Howard Dean highly disappointed me with his statement about Senator Warren.

[trumad]

I am stunned at how disingenuous his statement is......

“Our program cannot be soak the rich — that's a mistake and alienates middle class people. But on substance, the Warren wing is correct,” said Dean.

“The rhetoric about wealth creation needs to be scaled back because Americans like wealth creation,” he added. “The level playing field argument wins it for us. The reason you do not want to talk about ‘tax the rich’ is because when middle class people hear it, they hear ‘they're going to raise our taxes.’ Democrats can't do that.”

[MADem]

1. He's talking about what people hear--and he's right.

As he said:

The Warren wing's substance IS CORRECT.

People do respond to a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD argument.

People do think "tax the rich" means "they're gonna raise our taxes."

Everyone thinks they're "gonna be" rich--it's one of the ways the GOP gets poor people to vote for them. "I don't want that gubmint taxin' MAH lottery winnins that I haven't won yet!!!!!"

He also knows a little something about being painted as "angry" or "unhinged."

Oh well...it's "Under The Bus With Howard" Day, I suppose....

[NanceGreggs]

6. They're gonna need a bigger bus.

So many people thrown under there these days, they can't all possibly fit.

[MADem]

8. Precisely!!!

Heh, heh...

[Agschmid]

17. Yup.

[treestar]

13. So true

The temporarily embarrassed millionaires don't want their potential taxes raised dammit! It's hilarious how delusional white middle class people can get.

[JonLP24]

14. I live in a very conservative area

Many buy the trickle down BS. They believe cutting taxes helps the overall economy. Someone recently said to a friend, "no poor person ever gave me a job" or "only rich people have ever given me a job" one of those 2 but specifically the only rich hire point was made.

There is a lot of BS propaganda marketing from the right wing that is commonly accepted but I haven't heard "liberals are pussies" since 2008. I remember the 2004 election the Democrats were famously defending themselves as not cowards

[MADem]

58. I am not hearing "liberals are (that word)" from Dean, though. At all.

He's talking about perception, and marketing, and sales. And having been a victim of the whole "Dean Scream" game, he knows all about weak spots and how someone's message can be gamed. He's quite specifically and explicitly NOT saying EW is wrong, he's simply talking about how her messaging--as opposed to her message -- can be misunderstood/exploited/twisted by that dreaded "tone."

We're not IN "election season" yet--the sniping has barely begun--the right will probably roll out the Big Disparagements when our ticket becomes solidified. When we choose a candidate, every Democrat will coalesce (some more enthusiastically than others) around that one person. When that happens, we'll be watching the GOP take pot shots at the candidate and everyone supporting that candidate. I am fairly confident that Warren will a) Not be running and b) Will campaign for/fundraise for the Democratic candidate...and that will open her to a whole new wave of criticism that will likely make the whole "Fauxahontas" bullshit sound tame.

[JonLP24]

71. So am I

I believe her tone is far more helpful than it is not. Given the issues she speaks on, she'll clearly appeal to those who vote in national elections. The Native American claim controversy is a much bigger potential political landmine, the dirty tricks machine is sitting on that one to distract from her tone.

What I'm saying is a I live in a very conservative area and while Dean may have some good internal polls, I talk to a lot of working class/poor people the majority of which are Republicans & it isn't even close (1 Democrat in city council, a moderate Republican running against Republicans is the mayoral race. No Democrat ever appears on my local elections) and while most are very poorly uninformed, I have a good idea on the marketing, perception, and sales and I disagree with Dean's advice or suggestion. I have a good idea on what part of marketing is having what kind of effects. (that word)--was a direct quote from a Republican I spoke too so I can say, Democrats have shaken the coward labels but still struggle on the terrorism issue (Republican ads focus on heavily in this state saying Krysten Sinema voted to "give rights to terrorists" also used Foley beheading in a campaign ad which backfired with her own party telling her to take it down. She also cowardly skipped out on a debate because there were no ground rules when it was an informal forum rather than a debate). However, hiding from the media is an election strategy that works for Jan Brewer.

The only way from what I've seen is where specifically raising taxes on the rich is mentioned comes with a Republican talking point about that it will prevent them from being able to hire us. The belief that Democrats will raise taxes on them comes specifically from Republican marketing, not tax hikes on the rich which won Obama electoral landslides by merely mentioning a small increase back to the Clinton years. Also "closing all tax loopholes" which was an incredibly high bar he set for himself, he certainly has made it a genuine issue he has made an effort to accomplish (Republicans weren't very helpful)

Support for excise taxes hurts Democrats more on the tax issue, I promise you.

