|
"The
joke among a lot of Vermont Republicans was that they didn't need to run
anyone for governor because they basically had one in office already," said
Harlan Sylvester, a conservative Democratic stockbroker and longtime adviser
to Dean.
(St. Petersburg Times, July 6,
2003)
* * * * * *
In Vermont,
said John McClaughry, Dean was such a centrist that some in his own party
considered him "a Republican in drag." McClaughry, a Republican who heads
the Ethan Allen Institute, a public policy think tank in Kirby, Vt., said:
"A lot of people in Vermont look at Howard Dean today and they don't see the
Howard Dean who was governor. He has reshaped himself to appeal to a faction
of the Democratic constituency." (Los Angeles Times, June 1, 2003)
_______________________________________________________
CONTENTS
*
Editors’ Note About this Compilation
*
General Articles About Dean
*
Dean and Campaign Finance/Corporate Supporters
*
Dean on the Middle East
*
Dean’s Nuanced “Anti-War” Stance
*
Dean on Criminal Justice and Civil Liberties
*
Dean on the Environment
*
Dean on other Domestic Issues
*
Dean vs. Kucinich (issue comparisons)
_______________________________________________________
Editors’ Note About
this Compilation:
The curtain is raised, and standing in the spotlight alone is Presidential
hopeful Howard Dean. A virtual nobody turned star attraction, Dean’s ride to
the top has been nothing short of remarkable. He has long held ambitions of
one-day gazing out over the plush White House lawns in his royal bathrobe.
And he may soon have his wish. The American Left has all but crowned this
Democrat king of their Party -- buying his anti-war posture with superfluous
ease. But how progressive is Dr. Dean? Is he worthy of such support?
The following collection
of articles helps to expose the doctor for what he is -- a typical
politician whose record is crammed full of sleaze and controversy. These
articles -- ranging from his Israel position, to his qualms with the Bill of
Rights -- prove that we should not have the illusion that Dean is a liberal
savior, strong enough to pry the Right hand now strangling this country.
Like our widely read
compilation of articles on that other current liberal savior, Wesley
Clark, the point of this page is to emphasize that the “anybody
but Bush” mentality pervading many American opposition movements is
short-sighted. While Bush Inc. represents an unusually extreme segment of
the American ruling class, its policies in reality fall within a very narrow
political space subscribed to by both Democrats and Republicans. Neither
political party questions the right of the US to overthrow governments
(often democratically elected); back some of the most repressive regimes or
movements on the planet when it serves elite interests (Saddam Hussein in
the 1980s, Pinochet, Suharto, the death squad regimes of Latin America,
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, Mobutu, Jonas Savimbi, the Nicaraguan contras,
and many more); or to commit unilateral acts of aggression (Iraq, Panama,
Grenada, South Vietnam, and many Latin American and Caribbean nations
throughout the 20th century).
Both parties put the
interests of the rich and powerful above the rest of us. Disagreement
tends to be on narrow tactical grounds, not on the moral and fundamental
level.
Long before the first
primary, there are Democratic candidates, like
Dennis Kucinich, who are advocating genuine alternatives to
business-as-usual politics, and yet they are largely being ignored because
they are defined as “long shots.” Howard Dean was once a long shot, but now
he is a Democratic front-runner because of the hard work of activists (lots
of family money helps too). There is no reason the same can’t be true for
the more progressive candidates. If one truly identifies him/herself as a
“centrist” (in a constantly rightward moving landscape) or “conservative
Democrat,” then Howard Dean (or Clark) is your man. But those seeking a
real alternative
will not find it in Dean. Further, fear of the Bush Administration
doesn’t mean that challengers for the presidency are above criticism,
whether the opponent is a Kucinich, Ralph Nader or Noam Chomsky. In the end
what really matters is not who the winner of a horse race every four years
is, but the relentless pressure We as active participants in the
political process put on the politicians, day in and day out, to make them
work in the interest of the Common Good. The history of positive political
change in America makes that clear. Uncritically supporting a
business-as-usual candidate because he/she appears to be a lesser evil
achieves nothing. Our hope is that progressives find these links and reports
informative and useful.
-- Josh Frank and Sunil
Sharma
General Articles about Dean
* Is Dean “a Liberal”?
(posted 11/12)
by former FCC Commissioner
Nicholas Johnson, July 10, 2003
But for those Democratic
activists who are looking for the most liberal or progressive choice, and
believe that to be the Party’s best strategy, most are narrowing their
selection to Dean or Kucinich. And in doing so they really deserve, and
need, to know Dean’s record and actual positions – with citations to
sources. That is what his paper is designed to provide....Even today Dean
describes himself as “to the right of Bush” on some issues (balanced budget
and radically increased spending on homeland security), and rejects the
label “liberal.” Those who know him best, or have written about him in
depth, agree. Says Robert Dreyfuss, “He’s a hard-nosed, penny-pinching
fiscal conservative who seems to delight in sticking his thumb in the eye of
the Democrats on the party’s ever-shrinking left wing.” In fact Dean clashed
so “often with [Vermont’s legislative] Democrats over taxes and spending
[that he drove] many liberal-left Democrats into the arms of the Progressive
Party and of Representative Bernie Sanders, Congress’s lone socialist.” (One
can assume, given the Democrats’ attacks on Ralph Nader following the 2000
election, that what Dean produced in Vermont is precisely what the Party
seeks to avoid in 2004.) Economist Max Sawicky says Dean “often turned his
acerbic words on the left wing of his own party. . . [He] supported
Vermonters’ right to carry concealed weapons and resisted many spending
proposals.” And, quoting political scientist Garrison Nelson, “His
born-again liberalism has caught a lot of us by surprise.” Elizabeth Mehren
of the Los Angeles Times quotes Dean’s “determination to ‘make sure this
party comes back to its center.’” . . . (read
more)
* Vermonters see a new man in
former governor
By Dick Polman, Knight Ridder News, November 23, 2003
Mention Howard Dean to the folks who know him best, and they shake their
heads in awe, marveling at how their very own "Ho-Ho" has muscled his way to
the forefront of Democratic presidential politics. They see him on TV,
firing up the liberals, and they're dumbfounded, because they always knew
him as a tightwad governor who spent 10 years excoriating liberals. They see
him wowing the "flatlanders" (that's everyone outside of Vermont), whipping
them into a frenzy, and they can't square that with the little guy who wore
frayed shirts and goofy ties and delivered speeches that lulled listeners
into a stupor. As Kurt Wright, a Republican who serves in the
part-time Legislature and runs a Kwik Stop convenience store, said, "It was
always a joke in the hallways about how bad his 'State of the State'
speeches were. So wooden and robotic. And I'm not being partisan, because I
think President Bush is terrible, too. But these days, whenever I hear
Howard, I find myself thinking, 'Is this really Howard, or am I watching
"Invasion of the Body Snatchers?" ' " And whatever happened to the Howard
Dean who, when asked to render an opinion about the governor of Texas back
in 1999, always gave the same answer: "I like George Bush. He's a good guy."
