Transcript: Dean on CBS's "Face the Nation" (9/28/03)

[tsipple]

Click here for the full transcript. Here are some excerpts, with minor typos corrected:

DEAN: (....) This president sent us to war in Iraq without telling the American people the facts about why we went there. He let us believe that Iraq had something to do with al Qaeda. He admitted that wasn't true last week. He let us believe that Iraq and their atomic weapons program was buying uranium from Africa and admitted that wasn't true a few months ago. We have 135,000 troops in Iraq under fire, lost over 300 people and 1100 wounded or injured because this president was not candid with the American people and the administration was not candid with the American people. I think at the very least Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz should resign and I had thought for sometime that George Tenet should be let go as well. And there may be others because this is not over yet. We have been misled. That's why I had such strong disagreements with Senator Kerry, Representative Gephardt and Senator Edwards and Lieberman and now General Clark who also advocated last October that we go into Iraq, despite his opposition to it now. We have to do better in this country. I'm very willing as Commander in Chief to send our people anywhere we have to do it to defend America, but I am not willing to send them abroad in harm's way without telling the truth to the American people why it is we send them there.

DEAN: (....) I'm running against a group of people from Washington who have done the same thing for as long as they've been there, years and years and years. A third of the seniors in my state have prescription benefits. What have Richard Gephardt or John Kerry or Joe Lieberman done in their careers in the Senate to do that? I'm not going to be compared to Newt Gingrich by my rivals. They can say anything they want about me. I did support slowing the growth of Medicare. It was a good thing. It worked out well and Bill Clinton signed the bill and Medicare is solvent because of that. The folks in Washington didn't do one thing about it.

DEAN: (....) We are not going to get change by voting for people for President who behave in the same way for years and years and years. They have been in Washington for too long and not getting the job done.

(....)

SCHIEFFER: How about veterans’ pensions. Do you want to cut veteran pensions now?

DEAN: No, I don’t. I want to restore health benefits President Bush has cut to the veterans.

SCHIEFFER: Do you want to slow down the cost of living adjustments for people on Social Security?

DEAN: No, I do not. The cost of living adjustments for Social Security have dropped to 1.2% per year and they can barely survive on that.

(....)

DEAN: Well, I think that Wes Clark is first of all a good guy. A guy who I sought out for advice on military matters. But I think what you see in the Wes Clark candidacy is somewhat of desperation by inside the beltway politicians. You've got a lot of establishment politicians now surrounding a general who was a Republican until 25 days ago, voted for Ronald Reagan, voted for Dick Nixon, supported the war last October in Iraq, although he has opposed it, I thought eloquently, since that time. Praised Dick Cheney, praised Donald Rumsfeld. What I want is change in the Democratic Party. We are not going to win elections anymore by trying to be Republican-lite. What I think the Washington Democratic establishment is terrified of now is that their candidates are not doing so well -- they've gone out and found another one. Again, a good guy, very qualified, but he was a Republican until 25 days ago, and I think that's going to be hard to swallow for a lot of Democrats.

DEAN: (....) I'm advocating we rework the trade agreements and ultimately you have to, for example, have the right of the trade union movement in the United States to also export what they do. They have to organize plants around the world in a free and open way as we do in this country or as they do in any of the other countries or Europe that I mentioned, in order for trade to be fair. Because right now we are importing products made by 12 year olds in Indonesia at probably less than 50 cents an hour. That's not right. It doesn't help the kids in Indonesia and doesn't help Americans.

(....)

DEAN: I have changed on some of the issues. I think that's one of the hallmarks of who I am. I'm a doctor. I believe if you have a theory and the fact comes along that changes the theory, then you throw out the theory. The Republicans believe that if a fact comes along that changes the theory, they throw out the fact. They deny there is such a thing as global warming. The President made the case that a bipartisan committee in Congress admits was exaggerated, and he ignored the facts for going to war in Iraq. This is pretty serious stuff. I have no complaint and no embarrassment about changing my positions at all. If facts come along that show you things need to change, you need to change them.

I don't think there is virtue in stubbornly clinging to a theory when the theory is wrong and has led us into trouble. The Republicans in this administration have proved that.