[MADem]

82. Look at how this thread has been framed. Divide and conquer.

Warren is canonized, Dean is under the bus and accused of saying things he never said.

Who wins?

The GOP aren't fools--and The Hill carries their water very effectively.

I should think people who pay attention to politics wouldn't be so eager to buy off on that kind of framing.

[JonLP24]

87. Dean is accused of saying this he did not say?

What is it he was accused of?

All I said was is I don't agree with him & pointed to anecdotal examples as to why.

I don't believe Warren and her tone hurts the party at all. Dean is under the bus? I threw him under the bus after his NYC "Mosque" statement but he committed a gaffe before the media generated "Scream" when his primary opponents were highlighting his AWB opposition and his NRA rating where he made that famous "confederate flags on pickup trucks" statement. I understand more of what he was trying to say but he deserved the criticism he received except from his opportunistic primary opponents but the whole support of the original AWB was so illogical, his opposition to it had more cross-over appeal. I don't think he understands why he lost the election so he's been giving all this moderate advice.

Molly Ivins endorsed him, mentioning the centrists such as Bill Clinton or others basically giving into Republican ideas and why she was choosing Dean. Saying he was a "fighting centrist".

[MADem]

88. Read the whole thread--Dean is being excoriated, cut out of the herd, and thrown under the bus.

All for saying that he AGREED WITH Warren's message but thought the delivery could be improved to reach a critical mass of voters, in essence.

There's every form of excoriation save "You!!! DEAN!!!! Yer DEAD to me!!!!!!" in this thread. The lack of appreciation of any nuance is troubling.

I'm not talking about you, personally--I'm talking about the "tone" (so long as we're on about that word) of the entire discussion.

[cui bono]

90. Yeah, kind of like what happened with Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden.

Just thrown under the bus because some don't like what they said about their chosen one.

[MADem]

91. I wasn't aware that one was thrown under the bus in favor of the other...?

Near as I can tell, Greenwald-Snowden are still viewed as being on the same team.

What's happening here is that Dean is being cut away and tossed--it's a different scenario.

[cui bono]

92. They were both thrown uner the bus for what they said.

I'm sure you are aware of that whole situation.

[MADem]

93. The analogy doesn't serve.

We have two Democrats, one is being tossed under the bus for daring to talk about -- not the essential message -- the delivery of said message.

There's no "divide and conquer" with GG and ES. They're both still on the same page. The fact that other people might not care for their POV is beside the point. You can always find someone to disagree with people in the public eye.

[cui bono]

95. It's not only about divide an conquer.

It's about throwing people under the bus just because you don't like what they said about someone you support.

And in fact, it the GG/ES can be seen as divide and conquer if you look at how people threw away their so-called beliefs in the values of the Democratic Party (supposed values) by defending spying on US citizens and not defending whistleblowers in an attempt to defend the person they decided was more important than those values and principles.

You mentioned a lack of nuance earlier, that whole scenario most certainly lacked nuance.

[MADem]

96. OK, that's a stretch of a comparison, IMO. Unless people on DU are equivalent to public figures

in terms of how their comments resonate.

There were people registered on DU out there who had no problems coaching from the sidelines WRT Warren well before this (never mind a host of other people) and no one started "Seize them!!!!! STONE THEM!!!! Tie them to a stake and BURN THEM!!!!!" posts about those people. They usually stuck to this tactic: "Oh, you must be a .............." (fill in blank--corporate stooge/GOP enabler/Turd Way a-hole or some other petty insult). Then there would be the usual back-and-forth that wasted a lot of time and went pretty much nowhere.

Same deal with the people who objected to ES/GG and the release of classified material--the push-back against those people was usually in the form of personal insult/sarcasm, not demands (save the occasional hyper-alerting by a small but determined number) that the posters be pushed from the public square (because that would really be kinda hypocritical, given the whole "information should be free" theme, at the end of the day).