. . . (read
more)
* The Dean Deception
(Excellent
overview of Dean’s record as Gov. of Vermont)
by Keith Rosenthal,
International Socialist Review, November-December 2003
"When Dean was governor, he was a staunch supporter of NAFTA, the WTO, the
IMF and World Bank. While he is now distancing himself somewhat from certain
aspects of these institutions (most likely a calculated move to win in the
primaries), he still fundamentally supports their spirit -- free trade,
open markets and the pursuit of profits. And he still maintains that NAFTA
was good for Vermont even though the state suffered 6,000 trade-related job
losses in the 1990s"... (read
more)
* The View From Vermont
Is of a Different Dean
(posted 11/12)
Washington Post, August
17, 2003
The tone of the current
race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination was set 12 years ago
last week when a little-known Republican governor of a state with fewer
people than Baltimore dropped dead of a heart attack while cleaning the
filter on his swimming pool. . . . Truth be told, the former governor never
aspired to be a liberal maverick because, well, he wasn't one. The good
doctor -- born, after all, into a solidly Republican family with a homestead
in the Hamptons -- could never have been a flaming liberal and remained at
the state's helm for very long. . . . As most close observers of Vermont
politics note, Dean the Democrat continued to pursue much of the agenda
established by Snelling the Republican. Dean worked at balancing a
deficit-plagued budget, resisting urgings from the left to abandon
Snelling's tightfisted ways. As he told Vermont Public Radio in an interview
two years ago, "I think there was an expectation among some of those on the
farther liberal ends of my own party that I was going to come in and now
things were going to be different, and the facts were that we had a big
serious financial crisis and somebody had to deal with it and that somebody
happened to be me by chance." In other words, Dean was trying to be true to
his pledge to govern as Snelling would have -- as a progressive Republican.
. . . (read
more)
* Howard Dean: the Progressive Anti-War
Candidate? Perspectives from Vermont
by Donna
Bister, Marc Estrin and Ron Jacobs, Dissident Voice, September 6, 2003
Howard Dean the liberal, anti-war
candidate? The laughter rings most loudly in Vermont. As Dean's candidacy
caught fire over the summer, a number of articles have appeared on the net
examining his history and current stance on important national and
international issues. They all point to a Clintonesque Republicrat whose
stances are not far from that of the current administration… (read
more)
* Dean’s “Ambition”
Cited As Reason For Gubernatorial Records Seal: Dean’s Seal Request Termed
“Extreme” By Vermont Deputy Secretary of State
Judicial Watch, October
23, 2003
"Vermont State archivist documents concerning the negotiations and decision
to seal former Vermont Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Howard
Dean’s records show Dean’s personal political ambitions for the presidency
were the reason Dean wanted his gubernatorial records sealed for an
unprecedented 24 years. Ultimately, they were sealed for 10 years." … (read
more)
* Dean feared a
'Horton' scenario
(posted 11/12)
Boston Globe, October 9,
2003
In the course of
negotiating an unprecedented 10-year period for keeping his official papers
confidential, former Vermont governor Howard Dean through his legal counsel
explored the possibility of making the privacy period contingent on whether
he was running for president, according to newly released documents.
Discussions between the counsel and the state archivist about a potentially
longer sealing period centered around the possibility that a future
political opponent of Dean's might seize on a document and use it as
ammunition, according to the correspondence. State archivist Gregory Sanford
noted that in the talks a primary concern was "the `Willie Horton' example,"
referring to the furloughed Massachusetts prisoner whose crimes surfaced as
an issue in the 1988 contest between Vice President George H.W. Bush and
Michael S. Dukakis. . . . Shortly before he left office, Dean told Vermont
Public Radio, "Well, there are future political considerations. We didn't
want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any
future endeavor." . . . . (read
more)
* Democrat laces up a
liberal exterior: As Howard Dean lays claim to the left in 2004, many in
Vermont recall a more conservative governor.
