I've taken some of those quizzes where you elect the statements that you agree with, and it tells you which candidate you are most similar to. Oddly, my results were:
Well it depends on which quotes from Dean you use to put together a platform. Dean is a walking catalog of contradictions. At one time or another he's been in favor of just about everything. He was against the war in Iraq, against going after Hussein, but happy when he was captured, except that it really didn't make a difference in our security. He blasts Cheney for crafting an energy policy behind closed doors while he pulled the same thing as governor of Vermont. He says he doesn't want to run a Southern Strategy based on guns, God, and gays, yet announces on Christmas Day that he is going to run on God after all; at least in the South. (Of course, it's hard not to question his sincerity when you find out he broke with his religion, not over ideology or doctrine, but over the location of a bike path.)
He claims to be against terrorism, but says we will not target states that sponsor terrorism, only those that have actually merged with a terrorist organization, whatever that means. He's also recently stated that we shouldn't pre-judge Osama bin Laden's involvement in 9/11, despite the fact that bin Laden has publicly admitted to taking part in the operation! Dean has flipped so many times on so many issues that Steve Murphy, Dick Gephardt's campaign manager said
"You never know what Howard Dean is going to say. If you don't like it, just wait a little while, he'll change it."
A spinal condition spondylosis kept Dean out of Viet Nam; another one, spina absentia may keep him from the White House. He's reversed course so abruptly so many times his followers must be suffering from political whiplash.
Dean's response to these attacks? He's complaining that the DNC should make the other candidates call off their attacks, and go ahead and give him the nomination, including a not-so-veiled threat if he doesn't win the nomination.
"If we had strong leadership in the Democratic Party, they would be calling those other candidates and saying, `Hey look, somebody's going to have to win here,' " Dr. Dean, the former governor of Vermont, told reporters trailing him as he campaigned through central Iowa. Referring to one of Mr. McAuliffe's predecessors, he added, "If Ron Brown were the chairman, this wouldn't be happening."Dr. Dean also implied that many of his supporters, particularly young people, might stay home in November if another Democrat's name ends up on the ballot.
"I don't know where they're going to go, but they're certainly not going to vote for a conventional Washington politician," he said.
Though Dr. Dean has repeatedly said he would back whichever Democrat wins the nomination, he said Sunday that support was "not transferable anymore" and that endorsements, including his own, "don't guarantee anything."
In other words, if the DNC won't make the other candidates play nice, Dr. Dean may take his ball and go home.
Are petulance and pandering indecisiveness qualities that we should look for in a President?
So, do we know what Howard Dean actually stands for?
Well, here's some quotes from an interview on Chris Matthew's Hardball (Caveat: These views may change abruptly depending on public reaction, as demonstrated above.)
On civil unions vs. marriage for homosexuals:
There is no inequality of rights in the state of Vermont. We chose not to do gay marriage because there were many people who felt that marriage was a religious institution, and churches ought to be able to make their own decisions about who gets married and who doesn’t. But we felt it was really important to do equal rights under the law for every single American, and Vermont is the only state in the country where everybody has the same rights as everyone else.I agree completely
On the war in Iraq:
Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Edwards and Wes Clark at first, all of us were in favor of this resolution that was a preemptive unilateral attacks on Iraq. I was not. What the...? Freudian slip? (snip) If I came to a different conclusion than they did, given the amount of trouble we’re now in Iraq, given the fact that al Qaeda is in Iraq now and it wasn’t there before, it seems to me that their kind of foreign policy experience is not the kind we want in the White House and mine is. Problem: al Qaeda was in Iraq; and we're succeeding in ending the terrorist threat. Hussein is captured, and the people of Iraq are enjoying freedom for the first time in over three decades. Everday, it looks more like going in was the right thing to do. Dean still believes it was wrong. DO we want a President who will allow a threat to remain simply because the UN refuses to recognize the threat?
On campaign finance reform:
Well, actually, I abandoned the system not because we could afford it, but because we could beat George Bush that way. It's not about principle. It's about winning.
On the Middle East peace process:
The first thing I’m going to do if I get to be president of the United States is call Bill Clinton and ask him to go to the Middle East and represent me so we can have the presence of an American president trying to bring peace to that region. Didn't he already have eight years to bring peace to the Middle East? Why should we think he'd have any success now?
On where Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden should be tried:
[W]e are allowing the Bosnian war criminals to be tried at The International Court in The Hague. That suits me fine. As long as they’re brought to justice and tried, and so far we haven’t had to have that discussion because the president has not been able to find either one of them. It doesn't suit me just fine. Let the Iraqis try Hussein, but Osama comes here to answer for his crimes. And under no circumstances should either go to the Hague, since they could die of natural causes long before ever coming to trial.