Howard Dean is catching a special kind of shit, because he's Howard Dean, not Anyname123 who posts at Democratic Underground. He's getting a hearty "STFU" from people who don't like his opinions. He's being told that after all he has done to energize the Democratic Party, that (according to these complainers) he has no value. Never mind that he built the strategy that put a Dem in the WH. Never mind that he got our crew back to the 'grassroots' thing. He's being told to take a hike, he is indeed being shoved under that bus, because of his opinion -- not about what a person said, but HOW they've said it.

It's just not the same thing.

And I do have to ask myself, cui bono---Cui bono? Who benefits if Dean is silenced, or pushed off, or "shamed" in some way?

Not Democrats, that's for sure.

[cui bono]

98. I'm not comparing DUers to public figures.

I can see what you're saying about Dean having been such a force of the Dem Party and responsible for the great strategy. I think that makes it more shocking that he would say that and perhaps that's what is causing the reaction to be stronger than one would expect.

But GG is a fighter for civil rights and everyone loved what he said about BushCo and Snowden is a whistleblower who exposed the current state of spying on American citizens and more and everyone loved whistleblowers up until him. But because it happened under a Dem president people threw them under the bus with much more vitriol than what is being said about Dean.

I think it's the same thing, especially when you talk about the lack of nuance.

It's stupid when people react that way over one comment. I remember there was a few months where Chris Matthews would have threads about him, switching from loving him to hating him based on one comment or segment. It's stupid. Everything needs to be looked at as a whole, not just for one thing. I think we agree on that.

[JoePhilly]

54. Yup, and the middle class incorrectly expects to become rich.

The rhetoric and the style matter. Being "right" doesn't matter if the audience stops listening.

[djean111]

2. Who actually said "soak the rich"? I don't think WARREN said that, but looks like the intent of

Dean's statement is to associate her, and her supporters, with that phrase.
Asshole. Carrying water, or his own doing, whatever.

[Autumn]

4. Rich people have this fear of being soaked.

Guess these democrats have their marching orders and that includes putting statements out there that Liz didn't say.

[NanceGreggs]

5. Dean said "soak the rich" ...

... and said it "shouldn't be our program".

He did not attribute that statement to Warren - nor anyone else. Nor did he attempt to "associate" her or her supporters with that phrase.

[Capt. Obvious]

11. You have nothing to apologize for

Democracy For America founder Howard Dean, who has backed Clinton for president, said Warren is “right on policy, but the rhetoric needs to be toned down.”

“Our program cannot be soak the rich — that's a mistake and alienates middle class people. But on substance, the Warren wing is correct,” said Dean.

“The rhetoric about wealth creation needs to be scaled back because Americans like wealth creation,” he added. “The level playing field argument wins it for us. The reason you do not want to talk about ‘tax the rich’ is because when middle class people hear it, they hear ‘they're going to raise our taxes.’ Democrats can't do that.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/234224-centrist-dems-ready-strike-against-warren-wing

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. 'said Warren is “right on policy, but the rhetoric needs to be toned down.' - he associated her

with the rhetoric - according to The Hill, which appears to be the source. He continued:

“Our program cannot be soak the rich — that's a mistake and alienates middle class people. But on substance, the Warren wing is correct,” said Dean.

“The rhetoric about wealth creation needs to be scaled back because Americans like wealth creation,” he added.

So he bracketed 'soak the rich with 'Warren', and with 'rhetoric'. There can be no doubt he was either directly attributing it to her, or attempting to associate her with it.

[NanceGreggs]

29. Ya know ...

... there's no point in debating who said what; the quotes are there.

Dean's words will be taken as "what he REALLY meant was" by those who think every statement uttered by anyone is a slam against Warren and, by association, themselves.

[MADem]

70. And of course, we here on DU should take the rightwing leaning Hill on face value...

...because they've never had an agenda now, have they?

I can still hear the lipsmacking sounds reverberating down the years from the asskissing that publication administered to the resident of the White House during the Bush years--it can only be described as embarrassingly partisan coverage.

[NanceGreggs]

77. I keep wondering how long it will be ...

... before FOX-News is regularly cited here as a legitimate source of credible information.

[MADem]

79. If it says "Democrats suck!" it's deemed viable in some quarters.

So yeah, I'd not be at all surprised either. I've seen some of the most virulent wingnuts cited here as "experts," along with a lot of libertarian sources. It's suggestive of a rather curious trend.

[NanceGreggs]

83. Well, one "trend" that has been obvious here for a while now ...

... is that anything that can be used to tarnish the reputation of Democrats long regarded by DUers as voices of liberal/progressive values are jumped on immediately.

