Massive information dump on Gov. Howard Dean

[w4rma]

grassroots (People Powered Howard)
Dean Raises $7.5 Million in Second Quarter
In the second quarter ending yesterday, 59,000 Americans donated an average of $112 to help boost Governor Howard Dean to the top of the second quarter fundraisers with a total of $7.5 million raised.

Unlike the small, exclusive multi-million dollar fundraisers held in major cities by President Bush over the last week, the Dean campaign saw its numbers surge based on small donations over the Internet—with nearly $3 million raised online in the last week alone. In the second quarter, 45,030 people donated online a total of 51,474 times. The average donation online was $74.14.

“When we said last week during the governor’s announcement that ‘You have the power,’ we had no idea just how much power our supporters had,” said Campaign Manager Joe Trippi. “They are people participating directly in their democracy, and doing whatever they can to help us take our country back—giving $20, $30, or $50. This is People-Powered Howard.”

Second quarter fundraising by the numbers:

Total raised in second quarter: $7,500,000 Total donors (2003 to date): 70,000
Average contribution: $112

First time donors in second quarter: 48,000

Levels of Internet Giving:
Less than $50: 18,422
$50 -- 99: 11,579
$100 -- $249: 11,436
$250 -- $499: 2,379
$500 -- $1,000: 368
$1,000 and up: 129
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000584.html

Howard Dean's trick by Mark Shields
WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- The reaction of the Democratic Party establishment to former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's raising more money during the second quarter of the year than any of his eight rivals for the party's presidential nomination reminds me of the legendary Theodore White's memorable report of the scene in the Boston Garden during John F. Kennedy's last campaign rally on the eve of the 1960 presidential election.

JFK, according to White, was surrounded on the stage by a " covey of the puffy, pink-faced, predatory-lipped politicians who had so dominated Massachusetts politics before he had taken over." Noting their "envious faces" as the candidate spoke, Richard Donahue, a Kennedy aide observed: "You know they can't understand this. They think he has a trick. They're listening to him because they think if they learn the trick, they can be president, too."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/07/column.shields.opinion.dean/
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000634.html

61,028 people have now signed up for Meetup!
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000676.html

26,376 People have Signed the Truth Petition
Yesterday, Governor Dean called for the resignation of those who misled the nation in regards to Iraq, and asked people to join him. In less than 24 hours, 26,376 people added their names to the truth petition. That's over 1,000 new people every hour.

"This is a tremendous outpouring of frustration from the American people," Dean said today. "They know that someone has misled them, misled our troops and misled the world. Someone must be held responsible for damaging America's reputation in the world community. We must be able to trust our leaders, just as the rest of the world must be able to trust us."

Please cut and paste this URL and send it to your friends, asking them to join the petition:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/truth
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000660.html

Bush's lack of credibility
Dean Says Those Who Misled Nation Should Resign
Click here to add your name to a petition demanding that those responsible for misleading the American people resign. Let others know about the petition by telling them about this link: http://www.deanforamerica.com/truth

Manchester, NH -- Governor Howard Dean issued the following statement today:

"Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's statement yesterday -- that he only found out that the Niger documents were forgeries -- “within recent days” was stunning.

"What is now clear is that there are those in this administration that misled the President, misled the nation, and misled the world in making the case for the war in Iraq.

"They know who they are. And they should resign today.

"There will be investigations, and the truth will come out - the American people must know the truth - and those in this administration must be held accountable for their failure to give us the truth before we went to war.

"But we do not need to wait for the investigations to rid these people from our government - they can resign on their own today.

"I am now convinced more than ever that it was a mistake to have given this administration a blank check to engage in this war - as too many in Congress did when they supported the Iraqi war resolution."
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000651.html

Dean Criticizes Bush for Reckless Rhetoric
IOWA CITY, IA—“Today, President Bush provoked Iraqi militants targeting our soldiers in Iraq, saying ‘Bring them on.’ This was incredibly reckless rhetoric.

“These men and women are risking their lives every day, and the President who sent them on this mission showed tremendous insensitivity to the dangers they face. This is the wrong message to send to our troops in the field and their families who wish them a safe return. President Bush should focus on encouraging the keeping of the peace, since that is now our mission.”
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000595.html

Iraq invasion
LiberalOasis: What do you think were the motivations for the Bush Administration to go to war with Iraq?

Howard Dean: I can't speak to his motives, because I can't read his mind.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, though, and presume that he believes Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to our security.

I happen to disagree with that; I think we had Saddam pretty well contained. My problem with the war in Iraq isn't with motivation; it's with justification.

I don't believe the President was able to show that Iraq was an imminent threat to our security; his whole rationale for using force was based on the idea that they might be a danger to the United States at some point in the future.

