I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
When are we going to stop being surprised and start doing something about it?
I am posting a comment because I can be first! Usually there are some 7 and who bothers reading down the list? this post I am commenting on is stretched too far and tries for humor and satire but falls flat on its face, making a big dealof nothing and of course getting off on the wrong foot by beginning with Drudge. Restraint sometime needed. And needed at this post.
Yes, coherent outrage!
More, please.
Stay cool and in some 5 years Bush will be out of office.
http://www.blogforamerica.com/
The Deaneacs are organizing another houseparty/conference call for the night before NewYearsEve.
Speaking of doing something...
Dean's a traitor and should be fuckin' killed. No trial, no jury, straight to execution.
The media is going to try to destroy Dean. Drudge is their stalking horse. We know all this.
Didn't take long to get on the Earthlink home page...
Dean: It's premature to convict Bin Laden
The headline could've said, "Dean: Bin Laden should be tried like anyone else".
But then, we'd know what he said and who'd read the story?
Slightly off topic-
atrocity alert, Richard Berke scheduled to appear on Washington Week in Review tonight.
Will he go with the angry Dean meme? Or the Dean is a pessimist meme? Coming to a PBS station near you, total propganda.
They're desperate.
Don't you America-Hating liberals get it? No man like Osama should get a trial! Everyone already knows he's guilty, just like Saddam was guilty of planning 9/11 right beside Bin Laden. They don't deserve the American Rights of a trial. Just like Dean and his traitor ilk don't deserve a trial either! They should be hanged for treason right after Bush (God bless 'im) stomps on them in the election!
(And if you believe that, then you can believe that monkeys fly out of my ass and left to eat Bush-nocchio's after mistaking it for a banana).
Er....last post, that was supposed to be 'Bush-nocchio's nose'. My bad.
Speaking of whoring shills, don't forget LouDobbs tonight.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/....dobbs.tonight/
Is Dean taking Osama to the prom?
At point are you going to mention the small matter of 20,000 dead in Iran, Atrios?
20,000 dead in iran bad. what more is there to say.
In anticipation of the numerous media types who will quote the Drudge's headline without reading or analyzing Dean's statement. Quoting Paul Krugman on the Al Gore inventing the internet story.
"Guys, he never said that: it's a malicious distortion of a true statement, and no self-respecting journalist would repeat it"
Do your research, people!!!
The Bush administration is guilty of genocide on a massive scale.
Do we need a trial?
"Watch Lou Dobbs' tonight as the Joe Lieberman campaign gets desperate when Lieberman visits Saddam's spiderhole in Tikrit and amazingly discovers a letter to a "Doctor Deen" that troops who originally scoured the hole were unable to find!
...News you can trust, Lou Dobbs tonight at 7PM Eastern."
Innocent til proven guilty.
Wow. An oldie but goodie.
Get ready for 11 months of this shit folks. Dean or (your candidate here) better not take any of this shit lying down. Fight, fight, fight.
Look everyone. This sort of smearing gets us angry. Yes. But we must do something, anything to counter the filth and lies being promoted by the conservative media.
And no more calling it the SCLM. No more. We need to use the meme CONSERVATIVE MEDIA. Each and every time we refer to it. Every time we write to a newspaper, or call a radio talk show, or talk to people in groups. CONSERVATIVE MEDIA.
I don't read the Drudge Report. Is there somewhere we can email him?
I write to David Brooks every time he publishes his biased column and point out his omissions and biases.
It took the conservatives 30 years to take the WH, Congress, most of the governorships and the SCOTUS.
What have we done in the meantime? Made nice-nice? Great. Nice guys finish last. Remember?
I don't mean we have to become scoundrels, liars and totalitarians, like the conservatives, no, but we can do something about stopping the disinformation campaign that they rely on to further their unAmerican agenda.
[end of rant]
I'm just waiting for the next Gephardt-Lieberman-Kerry funded ad comparing Dr. Howard Dean to Dr. Josef Mengele...
(ominous background music):
"both were doctors coming from rich families, and both (dramatic pause) hate...Jews!"
The going argument is that explicitly stating American values is dangerous because of how it will be politically spun by your competitors.
Ask yourself the view of these competitors about the American people, and their intelligence.
I'll vote for the first person who tells judy woodruff to go fuck herself!!!!
All day Fox has been running as their top story the fact that Dean is going to "use Jesus Christ" in his campaign from now on.
Terror alerts, catastrophic earthquakes, Michael Jackson... and the top story today is that a few Republicans think Dean might mention Christ on the campaign trail in a self serving attempt to match George Bush's self serving references to Christ?
What is the goddamn deal? I wake up from Christmas and the whole world has gone insane.
Don't actually trump American values explicitly, just seek to further them implicitly, while talking of strength and revenge.
Is that what they're saying?
That we should speak of lynching Osama, rather than speaking of fair trials?
We are at war against Osama, having strayed from a criminal investigation, so some of the talk of Osama getting what he deserves is appropriate to a lot of people.
Dean should be careful here. Adversaries of war get killed, with or without a trial.
1. It was in BRIGHT RED, b/c on Christmas Day, all of Drudge's links were that way.
2. What should really bother people is that Dean thinks this is a law enforcement problem.
If we capture Osama, we definitely should try him. But noone is going to cry, or cry foul, if he is killed in the effort, which has been defined as war, rather than crime.
Speaking of trying Osama is definitely jumping the gun, and should be avoided. Right now we seek to defeat him, dead or alive.
Chris,
1. It is bright red because Drudge wants it to stand out. Yesterday all of the articles were in red, yes. But today they are all in black. And this article didn't show up until today and today is not Christmas.
2. What should really bother people is that this country doesn't give a crap about the law anymore.
it's an intelligence and military situation until he's captured, then it's a criminal one.
What should really bother people is that Dean thinks this is a law enforcement problem.
What do you suggest? More smart bombs in Tora Bora?
We're gonna need guns.
When Georgie loses next year, the drooling freepers won't be able to accept it. The smear campaign is but a taste of the violence to come.
What should really bother people is that Dean thinks this is a law enforcement problem
Naw, what bothers me is that Shrub thinks it's someone elses problem.
Of course Dean could have said "I think Osama will be given a fair trial and appropriate justice." Death penalty? "Yes, if that's what a jury decides." This would've been just as faithful to his vision of justice and wouldn't have resulted in yet another needless flap.
The ill-considered, impolitic rhetoric that flies out of Dean's mouth is his fault -- it's repeated, and possibly congenital and irreversible -- and it's going to cost him the election and give us four more years of Bush.
And, if asked about this Dean should say something along the lines of...
Perhaps Dean can buy an ad on Eschaton to this effect...oh, wait, the point has already been made for him. I sure hope he paid you for this blog post, since "an average of 40,000 visitors per day see this space!"
The correct response to the latest moronic brownshirt fuck innuendo is, of course, "Why do you hate the rule of law?"
They're crapping in their pants... love it!
I sure hope he paid you for this blog post...
Like Unka Karl pays the Post, the Times, CNN, Drudge, etc etc etc?
In other words: ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
"ill-considered, impolitic rhetoric that flies out of Dean's mouth is his fault...."
Talking about our basic concept of justice is ill-considered and impolitic rhetoric?
You make me sick.
i wish they'd pay for it.
"We're gonna need guns.
When Georgie loses next year, the drooling freepers won't be able to accept it. The smear campaign is but a taste of the violence to come."
Seraphiel
I concur. I don't see them just walking away after losing. I see them going stark raving mad. Should be funny to watch, anyway. If it wasn't so serious, all this would be hilarious.
Stay cool and in some 5 years Bush will be out of office.
Thanks but no thanks.
OT, American shouldn't abandon it's principles. Osama should get a scrupulously fair trial... anything less will just fan the flames of extremism even more.
