Kucinich demands that Dean ads be pulled
The effort to limit the terms of debate continues, and Howard Dean is a big part of it. Of course he'd be a better president than Bush. I can't think of anyone, Mark Furman and Mike Tyson and Brittney Spears included, who wouldn't be a better president than Bush. But it's pretty obvious to me that there's this loose conspiracy between the press, DLC Democrats, some Republicans, and Dean himself, to cast him as the "liberal" in the race, thereby closing off the best and most reasonable positions on many issues. Dean is, with good reason, acceptable to the corporations. Placing him as the left-most acceptable candidate shuts off the possibility of universal health care, of true fair trade instead of "free trade," of reducing the incredibly bloated pentagon budget, of seriously attacking the enormous wealth disparity in this country.
Dean's ad attempts to differentiate him from his "opponents" on the Iraq war:
"One hundred thirty thousand troops in Iraq, no end in sight and a price tag that goes up daily, and the best my opponents can do is ask questions today that they should have asked before they supported the war," Dean says in the ad. (source)
Kucinich, of course, opposed the war all along, asking questions long before Dean jumped in. Dean's implied message is, of course, that his only "serious" opponents are those who supported the war: Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt and Kerry. That alone is enough to show that Dean believes that the corporate money backing those candidates is worthy of more respect than the progressive ideas, even the anti-war ideas he shares, of Kucinich, Sharpton and Moseley-Braun (or even Clark). He's basically saying "Look. I'm different on one issue from the other big-money guys. Of course, a big-money guy has to get elected."
What a crock. Corporate rule is the heart of the problem, and Dean is not the solution.
The effort to limit the terms of debate continues, and Howard Dean is a big part of it. Of course he'd be a better president than Bush. I can't think of anyone, Mark Furman and Mike Tyson and Brittney Spears included, who wouldn't be a better president than Bush. But it's pretty obvious to me that there's this loose conspiracy between the press, DLC Democrats, some Republicans, and Dean himself, to cast him as the "liberal" in the race, thereby closing off the best and most reasonable positions on many issues. Dean is, with good reason, acceptable to the corporations. Placing him as the left-most acceptable candidate shuts off the possibility of universal health care, of true fair trade instead of "free trade," of reducing the incredibly bloated pentagon budget, of seriously attacking the enormous wealth disparity in this country.
Dean's ad attempts to differentiate him from his "opponents" on the Iraq war:
"One hundred thirty thousand troops in Iraq, no end in sight and a price tag that goes up daily, and the best my opponents can do is ask questions today that they should have asked before they supported the war," Dean says in the ad. (source)
Kucinich, of course, opposed the war all along, asking questions long before Dean jumped in. Dean's implied message is, of course, that his only "serious" opponents are those who supported the war: Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt and Kerry. That alone is enough to show that Dean believes that the corporate money backing those candidates is worthy of more respect than the progressive ideas, even the anti-war ideas he shares, of Kucinich, Sharpton and Moseley-Braun (or even Clark). He's basically saying "Look. I'm different on one issue from the other big-money guys. Of course, a big-money guy has to get elected."
What a crock. Corporate rule is the heart of the problem, and Dean is not the solution.
<< Home