Today Dean goes under the bus, along with Buffet.

There's no need to wonder whose agenda is served by that, along with what goal is to be attained by sowing divisiveness among Democrats.

It seems pretty obvious what's going on here.

[MADem]

86. Concur...

[djean111]

30. You are correct. Any assertion that this is not what he was intending is, at best, disingenuous.

[AtomicKitten]

39. + a shit-ton

thanks!

[MADem]

67. +1. nt

[AtomicKitten]

3. On tone policing

Hat tip to Exhibit A: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6300242

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument:

A tone argument is an argument used in discussions, sometimes by Concern trolls and sometimes as a Derailment, in which it is suggested that feminists would be more successful if only they expressed themselves in a more pleasant tone. This is also sometimes described as catching more flies with honey than with vinegar, a particular variant of the tone argument.

The tone argument is a form of derailment, or a red herring, because the tone of a statement is independent of the content of the statement in question, and calling attention to it distracts from the issue at hand. Drawing attention to the tone rather than content of a statement can allow other parties to avoid engaging with sound arguments presented in that statement, thus undermining the original party's attempt to communicate and effectively shutting them down.

Dean is officially a Clinton hand puppet

[Agschmid]

18. Yup... Howard Dean

America's number 1 concern troll.

[AtomicKitten]

62. nice cherry picking

[Agschmid]

75. I try.

[zazen]

7. Warren simply wants to return to "Eisenhower-era middle class values" (that's the way I'd frame it)

Let the neoliberals and teapartiers say, wait a minute, doesn't that mean fewer rights for women and minorities? Let them argue against their own social agendas.

Tax rates were much more equitable, and the working class could support a family of four on one income, during the Eisenhower era. I've always thought we should use that halcyon crap they have about some 1950s America against them.

Bumper Sticker: Another middle class family for Eisenhower!

[former9thward]

27. The easy reply to that would be

'ok, then we go back to the Eisenhower size of government in the 50s'. Would you want that?

Tax rates had nothing to do with the 50s standard of living. Most rich never paid those rates because of countless loopholes which no longer exist. The standard of living in the 50s came about because we were the only dog left standing after WW II. We had our labor force intact, our infrastructure intact and global presence because of the war. No other country had those things.

[zeemike]

57. That is only part of the story.

Those "tax loopholes" forced them to invest in things that grew the economy and their own personal wealth.
Now there are lower taxes for the rich and no incentive to re invest in new products or industry...instead they can make billions by such things as derivatives and debt...with nothing to interfere with it.

And they have gutted American manufactureing...we don't make anything any more, and people who work must pay all the taxes and see a falling standard of living.

[former9thward]

61. There is far, far more investment in the economy now than the 50s.

Look at the size of the stock market in the 50s and look at it now. We are an enormously more wealthy economy than in the 50s. The standard of living is falling because of world competition. Alot of countries can do what only we used to be able to do -- and many of them can do it better.

[MADem]

85. Stop making sense!

The same people who decry those sweatshops with kids sewing sneakers don't realize that getting the kids off the sewing machines means that people are going to have to get paid more.

It's all good on paper for people around the world to have decent housing and a livable wage, but when "They're takin' our jerbs!!!" it gets a bit more complex. One can't "Save The Children" on charity alone--they need jobs, they need education, they need to be able to compete in the world, too. And one way they compete is by doing simple shit cheaper than we're willing to do it. Once upon a time, we made TVs--Admiral, RCA, Zenith!!! The Japanese stole that gig from us by doing it cheaper, and the Koreans stole it from them! It's the way of the world...

We've got to innovate and do things smarter/better. That's IF we want to continue to hold a pre-eminent place in the world's economy....

[zeemike]

97. The stock market is a phony wealth.

The wealth of a nation is not the stock market...it is the resources, and the industry to use them that is the real wealth.
A rising stock market is not wealth it is money. If there is no food on the table the money is useless.
Our real wealth is in the land and when we have to buy things from other countries we have to trade it for our resources.

[cui bono]

100. The stock market isn't a reflection of the state of the nation's economy.

In the fifties there was a lot of investment in our infrastructure. This gave people jobs and rebuilt our country's commons, which also benefited the people.