And Dean shouldn't say Fuck you Judy Woodruff, he should say:
FUCK OFF AND DIE JUDY WOODRUFF, you media whore.
She's abandoned any attempt to appear inpartial.
see, i heard al gore and h. dean invented osama bin laden.
and pessimistic.
and the internet.
Just imagine the panic if leftists and hippies started flooding gun shops and shooting ranges nationwide, polishing up their chops and stocking up on ammo.
I think the freepers would implode.
Messy.
I think the freepers would implode.
Now there's a great idea.
New bumper sticker:
ARMED AND LIBERAL, PAYBACKS ARE A BITCH
I kinda like that last line......
Had Enough? by James Carville
CARVILLE'S TEN RULES FOR PROGRESSIVES TO LIVE BY
...
9. Sometimes You've Got to Be Willing to Fight. Period. ...America will never trust a party to defend America that fails to defend itself.
Sometimes I don't always make my position clear, when trying to flesh out an issue, to get to its core, either by getting distracted, or just not writing well.
I do think Dean needs to be careful on how he frames any conversation about Osama, who is not likely to be captured to begin with. Osama is a real bogeyman to the American people, and they want him dead. And he will martyr himself before capture.
With that said, if he is captured, a fair trial should be on the table, but to speak of trials and fairness in regards to your enemies during wartime isn't politically wise, or necessary. Also, it could ironically work against efforts to try Saddam Hussein fairly.
Don't forget that we are at war against Al Qaeda, and Bin Laden is their leader. Until it's viewed as a criminal affair, rather than a military affair, it would be best to speak of Osama only in terms of getting him dead or alive.
The lesson is not to mix your frames. Or even to mix Saddam and Osama. Like mixing metaphors, just don't do it. It's bad practice.
The vast majority of Americans want Osama dead, and you leave yourself open if speaking of him in terms less than that (like a boxer throwing a punch, and not covering up, leaving himself open to counter punch, and everything Dean says right now is a punch, because he's in a fight).
Dean should avoid this, so that time and energy don't have to go into (rightfully) defending him for his positions being manipulated.
I've been defending Dean since April, and see nothing wrong, in principle, with his comments on Bin Laden.
On the other hand, unless your political strategy is going to be to champion principle over politics, without qualification, and make that transparent to everyone so they know this is the case, then certain deferences to political realities are necessary.
In the case of Bin Laden, the situation is explosive in regards to the fear and emotion generated by 9/11. Be careful.
In bold red letters, Matt Drudge has the headline "Dean not ready to pronounce Osama bin Laden guilty...". It's another attempt by this conservative shill to make controversy out of nothing. (I'm not even going to link to this junk).
I'm sure what Dean is trying to say is that, until all the facts about 9/11 come out, we'll never know the absolute truth about the attacks. We haven't been told the truth yet, have we, Matt?
He's playing off the assumption that since GWB is going after Osama YoMama, then Osama YoMama is guilty of ramming those jets into the WTC. He furthering the notion that if you don't believe the White House line on things like terrorism, you are a worthless traitor.
Stick to talking about Wacko Jacko, Matt.
http://gothamcity13.blogspot.com
Gawd, I hadn't thought about it before, but an armed and ready Democratic party has to be the repugs worse nightmare squared.
If we could only stop the Big Dog from dispatching Carville (with Matalin!) to Meet the Press in order to run down Dean.
We should be planning for that contingency. The wingers will steal the election in broad daylight. We should begin thinking about a national strike, civil disobedience at federal buildings and mass demonstrations when that happens and something tells me Dean wont back down like Gore did for the sake of the country.
Is this the same James Carville who chastised Dean on the Tim Russert show for saying America is no safer now that Saddam has been captured. "Of course it's safer. What a ridiculous statement."
Yeah James, that a way to fight back.
Go Dean! Tell it how it is (just don't talk about anything that comes up).
This is Dean's Dukakis moment. Given a chance to appear genuinely outraged, he instead choose to appear bookish and learned. I mean, of course Dukakis was "right" when he told Bernard Shaw that he would oppose the death penalty for someone who raped and murdered his wife...but if a candidate lacks the good sense to know how that kind of remark is going to play out in public, then he really is too stupid to govern.
Similarly--Dean doesn't know how this remark is going to go over? Jeez. Where the hell has he been? Put a brave outraged face on it, but you know his advisors were sitting back there going "oh, shit" as soon as he said that.
And, incidentally, "innocent until proven guilty" is a fine concept, but when the guy you are talking about has produced video after video taking responsibility for said attacks, it's pretty much a moot point.
Drudge is a clown.
"At point are you going to mention the small matter of 20,000 dead in Iran, Atrios?"
He's still thinking of a way to blame Bush for it.
Yeah James, that a way to fight back.
Carville was doing the "rope a dope".
The boilerroom is scared shitless.
In bold red letters, Matt Drudge has the headline "Dean not ready to pronounce Osama bin Laden guilty...". It's another attempt by this conservative shill to make controversy out of nothing. (I'm not even going to link to this junk).
I'm sure what Dean is trying to say is that, until all the facts about 9/11 come out, we'll never know the absolute truth about the attacks. We haven't been told the truth yet, have we, Matt?
He's playing off the assumption that since GWB is going after Osama YoMama, then Osama YoMama is guilty of ramming those jets into the WTC. He furthering the notion that if you don't believe the White House line on things like terrorism, you are a worthless traitor.
Stick to talking about Wacko Jacko, Matt.
http://gothamcity13.blogspot.com
capn mike: black panthers. a klansman with a gun is a patriot, a black man or a leftist with a gun is a threat to public safety ie "terra'ist".
The wingers believe that we're the cowards. But they're the bullying cowards. Cowardice explains how they think and everything they do. I've challenged them to a fight several times and they've always chickened out. They'll talk big online but out on the street, they're all pussies.
Oh, and just for fun, let's actually see what Dean said:
The Monitor asked: Where should Osama bin Laden be tried if he's caught? Dean said he didn't think it made any difference, and if he were president he would consult with his lawyers for advice on the subject.
But wouldn't most Americans feel strongly that bin Laden should be tried in America - and put to death?
"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said. "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials. So I'm sure that is the correct sentiment of most Americans, but I do think if you're running for president, or if you are president, it's best to say that the full range of penalties should be available. But it's not so great to prejudge the judicial system."
Sorry to fuck things up for all the script-typers in Unka Karl's boilerroom...
Incidentally, kids, is there a single one among you who has proof Osama had something to do with IX/XI? Yeah he was happy about it, but that means nothing. Yeah he should be caught and stopped, but for other reasons. We've cultivated and supported enemies everywhere, and rather a sandy hole in Nowhere and a puddle-jumper school we'd bet some real government with an American-supplied air force has things hidden.
Don't sell the American people short. Remember, in 2000 Bush had huge sums of money and a fawning press, and Gore still won the popular vote!
My Republican relatives are paying attention to Dean. They agree with a lot of what he is saying, and they like his fiscal record.
I think he may well be Rove's biggest nightmare!
i wish they'd pay for it.
Well, they didbuy a blogad. And as I know from personal experience, the rates have skyrocketed. So enjoy that bottle of Dom Perignon and tin of beluga caviar as you fly your Lear jet to Paris this New Year's Eve, you capitalist bastard!
jeezus, it's on CNN: Dean/Fair Trial for Osama
Doesn't Dean understand that 9/11 changed everything? If we don't tear up the Constitution, throw its pieces in the dirt, and jump up and down on them, the terrorists have already won.
I'm a huge Dean supporter and contributor and David unfortunately has a point:
---------------------------------
"This is Dean's Dukakis moment. Given a chance to appear genuinely outraged, he instead choose to appear bookish and learned. I mean, of course Dukakis was "right" when he told Bernard Shaw that he would oppose the death penalty for someone who raped and murdered his wife...but if a candidate lacks the good sense to know how that kind of remark is going to play out in public, then he really is too stupid to govern. "
-------------------------------
I honestly DO NOT KNOW WHY Dean answered the question this way...God Forbid this blows up and Fox News has a field day with this, we have Dukakis part 2.
