a position Dean re-affirmed in the Stephanopoulos interview last week.

As far as the statement "That is flat-out false" -- how can we characterize it except as a lie?

[indigo32]

37. Heh

that sounds a little bit like when GW says he never tied Saddam to 9/11

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. Yes

Dean saying: "That is flat-out false" is a pretty brazen lie considering how much evidence there is to the contrary.

[indigo32]

49. non sequiture

eom

[Feanorcurufinwe]

54. You'll have to elaborate if you want to get your point accross.

GEPHARDT: Howard and I just have a basic disagreement. He said in, I think, 1993 that Medicare was the worst federal program ever. He said that it was the worst thing that ever happened.

He also supported, at our darkest hour--when I was leading the fight against Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America, he was shutting the government down--Howard, you were agreeing with the very plan that Newt Gingrich wanted to pass, which was a $270 billion cut in Medicare.

<snip>

DEAN: That is flat-out false, and I'm ashamed that you would compare me with Newt Gingrich. Nobody up here deserves to be compared to Newt Gingrich.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A433-2003Sep25.html

Dean says Gephardt's statement is 'flat-out false' and I've shown references that back Gephardt up. And I assume that Dean knows his own history and positions. So I conclude that Dean lied when he said 'That is flat-out false'

Your response is simply to say 'non sequitur'.

Gee, I know what non sequitur means, but I don't see how it applies here. How does my conclusion, that Dean lied, not follow from the fact of him making a false statement about his own position?

[indigo32]

56. Well considering

That I was talking about your arguement against the fact that Gep was comparing Dean to Gingrich, and you reply with "Dean Lied" yet again (and again) I'd say your reply was pretty much off topic. But thats OK you just go ahead and say "DEAN LIED" again. I thought this particular vein of the thread was talking about something else.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

59. Read the transcript. Gephardt pointed out Dean's policy position

and noted that is was the same as Gingrich's.

Dean responded by saying "That is flat-out false, and I'm ashamed that you would compare me with Newt Gingrich. Nobody up here deserves to be compared to Newt Gingrich."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A433-2003Sep25.html

But in fact, the statements Gep made are not false. As is well documented in this thread and elsewhere.

Look, if what Dean really meant was something like "it would be great if we could reform Medicare, and rein in costs in such a way that it's growth rate slows" he's had ample opportunity to say so. But he hasn't.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boxster]

42. You're missing my point.

And, I'm not trying to bash Gep here. What I'm trying to get across is that what's in the transcript isn't what people remember. You're confusing the actual wording with what people really "hear".

The vast majority of people do not read transcripts. They do not listen to the exact wording of questions or responses. People hear soundbytes. They remember 2 or 3 word phrases.

In this case, what they heard was Gephardt telling Dean that he agreed with a plan that Newt Gingrich wanted to pass. What people "hear" and remember is Dean = Gingrich.

Look, you don't bring up Newt Gingrich unless your underlying plan is to compare the target to Newt. That's simple and not terribly hard to grasp here. Of course that's what Gep was trying to insinuate. Sure, he didn't say, "Dean is just another Newt" because he didn't have to. It's assumed that that's his intent.

It's a proven psychological tactic and it's used by Republicans on just about a daily basis. They mention Clinton in every conversation because they want the listener to assume that the target of their statement has the same morals as Clinton. They don't even have to bring up morals or Clinton's activities to make the point.

Want a perfect example of the theory that people remember what they want and not reality?

Gore invented the internet.

Did he ever say that? No.

Is that what people remembered? Damn right.

It's ALL they remember.

Edit: "As far as the statement "That is flat-out false" -- how can we characterize it except as a lie?"

Oh, please. Now, you're just being intentionally obtuse. It's human nature when someone flat-out denies something vehemently to assume that he/she is, in fact, guilty of whatever transgression he/she has been accused of.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

47. Your argument seems to be

that because many people have a hard time with critical thinking and analysis, that the actual words people use, what they say, doesn't matter -- I don't buy it.

"That is flat-out false" is what Dean said. However, as is well documented in this thread, what Gep said is true. And Dean knows it.

[boxster]

63. Read my post again

I guess I'll have to make it simple since spelling it out to you apparently didn't work.

Gephardt intentionally compared Dean to Newt. You don't believe that, but it's obvious to just about everyone else who has responded to you on this board. It doesn't matter how he says it, but by bringing up Newt's name, he is insinuating the relationship.

You can believe whatever you want. Reality is that this was 100% intentional.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

67. Gephardt pointed out that Dean and Gingrich agreed on this issue.

Of course it was intentional. And Dean used the same tactic as Bush in 2000 -- he expressed outrage at being 'compared' to Gingrich.