[blm]

1. Isn't Dean forgetting that the Federal Govt. HELPED his state?

And that Kerry, specifically, helped craft the CHIPS legislation that brought healthcare to children across the nation, including Vermont?

Did he also forget that he supported the Biden-Lugar version of the IWR last October? Bush was going in under Biden-Lugar, too...no matter what, Bush would have met minimum requirements.

Has Dean ever acknowledged that his accusation the others voted FOR Bush's taxcut is false?

[tsipple]

5. Actually, Vermont About Breaks Even

According to the 1999 figures, at least, Vermont gets $1.07 back for every dollar it sends to Washington in taxes. A little bit extra, but not much. Maine gets $1.31, and Rhode Island gets $1.11. New Mexico gets almost $2 for every $1 in taxes its citizens contribute.

Vermont is by no means grabbing a disproportionate share of federal resources, and more recently the federal government has curtailed reimbursements to states. That's why so many states -- excluding Vermont -- are in the red. (Vermont is one of the very few without big budget problems.)

[blm]

10. Did CHIPS help?

Does he ever acknowledge it? 91% of the people in Vermont had health insurance when Dean took office. CHIPS helped Dean bring that percentage higher. And just look up their push for healthcare over their careers.

How honest is this staement of Dean's?

"A third of the seniors in my state have prescription benefits. What have Richard Gephardt or John Kerry or Joe Lieberman done in their careers in the Senate to do that?"

[tsipple]

13. Funding-wise, No

The citizens of Vermont pay into the federal coffers and get back what they paid in -- and only a tiny smidgen more.

What they did get was another federal mandate. Some of that money they get back is labeled "for CHIPS only." Governor Dean went beyond the federal mandate.

[sandnsea]

15. This is not even relevant

Nobody is saying Vermont is taking more out than they pay in. What is being said is that Dean acts as if he put together this magnificent health program in Vermont when the fact is there would be NO health program if not for CHIPS and Senator Kerry in the first place. These state programs, no matter what state, would not exist without the federal government. He is disengenuous when he says Washington gets nothing done when Washington gave him the ability to put together a heatlh care program in the first place.

[MercutioATC]

16. Show me another state that's done it (with or without Kerry)

If it's all Kerry's doing, just show me where else it's been done.....

[tsipple]

18. Bingo.

The states have to implement CHIPS and, if they want, go beyond CHIPS.

Kerry helped pass a federal mandate. Governor Dean had to implement the program and improve upon it. Dean makes a valid point.

[sandnsea]

22. Well, let's see

Rhoda Island, New Hampshire, Missouri, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota. And there's alot more states that have a 95% or higher rate of coverage for kids.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/hlthins/liuc01.html

[tsipple]

25. Sandnsea, That Table Shows Vermont Is #1 Best!

The U.S. Census figures you link to show Vermont as having the lowest rate of uninsured children among households at or below 200% of the poverty line, 1999 to 2001 (three year average).

Where are you getting RI, NH, MO, IA, ME, and MN out of that table?

This is an awesome find, by the way. To reiterate, at the end of Dean's term as governor, Vermont had the lowest rate of uninsured children in the country, 2.1 percent.

[sandnsea]

32. Margin of error?

Every one of those states had rates very nearly the same as Vermont's. With reporting differences, populations spread out over larger areas, and other variances that can create statistical errors; they're all pretty damn near the same. You do understand statistics, right?

[tsipple]

35. Yup, Sure Do

So would you acknowledge Dean's healthcare accomplishments in Vermont now? Here's an example that should make you statistically satisfied:

Under Governor Dean's leadership, Vermont ranked among the top states in the nation in providing health insurance to children, well exceeding the average state's results.

[sandnsea]

37. Why?

It's the SCHIP Program!!!!!! That's why so many other states were able to do the SAME THING!!!! It's NOT Howard, and his program is already in serious trouble anyway. From $4 million to $150 million deficit in 5 years. Not good. No one is going to vote for it.

[wtmusic]

8. Bush wasn't going anywhere under Biden-Lugar

It never made it to a vote, but it too required multilateral action. So Bush would not have 'met minimum requirements'.