I always gave Dean more credit than Dukakis, but what the FUCK was he thinking answering the question like this...
I'll put this past him and still support him dearly, but Dean and Trippi better figure out something FAST because the 9/11 conspiracy rumor was Strike 1 and this garbage about giving Osama the benefit of the doubt is definitely Strike 2!
There's not much time between now and Election Day and Dean needs to start acting "presidential" awfully soon!
"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said. "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials.
That sounds more presidential than anything that's come outta the Shrub his entire life.
Yep, exactly, Peter. The sad fact of life is that there IS a Drudge out there, and there IS a Fox News, and if candidates can't install some sort of Drudge filter in their brains, then screw 'em and move on. I mean, it's like Gore--every advisor and his uncle were telling him that he had a "credibility problem," but he kept on blabbing and let the right invent the "Gore is a Liar" meme. If Dean lacks the ability to think "hmm...how is Drudge going to spin this" before launching into some speech, then he's not fit to govern in a modern age, sorry.
I don't see how capturing/killing Osama at this point serves the public interest in any meaningful way.
But who am I to second-guess geniuses like Wolfowitz, Perle, Rice and Rumsfeld? Invading Iraq for oil on behalf of some neo-Roman imperialogy (and to hand over $$$ to Bechtel/Halliburton) is far more pragmatic than going after known terrorist groups.
'Pragmatism:' the buzzword of neocons everywhere. We're not idealogues, we're pragmatic. See? Ends justify the means. See?
Fight the latest spin by going to Dean's website and donating some money.
Peter - Sorry, Dean didn't say anything wrong - he merely answered questions asked of him, in both cases, clearly and cogently. And in neither case did he give an outrageous or scandalous reply. The conservative media is simply and very purposely taking things out of context to create "controversies" which never actually occured. They will do this to any Democratic nominee on any topic. The only way to avoid it is to say nothing at all - and how is anyone going to win a campaign that way?
The way to combat this is, every time a talking head or reporter brings up this topic to Dean, he should say, "quote the entire question and my answer, then point out the part of what I said that you think needs explaining or is controversial."
In this way, he could force them to "retract" the assumption that he said anything controversial, or at least demonstrate that the person asking the question hasn't even bothered to inform themselves about what was actually said.
At some point, we should consider holding the media accountable for their dishonesty and stupidity.
I mean, this IS all their fault.
Peter and David: what if Gore didn't lose to the meme, he lost to the fact that he wasn't grabbing every opportunity to lick Bush and be in opposition, thus failing to mobilize a landslide of disillusioned Dems who saw no point in voting? What about the Americans who hate the talking socks? What if pundits aren't as valued as they think they are?
we had neglected and so hasten to add
we are proud of and grateful for Dean not vetting everything-it makes a nice contrast to the purely political, 24-hourly campaigning Bush White House.
And Dukakis had a lot of problems besides not giving up on discourse and shilling the line the ad wizards thought the stupid masses wanted to hear.
Are you objectively arrogant guys in advertising or political consulting by any chance?
It's the Bush administration who needs to worry: my NC republican in-laws have had it with them.
We can defeat them.
Re: David...
It's probably been harder now to watch Dean in this stage of the campaign than it has at any part so far...
I feel so bad for the guy because he is EXACTLY what we need in the White House right now, and he's being fed to the lions every single day!
Other than Al Gore's endorsement which was done because he felt that strongly in what Dean believes in...no one has stood up for Dean, be it on CNN, Fox News, the Sunday shows, the Press, etc.
It's very tough to watch the Cable News shows and see Dean get torn to pieces without any of his policies being expressed to the public...and if any of you visit Deanybopper (the site with every Dean article from the day's major papers) you'll see Dean just getting hammered and HAMMERED by everyone.
I keep telling myself that all this shrapnel that Dean is catching will just make him stronger and veer him into what the country truly wants from their president, but then you wake up and realize some people just want Dean's character smeared and they will stop at nothing...
and when all is said and done, Americans will see Dean just as Karl Rove wants him defined as...just like the GOP defined Dukakis in 88...
And that with the absolute ABSENCE of any positive National Dean news has been scaring me as of late...
Can anyone cheer me up?...because I hate to say this, but I just have this gut-feeling that Dean has to achieve a miracle of sorts to get America to view him as the viewed Clinton in October of 1992.
What can Dean do to legitimately "win this country back"?
Dean was chastised for saying Saddam's capture made us no safer. Then the threat advisor alert system went up. The silence of apologies has left me deafened.
(And I'm a Clark guy for the nonce.)
peter...What can Dean do to legitimately "win this country back"?
I'm afraid it's up to us to win the country back for HIM.
sorry if that last post sounded...ahem...pessimistic.
goddamn Right-wing echo chamber is catching up to me...I need to shake the fucking thing off!
Jennifer is right, as she almost always is. There is no way to win this kind of situation except the way Jennifer has laid out. A candidate has to answer questions, make statements, be out there in the public eye all the time. Almost anything that anyone says can be re-cast to make it seem to mean something other than what it means. This will happen every day from now on, so it's best to pay attention. Then let it go, because tomorrow it will be something else.
We can't expect any help from the press in this election. We are going to have to get this man elected ourselves.
Pete-Didn't some criminals stop at nothing to smear Clinton? Why do you give up so easily-did you not expect Rove-type dirty ratfuckers to play dirty? Why are you so completely convinced democracy is such hard work, and therefore impossible? Why aren't you saying whether you'll be going door-to-door for whoever gets the nom or since you claim to like Dean in an incomprehensibly Gothic, doomed love kind of way, O young Werther, why not stump for Dean now?
Possibly you are merely a subtler rethug troll...
George W. Bush Not Ready to Punish the Terrorists Behind 9/11
On the run and desperate, Osama Bin Laden and surviving Al Qaeda recruits were allowed to escape by George W. Bush. Unhappy with his approval ratings at home in the US, and frustrated that Afghanistan was bogging down, George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew from Afghanistan, leaving behind only a token force too small to be effective.
By choosing to attack sitting-duck Iraq instead of pursue the hard slog to find Osama Bin Laden, the terrorists in the form of Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been allowed to regroup and completely disrupt southern Afghanistan.
When reminded that Osama Bin Laden was still on the loose, George W. Bush stammered, "But, but we caught Saddam." When reminded that Saddam was a brutal dictator but did not have anything to do with the Osama Bin Laden and the terrorists that attacked America on 9/11, Bush stuttered, "But, but, but we caught Saddam. He had rape rooms! RAPE ROOMS!" When reminded that he had lied about nuclear weapons and exaggerated all WMD claims pertaining to Iraq, Bush muttered, "What's the difference? We was just excited! We wanted to go after Saddam!" When asked if the world was safer now that Saddam had been captured, Bush screamed, 'Orange Alert! Orange Alert! Keep Shopping!"
Bush was last seen running toward the Vice President's house, where Dick Cheney was awaiting him, hiding beneath the house in a spider hole.
Peter and Dave: Drudge's headline was an over-reach and smacks of desperation. Of course, those dittoheads who can't think for themselves are going to jump on this. So what? They aren't going to vote for Dean anyway.
Dean needs to reach the more moderate and centrist swing voters who typically can read this paragraph with a little more reflection than most of Fox's viewers.
So this kind of stuff, which has become increasingly less subtle and more outlandish, will likely backfire.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with what Dean said. Take a pill. There was something wrong with the headline that purposefully misrepresented the gist of what he said. Drudge is a blatant right wing whore. Big shock.