St. Petersburg Times, July
6, 2003
"Most Vermonters I know chuckle about Howard Dean as the most liberal
presidential candidate," said Zuckerman, a pony-tailed farmer and Vermont
state legislator. Customer Laura Brown, after unfavorably comparing
President Bush's I.Q. to one of Zuckerman's beets, recalled the fiery,
populist speech Dean had given to announce his candidacy recently in
Burlington. "He sure wasn't giving those kinds of speeches as governor,"
said Brown, a professional herbologist. "Howard Dean's a different creature
than when he was here." In the capital of Ben and Jerry's and Birkenstocks,
Vermonters are a tad perplexed as their former governor makes big waves in
the Democratic presidential race. At times they don't recognize him. The
fellow delivering stemwinders that bring roaring crowds to their feet was
known in Vermont for dull speeches. The darling of liberal activists
nationally repeatedly snubbed the left wing of his party during nearly 12
years as Vermont governor. He rails against President Bush's tax cuts, but
in Vermont he twice fought for state tax cuts and repeatedly bashed
Democratic spending plans as irresponsible. "The joke among a lot of Vermont
Republicans was that they didn't need to run anyone for governor because
they basically had one in office already," said Harlan Sylvester, a
conservative Democratic stockbroker and longtime adviser to Dean... (read
more)
* Dean's No Wellstone
by Jim Farrell, The
Nation, May 26, 2003
While Dean may share some measure of Wellstone's passion, his record and his
agenda are very different. As governor of Vermont, Dean targeted for
elimination the public-financing provision of the state's campaign finance
law--a law similar to the one Wellstone pushed in the Senate. In February
2002, Dean said his big donors are given special access. While Wellstone
fought for people on welfare, Dean said some welfare recipients "don't have
any self-esteem. If they did, they'd be working" and scaled back Vermont's
welfare program, reducing cash benefits and imposing strict time limits on
single mothers receiving welfare assistance. Dean advocated sending nuclear
waste from his state to the poor, mostly Hispanic town of Sierra Blanca,
Texas. Wellstone called the proposal "blatant environmental injustice" and
fought to delay the measure in the Senate. It ultimately passed but was
later determined unsafe. Just last year, Dean proposed deep cuts in
Medicaid, which were blocked in his own legislature. Now he calls
Representative Dick Gephardt's healthcare proposal, which would roll back
the Bush tax cuts in order to provide a tax credit for employers mandated to
deliver health coverage to workers, "a pie-in-the-sky radical revamping of
our healthcare system." Dean has said that a constitutional amendment to
balance the budget "wouldn't be a bad thing" and that the way to balance the
federal budget is "for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement
age to 70 and cut defense, Medicare and veterans' pensions." In the name of
fiscal conservatism, Dean's final-year Vermont budget also cut portions of
the state's public education funding. (read
more)
* Who's the Real Howard
Dean? As Vermont governor, the liberal firebrand was a fiscal conservative
with close ties to business
Business Week, August 11,
2003
Howard Dean has fought his way to the front of the Democratic pack jostling
for the 2004 Presidential nomination partly because he has won the hearts of
so many liberals with his antiwar rhetoric and shoot-from-the-lip style. But
who is the real Howard Dean? Is he the left-of-center insurgent being
portrayed in the press or the business-friendly fiscal conservative and
pragmatic moderate who governed Vermont for 11 years? . . . Conservative
Vermont business leaders praise Dean's record and his unceasing efforts to
balance the budget, even though Vermont is the only state where a balanced
budget is not constitutionally required. Moreover, they argue that the two
most liberal policies adopted during Dean's tenure -- the "civil unions" law
and a radical revamping of public school financing -- were instigated by
Vermont's ultraliberal Supreme Court rather than Dean. [editor’s note: Dean
repeatedly claims credit for these policies] "He was not a left-wing wacko,"
says Bill Stenger, a Republican and president of Jay Peak Resort, who says
he supported Dean because of his "fiscally responsible, socially conscious
policies." … (read
more)
* Dr. No and the Yes
Men
New York Times Magazine,
June 1, 2003
If Dean ever belonged to the ''Democratic wing of the Democratic Party''
before this year, he must have kept his membership secret. During his five
two-year terms as governor, Dean was proud to be known as a pragmatic New
Democrat, in the Clinton mold, boasting that neither the far right nor the
far left had much use for him.... Then, last fall, Dean opposed the
Congressional war resolution that Kerry, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards and
Dick Gephardt all supported. And it didn't take long for Dean to see that he
had stirred something powerful in the depths of the Democratic Party.
Liberal resentment had been building since the mid-1990's, when liberals had
to swallow Bill Clinton's strategy of ''triangulation'' on issues like
welfare reform....In the space of a few weeks, Dean became the antiwar
candidate, the new Gene McCarthy. Dean, an instinctively shrewd politician,
recognized an opportunity when it presented itself. He began using the
''Democratic wing of the Democratic Party'' line and broadened his attacks
on Bush and his fellow Democrats.... Dean is clearly aware of this
predicament, and he doesn't want to be seen as a peace candidate. ''It's
kind of a sad commentary that I'm the most progressive candidate running,
out here talking about a balanced budget and a health care system run by the
private sector,'' Dean told me at one point. During another conversation, he
said: ''I was a triangulator before Clinton was a triangulator. In my soul,
I'm a moderate. I know no one believes that.'' I asked Dean whether he is
worried that his liberal supporters might be disillusioned if they heard him
talk this way. He shook his head. ''I've met people in the peace movement,
and I've said, 'Look, I appreciate your help, but you have to take a hard
look at me, because I'm not a pacifist,''' he said. ''In fact, I'm far more
hawkish than the president is on terrorism.'' … (read
more)
* Dean Hopes and Green
Dreams: The 2004 Presidential Race
by Norman Solomon,
Dissident Voice, August 25, 2003
Dean does not give much indication that he wants to challenge Uncle Sam’s
imperial capabilities. On the contrary: Dean has opposed cutting the budget
for routine U.S. military expenditures that now add up to well over $1
billion per day. And while his campaign kickoff speech stated that “there is
a fundamental difference between the defense of our nation and the doctrine
of preemptive war espoused by this administration,” surely Dean knows -- or
should know -- that much of the Pentagon’s budget has absolutely nothing to
do with “defense of our nation.”… (read
more)
* Short-Fused Populist,
Breathing Fire at Bush
Washington Post, July 6,
2003
Garrison Nelson, a professor of political science at the University of
Vermont and a frequent Dean critic, says the Different Dean has been
fascinating to watch. "Howard Dean pounding the podium taking back America
is a new Howard," he says. "Now, whether the new Howard is the real Howard
is a matter for speculation. Is he taking the left as a campaign strategy?"
Dean says he doesn't mind being called a liberal and welcomes progressives
to the campaign. ("I'd be delighted if the Greens supported me!") But he
chuckles at the liberal label, considering that "I am probably the most
conservative of the candidates when it comes to gun control." It's a states
issue, he says, and his state, with its low crime rate, doesn't need it. "I
think it's pathetic that I'm considered the left-wing liberal," Dean said.