The stock market is an indication of what is going on with corporations. It doesn't mean there are more jobs or that people are making more money or that our country is getting better. All that money being thrown around isn't going to rebuild our country, especially when most of those companies barely pay any taxes. TPTB like us to think that so they can keep raking in the dough and claiming everything is great while people are still struggling and our bridges are still crumbling.

[Blanks]

80. I always figured it was the difference between...

High earners investing in their business (by spending) or high earners hiding their money offshore.

High income taxes are an incentive for companies to make good long term investmens instead of trying to defer maintenance for short term profit.

I don't think many companies actually paid those high income taxes in the 50's, they adjusted what they spent their profit on.

I agree with Howard Dean though, it needs to be framed differently.

[Marr]

59. I think that would be a very smart sales pitch. /nt

[JonLP24]

9. Obama won on "closing all tax loopholes"

Last edited Mon Mar 2, 2015, 03:49 PM - Edit history (1)

& increasing taxes on the rich but merely mentioned the same rates during Clinton & everyone remembers how well the US economy was & not just for Wall-Street.

Now Obama has made efforts in the loophole & tax enforcing department, I actually believe we could make some common sense reforms to the double income taxation issue & it would give the Democrats bonus points in the tax rhetoric department. I think it hurts more of those than those who can't afford than those who can but we need better marketing on the tax issue.

I live in a very conservative area and I can't tell you how much "raising taxes" BS I hear, his recent free community college proposals did receive a lot of positive feedback, even from the same people under the impression that the next guy will have a hell of a mess to clean up after Obama.

On edit -- when it comes to taxing the rich, many oppose it because of the reasons laid out by the Republicans. Not because they think they're rich but anti-tax rhetoric appeals to those who don't like seeing money gone when they receive their check.

[madfloridian]

10. Well, I have been blocked by Howard Dean at Twitter since I questioned his ed reform views.

I think he blocked a lot of us that day.

[NanceGreggs]

12. He's right.

Being "rich" is a subjective thing. Many middle-class people consider themselves "rich" by comparison to neighbours, friends, co-workers, etc.

They do not fall into the category of the super-wealthy, or the 1% by any stretch. But when they hear the words "raise taxes on the rich", they think it is they who are being targeted for higher taxes.

That is not a message the Democrats want to be associated with.

[JonLP24]

22. Most people are smarter than that

I live in a very conservative but working class to poor neighborhood which was one of the hardest hit areas of the housing crisis here. You can either find or rent a home for cheap because of the oversupply & many don't have love for the rich though Reagan is a positive memory though that likely had to do with their own situation but the right wing uses a lot of wedge issues, especially in Arizona. Our state legislature is a laughing stock and a recent issue they're still obsessing over is what is being taught in our Universities & local high schools. Russell Pearce was my state senator to give an idea & their overall view of the world.

Someone gets something in the mail written in both English & Spanish and says "this is probably why our taxes are so high."

I will tell you what is very unpopular though, excise taxes. Democrats really need to get out of the business of supporting those, taxing the rich isn't nearly as unpopular as the taxes they have to pay on cigarettes or various excise & regressive taxes are.

[NanceGreggs]

33. It's not a matter of being "smarter".

Considering one's self "rich" means different things to different people. Many who would actually fall into the category of middle middle-class or upper middle-class categorize themselves as "rich" or "wealthy".

[Dawgs]

38. It's not the nineties anymore. Most people are struggling. n/t

[JonLP24]

42. I just don't see a lot of that myself

or that the anti-wall street rhetoric is more harmful than embracing it or what is confusing the Republicans. The Republicans + Rush Limbaugh is an effective marketing pipeline, Fox News is a big one -- it is incredible how many people prefer it & reliably watch it. The party with the 80%+ support from the oil & gas industry & any big money industry is able to create fiction or constantly dispute the science of global warming, it is a huge theme that regular people don't ask themselves why so much attention is focused on it. Instead they think it is a debunked conspiracy theory pushed by dumb liberals but don't ask themselves why it benefits the liberals to have you believe this. No they just think dumb liberals still pushing something already settled as BS.

On so many other issues they market it as beneficial to them, tax cuts means the rich will hire them. Tax increases are marketed as you'll be out of a job. Take those 2 out, they don't think it means they are being taxed (though they do focus on the $250,000 line a lot "Joe the Plumber".

Wedge issues, they love the wedge issues because it keeps the focus away from their bad policies which harms them directly but liberal economic policies poll really well -- minimum wage increase won the midterms.