But the fact is, that was Dean's position, and it was Gingrich's position. I don't know about Gingrich, but as for Dean, I do know it is still his position because he re-affirmed in the Stephanopoulos interview quoted above.

In the debate, Dean said:

" I'm ashamed that you would compare me with Newt Gingrich. "

and on this, he is right. He should be ashamed.

Once more, for emphasis:

The former House Democratic leader also said Dean "actually agreed with the Gingrich Republicans," who advocated cutting Medicare funding by around $270 billion over seven years by reducing its annual growth rate from 10 percent to 7 percent. Gephardt, who was then minority leader, said he led the fight in Congress to defeat the Republican initiatives.

Chairman of the National Governors Association at the time, Dean also supported raising the retirement age for Social Security to 70 and cuts in defense and veterans' pensions to help balance the federal budget, Gephardt said, adding that such proposals are "not what we stand for as Democrats."

Dean's campaign yesterday did not dispute the accuracy of the statements, but said they were made in the hopes of saving Medicare and Social Security in a time of financial stress.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/13/dean_backed_medicare_cuts_in_1995_gephardt_says_boston_globe/

[Mairead]

88. But he didn't!

He compared Dean's position to Gingrich's position.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

70. You're aren't going to believe it, but I'm going to defend Dean, too

Because in the 5-18-95 Times Argus article, besides saying:

Dean also said he could defend Domenici's approach to reducing Medicare costs. He said he supported more managed care for Medicare recipients and requiring some Medicare recipients to pay a greater share of the costs of their medical services.
"I fully subscribe to the notion that we should reduce the Medicare growth rate from 10 percent to 7 percent or less, if possible," Dean said.

It also says:

The Vermont governor has been an outspoken critic of the Contract With America, which he continued to describe Wednesday as the "Contract On America."
He said the 10-point plan was flawed because it was short-sighted. According to Dean, the Contract calls for reducing federal support for programs that will show results far in the future, such as child nutrition programs, job training and education.

(the Dean campaign has made a pdf of the article available, you can obtain a copy by emailing [e-mail] and asking for it.)

So, no, Dean is not the devil, he is not a Republican, and he did oppose the 'Contract With America' in its broad terms. On Medicare, however, he did support the 7-year, $270 billion cut proposed by Domenici, although he 'disagreed with some of the details'.

[wtmusic]

6. This is bullshit

OK George, if a ten percent cut in Medicare equals $270 billion dollars in 1995, that means that the US spent $2.7 trillion on Medicare in 1995, or 25% more than the entire 2003 federal budget.

Don't think so.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. Did you flunk elementary school math?

A trillion is 1000 times a billion, not 10 times a billion.

http://www.mathnstuff.com/math/spoken/here/2class/10/size.htm

lol

[wtmusic]

10. LOL yourself, I don't need lessons from you

270 billion x 10 = 2700 billion or 2.7 trillion

Maybe you need 'elemtary' speling lessins too

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. Except the 270 billion was not a one-year figure

but a projection of what the Republican proposal would come to over 7 years. I knew your math was whacky but I answered too quickly to put my finger on exactly how it was off.

The former House Democratic leader also said Dean "actually agreed with the Gingrich Republicans," who advocated cutting Medicare funding by around $270 billion over seven years by reducing its annual growth rate from 10 percent to 7 percent. Gephardt, who was then minority leader, said he led the fight in Congress to defeat the Republican initiatives.

Chairman of the National Governors Association at the time, Dean also supported raising the retirement age for Social Security to 70 and cuts in defense and veterans' pensions to help balance the federal budget, Gephardt said, adding that such proposals are "not what we stand for as Democrats."

Dean's campaign yesterday did not dispute the accuracy of the statements, but said they were made in the hopes of saving Medicare and Social Security in a time of financial stress.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/13/dean_backed_medicare_cuts_in_1995_gephardt_says_boston_globe/

[wtmusic]

14. Just couldn't put a finger on it, huh?

I'll help you. Gephardt claimed that Dean wanted to cut Medicare by $270 billion. He didn't say over seven years, and when confronted in a debate situation, Dean denied it. All there is to it. If you want to make a lie out of it that's your call.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. Dean backed Gingrich's plan in 1995

whether the figure applies to 1 year, or 7 years, the point is, Gingrich and Dean were on one side of this issue, Democrats like Bill Clinton were on the other. Clinton and the Democrats in Congress stood their ground, even shutting down the Federal government to do so AND WE WON!