These are old games and the facts that they are using them more frequently and far less artfully at this time is encouraging. They are simply coming off as desperate and I suspect that some of the more scrupulous journalists will begin to bend over backward to distance themselves from these guys. There is a limit to how much whoring some will do. Assinine things like this are likely to expedite that process.
trust me K&Y...I'm not a crook.
I know what you're saying, that I sound like a neo-con prick who's trying to demoralize everyone....and I apologize if my last post came off as "Dean has no chance!"
I'm just a very concerned young adult and this is really my first campaign that I've become very active in. I want to see Dean win, I want to see Dean re-energize the Democrats and give us a much needed boost, but I'm surrounded by Cable...I work at place that has plenty of Bush supporters and the Stop-Dean movement is really getting the best of me.
Sorry if I came off as a subtle repub doing a Chicken Little routine...I just needed some re-assurance cause God knows I'm not getting it from my offline community!
Mutt Dradge - That was brilliant. Please have it published somewhere right away. It is just perfectly hilarious because it's true.
2004 requres a two-front campaign strategy: one against Bush and the GOP, the other against the biased, irresponsible and lazy corporate press
it should be formally recognized and announced as a two front war, and individual members of the heatherocracy identified and targeted for concentrated political action by the official Dem campaign, to be exposed as liars and partisan shills, with all the available corrborating evidence supplied to support the contention
Dean (or whichever Dem candidate) should demand individual debates with Russert, Koppel, Woodruff, the editorial boards at the NY Times and WaPo, and anyone else who blatantly runs a campaign against him
if the Dem candidate could put the alleged "reporters" on the hot seat and demand they answer questions from him, in a debate forum, the public would be able to see them rather more clearly for what they really are
Just remember that it's wise to be aware of the psychology of the nation along with the politics and principles.
I'm trying to dig into it some, and see why this particular issue of Osama seems so dangerous to speak frankly about.
The media and Drudge are definitely shills, but they don't just push buttons that aren't there.
It's important we discover all the buttons, so that traps set can be avoided. These buttons can only be discovered through the psychological and emotional effects they cause.
Every time they play something up against Dean, we need to learn a lesson from it - either that the particular button is too explosive, and should be avoided at all costs, or that the button is manageable, and a vigorous counter-effort can not only turn it to our favor, but perhaps even deactivate the button in the future.
Peter - if you're sincere, then that's great. Concern is understandable. Everybody gets concerned. You have to understand, some of us are pretty used to being fucked with here by people who start out pretending to be one thing and ending up being something else altogether. Makes us wary.
Take the power out of the buttons, but don't do so recklessly.
Some buttons, like Osama, are too powerful to allow to be pushed.
Dean needs to sense these traps coming, and turn the question around on the interviewer somehow (this is dangerous too), or dance around the question (safest).
The real question is why the media is asking him these questions.
Dean should say what we do with Osama is irrelevant until we capture him, which is not a foregone conclusion. Until then, we need to focus our efforts on defeating him - dead or alive.
not a bad idea at all, BZ...but taking on the Press will be very difficult...
it's like when a sports player goes on a reporter for asking him very absurd or personal questions after a loss...you never see an article the next morning apologizing to player...you see an article villifying the said player on the loss.
And therein lies the problem with taking on the press...it will be VERY ugly!
well, we're praying to the R'lyehian Dreamer that Rove just loses it and continues calling everyone a traitor. There's nothing that would do more for Democratic registration than more "us or them" nonsense. Forcing the "salt of the earth" in "middle America" to choose between a very un-American worldview or "objective alliance with Al Qaeda" is so crazy GHWB wouldn't do it. Actually he probably has, but it's still fucking crazy. Can you imagine if Clinton had said a vote not cast for him was a vote for Osama?
better Dean answer: I believe he should have a fair trial. had aWol not pulled our troops from Afganistan this may not be a moot point right now, but since aWol decided to go for the oil rich Iraq to help out his pals in Halliburton, it's taking far too long to capture him and bring him to justice.
"well, we're praying to the R'lyehian Dreamer that Rove just loses it and continues calling everyone a traitor."
Screw this, if Bush has Rove...there's no reason why the Cthulhu shouldn't be the "brains" behind Dean!!
And Peter still hasn't answered why he has such good faith in the press!
Remember the noise when Kucinich called Koppel on his stupidity? See how both the success and the resulting ignorance of Faux is really more a matter of playing to an already existing market? Can Peter prove that other people-especially after Lewinsky-respect the power of the fifth estate as much as he?
I must say, I wasn't all that won over to Dean at first. (too conservative). But I just like him more all the time. There is something so refreshingly uncalculated about remarks like this.
I just have a feeling he's going to survive the mudslinging. I think Americans, more than anything, favor sincerity and courage when they finally confront it, even when it comes with views they oppose.
Color me naive, perhaps. But I think Dean is going to come out of this looking better than just about everyone else.
I had no idea the right wing even remembered who Osama bin Laden was anymore.
If they want to paint Howard as an equivocator, and not mean enough, when they see has a terrible temper, and is a unsubtle straight-shooter always putting his foot in his political mouth, we can counter that.
Even the Osama thing, though better avoided, could be turned to our advantage, if it's championed by accountable people in the campaign, and not just Drudge and a media network of shills.
What they try to do is spread memes, rumours, and characterizations without anyone in the campaign actually behind it. So it's harder to turn this to your favor, since noone on record is pushing it in the first place.
So, if it will work for the campaign, the time and effort countering it might be worth it anyway. But, in some cases, that time and effort might just be a waste, as they have you running your campaign like Ghostbusters, chasing phantoms and putting out apparitional fires, while they laugh and spend money on more things like this, and occasionally even on stuff they'll stand behind.
The idea I'm pushing is to avoid waste, pick your battles, try to avoid traps unless they are set by your actual opponents (and not their unaccountable lackeys), and to be aware of the psychological and emotional buttons that are in play.
Dean should say what we do with Osama is irrelevant until we capture him, which is not a foregone conclusion. Until then, we need to focus our efforts on defeating him - dead or alive.
This would be an example of picking your battles and setting your own frame. You don't have to follow the frame of the questioner. And definitely don't mix frames.
Confusion helps the competition.
Fuck Judy Woodruff? I wouldn't fuck Judy Woodruff with Al Hunt's dick, or Karl Rove's for that matter.
I'm sorry K&Y...but the Press is everything that I see...I turn on the news, there's Dean...
I go to the Magazine Stand...there's Dean...I go to the Bookstore, you know what garbage has just come out there...
Look K&Y...ditching the Press altogether is a noble cause, and trust me, I know that National Review, Newsmax, FNC, Novack, Safire...etc are not to be trusted...I'm just worried that the other side is not pushing back.
Hell, the most-recent issue of New Republic has more Stop-Dean articles than last week's Washington Times and New York Post combined!
Other than Krugman, no one has been standing up for Dean, and that was my original gripe.
If Dean lacks the ability to think "hmm...how is Drudge going to spin this" before launching into some speech, then he's not fit to govern in a modern age, sorry.
David
What?!! You honestly believe the Dems need to run a campaign based on how wingnuts might react? Fuck that. I'm sick of Democratic wimps worrying about how the knee-jerk, lying ass Republicans will spin it. That's what has gotten us into this mess in the first place. It's past time for the Democrats to be the ones kicking some ass.
No one should be blaming Dean for this. No matter who the Dem nominee is, the freaks on the right will spin themselves dizzy and lie and lie and lie about our nominee. None of the Dem candidates is safe from that.
marisa
Clarifying the other point, Dean's competitors want to simultaneously portray him as a soft equivocator who's not mean enough, while also portraying him as angry and an impolitic straight-shooter.
This kind of absurdity is sure, in the end, not to wash with people, because it's not consistent.
Since it's not consistent, the ironic effect seems to be to make Dean more agreeable, since the confusing messages are oriented to opposing him, so it's only natural then to view him more favorably, as more certain.