Frankly, I've never understood why he was concentrating on Iraq, which had been successfully contained for twelve years, while every day a country like North Korea develops its nuclear capability.
...
Liberal Oasis: You've taken some flak for saying, following the downfall of Saddam Hussein, "I suppose that's a good thing.”

USA Today's Walter Shapiro said it was an "off-key note" and "even Democrats who doubt the strategic wisdom of the war have to agree that Saddam's ouster was unquestionably a good thing."

Senator Evan Bayh said in response, "equivocating about whether Saddam's departure is a good thing or not doesn't help the Democratic Party." What's your response?

Howard Dean: It is undeniable that Saddam Hussein is a despicable tyrant. In my opposition to the war, I have never suggested anything to the contrary.

Of course, in and of itself, Saddam’s departure is a good thing.

But the costs of the war - some known, some unknown - and what I considered to be an insufficient justification for unilateral action led me to conclude that this was the wrong war at the wrong time, and my view has not changed.

The jury is still out on whether or not the operation will be seen as successful one; we’re not quite sure what we have created in the Arab world. The reconstruction effort has gotten off to a very rocky start.

What we have created in Washington, though, is a dangerous new doctrine of preventive war that could cause serious problems for us down the line.
...
http://www.liberaloasis.com/dean.htm

fiscal responsibility
"We cannot have social justice without a sound fiscal foundation. We must balance the federal budget."

Gov. Howard Dean, M.D.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=about_issues_fiscal

education
Teacher Salary: Ranked #24 Vermont $36,053
Ranked #2 Vermont with 13.7 students per teacher
http://homeplans.hsh.com/articles/education/edu-rank.asp

gun regulation
...
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to an issue that you seem to break away from liberal Democratic orthodoxy and that’s gun control. This is a brochure in your gubernatorial campaign from the NRA.

“In November we should return a truly pro-gun Governor to office by re-electing Governor Howard Dean.” And again, David Broder’s coverage of your campaign. “Dean bragged that he has ‘an A rating’ from the National Rifle Association... he argued that ‘as Democrats, we ought to say keep the federal laws we have, enforce them, but no new laws.’ Get the gun issue off the table. It cost Al Gore three states—and the presidency.”

Which states did Gore lose because of guns?

GOV. DEAN: I think Montana, Tennessee and West Virginia. There may be more, but those are the ones I would guess, given their patterns with previous elections.

MR. RUSSERT: Democrats in Congress right now are saying that at gun shows, you can buy a gun on Saturday or Sunday and there is no background check, because many law enforcement agencies are closed. They want to extend that deadline. Would you support that kind of gun control?

GOV. DEAN: What I would support—I do support closing the gun show loophole, but I would like to see InstaCheck, which is the same system that we have elsewhere, and I think if it takes keeping somebody on duty in law enforcement agencies, that would be fine. Look, let me explain to you why I take the position I do on gun control. In Vermont, in the last 11 years, we’ve had between a high of 25 and a low of five homicides per year. Most of them, the majority, are domestic related, not many of them have firearms and not one of them would be changed if we had gun control. We essentially have no gun control in Vermont. All we have is you can’t bring guns to school.

Now, I don’t believe for a moment that that’s appropriate for New York or Los Angeles or Washington, D.C. But the point I’m trying to make here is why does gun control have to be a national issue? We have some good federal laws. I support keeping them. We should close the gun show loophole with Instacheck and after that why can’t each state make its own laws? Why can’t each state address what they want to do about gun control as a state? Because what we need in Vermont is not the same thing as what you may need in Washington, D.C.

A guy in Tennessee told me, “Look, when you say gun control to me in Tennessee, it sounds like you want to take away the squirrel rifle that my father gave to me. When you say gun control in New York, it sounds like you want to get the Uzis and the illegal handguns off the street.” It’s two different problems. We have national laws. I’m not in favor of repealing them, but I think additional gun control ought be to be done on a state-by-state basis if the state wants it and we ought not to have a one-size-fits-all federal government approach.

MR. RUSSERT: But keep people traveling from state to state very easily.

GOV. DEAN: That’s right. And Virginia is a perfect example of this. New York claimed that a lot of their guns were coming from Virginia, so they had lax laws, so they signed a bill that said you can only buy one gun a month. That’s a Virginia law. It doesn’t apply to other states. It seems to me it addressed the problem in Virginia successfully. Why can’t we do that?

Democrats are getting killed on gun control. Democratic activists who basically are in favor of gun control are glad to see me coming in the West and the South, because they do not want to lose any more national elections on the gun issue.
...
http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2002_08_25_dean2004_archive.html

media consolidation
It’s been a busy day, but it’s great to blog here on Larry Lessig’s blog.