The plan that Dean and Gingrich were in favor of was defeated.

[deutsey]

16. I like how Liberal Oasis sums it up:

After a good examination of the issue, they conclude:

Bottom line: Dean did not “stand with” Gingrich. He stood with the Dems and he fought Gingrich, while taking some positions that were not Dem orthodox.

But, to inoculate himself from further attacks, Dean still needs to place his past Medicare statements into a comprehensive vision for where he would take the program in the future.

[w4rma]

19. Dean on health care and social security

health care
…
For a year now, I have been traveling this country advocating a repeal of Bush's tax cuts so that we can provide universal healthcare and restore fiscal discipline. Many have questioned the political wisdom of challenging the president on politically popular tax cuts.

I believe, however, that given a choice between having health insurance or keeping all of the Bush's tax cuts in place, most Americans will choose health insurance. My plan will cost $88.3 billion -- less than half of the president's tax cut -- with money left over to pay down the deficits run up by this administration.

My plan consists of four major components.

First, and most important, in order to extend health coverage to every uninsured child and young adult up to age 25, we'll redefine and expand two essential federal and state programs -- Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Right now, they only offer coverage to children from lower-income families. Under my plan, we cover all kids and young adults up to age 25 -- middle income as well as lower income. This aspect of my plan will give 11.5 million more kids and young adults access to the healthcare they need.

Second, we'll give a leg up to working families struggling to afford health insurance. Adults earning up to 185% of the poverty level -- $16,613 -- will be eligible for coverage through the already existing Children Health Insurance Program. By doing this, an additional 11.8 million people will have access to the care they need.

Many working families have incomes that put them beyond the help offered by government programs. But this doesn't mean they have viable options for healthcare. We'll establish an affordable health insurance plan people can buy into, providing coverage nearly identical to what members of Congress and federal employees receive.

To cushion the costs, we'll also offer a significant tax credit to those with high premium costs. By offering this help, another 5.5 million adults will have access to care.

Third, we need to recognize that one key to a healthy America is making healthcare affordable to small businesses.We shouldn't turn our back on the employer-based system we have now, but neither should we simply throw money at it. We need to modernize the system so employers will have an option beyond passing rising costs on to workers or bailing out of the system entirely. Fortunately, we have a model of efficient, affordable and user-friendly healthcare coverage: the federal employee health system.

With the plan I've put forth to the American people, we'll organize a system nearly identical to the one federal workers and members of Congress enjoy. And we'll enable all employers with less than 50 workers to join it at rates lower than are currently available to these companies -- provided they insure their work force. I'll also offer employers a deal: The federal government will pick up 70% of COBRA premiums for employees transitioning out of their jobs, but we'll expect employers to pay the cost of extending coverage for an additional two months. These two months are often the difference between workers finding the health coverage they need, or joining the ranks of the uninsured.

Finally, to ensure that the maximum number of American men, women and children have access to healthcare, we must address corporate responsibility. There are many corporations that could provide healthcare to their employees but choose not to. The final element of this plan is a clear, strong message to corporate America that providing health coverage is fundamental to being a good corporate citizen. I look at business tax deductions as part of a compact between American taxpayers and corporate America. We give businesses certain benefits, and expect them to live up to certain responsibilities.
…
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_health

The plan will cost an estimated, "$88.3 billion". This is paid for from some of the money saved by repealing Bush's tax cuts.

The Dean proposal expands Medicaid and CHIP to ages 25 and under. CHIP is expanded to adults earning up to "185% of the poverty level" (currently, $16,613).

For the "capitalist" half of the Dean plan: Folks with high health premium costs recived "a significant tax credit" to cushion the costs. The current "employer-based system" in use now will be modernized by upgrading it to the same healthcare coverage that "federal workers and members of Congress" have available to them.

Small buisnesses of less than 50 workers get lower rates than their larger competitors. Employers pick up the tab for 2 months in between jobs, but the costs of the COBRA premiums for those 2 months are subsidized, at 70%, by the federal government for employers. Corporations will receive "business tax deductions" as an incentive for supplying health care to their employees.

social security
…
The actions of this President and this administration are threatening the soundness of our Social Security system and of our private pension systems as well. By creating the largest deficits in history and adding irresponsibly to the federal debt, he has given Americans worried about their retirement even more cause for concern.

As President, I will be committed to preserving the integrity and long-term stability of the Social Security Trust Fund. I will oppose privatizing the Social Security System. And I will pursue a responsible economic agenda, and under my plan we will never have to consider raising the retirement age.