On media regulation:
[W]e’re going to break up giant media enterprises. That doesn’t mean we’re going to break up all of GE.What we’re going to do is say that media enterprises can’t be as big as they are today. So much for a free and unfettered press. Regulation will inevitably descend to filtering content.
On labor and federal 'right to work' laws that allow workers the choice of whether to join a union or not:
I hate right to work laws. Let me tell you why. It’s OK to be forced to join a union. The union is out there negotiating for your wage increases. Why should you get a free ride? Why should I pay dues to support an organization that will use those dues to promulgate policies and ideologies I despise?
Dean goes further on his website:
As President, I would vigorously enforce worker protections in federal law. I would appoint a Secretary of Labor who is a real friend of workers. I would appoint men and women to the National Labor Relations Board and the federal judiciary who will interpret federal labor laws broadly to protect the rights of workers.
Dean also proposes the following:
Obviously in the pocket of labor, Dean wants mandatory union membership, while making it easier to form a union, and supressing the employer's right to promulgate their position.
- Ban on captive audience / mandatory anti-union meetings. Under current law, employers may schedule meetings that employees MUST attend at which employers advocate against formation of a union. Federal law should ban such practices.
- Ban on one-on-one anti-union meetings. Current law permits employers to pull individual workers off the job to attend one-on-one anti-union propaganda sessions. Such inherently coercive one-on-one meetings should be banned as an unfair labor practice.
On North Korea:
Well, first of all, we’ll have bilateral negotiations with the North Koreans.The idea that the most powerful nation on the face of the world is somehow going to be blackmailed if we don’t agree on the size of the table, which is essentially what the present argument is about, is ludicrous. This president has wasted 15 months, or more, doing nothing about the fact that North Korea is almost certainly a nuclear power, that we can’t tolerate North Korea as a nuclear power. We need to work with the Chinese, the Japanese, the South Koreans. Make up your mind , sir! Is it bilateral talks between the US and North Korea, or multilateral talks, involving the China, Japan and South Korea? Considering that the multilateral approach is the one being pursued by the Bush administration, what precisely would you do differently? Appeasement was already tried by the Clinton Administration, and it failed miserably. What do you have to offer that's different?
More from his website:
On taxes:
Good jobs are the result of sound fiscal policies, progressive tax practices, and practical, necessary investments in our communities. To this end, I will propose the repeal of every last dime of the Bush tax cuts.'Every last dime?' Even the dimes that went to the low income families who now pay no taxes, or actually get money back due to the Bush tax cuts? That's not very progressive, is it?
UPDATE
On minimum wage:
If elected, he promised to raise the national minimum wage to $7 per hour, up from $5.15."Our philosophy is give the working people a little more money and they might be able to go down and spend something on Main Street," he told the audience of labor and African American activists here in Detroit. So, he'll take money away from them by repealing the Bush cuts, which kepp minimum wage earners from paying taxes, force employers to pay them more, then collect a part of the increase in new taxes. What a guy!
After looking at his positions and policies, we clearly see the biggest Dean contradiction of them all. Dean and his supporters claim that he isn't really all that liberal; that he's really a center left candidate.
Rich
This was just excellent. Fair, honest and true - a rational and reasoned description of a candidate who really doesn't have his act together and is forced to do a lot of back-pedalling when faced with his inconsistent pronouncements. And they say GWB lacks eloquence.
Thanks for your effort. I'll look forward to your next offering.
Posted by: jane m on December 30, 2003 12:54 AMRich
This article hits the nail on the head in terms of the contrdictions and the generall arrogance that Dean has displayed thus far in his race for presidency in '04. I live in Vermont and cannot believe the sentiment that is discussed here by people who talk about Dean as if he were the greatest thing since sliced bread. The Democrats here have turned this state into a place where a majority of the population subsist on wellfare while the small businesses such as my own are heavily taxed and constantly mandated to update environmental safety equipment and procedures. It has become almost impossible to arn a living here and under Dean our greatest export was not maple syrup but rather our children who were forced to leave beacse they could not earn a living.
Posted by: Andrew McCloullough on January 5, 2004 9:30 AMRich,
Your catalog will certainly grow. I'm in Florida and was trying to keep a mental list of Dean's contradictions, but the list grew too long, too fast, for me to remember it all. Your article is a good start to an organized written collection of his self-contradictions and when my mind clears from this barrage, I will offer other contradictions as they come to mind. Great piece of work.