"It shows just how far to the right this country has lurched." Over and over
on the campaign trail, he tells audiences that he is a fiscal conservative
who believes balanced budgets serve the cause of social justice. "Here's
why," he'll say. "When you balance the budget, you have money in hard times
to pay for the things you need." Yet if he generally sounds more like a Paul
Wellstone progressive than a Bill Clinton centrist on the stump, even
borrowing the late Minnesota senator's line about representing "the
Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," well. . . . (read
more)
* Mean, Mean Howard
Dean: He's Regressive, Not Progressive
By Josh Frank,
CounterPunch, August 9, 2003
Media pundits have been rattling their cages over Howard Dean's so-called
progressive agenda, but how wrong they've been. Dean's back seat criticism
of the Bush Administration's case for war should enlighten us to the fact
that this ex-Vermont Governor's leadership skills are lacking… (read
more)
* Dean Losing Support
on Left For His Stances on Its Issues
The Forward, August 22,
2003
Many single-issue activists who work on Middle East peace, gun control and
drug policy reform --including some who say they were initially attracted to
Dean -- are becoming increasingly vocal in opposing him. Some are speaking
about a "reassessment" on the left and warn darkly that Dean's stands are
already costing him support among core Democrats… (read
more)
* What Liberal Messiah? Howard Dean,
left-wing impostor.
By William Saletan, Slate,
June 23, 2003
For months, Dean has accused his Democratic rivals of caving to the right.
He scolds them for supporting the Iraq war resolution, accepting $350
billion in additional deficit-era tax cuts, and voting for President Bush's
underfunded education bill. Dean claims to stand for "the Democratic wing of
the Democratic Party," unlike Bob Graham, who purports to represent "the
electable wing of the Democratic Party.” But how exactly do Dean and Graham
differ on the war resolution, the tax cuts, and funding the education bill?
Not at all… (read
more)
* A Progressive Case
for Dean? Not Yet, Kucinich Is Still Our Man
by John Turri, Dissident
Voice, August 26, 2003
To Dean or not to Dean: that is the question. Should progressives be
supporting Howard Dean? In a recent article on Common Dreams News Center,
Nico Pitney argues that they should. Pitney's article has been reprinted on
left-leaning and progressive websites. His case is being repeated on
discussion boards and across the blogosphere. We probably all have
progressive friends and acquaintances who share Pitney's view, if only
tacitly. It is worth our time, therefore, to carefully consider Pitney's
intelligent and energetic "progressive case for Dean." I will argue that
Pitney fails to make a persuasive case…(read
more)
* From Tweedle Dick to
Tweedle Dean: Ho-hum Democrats Get Ready to Blow Another Chance
by Daniel Patrick Welch,
Dissident Voice, August 22, 2003
One would think that enough has been said in the realm of blowing Howard
Dean's liberal cover. An outpouring of research and truth-telling from the
left has left, at least on my own palette, a distaste for Dean rivaled only
by that I feel for Joe Lieberman. The fury has been so relentless, that even
the Nation (original source of the Dean is No Wellstone warning shot) has
felt it necessary to issue a revision of sorts, noting, among other tidbits,
that a surprising number of Nation staffers, some self-described leftists,
are still stuck on Dean despite his having been successfully outed -- or so
we thought. One new mantra is that Dean is being "picked on." The Nation
points out that, despite seemingly favorable coverage, the press just
doesn't seem to like him personally. It seems a bit disingenuous, though, to
fault the media, whose obsession with Dean, and in particular, whose
collusion in sculpting Dean's image as a liberal has catapulted him to the
forefront. And yet the mislabeling continues. Hugo Young writes a brilliant
analysis in the Guardian ("American Voters Have Two Choices: Bush or Bush-lite,")
However, even Young mischaracterizes Dean as "the most lefty of the
candidates." This is demonstrably untrue. Many candidate's positions are
exactly along the lines of what Young seems to advise: that Democrats need
to "abandon their backing and filling, and their belief that being a
Democrat no longer adds up to anything more than a milder version of their
enemies." . . . (read
more)
Dean and Campaign
Finance/Corporate Supporters
* Dean raises money
from energy sources
Associated Press, February
27, 2002
When Gov. Howard Dean
wanted to raise money for a possible presidential bid, he followed the
example of a former governor of Texas and called on his friends in the
energy industry. Nearly a fifth of the roughly $111,000 collected in its
first months by Dean’s presidential political action committee, the Fund for
a Healthy America, came from people with ties to Vermont’s electric
utilities, according to a recent Federal Elections Commission filing. It
should be no surprise. Dean and utility executives have had a long and
friendly relationship. . . . A top Dean aide emphatically denied that the
governor has ever let campaign contributions influence state policy. Kate
O’Connor, secretary of civil and military affairs, used the word absurd to
describe that notion more than a half-dozen times in a recent interview. But
the governor himself has said the donations buy access. “People who think
they’re going to buy a contract or buy some influence are mistaken,” Dean
famously said during the debate over a campaign finance reform bill in 1996.
“But they do get access — there’s no question about that. ...They get me to
return their phone calls.” Over the years, the governor has sided with the
utilities on many of the most pressing issues, including the push for
deregulation of the electric industry, and later backing away from that as a
goal. Among other major decisions: . . . . (read
more)
* Governor Howard Dean
Pulls the Plug on Democracy
Vermont PIRG, 2002
Governor Howard Dean has
proposed to permanently gut Vermont's campaign finance reform law
eliminating our landmark public financing option for governor and lieutenant
governor. VPIRG opposes removing any money from the Fund because it sets a
dangerous precedent for undermining democracy in Vermont and limits the
legislature's options to strengthen the law in the future. The Governor's
move will simply open another door for access by corporations and other
wealthy donors seeking generous tax breaks, permission to pollute our air
and water, boondoggle electric rate contracts and other special interest
perks. As Lieutenant Governor Doug Racine said at a public forum on December
11th "I do believe money is corrupting the political process." . . . . (read
more)
* Vt. campaign
disclosure gets ‘F’ grade
Rutland Herald, September 25, 2003
Vermont does one of the
worst jobs in the country of providing campaign finance information to the
public, according to a new study that looked at the disclosure practices in
every state. The study, “Grading State Disclosure 2003,” found that only
nine states make it harder to find accurate and timely information on the
amounts and sources of campaign contributions. . . . (read
more)
Dean on the Middle East
* Dean
Does Damage Control
Jewish Week,
October 3, 2003
"I was a little surprised because people who know me know very well I am a
strong defender of Israel," he said. "But after I thought about it for a
while I wasn't surprised. I think that the connection of the Jewish
community to Israel is so strong, and the feeling in Israel that someday
they may be abandoned is enormous." . . . “I’ve been very clear, I support
the targeted assassinations,” he said. “These are enemy combatants in a war;
Israel has every right to shoot them before they can shoot Israelis.” An
earlier statement to that effect got Dean in trouble when in a CNN
interview, he referred to Hamas terrorists as “soldiers,” a statement that
produced a sharp attack from a top rival, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) Dean was
unrepentant, saying he used the word deliberately because “under
international law, you are not allowed to assassinate terrorists. … That was
not a naive gaffe. It was to keep Israel’s policy within the bounds of
international law.” (read
more)
* Howard
Dean: Hawk in Dove’s Clothing?