[blm]

9. If you own a dictionary, look up multilateral....

More than one nation. Bush HAD more than one nation whether we want to downplay it or not. He had Webster's with him AND the media who were telling the American people it was a multilateral action.

[wtmusic]

11. Good point

Gotta admit.

[tsipple]

17. Well, Not Quite. Let's Get History Right Here.

The Biden-Lugar language would have required Bush to brief Congress on efforts to convince the United Nations before Bush exercised war-making authority, and so it gave Congress one more shot at stopping the invasion. It didn't require U.N. sanction, but it did give Congress a chance to block a non-U.N. effort before the bullets flew.

Biden-Lugar also restricted Bush's war-making authority to disarming Saddam, not also removing him from power. As a practical matter, it's hard to see how one is accomplished without the other, but that's what the language said.

Bush, at the time, said Biden-Lugar "ties my hands." It was defeated. Dean, Braun, Sharpton, Kucinich, and Graham opposed the final bill, with the latter two voting against it. Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Edwards voted for the final resolution. Clark, to be fair, was ambiguous on his position with respect to the final resolution. (There are conflicting quotes, both contemporaneously and subsequently.)

It's difficult to re-run history hypothetically, but the general effect of Biden-Lugar would likely have been to make the U.N. the deciding forum on the question, and also to organize U.N. resources (such as international troops) in the effort. But it was necessarily written a little differently than that, because Congress is loathe to legally cede American war-making power to the U.N. So it didn't say, "U.N. approval is required," but it likely would have had that effect. It would have put some pressure on the Bush Administration to play nice with the U.N. (and vice versa), and it would have given Congress the ability to review the Bush Administration's diplomatic performance at the U.N. before invasion. That's why the Bush team rejected Biden-Lugar.

Dean was not opposed to an Iraq campaign with U.N. sanction and support. (He viewed U.N. participation as vital to the campaign's ultimate success, and he was no fan of the Iraqi regime.) Dean is not a dove, nor a hawk, but what's called an eagle: a national security centrist.

[wtmusic]

26. All right, now I'm confused

Though Bush may have said Biden-Lugar "ties his hands", there's nothing in the bill that specifically says so. All it says is that he has to present his determination to Congress:

"(b) Requirement for determination that use of force is necessary. - Before exercising the authority granted by subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that -

(1) the United States has attempted to seek, through the United Nations Security Council, adoption of a resolution after September 12, 2002 under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorizing the action described in subsection (a)(1), and such resolution has been adopted; or (2) that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary pursuant to subsection (a)(2), notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution described in paragraph (1)."

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/bidenlugar-resolution-093002.htm

[tsipple]

28. I Took My Stuff Straight from One of the Peace Sites

And now I've bolloxed the links, so I can't find them. Damn. :-(

You'd think they'd be biased in the other direction though, right?

We're on dangerous ground here, though. The politicians would love to talk about hypotheticals in this instance. (Would have, could have, should have.) Helps them avoid responsibility for their votes (and their positions on the vote). At the end of the day there was one up or down vote, on a particular piece of language (without Biden-Lugar), and I think it's important to consider that and give it appropriate weight.

I probably shouldn't have speculated, actually, because we'll never know. History didn't include Biden-Lugar.

[wtmusic]

29. Thanks, good info tsipple

This could become more of a problem for Dean, though. Dean has always maintained he would include the UN and Biden-Lugar specifically says UN authorization would not be required. WTF?

[tsipple]

31. Oh, No. He's Good.

Plenty of contemporaneous Dean quotes saying he would vote "no" on the final passage of the actual language. Biden-Lugar wasn't a factor. Only Kucinich and Graham have better credentials, since they actually got to vote NAY.

Plus there's the Bush quote, that Biden-Lugar (so Bush says) would have tied his hands. Which is precisely what should have been done, although handcuffs would be better. :-)

[wtmusic]

2. Dean rocks

Everything I read from the guy makes me think he could be a great president. Praising Clark, but telling it like it is. And this is a keeper: 'The Republicans believe that if a fact comes along that changes the theory, they throw out the fact.'

Rock on!

[tsipple]

3. Note How He Answers Questions...

"Do you favor..."
"No, I do not." (Full stop. Here's why...)