Also, there is a lot focused on food stamps, safety nets but I actually quite a few Republicans collecting food stamps or whatever government assistance program. I swear on everything I overheard a woman in line complain about "ObamaCare" and that she wasn't going to give "all her information to the government" IN THE FOOD STAMP LINE but the irony went over both of their heads.

Oh yeah, guns. Democrats are actually hurt more as the anti-gun party than they are by "tax increases on the rich"

[Dawgs]

37. You have something to back that up, or is it just something you're pulling out of thin air?

Most middle class people I know are struggling to stay in the there and not one of them considers themselves rich.

[NanceGreggs]

48. Well, let's judge everything ...

... by "people you know".

And your response has nothing to do with it. There are many people who earn very comfortable incomes and consider themselves "rich".

Not everyone is living in a van down by the river, you know.

[Fumesucker]

55. Eh, I deconstructed the Trickle Down theory of economics on Discussionist and no one disagreed..

Neither conservatives nor liberals.

http://www.discussionist.com/1015104018

No one really and truly buys that crap.

[NanceGreggs]

65. Who is talking about "trickle down" here?

That has nothing to do with Dean pointing out that many people - particularly those you and I might categorize as being upper middle-class - think of themselves as "rich" or "wealthy".

Ergo, when they hear "tax the rich", they think it is they who are being targeted for having their taxes raised.

It is a matter of people's perception - not the reality.

There was a survey done a while back, which I am pretty sure was linked-to on DU. I cannot find it now (I'm working and don't have the time), but in that survey, people who had very high incomes described themselves as being in the 1% category - even though their incomes and net worth were BILLIONS short of being within the top 1%.

Again, it was their perception of the definition of "the 1%" that they were going on, and not the reality of what "the 1%" are actually worth.

[Fumesucker]

73. Anyone who is talking about "don't soak the rich" is referring to Trickle Down

The theory that if the rich are allowed to keep all the money they will then shower largesse upon the rest of us.

No one actually believes that.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/why-americans-all-believe-they-are-middle-class/278240/

Why Americans All Believe They Are 'Middle Class'

A taxonomy of how we talk about class and wealth in the United States today

<snip>

Poking into usage also confirms that Americans are relatively skittish about mentioning class. Contrasting databases of text from U.S. and UK sources, we find that Brits use “upper class” and “lower class” more readily; we prefer “wealthy” and “poor.” Yet we grant “middle class” plenty of airtime. This suggests it’s a frozen phrase, no longer rooted in the meaning of component parts that ought to designate economic status between two others. Instead, middle class has become a status, a brand – a label you opt to adopt.


From Real Housewives to pop stars, extreme wealth is on display all around us. Seeing this, Americans imbibe ideas of what life as a rich person means. And most folks, even in the 1 percent (that is, with incomes above about $500,000), can’t keep up with the Kardashians. They conclude they are not wealthy, so they tag themselves middle class. We’re far less keen to have the poor in view. Nevertheless, whether via images of bread lines or real life panhandlers, we have some sense of life without means. If homelessness is the salient exemplar, people are unlikely to say they’re “poor.”

Cognitive science teaches us that we learn to make sense of the world by putting things into categories. From the simplistic (edible or not) to the sophisticated (possible spouse or casual fling) grouping elements is part and parcel of our processing. In order to determine what category something fits into and thus what it is, we often rely on considering what it is not. Sometimes, these designations are easy: A smart phone and a rotary dial both count as telephones. But categories of great social significance are subject to interpretation and change with the times. Is that boy “spirited” or “ADHD”? Labels, once stuck, can change perception and policy.

Not finding popular depictions of wealth and poverty similar to our own lived experiences, we determine we must be whatever’s left over. Picking “middle class” is easy enough to do because, again, the language doesn’t present much to go on in terms of what this label describes.

[NanceGreggs]

76. Oy vey.

"The reason you do not want to talk about ‘tax the rich’ is because when middle class people hear it, they hear ‘they're going to raise our taxes.’ Democrats can't do that.”

What part of that simple statement about the perception of the middle-class is so hard to understand?

[Autumn]

60. For sure Dean and Hillary don't want to be associated with that message.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/28/taxing-the-rich-remains-popular/

I think that they still do, if Liz's popular message is any indication.