The long-term future of Social Security and financial security for all of us in our retirement years depends on ensuring a healthy rate of economic growth over the next several decades. Even a modest increase in long-term growth rates will ease the burden on the Social Security Trust Fund. If we do need to bring more money into Social Security, then I'm prepared to look at reasonable options for expanding the ceiling on payroll taxes.

The best guarantee for our Social Security, therefore, is an economic plan with three basic principles:

First, we must create economic growth and jobs new jobs, more jobs, and better jobs for Americans;

Second, we must return to fiscal sanity, for the sake of future generations, yes but also for the sake of our very national security. We cannot be a world-class country if we are the world's largest debtor;

Finally, we must reform our tax system. When I am President, I will work to repeal the top heavy Bush tax cuts, and replace them with a system that is fairer, and simpler, and places less of a burden on working Americans who live off their paychecks.
…
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7343

Extremely massive information dump on Gov. Howard Dean, M.D. (v2.0)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=41214

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. Instead of just posting a conclusion,

why don't you lead us to that conclusion with some type of argument.

The former House Democratic leader also said Dean "actually agreed with the Gingrich Republicans," who advocated cutting Medicare funding by around $270 billion over seven years by reducing its annual growth rate from 10 percent to 7 percent. Gephardt, who was then minority leader, said he led the fight in Congress to defeat the Republican initiatives.

Chairman of the National Governors Association at the time, Dean also supported raising the retirement age for Social Security to 70 and cuts in defense and veterans' pensions to help balance the federal budget, Gephardt said, adding that such proposals are "not what we stand for as Democrats."

Dean's campaign yesterday did not dispute the accuracy of the statements, but said they were made in the hopes of saving Medicare and Social Security in a time of financial stress.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/13/dean_backed_medicare_cuts_in_1995_gephardt_says_boston_globe/

I mean here we have the Dean campaign not denying this, yet somehow, you are asserting it's not true.

STEPHANOPOULOS: (Gephardt) also says that in 1995, you specifically supported the 270 billion dollars or so in tax cuts that were called for by Newt Gingrich --

DEAN: I think that's very unlikely.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here's the document…And it's pretty clear that you said you would accept a seven- to ten-percent cut in the rate of growth of Medicare, which is --

DEAN: Oh, a cutting the rate of growth is much different --

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, except that the cut in growth rate in 1995 came to 270 billion dollars.

DEAN: I've got to find out…but I fully subscribe to the notion which is to reduce the Medicare growth rate to ten percent or less, I'm sure I said that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's what Newt Gingrich was calling for in 1995.

MR. DEAN: Well, then, Newt Gingrich probably also called for a strong America and I believe in that, too.
http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/091403.htm#091603

And here we have Dean himself confirming it, yet, you conclude, it's not so? Let's hear your reasoning.

[indigo32]

23. Why don't you take a moment and read the article

Deutsey references. It is linked in this thread.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. Are unable to make the case?

I don't find those arguments compelling, and if someone wishes to make those arguments here, I will point out why. Just saying 'this is all explained somewhere else, so no need to answer you' is one of the weakest forms of the 'appeal to authority' logical fallacy I've ever seen.

[indigo32]

26. LOL

even if a little snide. I never said "NO NEED TO ANSWER YOU" and I noticed you didn't present any arguement in your post either.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Laugh if you want.

You said: "Why don't you take a moment and read the article"

Well I have read the article, and I don't find it convincing. Since none of the arguments made in that article have been presented here, there is no way for me to answer them here.

I stated my case in the Original message, as well as posts 13, 22, 12, 20 and 21.

[indigo32]

30. Look

why should I dispute his stand... he makes that perfectly clear. But Gephardt bringing up Gingrich's name, and YOU bringing up Bushs name is only meant to inflame. NOT discuss the issues.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. Dean used the exact same tactic as Bush

as I have shown. And it is an effective tactic.

Just not an honest one.

[indigo32]

33. And how would you describe

Geps tactic and yours?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. Quoting Dean.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[deutsey]

66. I've got better things to do

in fact, I'm just leaving all you dogs alone so you can gnaw on your bones to your little heart's content.

I work a full-time job. I chair a committee with the UU fellowship I attend. I write, publish, and distribute a newsletter I do for a local peace group. I organize and lead a Meetup for Dean. I have three children age 5 and under and a wife. I apparently don't have the time you do to sit here all day and post threads dissing candidates.

I stated what I agreed with. You re-stated what your opinion is. Whoop de doo. If you're too lazy to go to the goddam site and read what I read in its entirety, why should I do your homework for you?