Who knows? Intriguing ideas though that may counter the idea that the message of the Right is truly as consistent and steady as it needs to be, or if it's just a source of confusion and absurdity that, since directed against Dean, seems to give Dean that much more credibility as an agent of change and strength.
kei and yuri,
Enough about Peter. This isn't about Peter. Why do you want it to be?
another better HD answer: had aWol not ignored the terrorism warnings from August 2001 and earlier we wouldn't need to be bringing him to trial for Sept 11th. as President I'll focus on making the US and the world a safer and better place, working with our allies across the globe yada yada
It's sad the way so many "nervous-nellie" so-called progressives worry and fret about how Democratic candidates need to "temper" or "filter" their remarks for fear that the right wing and its media shills won't like it.
AS IF, whatever they said and however they said it, The Others would be convinced, throw up their hands and say: "Whoo, boy. That's a good point."
Grow up, people. If Republicans can rally behind a president/candidate whom they KNOW to be an idiot, Democrats can surely get together behind one who speaks sometimes unpalateable truths.
Sweet Jesus, what bullshit. The fuckin' beltway press has started to affect everybody. What Dean said about OBL was reasoned and reasonable. It looks like some Dean supporters are just begging for a reason to jump ship. Has everyone forgotten the Constitution already. Does innocent until proven guilty mean a god damn thing?
Woops, apparently Dean has caught up with the rest of the country since making that statement. Tonight he says.......
BURLINGTON -- "I share the outrage of all Americans. Osama bin Laden has admitted that he is responsible for killing 3,000 Americans as well as scores of men, women and children around the world. This is the exactly the kind of case that the death penalty is meant for.
"When we capture Osama bin Laden, he will be brought to justice and treated in the same manner that President Bush is recommending for Saddam Hussein."
Grow up, people. If Republicans can rally behind a president/candidate whom they KNOW to be an idiot, Democrats can surely get together behind one who speaks sometimes unpalateable truths.
----------------------------
good point, Joe D...
Hansel says: "Drudge is a blatant right wing whore"
umm, so what is atrios?
When we capture Osama bin Laden, he will be brought to justice and treated in the same manner that President Bush is recommending for Saddam Hussein.
Nice bit of jiu-jitsu, that...
A quick response from Burlington is a good thing. Unfortunately far too many journalists read the Drudge Report and and the Blastmail from the wingnuts. At least by staying in the same news cycle the Dean camp will have ashot at killing the controversy or at least getting a rebuttal in tomorrow's papers.
The Wurlitzer plays on....
kei and yuri,
Enough about Peter. This isn't about Peter. Why do you want it to be?
Dr. Pedant | Email | Homepage | 12.26.03 - 7:47 pm | #
OY! Zoidberg! Be a good squid and find us an ad hominem or something! We addressed the importance of an obviously biased press, from the standpoint of people who actually still have not proved anyone else pays attention to it (Peter [& David. Guess we never said anything about David]: all I read is the hard right-wing press and consequently all I see are Rerthug party lines!!!) versus people who think Americans are already fed up with the media or at least not total informational slaves. Where the hell were we going after Peter?
And also because we want to get in his pants. Sounds like he needs to relax.
Tweety and the Dean
MATTHEWS: Who should try Osama bin Laden if we catch him? We or the World Court?
DEAN: I don't think it makes a lot of difference. I'm happy...
MATTHEWS: But who would you like to, if you were president of the United States, would
you insist on us trying him, since he was involved in blowing up the World Trade Center, or
would you let The Hague do it?
DEAN: You know, the truth is it doesn't make a lot of difference to me as long as he is
brought to justice. I think that's the critical part of that.
MATTHEWS: How about Saddam Hussein? Should we try him in criminal and execute him...
DEAN: Again, we 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.
Tweety and The General
MATTHEWS: General, do you think Osama bin Laden, if we catch him, when we
catch him, should be tried here at the U.S. or in the Hague, the international court?
CLARK: I would like to see him tried in the Hague, and I tell you why. I think it's
very important for U.S. legitimacy and for building other support in the war on terror for
trying them in the Hague,e under international law with an international group of
justices, bringing witnesses from other nations. Remember, 80 other nations lost citizens
in that strike on the World Trade Center. It was a crime against humanity, and he needs
to be tried in international court.
MATTHEWS: Well, 3,000 Americans were killed here. Do you believe he should be
held exempt from capital punishment, because if you send him to Hague he will be. They
don't have capital punishment at the Hague.
CLARK: I think that's a separate issue. I think that's a separate issues.
MATTHEWS: No, it's a key issue, because the sentencing limitation, they do not
execute people at the Hague.
CLARK: I think that you can adequately punish Osama bin Laden, and you've got to
look beyond simple retribution against an individual. You have to look at what's in the
long-term security interest in the security in America and you have to look at how we
handle the war on terror from here on out.
MATTHEWS: But doesnâ?TMt life in Holland beat life in a cave?
CLARK: Not in a Dutch prison. Chris, they're under water, they're damp, they're
cold, they're really miserable.
There might be something wrong with my eyes, but has anyone else noticed that Drudge has removed the link? I just went to show it to someone and it was gone.
Clenis: Wow profound. The old "I no you are but what am I, poopy head" offense. I feel rightly taken to task. Now report back and find out what to say next.
These little Drudge headline tricks are really just pathetic non-starters. It's an attempt to put on the defensive, when we should just stay on the attack. Bush is a walking target-rich environment unto himself. Dean/Clark/ABB will tear him not just a new rhetorical asshole, but several. If Gore had attacked, had just been himself, Bush would be back running Texas into the ground instead of the entire country.
Think about it. When was the last time that you saw a POSITIVE meassage coming from the Republicans? They have all but given up on trying because they have so few items that they can list as positive accomplishments that will pass the sniff test.
It's still over ten months before the election, no Democratic candidate has been chosen, and the Republicans are going negative. They cannot even address issues, they're just going after character. The red-state ship is foundering.
They are desperate! Laughably desperate!
umm, so what is atrios?
A partisan blogger who doesn't play fantasy journalist. It's pretty easy to tell the difference.
Oh... and he's not a hypocritical, closeted gay man, who threatens to sue people who talk about his advances on them.
developing....
Where the hell were we going after Peter?
Never said you were going after Peter. Said it wasn't about Peter.
This post here seems to be all about Peter:
And Peter still hasn't answered ...
... Can Peter prove ...
kei & yuri | Email | Homepage | 12.26.03 - 7:35 pm | #
Dreagon - link please?
Rather than shutting down or dancing around questions, Dean needs to keep speaking his mind boldly and letting the chips fall where they may. The Rovians will try to twist whatever he says to their advantage anyway, no matter what, so he might as well just be honest and trust that there are enough Americans with brains out there to figure out how often the media whores are simply crying wolf, and stop paying attention to all the false alarms.
What color is YOUR Dean Alert today?
BTW, kudos to the Mutt Dradge piece! That was sheer brilliance, and, as Tena said, deserves to be shared with a much wider audience.
Zoidy, if we "go after Bush" for a position of his does it necessarily mean we must not be criticizing neocon ideology, but only Bush himself? More to the point, our attacks on Peter & David's poorly thought-out hopelessness were about the larger problerm of electing Dean (or defeating Shrub, whichever) whereas your comments seem unique in scope to us. Even if we were going after D&P a half a thread ago, why bother with this? What the hell is your point?
You have not shown that our responses to D&P were straight AH or SM or really anything-you excerpted the word "peter" from one of them, proving that they were in fact adressed to Peter, which we freely admit. But they had substance beyond say Clenis's thoughtless attempt to call Atrios a Liebermanian, and you have not touched a bit on the substance of our questions for D&P.
"Fuck you Judy Woodruff"
Well.........that certainly puts me off my feed. I mean can you really see her in front of you with her legs pulled back and crying "take me.. take me...Ooh Ick....