I’ll be writing all week, but if there’s a day I can’t make it, Joe Trippi, my campaign manager, will fill in for me. Thank you Professor Lessig for inviting me.

The Internet might soon be the last place where open dialogue occurs. One of the most dangerous things that has happened in the past few years is the deregulation of media ownership rules that began in 1996. Michael Powell and the Bush FCC are continuing that assault today (see the June 2nd ruling).

The danger of relaxing media ownership rules became clear to me when I saw what happened with the Dixie Chicks. But there’s an even bigger danger in the future, on the Internet. The FCC recently ruled that cable and phone based broadband providers be classified as information rather than telecommunications services. This is the first step in a process that could allow Internet providers to arbitrarily limit the content that users can access. The phone and cable industries could have the power to discriminate against content that they don’t control or-- even worse-- simply don’t like.

The media conglomerates now dominate almost half of the markets around the country, meaning Americans get less independent and frequently less dependable news, views and information. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson spoke of the fear that economic power would one day try to seize political power. No consolidated economic power has more opportunity to do this than the consolidated power of media.

Posted by Howard Dean at 06:31 PM
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000683.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=14068&mesg_id=14068&page=

medical marijuana
Anyway since there seems to be some confusion over Deans stance on medicinal marijuana I thought you folks might to see a post made by the Doc himself in answer to an 18 year olds query on the subject.

"Jeremy(from previous thread). I'm impressed that an 18 year old would spend time on a political blog site. Here is a short summary of my drug policy. 1) drug abuse ought to be treated as a public health problem not a judicial problem. I do not favor legalization because we already have enough problems with the two drugs that are legal, alcohol and tobacco. I also believe that if people are dealing heroin to kids or shooting people that jail is more than appropriate. But if your "crime", is being a substance abuser you belong in rehab, not jail. 2)I will order the FDA to study marijuana to see what medicinal effects it may have. I do not think marijuana should have a process different than every other drug to evaluate whether or not it has medical value. Based on the studies I have read, my guess is that the FDA may find that is useful in patients with HIV/Aids, and various forms of cancer, but not for such things as treating glaucoma, where there are other drugs available, and where the risks outway the benefits. I';m on the way back from New York, so i got to read alot of the blogging that went on today. You folks are terrific!! Thank you for an incredible day, and an incredible quarter. Howard Dean

Posted by howard dean at July 1, 2003 12:42 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1784&mesg_id=1784&page=

racial profiling
Let's Start Calling Racial Profiling What It Is
AUSTIN—Dean said today that he would take federal action, including withholding federal funding, against state and local law enforcement agencies that engage in racial profiling. As president, Dean would use the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to label racial profiling by law enforcement as a form of discrimination. “Let’s start calling racial profiling what it is—discrimination based upon race,” Dean said.

In comments today to the annual meetings of the National Council of La Raza here and the NAACP in Miami, Dean took issue with the recent memorandum circulated by Attorney General John Ashcroft on the subject of profiling and with the Bush administration’s position that this is a state and local issue over which the federal government has little control. “This is a civil rights issue, and that makes it a federal issue,” Dean said. “Racial discrimination is illegal in hiring, housing, and voting. It should be illegal as a law enforcement technique too.”

“Condemning racial profiling is not enough,” said Dean. “Racial profiling is a serious civil rights issue, and the administration should do more than circulate a memo saying ‘don’t do it’ to federal enforcement agencies he oversees, like the FBI and DEA.”

“As President, I will direct my Attorney General to use regulatory authority under existing anti-discrimination laws—the 1964 Civil Rights Act—to define racial profiling as discrimination, and to withhold federal funds from departments that violate those regulations.”

Governor Dean also made clear that if existing law does not provide sufficient authority, he would seek legislation providing the authority necessary to take stronger action to end profiling, saying “Racial profiling is wrong, and it deserves more than a memo, Mr. Ashcroft.”
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000681.html

civil unions
...
On no issue is the contrast between Dean's national image as a liberal and his reputation at home more evident than gay rights.

As he campaigns for president, Dean has won broad support from gays and lesbians for signing a bill that made Vermont the only state to give gay couples the same legal rights as married people. Dean says he put principle ahead of polls and stood up for what he believed in
spite of the political risk. And he almost lost reelection in 2000 after the bill sparked a backlash.

But the matter of civil unions — like the governorship itself — was
foisted on him by external events.

In 1999, the state Supreme Court unanimously decreed that gay couples were due the same legal rights of marriage as heterosexuals. Dean left it to lawmakers to respond, saying only that he would not sign a bill permitting gay marriage.