I wish more candidates would do that. I really like that.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

4. Exactly what drew me to Dean in the first place

Not to say that he is always clear, but more so than the others.

I love that. Heard DK do it in one of the debates too. The irony is that it stands out, when they answer a question directly.

[tsipple]

6. Yes, Dennis Also Does That

DK answers questions directly, too.

Doesn't mean they always do, but they do it more often. They don't sound like you just pulled the string on a wind-up doll to listen to one of the eight prerecorded messages from the factory.

(On edit: ) And another thing. Notice how he answers questions succinctly when they deserve succinct answers. He doesn't go on for minutes with a "oh, the veterans question -- time to recite that mental index card" spiel. How refreshing!

At the risk of introducing flamebait, that's one reason I've been disappointed by Clark. During his CNN stint he was fairly blunt and to-the-point. But the political hacks got to him before the last debate, I think. He's a general, and generals are supposed to be straight-shooting talkers (and straight-shooting). His advisors are managing him counter to type. That's deadly, as Al Gore learned. You have to be comfortable with yourself and play to your own strengths. If you try to be someone you aren't, voters will pick up on it instantly. For the record, I have far deeper reservations about his helping the Arkansas GOP raise money (28 months ago) and his evasiveness when asked the simple question (recently) about his party affiliation.

[DJcairo]

12. So does JK. He is very direct in his answers, especially on TV

TV doesn't amke him nervous like it does to some of the other candidates.

[tsipple]

14. Yeah, But JK is Lousy on Succinct Answers

Kerry stood out in the last debate as the candidate who couldn't contain his answers within the 60 (or 30) second slots. (That jerk Brian Williams kept cutting Kerry off, but he had to.)

I'm all for allowing more time in the debates. (Sixty seconds is ridiculous.) But any eventual nominee is going to get 5 second slots on most occasions, so Kerry will have to adjust fast.

[DrFunkenstein]

34. Check Out Kerry With Paula Zahn

He does a fantastic job of nailing each question quickly and powerfully.

http://www.johnkerry.com/av/

[tsipple]

36. No Question He's Getting Better

No disagreement there. But I think he needs to get better still (judging by the Brian Williams bump-ins). That's all I'm saying.

[Cha]

7. I know...when I used to watch tv and people would get asked

questions and they would circle around the question..it would drive me insane and there is no way to talk back to the tv.

That's what I love about DU so much..at least we can "talk back"!

[DrFunkenstein]

19. Another Stellar TV Performance!

Dean: We have been misled. That's why I had such strong disagreements with Senator Kerry, representative Gephardt and senator Edwards and Lieberman and now general Clark who also advocated last October that we go into Iraq, despite his opposition to it now. We have to do better in this country. I'm very willing as commander in chief to send our people anywhere we have to do it to defend America, but I am not willing to send them abroad in harm's way without telling the truth to the American people why it is we sent them there.

--Is he suggesting that people like Clark and Kerry have refused to tell why it is we sent troops to Iraq? It seems to me that Kerry - and I believe Clark - was very clear under which circumstances troops should be used, and why Bush failed to meet those circumstances. Have these candidates misled Americans? Because that certainly seems to be the insinuation.

If I remember correctly, for several months Dean has actually been saying that the candidates have no right to say anything. Now he is saying they never said anything at all.

DEAN: I'm running against a group of people from Washington who have done the same thing for as long as they've been there, years and years and years. A third of the seniors in my state have prescription benefits. What have Richard Gephardt or John Kerry or Joe Lieberman done in their careers in the senate to do that?...Look, I want change in this country. We are not going to get change by voting for people for president who behave in the same way for years and years and years. They have been in Washington for too long and not getting the job done...I just simply am not going to take any take guff from Washington democrats who are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

--I can't speak for the other candidates, but I'd say that Kerry's voting record is damn near impeccable. It seems to me that Dean is fundamentally mistaking the nature of Congress with that of Governorship. You cannot blame a Senator for every problem Congress has. He can only look at the Senate records and see what fights a person has fought, and how well they have fought them. Say what you will about the IWR, but Kerry's Senate record is superb.