Read it yourself (www.liberaloasis.com). Come to your conclusions. Get on with your life.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

72. I have read the article in its entirety.

And I have come to my own conclusions. If you don't wish to debate the issue, fine, or as you put it , 'Whoop de doo'.

The fact that you are 'too busy' to express your viewpoint -- do you really expect to sway minds with that argument?

Nothing in that article refutes anything I've said here.

[deutsey]

73. Do you intend to sway minds with your selective reading?

You quote the liberaloasis.com piece, which goes on to conclude something very differently than you post.

Why do I have to debate something there that I agree with? You have stated your point, culling information from an article that concludes something in opposition to your conclusion.

Again, what is there to debate? I agree with the conclusion of the liberaoasis.com piece. You pull info from it to bolster whatever it is you're arguing, which contradicts that.

Again, what is there to debate? You say the passage you quote is some sort of evidence that Dean stood with Gingrich or something. I quoted verbatim what the conclusion of that article is, which contradicts that.

That is why I don't have time for this.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

75. There is nothing to debate.

The facts are out there for everyone to see. I've made my points. You haven't made any points, you've just said that you agree with the points made elsewhere. OK. You agree with what someone else said somewhere else. I have no problem with that.

[deutsey]

76. Again, here is the conclusion of the liberalaosis.com piece

Bottom line: Dean did not “stand with” Gingrich. He stood with the Dems and he fought Gingrich, while taking some positions that were not Dem orthodox.

But, to inoculate himself from further attacks, Dean still needs to place his past Medicare statements into a comprehensive vision for where he would take the program in the future.

You're right. There is nothing to debate. Good night. :hi:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

77. Dean supported the 7 year, $270 billion cut to Medicare that Gingrich

and the Republicans were proposing. According to the Stephanopoulos interview from last week, he still supports the same approach.

Does that mean he 'stood with Gingrich'? who cares? That's just a straw man. My point isn't that he 'stood with Gingrich' or that he is evil or that he is a Republican or anything else that I didn't say.

My point is that Dean supported the 7 year, $270 billion cut to Medicare that Gingrich and the Republicans were proposing. And that according to the Stephanopoulos interview from last week, he still supports the same approach. And that in the debate, he sidestepped the issue by copying a tactic from Bush in the 2000 primary debate.

Those are the points I am making. So if you DO want to debate me, you'll have to address those points.

[deutsey]

78. Good night!

You're the one all hot and bothered that I said I agreed with the conclusion of the article. That's ALL I said. Who the fuck said I was interested in debating you (hence my "I'm too busy for this" post). Jeesh. Let it go. Talk about straw men...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

79. Good night.

OK, you've now repeated several times that you agree with that article. And you've spent a lot of time saying how you are too busy to discuss it in further detail. You've said I'm wrong and then followed it up with:

"Who the fuck said I was interested in debating you"

Good night.

[deutsey]

80. G'night

:hi:

[wtmusic]

18. The plan called for cuts of $270 billion

by reducing the Medicare growth rate from 10% to 7%. Dean said he advocated keeping the growth rate at '10% or less'. Hey, if it stayed at 10%--no cut!

Even a mathematician like you could figure that one out.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

21. Medicare ends up with less money, yet somehow, it's not a 'cut'

You have stated the exact argument the Republicans were making in 1995.

[ModerateMiddle]

95. read what he said

he advocated limiting the growth of medicare from 10% to 7% *or less*. Dean absolutely advocated a REAL cut in medicare. The growth rate of medicare was to keep up with health costs, increases in the number of people served, increses in their life span, etc. The 10% was not for naught (hehe). Limiting the growth of medicare would have resulted, as Dean admitted at the time, in older folks having to pay more of a share of their medical expenses. These folks, the vast majority, are on a limited, in many cases VERY limited income.

[poskonig]

36. That was a cut in the growth rate, not the program itself

if I am not mistaken.

[AWD]

43. Don't argue with the broken record...

....it'll just keep skipping the same lines over and over again.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

50. Yes, when they ignore your points as if they don't exist.

What else is there to do except show that your argument hasn't been refuted? I'm not going to chase after every straw man put in front of me.

[indigo32]

52. Yes, when they ignore your points as if they don't exist

you know alot about that.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

57. Is there a point of yours you are saying I'm ignoring? Let's hear it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

45. If Medicare ends up with less money, how is that not a cut?

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stickdog]

64. The Iraq War is page 1 of the G.W. Bush playbook.

Too bad Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards and maybe/maybe not Clark cribbed that page.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

65. I guess what you are saying is, you can't refute the points made here

so you are trying to divert attention to something else.