Dr. Zoidberg, please explain why if we're trying to hijack a thread and make it "about x", that's fundamentally different than and mutually exclusive from "going after x".
Also working on a flyer of Mutt's excellent piece. It would appear that font size 13 is good for filling-out a whole 8.5x11 page. But that's us trying to make this about Mutt.
"Where the hell were we going after Peter?
Never said you were going after Peter. Said it wasn't about Peter.
This post here seems to be all about Peter:
And Peter still hasn't answered ...
... Can Peter prove ..."
everyone's got Peter-Fever!
I see more peter's than a peck of pickled peppers.
Hopefully I can become some sort of Liberal Blog-icon like Nedra Pickler or turkee!!!
(doubt Peter's listening, especially after claiming all he reads is rightist rags, but carry across all our prior criticisms until somebody answers them.)
"everyone" does not equal peter/dr pedant & ky
talking about yourself does not equal numerous people other than yourself talking about you
showing up in a thread you describe as Capital L "Liberal", admitting all you look at are rightist news sources and then announcing loudly and without much thought or fact checking that Dean is a lost cause, indeed insisting on stressing his hopelessness even in responses to critique, sounds an awful lot like Rove-style whispering.
Which is a good idea. We should go to a Neocon (Capital N) blog and list news stories from reasonable sources (don't do what Petroll did and admit all ytou read is one kind) like say the Economist, which hates Bush and is no more "liberal" (American sense) than the WSJ or the FT, slamming Shrub's slim chances.
what is that supposed to mean?
I don't just read rightist rags...but its sad when I flip open a New York Times and see a goddamn William Safire Op-Ed...
fine K&Y...I'll make you happy and I'll stop reading the Op-Ed section of every single paper until election time...ok?
PS...what was the original question?
About that flyer, if you cut-and-paste Mutt Dradge's comment, put it in a Rich Text Wordpad, set the "body" to size 14 and the "headline" to size 20, it should fill up a standard piece of paper nicely. We used Futura Extra Black for maximum eye-catchiness; a newspapery font like our own faborite, Garamond, or anything "Roman", would look as appealing as a tax form.
OH COME ON, K&Y...
I'm not a goddamn "whisperer", ok?
I just started posting here less than 2 days...I'm pretty pissed you're giving this interrogation...
sorry, I made my concerns public...and now I'm part of some rove-ian conspiracy to look like some disgruntled Ex-Deaniac whose "seen the light"...
Since there's not much I can do to prove to you that I am indeed a legitimate Democrat and not some "subtle" shit-stirrer...I guess we should just leave it at this...because I don't know WHAT you want from me...
Dean caved to the pressure, and now seeks to "minimize the fallout" from the earlier interview. Details in my latest update to the original post. So now he looks just like every other politician. Not a good move. Not good at all.
hey K & Y,
The comments here are cheap, as in free, no need to economize and double up on postings.
Please separate thyselves and comment as 2 individuals.
Y'all are kreeping me out.
"every single paper until election"
an interesting thing to say considering we've named more reasonable sources. But of course a rightist roll would think "National Review, [et al]" are "every single paper".
Forget it Dr Pete'dant-we've already shredded your point, along with a number of other people you aren't going after, and you still haven't responded or defended, except to repeat this tripe about "Dean's lost cause". And this:
"what was the original question?"
distinctly reminds us of lazy Virtus, unable to scroll "up". No matter. No third party reading this thread can reasonably buy your line unless they did already.
Dean has to be careful not to fall into the Dukakis trap. Dukakis got ripped in 88 because he gave a legalistically correct but apparently unfeeling answer to the question of how he would react if his wife was raped and murdered. The problem with Dukakis' response was not that it was incorrect on the merits but that it gave the impression that Dukakis didn't really care if his wife was attacked.
Similarly, Dean runs the risk, with comments like this, of giving people the impression that he doesn't feel in his gut the tragedy of 3000 deaths on 9/11. Bush, for all of his failings, has a visceral understanding that the American people want to feel that their leaders are willing to express outrage and do something about it when an injustice is done.
The proper response to a question like this is to ALWAYS lead with the visceral response ("I'd like to string him up by his nuts") but then go the extra step that Bush so often fails to take and express the statesmenlike response ("But doing that without due-process would make us no better than him.")
The people need to feel that their leaders will jump into the breech at a moments notice and not waste time quibbling over the niceties of how to respond. But they also want to believe that the way their leaders will respond is commensurate with American principles of justice a and fair play. Bush is superb at the former but a "miserable failure" at the latter. It is that failing that Dean needs to emphasize WITHOUT making it look like "being fair" is supplanting "kicking ass".
Jesus Sucks a Cock-while arguing Dr. Pete'dant's then-illegitimate point, Daen goes and caves and legitimizes it! Fuck! It's the curse of Spineless Gore/Slick Billy Waffler!
Dean caved to the pressure
How is this caving?
"As a president, I would have to defend the process of the rule of law. But as an American, I want to make sure he gets the death penalty he deserves," Dean told the AP in a phone interview.
Sounds even more reasonable. He acknowledges he has human feelings, but pledges to uphold the rule of law. Such a shame that having mixed feelings, much as many Iraqis did when Saddam was captured, is considered caving.
k&y:
...especially after claiming all he reads is rightist rags,
Peter:
...God Forbid this blows up and Fox News has a field day with this,...
...no one has stood up for Dean, be it on CNN, Fox News, the Sunday shows, the Press, etc...
...It's very tough to watch the Cable News shows...
...I'm surrounded by Cable...
...I know that National Review, Newsmax, FNC, Novack, Safire...etc are not to be trusted...
...Hell, the most-recent issue of New Republic...
Call me naive, but I don't see Peter claiming much of anything regarding what he reads. He *cites* the standard suspects on the way to an argument, but then so does Atrios, daily. Call me naive, but I think we need every vote. Every single vote. I haven't seen Peter around these parts before, but I'm willing to honor his claim that he wants Bush out of the White House until he says something else.
Call me naive, but the Left has been playing k&y's "holier than thou" game since at least 1965, when I started paying attention. It didn't work in 1965, or 1966, or 1967...and it doesn't do a thing for me now.
Welcome, Peter. K&Y? Go have a cup of coffee with Alex Cockburn, will ya? I think you'll like him. Maybe he'll give you some space in those big circulation rags he writes for.
Ntodd-saw no sign of the mentioned hl on Drudge, but there was a bit about Dean playing to Cross-followers in the South. Caving there? Right that we were too quick to repeat similar Rove line "caving", Rove's got us coming and going unless we think deeper than in party lines, since we were eager to give closure to this Peetroll thing. Not at all like Pete was the only thing we've written about here.
Now was that last post kei or yuri's thoughts?
Do they discuss it, then one of them types?
Is kei the brains and yuri the typist?
Or is it the other way ?
JOHN SOLOMON 's "wide-ranging" interview with one very "scary" "Pessimistic" GOP's PITA leader type, and soon to be GOPPublic Enemy Number One
I suppose if you call "wide-ranging" Bin Laden to Beef, than target on.
Thankfully not written Nedra style, but why do I get the feeling there exists more to the interview, than what is presented?
Maybe someone here knows more about this:
http://www.ap.org/pages/whatsnew.../
questions.html
And if it might have had a squelch effect on more than one occasion?
http://www.ap.org/pages/
whatsnew...coverquest.html
Hey, Atrios is a good fisherman I have heard...
Probably nothing...
I think it's strictly a stream-of-consciousness kind of thing...
Dean caved to the pressure, and now seeks to "minimize the fallout" from the earlier interview. Details in my latest update to the original post. So now he looks just like every other politician. Not a good move. Not good at all.
Arthur Silber | Email | Homepage | 12.26.03 - 8:51 pm | #
You know what. Sometimes you just have to pick your fights. If he's going to "cave", I don't have any problem with him firmly clarifying his position in this case. He still hasn't caved on his statements about American not being safer. If he does that, then I'll start getting upset.