One of the things Dean forgets to mention is while he was passing the buck with federal loans and shipping out his waste to other states, Kerry was taking down Oliver North and Manuel Noriega, and dealing for almost 20 years in foreign relations - including over 10 years on the terrorism Subcommittee (not to mention chairing the Small Business Committee).

And personally, I can't understand what Dean hopes to gain by insulting his entire Party in Congress as "part of the problem." If he means something more specifically, then his argument falls apart. If he doesn't, he's just stuck his foot down his throat.


SCHIEFFER: (Clark) said he wasn't anything. He was a member of the military, as I understand it. But you say he is a republican. Why do you say he is a republican?

DEAN: He was a member of the military who he says voted for Reagan, voted for Nixon, praised dick Cheney, praised Donald Rumsfeld, whose resignation I and others have called for. He certainly was a member of the military, and a very good one. But he also was a republican.

--Let's try a little test. Tell me what you think of the logic of that last statement with another statement minutes later:

DEAN: I have changed on some of the issues. I think that's one of the hallmarks of who I am. I'm a doctor. I believe if you have a theory and the fact comes along that changes the theory, then you throw out the theory. The republicans believe that if a fact comes along that changes the theory, they throw out the fact.

--It seems to me that we are given a perfect example of a Republican willing to change. Why is evolution a blessing for Dean, but a curse for Clark? I've got a couple theories of my own, but you can probably guess them already.

[tsipple]

20. OK, I'll Bite...

Is he suggesting that people like Clark and Kerry have refused to tell why it is we sent troops to Iraq?

No. He's saying (and has said before) that, despite all the supposed foreign policy experience of the people he just named, somehow small-state-Governor Dean (and Kucinich, Graham, Braun, and Sharpton) figured out Bush's pre-emptive invasion was based on lies and somehow they (Edwards, Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, and probably Clark) fell for it. (Gephardt, for example, has said exactly that: he was duped.)

But there's a period (".") in there you're ignoring. Dean makes no statement that the people he named would not tell the truth. He's saying he certainly would and Bush didn't.

I can't speak for the other candidates, but I'd say that Kerry's voting record is damn near impeccable. It seems to me that Dean is fundamentally mistaking the nature of Congress with that of Governorship.

Actually, that's precisely what he saying, that governors do and senators legislate. As he said in the most recent debate, that both he and Bob Graham are the only two Democratic candidates with experience as governors.

Which is not to say that John Kerry doesn't have an important job. But he doesn't have administrative experience. The POTUS is an executive branch job, and Dean's resume includes executive branch experience. It's a fair point.

It seems to me that we are given a perfect example of a Republican willing to change. Why is evolution a blessing for Dean, but a curse for Clark?

Probably because, if you spent your time helping the Arkansas GOP raise money only 28 months ago, you need a little more time and experience as a Democrat. Dean has been a proud, card-carrying Democrat his entire adult and political life.

And we're not talking one issue or policy. We're talking a complete party affiliation. Dean's certainly willing to welcome Clark into the Democratic Party, even to a big office. But the Dean formula is to try your hand as governor for several terms so that you have the knowledge and experience, as a Democrat, to weigh evidence and facts and form policies on that basis. That option is open right now to Clark: the Arkansas governorship in 2006.

You don't get promoted to Chief of Neurosurgery at the Mayo Clinic right after you sign up for the GMATs (the standardized test for applying to medical school). You go to medical school, work as an intern, then as a resident, then as a full fledged doctor before you take on the big job. You develop the political and policy skills to know how to weight facts and evidence.

Doesn't mean you have to agree with Dean's arguments, but I think he makes some good ones.

(On edit: ) And before someone mentions Dwight Eisenhower, let the record reflect he ran as a Republican, not a Democrat, and hopefully the Democratic Party has higher standards than simply, "We need someone with a D next to his name this year." Eisenhower also did not help the Democrats raise money for their political campaigns, as far as I know, so at least he met that very basic standard of party affiliation. The Democratic Party has nominated generals, including the great Andrew Jackson. Jackson, however, participated in political life years before receiving his party's nomination. And again, so far as I know, Jackson never helped the Whigs raise money to elect their candidates. He also served in the House of Representatives, Senate, and professionally as a lawyer, all prior to his presidency. A true Renaissance man.