by Stephen
Zunes, Common Dreams, February 26, 2003
In his major foreign policy address to date, a February 17 speech at Drake
University in Iowa, Dean blasted the Bush administration’s foreign policy
regarding Iraq and several other areas, but when it came to Israel and
Palestine the former Vermont governor declared that, while the United
States should become more engaged, he did not have any fundamental
objections with President George W. Bush’s policies. Dean called for an end
to Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians, but he did not call for a
cessation of Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians. Similarly,
there was no call for an end of the Israeli occupation, for Israeli
compliance with UN Security Council resolutions, or a withdrawal from
Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied territories or even a freeze on
the construction of new settlements… read more here. . . (read
more)
*
Dean Not Progressive on
Mideast
By Ahmed Nassef, AlterNet,
June 30, 2003
In a major foreign policy speech earlier this year, Dean, while calling for
an end to Palestinian violence, did not call for an end to Israeli violence,
let alone an end to the illegal Israeli occupation. And when asked whether
his views are closer to the dovish Americans for Peace Now (APN) or the
right-wing, Sharon-supporting American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC),
he stated unequivocally in an interview with the Jewish weekly The Forward,
"My view is closer to AIPAC's view." . . . Similarly, Dean's official
campaign position on solving the Palestinian-Israeli problem is that
"terrorism against Israel must end," but there is no mention of the Israeli
violence that has resulted in over 2,391 deaths since September 2000 . . . (read
more)
* Howard Dean's Israel
problem: When he said the U.S. must be "evenhanded" in the Middle East,
rivals and critics accused him of selling out the Jewish state -- even
though his position is similar to Bush's and his campaign co-chair used to
run AIPAC.
By Michelle Goldberg,
Salon.com, September 23, 2003
Last Saturday, John Kerry gleefully predicted that Democratic rival Howard
Dean was "imploding" over Israel. A meme was spreading in the Democratic
Party that the former Vermont governor is insufficiently Zionist, that his
views represent the antiwar fringe that's said to constitute his base. An
Israeli newspaper had predicted that Jewish donors would shun him. Abraham
Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, wrote him an
admonitory letter. Political strategists waxed catastrophic. What made the
uproar so odd is that Dean's Israel policy hardly differs from that of Bush
and his main Democratic challengers… (read
more)
* Contemplating
Unacceptable Evenhandedness
by Kim Petersen, Dissident
Voice, September 13, 2003
Now that Howard Dean is emerging as a frontrunner in the battle to nominate
a presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, he is increasingly
subject to intra-party sniping. Associated Press reports: “Connecticut
Senator Joseph Lieberman is hammering former Vermont governor Howard Dean
over remarks he made recently about the Middle East conflict. But Dean
maintains that he has not retreated from the strongly pro-Israel positions
he articulated early in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.”
... Mr. Dean chalked it up to trouble-making by Mr. Lieberman and notes:
“The position of every Democratic candidate is the same as mine.” . . . Mr.
Dean avers this position is the same as the failed position of former
President Bill Clinton -- a bizarre position to stake a claim to. This
position backs former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s “generous offer.”
The corporate media failed to elucidate that the generosity of the offer was
only to be forthcoming from the Palestinian side. A look at a map of the
proposal reveals that Palestinians would be left with a Bantustan-like
patchwork state with Israel in effective control…It didn’t take long for Mr.
Dean to drop the hot potato of extending fairness to Palestinians. Nedra
Pickler quotes Mr. Dean on his climb-down: “I believe the position that I
take on Israel is exactly the position the United States has taken for 54
years.” Mr. Dean instead says he has nothing new to offer other than a
dog-eared tendentious policy that has been an abject failure as far as peace
and human dignity in the Middle East is concerned… (read
more)
* In Prexy Bid, Vt. Gov
Taps AIPAC Vet
Married to Jew,
Courting Others
The Forward, November 22,
2002
Dean spoke with the Forward shortly after naming Steven Grossman, a former
head of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and ex-chairman of the
Democratic National Committee, to a top campaign fundraising post. In
addition, Dean said he is traveling to Israel for a week at the end of the
month with the American Israel Educational Foundation, AIPAC's educational
arm, to meet with Israeli officials and Arab leaders…Asked if his appearance
at the Peace Now event should be read as a signal of his views on the Middle
East, Dean said, "No, my view is closer to AIPAC's view." (read
more)
*
Democratic presidential hopeful to 'Post: I back loan guarantees
By Caroline
B. Glick, The Jerusalem Post, December 5, 2003, p.1 (Full Text)
Howard Dean, the Democratic governor of Vermont and a 2004 presidential
hopeful, visited this week and voiced support for the US providing $10
billion in loan guarantees.
His visit has consisted of visiting various
trouble spots in the country, like Jerusalem's Gilo neighborhood and Beit
Jala, and meeting with leaders like Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and PA
Finance Minister Salaam Fayad. On Tuesday, he participated in the Herzliya
conference, where he spoke at length with The Jerusalem Post about his views
on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and on the US goals in the region.
Although Dean's wife, Judith Steinberg, is
Jewish, this was his first visit. "I came here to better understand the
situation, and there is no doubt that seeing the country for yourself is the
best way to understand," he said.