I think he just nipped a potential media circus in the bud. Judging by this thread, I think it was probably a good move. Plus it gave him the opportunity to go after Bush on the Mad Cow thing. I think Bush potentially has some real issues with this subject, because of the world's response and his tendency to let corporations do whatever they want, the safety and health of the people be damned. Dean has credibility on this issue because he is a doctor. If he's answering questions on the Bin Laden thing, he losing an opportunity here.
Dean can hit him on two fronts with this one. Now that Bush has offended most of the world, how much benefit of the doubt do you think they will give him when he asks them to trust that U.S. beef is safe. And how much trust will the American people have when he asks them to trust that he has the best interest of their health in mind, especially following recent courts decisions against him on similar health and safety issues?
Dean's changing the subject and it's a smart political move. Good for him.
right, dr pedant is right that we were misquoting pete's list of news sources. but still nobody has attacked our inability to dig Pete's mysteriously Gothic doomed love for Dean. And this annoying LR is just wasting comments; at least dr pedant is making real responses (although he is curiously restricting himself to the later points).
If a building is burning and somebody shows up and whines for insubstantial reasons about the uselessness of the local fire department, sidestepping falling pieces of burning wreckage now and then, is he helping anything?
As I said before, Dean was treading on VERY dangerous grounds with his comments. The comments, in and of themselves, were not wrong. The problem is that the American people want an ass-kicker more than a philosopher as their leader. Dean can be an ass-kicker. He's already demonstrated this repeatedly. But comments like this can be very easily twisted to make it appear that Dean doesn't really care about the tragedy of 3000 lives lost on 9/11.
The people don't want a leader whose first response is to think how to give Osama bin Laden a fair trial. Bush, for all of his failings, is in tune with America on this point. Americans want the first response to be "kick some ass!". They just would also like their leaders to do it in a way that ultimately makes them safer in the long run. Bush fails at the latter, but he wins them over with the former as long as Democrats give answers like the one Dean gave.
Note, I am a big Dean fan. So take this as the constructive criticism it is.
Re: K&Y... so now I'm a conservative because I cited National Review as a fucking Right-wing magazine?
Are you serious? Is 'National Review' some super-secret code word that only Neo-cons can utter?
I think Sean Hannity is a fucking scumbag...but wait guys, according to K&Y... I must be some RNC operative if I know who Sean Hannity is!
National Review!...they have it at my public library along with New Republic, the Nation, American Spectator, Forward, Economist, Foreign Policy, US News and World Report, and basically every other fucking publication that has a political opinion!
K&Y thinks I'm some person who just tripped into politics three days ago or something and the fact that I read the newspaper makes me a conservative. I started posting here because this is the first blog where I share the viewpoints and dry humor that many share here.
Dean is doing just fine. He's a big boy, he can handle himself on the stump, and he doesn't put up with bullies - he's an ex-wrestler don't- ya-know. Mouf off and it's suplex time!
His gaffes are not major, they are simply straightforward. I do not find his earlier statement on Bin Laden to be inconsistent with his follow-up. However, consistency is most definitely the hobgoblin absent from Bush's small mind.
Peter, please explain why you are responding to something we have already apologized for, something which incidentally wasn't your point but Dr Pedant's, while significantly not making your own attacks on any of our original points? Still incapable of scrolling "up"?
What we really think you "are" is, well, the non-helping crier in this burning building comparison we made. We never made any statements regarding your experience, only guesses (based on your statements) as to your loyalties.
BTW...this is the site that gives me all the day's Dean articles...I'm sure some of you are familiar with it...
http://www.saccenti.com/deanybop...opper/
index.htm
It has both the positive and negative articles about Dean...
if you look at the most recent update DeanyBopper compared to how it was in early December, the collective articles are much more harsher.
And if clicking on the National Review or WSJ article to see what they're ammo they're using on Dean makes me a secret neo-con I just don't know what to tell you
sorry, I believe I wrote my "response post" while the apology post was up...
my bad.
anyways...please lets squash this already...
Peter, yes, we're all very impressed by Doc Pedant's point. But this cannot make it your point. And you asserting your sources now is increasingly silly. If you continue to ignore our thesis, third party readers will think you are a little self-consumed. Thanks to your posts about yourself, this thread is now Pete talking about Pete and asserting things about us. We had criticized you, but also made other comments-for some time now, you have just been about you. Perhaps you are sensitive about being called a "troll".
actually, i would like to see Dean, dance around judy while showing off his massive brain power, leaving her speachless, while he casually lights up a doobie.
Let's not beat each other up here, that's exactly what THEY want to see. If someone is really a troll, it will show soon enough. We don't need to operate an Instant Troll Outing service. Instead, how about a complimentary Troll Rope Supply service. Give 'em enough rope...
I am sensitive to being called a "troll"...
I always thought a troll was a guy who comes in here with the name "Bush owns You" and makes stupid posts like "Give it up...Bush is winning in a landslide"...or even someone who pretends to be Dem but is really a Repub in sheep's clothing.
That is a troll...ok, I'll admit, it was pretty "Chicken Little" of me to just come in here and express disdain in Dean's comments without offering any constructive comments...but its human nature and sometimes you just say what you feel.
Well, at least the American people now know that Dean is in favor of the death penalty.
No ambiguity there.
I'm not, but for an American presidential candidate, that's a good thing.
As far as international human rights norms, that's another matter...
Oh, and by the way, martyring Bin Laden is not a wise move. The man should be put in a dank prison, if caught and convicted (which is highly doubtful), for the rest of his life, as an example of how we are intelligent enough not to be martyr the man or go against human rights norms in an international criminal case.
This way, we strengthen ourselves on two fronts, and eliminate opportunities for our competitors to paint us in a bad light.
All hostilities cheerfully cancelled and nominal apologies extended.
nice to see something dealt with in a civil if delayed way.
freelixir-Bin Laden should be thoroughly schtupped by J.A.P.s (not japanese people, slang-ignorant people!) like the yentas on that HBO series...then the video should be given translated subtitles and distributed far and wide...title it something like "osama likes his nafkes kosher"...or better yet, with boys...
And this point, about making a point not to martyr Bin Laden, can be made politically. It would take savvy and finesse, however, and would be fraught with risk.
It would play into the argument that Bush's strategy is naive and short-sighted, not to mention against the advice of many experts in warfare and strategic thinking.
It's probably too late now though, so it doesn't matter, at least on this point.
K&Y,
Please explain the benefits of martyring Bin Laden, as that his surely part of his Plan B if he is unable to continue as leader.
Please do so respective of the war we are fighting and irrespective of the juvenile attachment to the personalities and leaders in the spotlight.
ohhh...sarah geller, unilaterally occupy my territories while I drool over this glossy of Meir...hope the faithful never see this...
f-perhaps you didn't read our comment. Or maybe videotaped sex is now the same thing as death.
by the way freelixir, bin Laden is pretty well established as a figurehead, a bestselling manifesto author and certainly as a sponsor. But you are asserting that he's actually a proper leader. Proof? Or is he just close enough that he might as well be? (Catch all the official enemies you want, terror will continue as long as you ignore root causes.)
It's pretty clear now that ken yuri is the same thing as Hitler.
Instead of "How dare you" blah blah blah, how about:
"Osama bin Laden hates us for our freedoms. He hates liberty, and he hates the rule of law. He hates everything that is good about America. At the moment of his final defeat, we're not going to hand him victory on a silver platter by destroying these things ourselves. Americans are wiser than that. We want to win, and we're going to win."