[bigtree]

15. I wish he had been more specific about what 'rhetoric' from Warren he thinks should be 'scaled back'

...because this sounds like wholesale pushback on Warren (despite his qualifications) and is going to be used by republicans (and others) as a political wedge between those with a more populist message on the economy which I think is needed. I think the result of 'scaling back' rhetoric on issues which he admits are 'correct' in substance is a mistake and represents the type of timidity in politics which allows the economic inequities in legislation to continue unabated.

[trumad]

35. Bingo!

[4139]

16. Dean made up the 'soak the rich' just to hit Warren....

Likely a planned attack to support Hillary.

[Oilwellian]

19. Sixty percent of all Americans back higher taxes on higher incomes

in the new Post-ABC data. Earlier this month, an identical 60 percent of voters in the presidential election said income taxes should be raised on income over $250,000, according to the national exit poll.

In the new poll, 73 percent of Democrats support such tax hikes, including a majority, 57 percent, who do so “strongly.” Among political independents, 63 percent back an increase, while 59 percent of Republicans oppose such a move.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/28/taxing-the-rich-remains-popular/

I guess Howard now speaks for Republicans.

[JonLP24]

26. While my experience is very anecdoctal

and I avoid talking politics unless the topic comes up but I have a good idea on what some Republicans focus on or what mislead them -- mainly it is global warming denial, mocking the theory over how much snow or cold it got or the coming ice age thing affected by global warming confuses them

[Dawgs]

44. Can't be. Some here think most people in the middle-class think they're rich. n/t

[NanceGreggs]

49. No one here said ...

... that "most" people in the middle-class think they're rich.

[Dawgs]

52. Okay. n/t

[langstonhues]

20. Who is talking about 'soaking', just a bit of more dampness is all I've been hearing.

This is very disturbing, this message.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. ... 2004 is calling, Dean. Wants The Scream back. of all people, Dean ?? STFU.

[Agschmid]

25. Maybe he learned something from it?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

72. Clearly, he learned the wrong thing and Warren is not screaming. I think it

Has far more to do with the message than the delivery.

[bravenak]

34. Oooooooh!!! I was thinking the same thing!!!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

102. GMTA

[Bluenorthwest]

23. I think Warren's rhetoric could be far more honest, she speaks as if she herself was not a Supply

Side advocate and Republican for most of the years in which Republican economic policies fucked the middle class over. Warren got very rich during that time, she was a loyal Republican and took lots of large consulting fees for Big Business and all of that, she supported racist, homophobic and anti choice policies and persons. She says she did that because she strongly supported Republican economics, which she now rejects as if she had not previously advocated them along with lots of other right wing crap.
I wish she'd account for her own place in the Reaganomics spiral instead of affecting that she has always been on the side of progressive ideas while others have resisted them.
I get tired of hearing people say she 'pulls Democrats to the left' when my Democratic Rep DeFazio and Bernie Sanders and Maxine Waters were in Congress founding the Progressive Caucus in 1992, when Warren was still a George Bush Republican. Yeah, someone got pulled to the left and that someone was Warren. I'd like to hear how she got moved away from Reaganomics and bigoted politics.

[JonLP24]

36. She clearly does reject them

I don't understand what you'd want, she never had a formal economics education background so I'm not sure she had a key understanding behind the repackaging & re-branding of 1920's "trickle-down economics" or the under-consumption which doomed the great depression but her bankruptcy law background clearly gave her a good understanding of the truth. 1995 is where she claimed to be a Democrat & that is where her education & academic career transitioned from a political advisory role. Not much is known regarding views on other issues but is clearly been on the left since her political career began.

Given that banks is part of one of the committees she is on, there are opportunities that came up regarding regulation & her rhetoric is a lot of common sense statements & questions in the area of regulation & basically getting away with the shit they do. Tone it down? Mention she was supporter of Reaganomics during the grilling? Would it be better if she didn't became the watchdog that she is?

A lot of what she says is simply factual truth, student loans is another issue where she is very knowledgeable on mentioning that the government profits from it.

[trumad]

53. +1

[djean111]

47. The important thing is - she moved.

Are you honestly afraid she would campaign on her current positions, and then go back to Reaganomics if elected?
I am not.