[stickdog]

68. What exactly was your point other than Bush once said something

clever?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

74. My point is, Dean lied when he said "That is flat-out false"

and then he feigned outrage at the fact that Gephardt pointed out where Dean and Gingrich agreed.


Gee, I thought I had stated that point already, in fact I've been accused of repeating it too much. How could you have missed it?

[stickdog]

81. Gephardt lied through his teeth to make his duplicitous attack.

Howard and I just have a basic disagreement.

Flat out false.

He said in, I think, 1993 that Medicare was the worst federal program ever. He said that it was the worst thing that ever happened.

Flat out false.

He also supported, at our darkest hour--when I was leading the fight against Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America, he was shutting the government down--Howard, you were agreeing with the very plan that Newt Gingrich wanted to pass, which was a $270 billion cut in Medicare.

Flat out false.

Now, you've been saying for many months that you're the head of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. I think you're just winging it.

Flat out false.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

82. Let's examine it.

Howard and I just have a basic disagreement.

Flat out false.

Dean re-affirmed his position in the Stephanopoulos interview. And you are claiming that Gep agrees with him? That he is lying when he says he disagrees with Dean? I don't understand your reasoning here.

He said in, I think, 1993 that Medicare was the worst federal program ever. He said that it was the worst thing that ever happened.

Flat out false.

The former House Democratic leader also said Dean "actually agreed with the Gingrich Republicans," who advocated cutting Medicare funding by around $270 billion over seven years by reducing its annual growth rate from 10 percent to 7 percent. Gephardt, who was then minority leader, said he led the fight in Congress to defeat the Republican initiatives.

Chairman of the National Governors Association at the time, Dean also supported raising the retirement age for Social Security to 70 and cuts in defense and veterans' pensions to help balance the federal budget, Gephardt said, adding that such proposals are "not what we stand for as Democrats."

Dean's campaign yesterday did not dispute the accuracy of the statements, but said they were made in the hopes of saving Medicare and Social Security in a time of financial stress.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/13/dean_backed_medicare_cuts_in_1995_gephardt_says_boston_globe/

So Gep lied, but the Dean campaign decided not to point it out? A little hard to believe.

He also supported, at our darkest hour--when I was leading the fight against Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America, he was shutting the government down--Howard, you were agreeing with the very plan that Newt Gingrich wanted to pass, which was a $270 billion cut in Medicare.

Flat out false.

Again, in the face of the documentation that shows Dean did agree with that plan in '95, and still subscribes to that viewpoint based on the 'This Week' interview, and in the face of the fact that the Dean campaign is not disputing it, you say it is false. Would you care to explain your reasoning here?

Now, you've been saying for many months that you're the head of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. I think you're just winging it.

Flat out false.

Let me get this straight. You are claiming Dean hasn't been saying that? LOL:

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Dean+%22Democratic+wing+%2Bof+%2Bthe+Democratic+Party%22&btnG=Google+Search

[DemDogs]

87. No lie: you just don't like the message

Gephardt may be been too provocative, but just so you know, those of us who don't support Dean or Gephardt think, no, know that Gephardt was right on this. If your candidate doesn't start facing the truth and telling the truth, we all better hope he doesn't get the nomination. If he does start, well, let the best man or woman win and we'll all support the nominee and win in 2004.

[blm]

90. well said...

but, it seems they don't care to hold Dean accountable for his own words and actions.

[Padraig18]

69. My head just exploded

Excuse the wet gray and pink stuff scattered about. :eyes:

[deutsey]

71. And if your head explodes with dark forebodings too

I'll see you on the dark side of the moon...

[loyalsister]

84. Who doesn't?

Wake up people! They're all playing from the same playbook. It's called politics and they're using their perceived advantages to score points. If you were to review every single race from 2002, you would likely find Democrats all across the country using some of the strategies that turned up in the Bush campaign. People watch and use what they see as successful in politics.
One of the most notable is literary fraud. It can promote arguments with people who are inclined to go grasping for nuances. When dealing with an educated electorate you wind up with the most arguments.The reason a politician will restate what his opponent says in different words is so that people will not be able to find agreement on what the guy means. It's hard enough when it is stated one way. If it is stated twice, it clouds it even more.
Restating it in the simplist language possible leaves the least room for argument amongst people. I noticed above, that the words in this argument that fewest people took issue with were $270 billion. Yet, in the context that Gep placed them they were extremely decepetive. His advantage here is that his language was closest to the thing. $270 billion as a figure representing money means the exact same thing to everyone. Don't think for a second that George W. Bush has never used that particular ploy.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

85. What's deceptive about it?

STEPHANOPOULOS: (Gephardt) also says that in 1995, you specifically supported the 270 billion dollars or so in tax cuts that were called for by Newt Gingrich --

DEAN: I think that's very unlikely.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here's the document…And it's pretty clear that you said you would accept a seven- to ten-percent cut in the rate of growth of Medicare, which is --

DEAN: Oh, a cutting the rate of growth is much different --

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, except that the cut in growth rate in 1995 came to 270 billion dollars.