[DrFunkenstein]

21. Thanks For Biting! Lol!

1. Dean is in no position to criticize others for saying they were misled. Dean not only said that he - specifically - was misled, but that he tends to believe the President as a matter of course.

2. Dean has argued that he has had administrative experience, and that is a good training ground for the Presidency. It is a legitimate argument, and - while I don't give it tremendous weight - I tend to believe it. However, given the scale of Vermont, that is also not unlike saying you administered a large county with no major urban areas.

But that isn't the point. The point is that Dean went far beyond saying he had qualifications the other candidates did not have. He went on at length describing members of Congress as "part of the problem." Not only is it a cheap shot, but it is profoundly undiplomatic, considering he would have to work with Congress should he win.

3. Your nuerosurgeon analogy doesn't really hold up, at least not for this argument. Yes, Clark has little political experience. But the point Dean is making is dangerously polarizing. He is suggesting that mere Party affiliation makes you an entirely different stripe of creature. Clark is no liberal. He is a centrist, although he may be more liberal than some Democratic members of Congress.

Dean is not speaking about political experience here. He is saying Clark has only been a Democrat for 25 days. That is something different entirely.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

38. Just a few comments

1. I didn't get the impression in this interview that Dean was criticizing others for being misled, he was criticizing them for being pro-invasion.

We have been misled. That's why I had such strong disagreements with Senator Kerry, representative Gephardt and senator Edwards and Lieberman and now general Clark who also advocated last October that we go into Iraq, despite his opposition to it now. We have to do better in this country.


2. I saw that comment more as him trying to position himself as an outsider to The Establishment, bringing in a welcome fresh breath of air, than him insulting the others. It certainly could be viewed either way though.

3. Dean was answering the question of how Clarks entrance to the race changes things. I think the only point that he was making was that it appears that Clark is a recently converted Democrat and many Democrat voters may not feel comfortable with that. Yes, I feel that it was a small attack on Clark, but in that response he praised Clark more than he attacked him: called him a 'good guy', one he would trust for military advice, called him eloquent, called him a 'good guy' a second time and called him qualified.

I haven't picked a favorite candidate yet, but I liked very much what I read in this interview. The only part that I didn't like so much was his answer to the Gingrich questions. Usually Dean's answers are clear, but there he seemed to be avoiding the question.

Let me add that I am very pleased to see some rational debate on the candidates in this thread instead of the bashing that's been going on in many of the other threads.

[DemBones DemBones]

23. Yet, Dr. Dean has a theory that medical use of marijuana should

not be allowed until the FDA does a full investigation, throwing out the FACTS that marijuana has been used for millennia, is certainly safer than alcohol, and that many people who are terminally ill, suffer chronic pain, or suffer from side effects of chemotherapy, have found it to be useful in relieving pain and nausea and helping them to sleep.

The same Dr. Dean thinks there is no reason "based on the science' to think GMOs in foods could be harmful. By saying that, he throws out some other FACTS such as deleterious environmental effects of GMO crops (we are, after all, affected by things that go awry in nature) and the speciousness of the concept of "substantial equivalence."

" 'Substantial equivalence' is a crude, non-scientific concept. It provided a loophole for the GM biotechnology companies not to carry out nutritional and toxicological animal tests to establish whether the biological effect of the GM crop-based foodstuff is substantially equivalent to that of its non-GM counterpart. It therefore allows them to claim that there is no need for biological testing because the GM crops are similar to their conventional counterpart, while on the other hand, because they contain novel genes from other organism(s), they are patentable."

It's an Orwellian concept. It says, "This GM tomato looks pretty much like any other tomato, tastes like a tomato, smells like a tomato, etc., ergo, it's a tomato and we don't need to do any nutritional or toxicological testing to find out out if it's as nutritious and safe as non-GM tomatoes. Trust us. But we have a patent on it because of the modification we made to its genome so we get big bucks for the plants and if you grow more plants from the seeds, we'll sure your ass for stealing our patented plants."

That's the "science" that Dean relies on when he says GMO foods are safe.

It seems clear to me that Dean has some theories he holds onto while ignoring some facts.

[sandnsea]

24. New tomatoes taste icky

Really, if all these vegetables we've been getting for the last few years are GM, blech, toss 'em to the pigs. I hate them.