[Bluenorthwest]

74. I only hear her positions on one area, so that's one thing. The other is I just don't care for

rich people who claim they are not nor for people who write narratives for themselves that leave out their own past errors. I like people who own who they are and who use rhetoric that includes blame for themselves when it is due, not simply for others. She talks about the Reagan years as if she had been against all of that, when she was for it. This is not to my liking. To me that sort of self serving spin on things is a very negative and conservative trait.

[leveymg]

28. The rhetoric of equality helped Obama twice. Why abandon it now? HRC doesn't want to embrace it,

and that's her decision. Too bad that Howard is now riding her coat-tails and giving Hillary cover.

[bigwillq]

31. I have low expectations of all politicians, so few ever disappoint

but I don't agree with Mr. Dean here. I don't like his tone. LOL

[n2doc]

32. As I posted elsewhere

[Tatiana]

40. He's playing both side of this argument.

On the one hand, he is saying that he agrees (on principle) with Warren. On the other hand, he is saying that her message doesn't resonate with middle class voters. I disagree with him. I think, by now, most of the middle class (what's left of it) understand that the top 1% are squeezing the rest of us out of existence.

Personally, I think Dean is trying to keep his options open for a position in a potential Clinton administration. However, his concern trolling against EW isn't going to do him or Clinton any favors. I think people appreciate someone willing to stand up and actually tell the truth.

[Dawgs]

45. He's out of touch with most Americans, and that's sad. n/t

[mmonk]

41. He left a long time ago. Too bad since he created a great grassroots campaign.

I guess he is bitter now.

[fredamae]

43. Me thinks Mr Dean Dips

himself into the "Turd Way Sewer". He's not getting many praises for any of this.
A "used to be" respected Democrat?

[George II]

46. What constitutes "rich" in everyone's eyes?

[zentrum]

50. Warren is not against wealth

...creation. She's against the wealthy getting their wealth by picking the pockets of the middle class. She wants access to wealth to be better distributed. She's not against wealth. She's against the unfairness of wealthy people. Come on Howard!

She's also just talking like a real Democrat. Losing respect for Dean over this.

[Madmiddle]

51. As an admin for the Democratic party

Dr. Dean did alright. As the governor of Vermont he left a crumbling infrastructure. The budget surplus was the result, but states should never have a budget surplus. They should break even.
Senator Warren is right to say and do everything with her brutal honesty. Dean don't like it, too friggin' bad.

[pansypoo53219]

56. the 2% has totally brainwashed the lower classes to fear ALL TAXES going higher. divide +conquer!

and they keep THEIR taxes low.

[PedXing]

63. I guess everybody has a price, and Dean must have collected.

[abelenkpe]

64. Only because Americans don't understand progressive taxation

Personally all for returning to the rates under Eisenhower.

[truebrit71]

66. If a middle-class person thinks their taxes are going up when they hear "tax the rich"...

...they are fucking idiots...

Or Fox "news" viewers, possibly both.

Dr. Dean is well wide of the mark here and I am very disappointed...

[Marr]

68. This may be the tip of the party establishment's campaign against the Warren wing.

It'd certainly be the smart place to start; with criticism from someone perceived to be on the party's left.

[winter is coming]

69. So much for the notion of Warren pulling Hillary to the left. n/t

[olddots]

78. once again Dean looses his cool

[langstonhues]

89. I will call this one The Dean Mean.

[Stellar]

81. He disappointed you and I.

That's for sure. The moneyed interest that's running this country. pfftt!

[DefenseLawyer]

84. No offense to Dr. Dean, but his mindset is from 20 or 30 years ago.

And then he was probably right. Of course then there actually was a middle class.

[HereSince1628]

94. Warren is charismatic, enrgetic, and pushing a strong message,

Team H needs to plant doubts about the goodness of that.

This is the immunization that down the road will be recalled when again Warren acts exactly like herself

[Rex]

99. Some things can be humbling moments.

To find out the non-governing elites control the governing elites is disappointing when realized.

[cascadiance]

101. I really hope this is just temporary behavior to get himself appointed head of the DNC...

... and replace that failure DWS that so many knows needs to be replaced.

I'm hoping he's trying to just angle himself in to that position and once he's appointed, that he'll revert back to himself and support EW more the way the traditional Howard Dean would have.

The email scandal might allow him later after being appointed to say he had second thoughts on supporting Hillary too.

[still_one]

103. Actually did Howard ever listen to what Warren has said. She did NOT go after wealth creation, but

the abuses within the financial system against the middle class