DEAN: I've got to find out…but I fully subscribe to the notion which is to reduce the Medicare growth rate to ten percent or less, I'm sure I said that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's what Newt Gingrich was calling for in 1995.

MR. DEAN: Well, then, Newt Gingrich probably also called for a strong America and I believe in that, too.
http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/091403.htm#091603



The former House Democratic leader also said Dean "actually agreed with the Gingrich Republicans," who advocated cutting Medicare funding by around $270 billion over seven years by reducing its annual growth rate from 10 percent to 7 percent. Gephardt, who was then minority leader, said he led the fight in Congress to defeat the Republican initiatives.

Chairman of the National Governors Association at the time, Dean also supported raising the retirement age for Social Security to 70 and cuts in defense and veterans' pensions to help balance the federal budget, Gephardt said, adding that such proposals are "not what we stand for as Democrats."

Dean's campaign yesterday did not dispute the accuracy of the statements, but said they were made in the hopes of saving Medicare and Social Security in a time of financial stress.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/13/dean_backed_medicare_cuts_in_1995_gephardt_says_boston_globe/



However, he applauded the efforts of Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-Nev., who presented his own balanced budget plan last week.

Dean said he disagreed with some of the details of Domenici's plan. But he said Domenici's was a serious proposal that did not include tax cuts and recognized the need to put an end to federal budget deficits.

Dean also said he could defend Domenici's approach to reducing Medicare costs. He said he supported more managed care for Medicare recipients and requiring some Medicare recipients to pay a greater share of the costs of their medical services.
"I fully subscribe to the notion that we should reduce the Medicare growth rate from 10 percent to 7 percent or less, if possible," Dean said.
Montpelier Times Argus 5-18-95
(the Dean campaign has made a pdf of the article available, you can obtain a copy by emailing [e-mail] and asking for it.)

This is the $270 billion that is being talked about. The $270 billion dollar cut to Medicare over a seven year period that Republican's sold as a 'cut to the growth rate'. Of course no one took issue with it. What is the deceptive context that this figure was placed in? This was Dean's position, and that's what Gephardt pointed out. You say: "$270 billion as a figure representing money means the exact same thing to everyone." I agree. So where's the deception? What 'ploy' is being used?


And by the way, it turned out, Dean was wrong. Democrats won this fight, the growth rate wasn't cut, and Clinton balanced the budget anyway.

[loyalsister]

86. Back to the debate

where there isn't quite as much elaboration or detail presented by Gep.
"$270 billion" without the gradual context changes the meaning of the figure. In fact, it becomes almost abstract if a person is paying attention. It is actually impossible to fully conceptualize what the gradual decrease of $270 billion over seven years really looks like without a more detailed analysis. You have to work out the math to have a clear picture.
When "a $230 billion cut" is presented without or distanced from the context it sounds like a huge chunk of cash is being taken out of an account.
The point isn't whether or not Dean was right or wrong, the point is Gep knew exactly what he was doing, and it's in the playbooks of both Democrats and Republicans.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

89. We've fleshed out the details, and they back Gephardt up.

When we look at the facts behind the sound bite it seems to bolster Gep's case more than Dean's. The news articles, even the one provided by the Dean campaign, confirm that Dean was onboard with the plan to cut the growth rate. The Stephanopoulos puts it in the context of the present instead of just 1995.

But just to show you that my heart really is with the idea of beating Bush, and that is my motivation here, I will give you the argument I don't have a counter for, and the most charitable explanation for Dean's comment. And that is, that because Gep said "you were agreeing with the very plan that Newt Gingrich wanted to pass" Dean was able to say "That is flat-out false" because he "disagreed with some of the details".

But then he proceeded to duck the rest of the answer by doing the outrage schtick. Look, he's a politician through and through, so it's no big surprise. Where I really direct my anger, just as I did in 2000 when Bush ducked the question of his trustworthiness the same way (look where that got us), is towards the moderators of the debates who don't force a real answer. Bush should have had to answer the actual charges of dirty campaigning that were being levelled at him, and Dean should have had to state clearly whether or not it was true that he supports cutting the growth rate in Medicare, as he said last week.