While Dean explained that his trip has "not
changed my overall perspective on the situation, it has deepened my ability
to understand the reality here. The other night on the ride to Jerusalem, my
guide pointed to lights on our left and told explained that we were passing
Ramallah. I was amazed by the proximity. You always get the feeling that
when they talk about Ramallah that it is at least 35 miles from Jerusalem,
but it's right there. I am amazed by just how small this country is."
Dean said the Bush administration should honor
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's request for $10 billion in loan guarantees to
improve the economy that has been damaged by the two-year war against
Palestinian terror.
"Israel is a democracy, the only democracy
aside from Turkey in the region. Israel has incurred severe economic damage
as a result of being forced to fight this war. I believe that by providing
Israel with the loan guarantees and thereby enabling Israel's economy to
grow, the US will be advancing its own interest," he said.
"As a fellow democracy that shares our values,
that is fighting a war against terrorism, Israel is a friend, a strategic
asset, and an ally for the US. A strong Israel is essential for advancing
the US interest of building a stable world."
Dean also believes it is important for the US
to play an active role in shepherding a negotiated settlement of the
Israel-Arab conflict. "If elected president, I will be much more involved in
this conflict than the Bush administration. I think it is a mistake for the
president not to be sending the secretary of state here to mediate between
the parties. I would be sending my secretary of state here all the time -
like Henry Kissinger - in order to engage the sides in dialogue."
He believes that eventually, these
negotiations will lead to a two-state solution. Dean does not believe that
it is possible for the international community or the US to impose a
settlement on the parties or to launch an international trusteeship of the
territories.
"The sides will never agree to the imposition
of an international settlement," he said.
He also rejects the notion of a US-led
international peacekeeping force. "It would be bad for Israel, and it
represents a departure from our principles," he explained.
Like President George W. Bush, Dean believes
that for a Palestinian state to be established, the Palestinians must change
their leadership.
"I believe it will be impossible to make peace
for as long as [Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser] Arafat is in charge,"
he said. "There must be a fundamental change. There needs to be democracy.
The test must be performance based. We need to see, for instance, an
empowerment of women in Palestinian society. I believe that the best defense
is built not just on troops, but on building societies. An indication that
such a change is occurring can be seen through the empowerment of women."
He gave conditional support to Bush's policies
toward Saddam Hussein's Iraq. "I am an internationalist and a multilaterist
at heart. I would have spent more time trying to build a coalition. I would
have gone first to the UN Security Council and our allies to get their
support. I think the president was wrong not to do so. The polling data also
shows that the public prefers that the US fight such a war as part of a
coalition and not on its own," he said.
From his perspective, Iran is a larger danger
than Iraq, and Dean believes that the US should provide direct support for
the Iranian students protesting against the Islamic regime.
"I think the notion that after Iraq, the
Iranians will just overthrow the mullahs is wrong. I think we should be
giving direct support for the students in Iran that want to be liberated
from that regime," he said.
In the event that Israel were to experience a
mega- terror attack, Dean said he believes the US would understand if Israel
were to enact radical measures to defend itself.
"Obviously in such an event, we would send any
humanitarian and military aid that Israel might need. It would also be clear
then that any obstacle to forcing Arafat would be removed. Beyond that, it
is clear that in the event of such an attack, Israel would have to take all
necessary steps to defend itself," he said.
Although Dean believes that if prior
information exists regarding terror attacks, it is reasonable to preempt
them, he thinks declaring preemption as a policy, as Bush did recently is
wrong.
"There is no doubt that if we had known of the
September 11 attacks ahead of time, we would have done everything to prevent
them. At the same time, I would not have made [the president's] speech on
preemption as a declared strategy. I would use quieter diplomacy," he said.
Dean echoed Teddy Roosevelt's adage of "speak
softly and carry a big stick" in his view of diplomacy. In dealing with US
adversaries, he said, "I would smile politely and inform them of the
consequences and not bluff." [End Article]
Dean’s Nuanced “Anti-War” Stance
*
Howard Dean is no McGovern: There's a
big difference between his antiwar critique and the one offered three
decades ago in the Vietnam era
(posted 11/23)
By Robert Kagan, Washington Post , November 23, 2003
In this respect, at least, Howard Dean is no George McGovern. He opposed the
Iraq war, he says, because it was "the wrong war at the wrong time," not
because it was emblematic of a fundamentally misguided American foreign
policy. Dean has not, in fact, challenged the reigning foreign policy
paradigms of the post-9/11 era: the war on terrorism and the nexus between
terrorism and rogue states with weapons of mass destruction. "I support the
president's war on terrorism," he told Tim Russert this summer. He supported
the war in Afghanistan. He even supported Israel's strike against a
terrorist camp in Syria because Israel, like the United States, has the
"right" to defend itself. (European Deanophiles take note.) Dean does not
call for a reduction in American military power but talks about using the
"iron fist" of our "superb military." He talks tough about North Korea and
at times appears to be criticizing the Bush administration for not
addressing that "imminent" threat more seriously. And he especially enjoys
lacerating Bush for not taking the fight more effectively to al-Qaida, a bit
like John F. Kennedy criticizing Eisenhower in 1960 for not being tough
enough on communism. . . (read
more)
* As Baghdad Falls
Howard Dean Folds Back into the National Security Establishment
by Charles Knight, Common
Dreams, April 14, 2003
On April 9, 2003, the day that most
American newspapers headlined the "liberation of Baghdad", Howard Dean, a
Democratic presidential candidate notable for his opposition to Bush's war
against Iraq, gave a speech in Washington which went a long way toward
endorsing the Bush doctrine of preventive war…(read
more)
*
Defining Dean
by Fred Hiatt, Washington
Post online, August 25, 2003
That last charge -- that he can't win
because he's too liberal or dovish -- is obviously one he's giving thought
to. "I don't even consider myself a dove," he told me and my colleague Ruth
Marcus during a conversation before the rally. It's "not possible" to fix
him on the liberal-conservative scale, he said. "Where I am on the political
spectrum is a convenient way to avoid talking about issues." It's true that
he opposed the war in Iraq, he says, but he supported the 1991 Gulf War and
the Bush campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan. More interesting, at a
time when many politicians are shuddering at President Bush's ambitions to
remake the Middle East -- conservatives, because they are skeptical of such
grand reshaping ambitions; liberals, because they see resources being
diverted from social causes at home -- Dean sounds if anything more
committed than Condoleezza Rice to bringing democracy [sic] to Iraq. "Now
that we're there, we're stuck," he said. Bush took an "enormous risk" that
through war the United States could replace Saddam Hussein and the "small
danger" he presented to the United States with something better and safer.