[wtmusic]

27. GM or not, there's no substitute for ripening on the vine

And you can't find those in a store without paying $$

[sandnsea]

33. Vine ripened aren't even that good

We get the hydroponic vine ripened sometimes and they're NO substitute for tomatoes from the garden. Maybe if you live in Cali or the southwest you get good tomatoes sometimes, it's been ages and ages for me. :-(

[tsipple]

30. To Be Totally Honest, DemBones...

...I think Dr. Dean knows exactly the same thing, that medical marijuana ought to be allowed and that the facts support its compassionate use.

Unfortunately the public at large isn't on board well enough yet, which is why we need the stamp of approval from the FDA, so the public does have the full information (and so the Republicans can't block it).

With respect to GM foods, I'll have to side with Dean on this one. There's not a whole lot of science that says GM foods are harmful. (Full stop.) There is ample scientific theory that says they could be, because of potential deleterious effects on other organisms. (Heck, you don't have to go that far. We've had some nasty ecosystem disruption simply by introducing "foreign" organisms to new habitats, like gypsy moths to North America.)

So what's the proper balance? What procedures must be in place for GM foods to reach the market? And should they be labeled, as the European Union stipulates? I'm not aware of Dean fleshing out detailed positions on these questions yet. But I do have to agree with his basic statement as you've relayed it.

Please note that, if you go beyond GM foods to engineered organisms generally, there's enormous potential for, say, GM bacteria to improve human health and to clean up environmental contamination. For example, there's some fascinating work right now involving radiation-resistant bacteria that can be used to "lock up" contaminated soils. This is very cool stuff to environmentalists like me. It's not something to rush into headlong without appropriate safeguards, but there's also tremendous positive potential.

[DemBones DemBones]

39. As a biologist, I'm well aware of the potential for good in genetic

manipulation but no one knows what harm GMOs in foods may be doing to us because they are not being studied. Since GM foods have been introduced into the American diet, obesity, asthma, diabetes, and various diseases caused by a malfunctioning immune system are all on the rise. Is there any correlation? We don't know, and may never know, because no one is studying this.

The big corporations like ADM and Monsanto made sure that this "substantial equivalence" ruse became the way of "determining" safety. If you read through my post, I'd think you could see that this is a problem. In order to get grant money in science, you have to do research that doesn't offend potential sponsors of grants or contributors to the university where you teach. It's not a good system for encouraging research that might uncover some unwanted facts. I'm sure you're aware of how the Bush* administration views science: "We pay these scientists to come up with the results we want." Typical business-oriented point of view.

Beyond the possible effects on human health, there are environmental effects, as you might expect, being familiar with problems caused by introduced, non-native species. Further, a number of reports of increased Fusarium "wilt" in Roundup-Ready crops have caused concern among farmers. Fusarium is not something you want to increase in your crops and toxicity to consumers is involved as well.

Dean has indicated he's amenable to labeling GM foods but he'll soon learn that Monsanto and ADM don't want to do that. Don't you have a problem with companies not wanting to disclose what's in their products, particularly when they're products you eat? And what about a presidential candidate who would have the FDA study medical marijuana but not GMOs in foods?

As to medical marijuana, I think the majority of Americans would support this. I think that it would be a far easier sell than same sex marriages or even civil unions. I think the majority of Americans might well go for decriminalization of marijuana entirely, Most people realize that it's commonly used and too many people are in prison for it today. But in any case, if Dean believed in doing it, why not say so? It's been suggested that because he chose to quit drinking, he's become puritanical about mood-altering drugs, thinking that if he can't handle them, others can't, either. But that's quite obviously false. Many people use alcohol and/or marijuana without adverse effects.

I feel that on these two issues Dean is using his physician status to ignore very real questions that should be asked and answered on these issues. He's holding on to his theory (and using the word theory incorrectly -- he should speak of his hypothesis instead) and ignoring facts that refute it. That's not the way scientists operate and Dean, in my view, is behaving like a stereotypical arrogant "I know better than you" physician, a doctor who thinks he is God. It's an off-putting attitude, whether in their offices, when meeting them socially, or in a campaign like this one.