After a prolonged and fractious debate, the Legislature reached its compromise, coining the "civil union" concept that allows gay partners such benefits as inheritance and hospital-visitation rights, but not the same recognition as heterosexual marriage.

When the bill reached his desk, Dean signed it in the confines of his office, away from the reporters and camera crews gathered for a news conference. Critics bitterly quipped that he signed it in the closet.
Dean says he avoided a showy ceremony to prevent further divisiveness.

To many in Vermont, the episode was pure Dean, a governor who focused on a few issues — health care for children, a balanced budget, paying down debt — and pursued them with few distractions.
...
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dean12jul12,1,6655901.story?coll=la-home-leftrail

killbotfactory says:
18. It's true, although the LA Times article is not...
Dean came out in favor of the ruling in a matter of hours, and pushed the issue when other democrats wanted to send it to be studied until after the election because it was the right thing to do.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=29412&mesg_id=29412&page=#29486

More information here:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=about_issues

biography
Feeling Dean’s Pain
His straight talk and blunt, suffer-no-fools style have helped make him the Democrat to watch in 2004. What makes Howard Dean tick?

By Howard Fineman
NEWSWEEK

July 21 issue — Charlie Dean died 30 years ago in the jungles of Laos at the age of 23. But all these years later his older brother, Howard, remains angry and unsettled about the event—and the unanswered questions that surround it.
...
http://www.msnbc.com/news/937672.asp?0cv=KB10

links
Campaign website:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/
Official campaign blog:
http://www.blogforamerica.com/
Unofficial Dean Blog
http://dean2004.blogspot.com/
Dean Defense Forces (unofficial):
http://www.deandefense.org/

[Nazgul35]

1. good god...

reign it in a little...

:evilgrin:

[w4rma]

2. I tried to warn ya' in the title!

:hi::evilgrin:

[Rose Siding]

3. Thank you!

My first bookmark for easy access to the "So tell me about Dean" posts.

I really like this guy.

[w4rma]

4. trade

...
HOWARD DEAN: No. What I said-- Well, I'll tell you what I said in a minute. But I'll follow my train of thought here, most briefly. Free trade has benefited Vermont a great deal. Here's the problem with free trade, and here's why I support fair trade, and why I want to change all our trade agreements to include human rights with trade, as Jimmy Carter included human rights with foreign policy. I still think NAFTA was a good thing. I think the president did the right thing. But the problem now is that, 10 years into NAFTA, here's what we've done. We have shipped a lot of our industrial capacity to other countries. And the ownership pattern, and the ratio of reward between capital and labor in those other countries is what it was 100 years ago in this country.

So the reason for NAFTA is not just trade. It's defense and foreign policy. That is, a middle class country where women fully participate in the economic and political decision making of that country is a country that doesn't harbor groups like Al-Qaeda, and it's a country that does not go to war. So that's in our intersect. That's why trade is really in our long term interest. What we've done so far in NAFTA is we've transferred industrial capacity, but we haven't transferred any of the elements that are needed to make a middle class. The truth is, the trade union movement in this country built America, not literally-- Well, they did do it literally with the Brooklyn Bridge and the Empire State Building, and things like that. But they built America because they allowed people who worked in factories and mines to become middle class people. And America was the strongest country on earth, and still is, because we have the largest middle class on earth, with democratic ideals. That is, working people in this country, by and large, feel that this is their country, and they have a piece of the pie, and it matters what they think.

Now, if you want trade to succeed, ultimately, we're going to have to create a climate in other countries that are beneficiaries of NAFTA where they can create a middle class with democratic ideals. That means we should not have any free trade agreements, and we should go back and tell the WTO that "you need also to include environmental standards and labor standards." Here's why. Today, if you run a factory in Iowa-- Let's suppose you spend a million dollars a year disposing of all the waste products that come out that are toxic. You can go to another country and dump all that stuff in the river and on the ground. So America, because we have environmental standards, and we're willing to trade, straight out, free trade, with countries that it's cheaper by a million dollars, before you even get to wages, to do business there, I think that's a big problem. We're essentially saying, "Our environmental laws are strict. It's cheaper for you to go into business someplace lese. Go ahead." That's the wrong thing to do.

The same with labor standards. I don't know why we should be shipping our jobs offshore when kids can work 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for a small amount of wages. And isn't that what America fought against 100 years go? Wasn't that the victory of the trade union movement? So it seems to me that my position makes sense. We've gone through 10 years of free trade. We've gotten to a position where we now need to change our trade agreements.
...
http://www.jfklibrary.org/forum_dean.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=46131&mesg_id=46131&page=