What about the rest of Dean's answer? Does he go on to explain his position?

DEAN: That is flat-out false, and I'm ashamed that you would compare me with Newt Gingrich. Nobody up here deserves to be compared to Newt Gingrich.

(APPLAUSE)

First of all, I did say that Medicare was a dreadful program because it's administered dreadfully.

I've done more for health insurance, Dick Gephardt, frankly, than you ever have, because I've delivered it to a lot of seniors and a lot of young people. And I'll stake my record on health insurance against anybody up here.

Of course, we're not going to get rid of Medicare, and you are wrong to insinuate so, but we're going to run it properly because we're going to have somebody that actually is taking care of patients running Medicare and Medicaid in the FDA so we can get the things that we need to get to patients.

To insinuate that I would get rid of Medicare is wrong, it's not helpful, and we need to remember that the enemy here is George Bush, not each other.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A433-2003Sep25.html

Dean starts off 'first of all', by admitting that Gep quoted him accurately on the 'worst' quote and giving his reason. But from there on, he just sets up a strawman. After a blanket assertion that his record is better than Gephardt's, the straw man that he was accused of 'trying to get rid of Medicare'. Of course what Dean was actually accused of is what is on the record. Supporting the cut in the growth rate. To claim innocence of something else - 'wanting to get rid of Medicare' is a classic strawman. The actual claim that Gephardt made - that Dean backed the cut - is not addressed.

[loyalsister]

91. The real straw man

is the argument over whether or not Gep is right.
The point I made was that he was using a tactic that you can find in a book from a candidate from either party.
The point is not in the details, it's in the instant knee jerk reaction he hopes to get from the public.
Dean then goes on to try to set Gep up with a totally unfair comparison of their experience.
It does however, call attention to the fact that Gep has had many years during which he could have introduced his Health Care plan in the House.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

92. I beg to differ. Who's right and who's wrong do matter.

It definately matters whether Gep is right. And as far as using a tactic that any candidate would, well ok, but that does not address the question of whether it is a fair tactic. And I do think it is fair to use someone's words against them. Our political leaders need to be accountable for what they say. And we are definately going to use Bush's words against him. I want someone with some credibility doing it.

And it also matters, whether Dean was right on the issue. Would it have been good to cut funding to Medicare like that? As I said, we didn't make those cuts, and Clinton balanced the budget anyway. So I say Dean was wrong. And I think that does matter.

But as someone who is no Gephardt supporter, I will go on to say, the reason Gep is doing this is to try to overcome one his biggest political liabilities. To many, (for instance, myself), Gephardt is just too closely associated with a string of humiliating defeats for the Democrats to inspire any confidence as a leader for our party. So he is trying to play up the one memorable win he had. And there is an opportunity with Dean because of his position on the issue. Plus Dean is his big threat in Iowa and if Dean were to seriously trounce him there it would be grim news for him. But I don't see where Gep is doing anything unfair or deceptive.

[loyalsister]

96. lol

Where did you lose track???? I didn't say it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. I said it's not relevant to the point I was making.
Which is-
The original post was in response to the opening post. It criticizes Dean for using a tactic that Bush has used. My point was so what? There is no doubt that there has been a time when Gep has used tactics that Bush has used.
Unless a person is totally incapable of seeing the difference between a conceptualization of non-increases or incremental decreases over time, and a massive number standing alone (I really hope not!), they usually can at least recognize the deception when it is pointed out.
I'm not saying it's unfair in the sense of out of the ordinary in politics. It is however deceptive word play because as we are seeing right now, people fall for it.
Gep removed an important context.
It's exactly like Dean's unreasonable comparison between his and Gep's accomplishment in health care. The fact is Dean had a bit more opportunity to do some big things with health care. A state government open to his ideas, for one thing. The context of the surrounding government, and the fact that he was governor was removed from the comment he made.
It's a nuance Dean hoped noone would notice. A lot of people probably didn't.
The thing the author of this story seems to be trying to say is that this "politics as usual" kind of tactic is something that only Dean is guilty of.
That is what I am discussing here.

[Cocoa]

97. How dare you compare Dean to George Bush!

just kidding, I didn't like Dean's response. I don't care how many people clapped or how many people here didn't see through it, it was weak.

The only issue here is if how true Gephardt's statement was. Since Dean didn't address the substance, I'll assume that it was just as Gep said.