The gamble was "foolish" and "wrong." But whoever will be elected in 2004
has to live with it. "We have no choice. It's a matter of national security.
If we leave and we don't get a democracy in Iraq, the result is very
significant danger to the United States." And "bringing democracy to Iraq is
not a two-year proposition. Having elections alone doesn't guarantee
democracy. You've got to have institutions and the rule of law, and in a
country that hasn't had that in 3,000 years, it's unlikely to suddenly
develop by having elections and getting the heck out." Dean would impose a
"hybrid" constitution, "American with Iraqi, Arab characteristics. Iraqis
have to play a major role in drafting this, but the Americans have to have
the final say." … (read
more)
*
Dean’s Rhetorical Twister: Rivals say the Vermont contender has inconsistent
war views
by Jim Geraghty, National Review Online,
March 28, 2003
During a speech at California Democratic party's state convention earlier
this month, Dean took aim at Senators John F. Kerry and John Edwards, who
voted last fall for a congressional resolution authorizing force against
Iraq. Dean accused the two senators of "not standing by their positions"
when they addressed the California audience, which was mostly opposed to the
war. But Dean was at least partially mistaken -- Edwards, who spoke to the
California audience before Dean did, reiterated his support for disarming
Iraq by force and was booed and jeered by many in the crowd. Kerry
reportedly made an "oblique reference" to his position and also heard
criticism from the crowd. Dean later admitted he had not heard Edwards's
speech and was unaware of what the North Carolina senator had said when he
criticized him. Dean also sent a handwritten letter of apology to Edwards,
the Washington Post reported Thursday. But sources close to other Democratic
candidates are counterattacking, accusing Dean of turning up the volume on
his passionate antiwar rhetoric in relatively liberal Iowa and then muting
his war criticism in the more conservative key primary state of South
Carolina. . . (read
more)
* Dean to ease up on Bush:
Presidential contender still opposes war, but supports troops
The State (South Carolina), March
20, 2003
Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean, whose candidacy has attracted a
lot of attention because of his staunch anti-war position, said Wednesday he
will tone down his criticism of President Bush in the weeks ahead. "It's
hard to criticize the president when you've got troops in the field," the
former Vermont governor said during a two-day campaign swing through South
Carolina to raise money and meet with potential supporters and party
activists. . . (read more)
* Howard Dean: A Hawk in a Dove's Cloak
by Sean Donahue,
CounterPunch, October 30, 2003
Howard Dean wants the peace movement to believe that he is its best hope for
bringing change in Washington. In television ads and presidential debates,
Dean has emphasized his opposition to Bush's decision to launch a unilateral
invasion of Iraq--and downplaying his support for the continued U.S.
military occupation of Iraq, and his earlier waffling over whether he might
have supported a war in Iraq under slightly different conditions. Dean's
emphasis on his opposition to the war in Iraq also obscures his earlier
support for the first Gulf War, the war in Kosovo, and the war in
Afghanistan... (read
more)
* The Dean Deception:
The lying S.O.B.
By Justin Raimondo, Anti-war.com,
August 27, 2003
As Dean barnstorms the country and charms the left-wing of his party with
his brand of pernicious guff, he is turning into a disaster for the anti-war
movement, and an embarrassment to his supporters. If we're lucky, Dean may
derail his own campaign with his careening instability long before he gets
anywhere near the White House… (read
more)
* On the campaign trail with the un-Bush
by Jake Tapper, Salon.com,
February 19, 2003
He gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his
position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says,
annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under
the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to
enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days
to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but
unavoidable, choice. "Dean is stirring up antiwar people," a senior advisor
to one of his Democratic opponents says. "They are against all war, not just
against war without U.N. support. When we do go to war, and Dean says he's
with our troops and president in time of national crisis, the antiwar
activists he's cultivated will turn on him quickly." . . . (read
more)
* The Conventional Media Wisdom Of Obedience
by Norman Solomon,
Dissident Voice, March 13, 2003
Howard Dean, a former governor of Vermont, is supposedly an antiwar
candidate for the Democratic presidential slot. On the campaign trail in
Iowa, he "stopped short when asked what he would say if there was a war,"
according to the Times. "You know, I don't know the answer to that yet,"
Dean said. "Certainly I'm going to support American kids that are sent over
there. Obviously, I'm going to wish everybody well. You know, you root for
your country." You root for your country. No matter how horrific its
actions…. (read
more)
* Iraq war opponent Dean seeks Liberia intervention
Associated Press, July 2,
2003
Dean argued there's no inconsistency in opposing the war in Iraq while
backing intervention in Africa. He said Bush never made the case that Iraq
posed a threat to the world. "The situation in Liberia is exactly the
opposite," Dean said. "There is an imminent threat of serious human
catastrophe and the world community is asking the United States to exercise
its leadership." . . . (read
more)
Dean on Criminal Justice and Civil Liberties
* Dean’s Corruption in the Green Mountain State
By Josh
Frank, Dissident Voice, September 18, 2003
They’d finally made it big. Dean as Governor, and Sorrell as Vermont's
chief law enforcer. However, with power often comes greed, and ulterior
motives plagued both their professional paths.
It seems these two cronies
had a mutual disdain for the judicial process from the start. In the same
year Sorrell was appointed Attorney General, Dean was quoted in a Vermont
Press Bureau interview as saying that he believed quick convictions were
just, and that legal technicalities should be overlooked during the
prosecution of criminal and civil cases. He even said he was willing to
appoint people to high positions who interpreted the Bill of Rights the same
as he -- with a knack for overlooking the Bill’s particulars… (read
more)
* Howard Dean's Constitutional Hang-Up: Dean Would Rather Execute an
Innocent Man, Than Let a Guilty One Walk Free
By Josh Frank, Dissident
Voice, August 16, 2003
As Governor of Vermont, Howard Dean openly
claimed that the legal system unfairly benefited criminal defendants over
prosecutors. He even took measures to cut federal grant money aimed at
helping mentally disabled defendants--as well as appointing state judges who
were willing to undermine the Bill of Rights. In a 1997 interview with the
Vermont News Bureau, Howard Dean admitted his desire to expedite the
judicial process by using such justices to "quickly convict guilty
criminals." He wanted individuals that would deem "common sense more
important than legal technicalities." Constitutional protections (legal
technicalities) apparently undermine Dean's yearning for speedy trials… (read
more)
* Dean's comments on civil liberties cause alarm
by David Gram, The
Associated Press, via the Rutland Herald, September 14, 2001
Gov. Howard Dean's call for a “re-evaluation” of some of America's civil
liberties following this week's terrorist attacks was criticized Thursday by
a Vermont Law School professor. “Good God,” Vermont Law School Professor
Michael Mello said when read the remarks Dean made at a Wednesday news
conference. “It's terribly irresponsible for the leader of our state to be
saying stuff like that right now.”... (read
more)
* Dean's Law and Order Views: The representative of the "Democratic wing
of the Democratic Party," is on some constitutional issues at odds with many
in his party's base
Time Magazine (on-line
edition), October 30, 2003
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has rarely missed a chance -- in debates and
smaller forums, as well as on his website -- to hammer the Bush
administration's handling of civil liberties since the 2001 terrorist
attacks. He's even taken other Democrats to task: "Too many in my party
voted for the Patriot Act," he said last June in a not-so-veiled jab at some
of his opponents in the presidential race. "They believed that it was more
important to show bipartisan support for President Bush during a moment of
crisis than to stand up for the basic values of our constitution." But on
Sept. 12, 2001, Dean had quite a different reaction. He told the Vermont
press corps he believed the terrorist hijackings would "require a
re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I
think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can
be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether
it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down
the street…I think that's a debate that we will have." … (read
more)
* For the Defense
Rutland
Herald Editorial, August 16, 2001
Dean has made no secret of his belief that the justice system gives all the
breaks to defendants. Consequently, during the 1990s, state’s attorneys,
police, and corrections all received budget increases vastly exceeding
increases enjoyed by the defender general’s office. That meant the state’s
attorneys were able to round up ever increasing numbers of criminal
defendants, but the public defenders were not given comparable
resources to respond… (read
more)
* Death Penalty Tap Dance
Washington Post, July 3,
2003
“By now you have probably heard of Howard Dean's recent appearance on "Meet
the Press," in which he may have set a record for saying, "I can't answer
that question." The question that got the most attention involved the number
of troops on active duty. But there was a question that Dean did answer --
and answered extensively -- that deserved as much attention. It involved why
he switched his position on capital punishment. He said he changed his mind.
A review of his remarks, however, suggests he actually lost it”… (read
more)
*
GOVERNOR’S
COURT PICKS STIR CRITICS
By Diane
Derby, Rutland Herald, Wednesday, July 30, 1997 (Full Text)
Vermont
Press Bureau
MONTPELIER – As Gov. Howard B. Dean was mulling his second appointment to
the Vermont Supreme Court earlier this month, he made little effort to mask
his distaste for some of the court’s recent decisions.
The direction of the five-member court needed to be "changed dramatically".
Dean said. He was confident that his first appointment – naming Attorney
General Jeffrey Amestoy to be the new chief justice last march – was a major
step in the right direction.
"I’m looking to steer the court back towards consideration of the rights of
the victims", Dean said three weeks ago in a radio interview with Bob Kinzel
of the Vermont News Service. "I’m looking to make it easier to convict
guilty people and not have as many technicalities interfere with justice,
and I’ll appoint someone to fit that bill".
Asked if that reflected a "get-tough-on-crime" approach, Dean responded:
"I’m looking for someone who is for justice. My beef about the judicial
system is that it does not emphasize truth and justice over lawyering. It
emphasizes legal technicalities and rights of the defendants and all that."
Such comments may play well with the general public, but they have sent a
chill through the collective spine of lawyers – particularly defense lawyers
– around the state.
Throughout his six-year tenure, Dean’s public chiding of the judiciary has
led many lawyers to question the doctor-governor’s grasp of constitutional
law. In their eyes, Dean views the protections contained in the Bill of
Rights as mere "technicalities".
It is a view that has been bolstered by Dean’s inflammatory remarks –
including his remarks that the state’s Supreme Court has repeatedly allowed
murders to go free.
"Dean is just ignorant. I don’t think he understands what judges ought to
do." Says Michael Mello, a Vermont Law School professor who teaches advanced
courses in constitutional law. "He perceives the Supreme Court as being
broken in some way and sees himself on a mission to fix it."
"That is pure, ignorant, political demagoguery", Mello charged, "Nonsense on
stilts."
FROM THE
PROSECUTION
Tension between the executive and judicial branches of government is not
new, nor is it unique to the Dean administration. But rarely has it been
played out on such a public stage.
Mello and other lawyers around the state are quick to offer high praise for
both Amestoy and District Judge Marilyn Skoglund, whom Dean named on Monday
to fill a high court vacancy left by the retirement of justice Ernest Gibson
III.
Both jurists, along with the current members of the Supreme Court, are
widely regarded within the legal community as independent thinkers who will
not allow political pressures to sway their interpretation of the law.
But Dean’s penchant for selecting prosecutors to fill judicial vacancies
also has some defense lawyers questioning whether Vermont’s court system is
becoming too "one-dimensional".
Last week, Dean appointed Howard VanBenthuysen, a former state’s attorney
and onetime police officer, to a vacant superior court judgeship. In doing
so, he passed over the names of private attorneys and at least one public
defender.
Skoglund served as a prosecutor in the attorney general’s office before
being named a District Court judge three years ago.
| 