See, this is how the freepers operate: Deflect attention away from the fact that, two years after bombing Afghanistan further into the stone age, George Bush's "War on Terrah" has been an abysmal failure by trumping up some bullshit story about comments made by Howard Dean. The idea behind this tactic is to get Dean off-message by forcing him to try to clarify or explain the rightwing bullshit being written about him. Dean's people should have only one piece of advice for him: STAY ON MESSAGE! STAY ON MESSAGE! STAY ON MESSAGE! Forget about what Drudge and the rest of the feces spewing whores in the conservative media say, and just keep hammering home the facts that Bush's "War on Terrah" is a failure, the economy is in the toilet, and the GOP has successfully bankrupted the nation with their insane deficits. Dean has to keep reiterating his message until it starts to sink into the cinderblock-like skulls of moron-America.
Look, guys, your Great Hope for 2004 is determined to position himself as the candidate who is Soft on Terrorism. No one is making him say these things. Did you scroll down the news stories to where his aides were frantically pressing releases from the campaign, "clarifying" the Governor's remarks? This is how you lose elections. You lefties better start thinking about that before you start ranting about Bush, the media, or whatever. Remeber those "annoy the media" bumber stickers back in 1996? This is how you _lose_ elections. You guys need to grow up and get serious, fast, if you want a chance at this. Howard Dean makes stupid jackass comment number two hundred and twelve of the campaign and you're fuming mad at everyone BUT the guy who made the stupid comment. Great strategy--if you're rooting for Hillary in 2008.
Or if you want to get nasty: "Osama's goal is the destruction of freedom. Anyone who undermines the rule of law is aiding and abetting the terrorists."
Oh, PS--in re "bombing Afghanistan farther into the stone age" a couple comments earlier--the last numbers I saw indicated that Afghnaistan's GDP was UP by about 30% in the year since the fall oft the Taliban. Try again, Noam. Are you guys really in to the whole noble dignity of defeat thing? This is, as I say, how you _lose_ elections.
Craig:How is it a stupid comment?
It seems to me to be much more productive in combatting terrorism than any of Bush's rants.
If we're going to act like the moral arbitrer of the world, then we better damn well act like it..ok?
Why does Craig think the Constitution is stupid?
No one is making him say these things.
Did you totally miss the 2000 election? If there's a thousand stupid things our candidate isn't saying, our press will still report them through the time honored method of making shit up.
Howard Dean makes stupid jackass comment number two hundred and twelve of the campaign and you're fuming mad at everyone BUT the guy who made the stupid comment.
Look, Craig, I don't know how to make it any simpler for you (short of drawing pictures in crayon, that is), but Dean's comments about how Bin Laden should be entitled to a fair trial are not stupid (and only in the mind of the hard core freeper true believers could this be construed as being "soft on terrorism"). But you did help prove the point I was trying to make in a previous post. In typical wingnut fashion you're trying to get us to waste time explaining what Dean did or didn't mean with regard to Bin Laden. The truth is, your boy Georgie has been an abysmal failure (both in his domestic agenda as well as in his foreign policy). THAT is the only message that we should be debating in the run up to '04, and that is the only message Dean should be trying to get across.
Does it still bother anyone that Osama has released several tapes since 9/11 despite being on the run and has NEVER ONCE claimed responsibility for 9/11? I know I was asking that question for many months after 9/11 but kind of dropped down my own personal memory hole. But now...
OK, you guy's can stop playing the Martyring Bin-Laden=bad defense.
Dean sez: "Give Bin-Laden the death penalty he deserves", according to a telephone interview with the AP.
C'mon Howie, what would Jesus do?
Welcome Pete, fellow Democrat.
I have some reservations about Dean. And I've said a few times that if and when he wins the nomination, that there is a good chance that Bush will trounce him. Especially if the Democratic Party insists on being as divided as they seem to be.
I'm also heartened to see Dean give that response of what should have to Osama. It's staying in tune with the American Ideal. The point needs to be made, and remade, and driven into people's skulls with a jackhammer that we cannot defeat terrorism by throwing away our ideals. It's self-defeatist to fight terrorism, which is against everything America stands for, like Bush is doing by throwing out everything you stand for. It's a variation of "We had to destroy the village to save it." It makes no moral, logical sense.
It's refreshing to see someone truly understand what America is about, and why it is such a great country. I hope he defeats that unAmerican bastard that's in office right now.
Karmakin,
If you haven't realized that the United States is at war with Osama and his terrorist network, then we don't have much to talk about. (Yes, yes, no "formal declaration of war," but there is a congressional authorization to pusue Osama into whatever hole he's hiding in. The founders also never considered dancing in pasties and g-string to fall under "freedom of speech." The situation evoles. But I digress.) The time to be magnaminous and talk about tribunals and so forth is AFTER Osama and his droogs are apprehended and can no longer plot the hijacking of Air France flights. And as far as this "jury" claptrap goes, did we give the nazis a jury trial? Uh, no--that would be because the conduct of war and the prosecution of war crimes is just a wee bit beyond what is considered in the Constitution. And if you want to get pissy about that, better go start picketing The Hague right now. No jury for Milosevic. No jury for most of the Rwanda trials I've been following. Tribunals of Judges.
Quoth Sovok:
"OK, you guy's can stop playing the Martyring Bin-Laden=bad defense.
Dean sez: "Give Bin-Laden the death penalty he deserves", according to a telephone interview with the AP."
My point exactly. So Dean stood behind his comments, for, what, a couple of hours before "clarifying" them out of existance?
I'll be waiting for everyone who was huffing and puffing about due process in the earlier comments to start attacking Dean for wanting to shred the Constitution.
I'll be waiting for everyone who was huffing and puffing about due process in the earlier comments to start attacking Dean for wanting to shred the Constitution.
Don't hold your breath, the silence will be deafening.
Fun to watch, though.
And that's gotta be a record for a flip-flop: it happened mid-thread, fer Pete's sake...
Well, the "not making Bin Laden a martyr" was an unused strategy up to this point, and will remain so.
A stalemate on savagely or demurely executing Bin Laden is better than talking about treating him fairly before we ever capture him, and while we're at war with his organization.
Though not as good as martyring him being correctly seen as helping the enemy rather than hurting them.
...the last numbers I saw indicated that Afghnaistan's GDP was UP by about 30% in the year since the fall oft the Taliban.
It's probably all opium.
I"f you haven't realized that the United States is at war with Osama and his terrorist network, then we don't have much to talk about."
Oh, OK, since you insist on bringing it up, Where IS Bin Laden and terrorist network?? Oh yeah, that's right. The Bush regime got so wrapped up in expanding the American Empire into Iraq that, shucks, it completely forgot about Bin Laden. He's out there someplace, I suppose, and good ole boy George'll get around to trying to find him again sometime prior to the next election. Tell ya what, Craig. Let's cease debating the non-issue of what to do with Osama until (or more precisely, if)we do find him. In the meantime, we lefty Liberals will continue to hammer home the not insignificant point that the Bush regime really doesn't give two shits where Osama is.
Strangely, this whole partisan controversy is an implicit admission that Saddam didn't commit great crimes against us. Why? Because Bush said he has his opinion on what will happen to Saddam, but it's not his decision to make. It's the Iraqi people.
Bush says much the same as Dean.
Apparently, this same logic doesn't apply with Bin Laden, who must in short order be torn limb from limb on live TV because of his crimes against us.
So remind me why we've devoted our resources to getting Saddam instead of Bin Laden?
We should have focused on Bin Laden. If anything, Saddam's removal gives Al Qaeda another potential playground which was previously unavailable to them.
We got our priorities reversed. While Saddam kept Iraq together, we should have taken out AQ. Then, we could have taken out Saddam.
Now, we've raised the ante and stakes, not to mention the overall risk, of keeping Iraq a cohesive and secure place.
Otherwise, it's another place for AQ and other terrorists to cause havoc and attack key economic supply lines.
I'm a little curious about this concern that the death penalty would be "martyring" bin Laden and therefore by implication creating more danger. You do realize that imprisoning him for life would merely create a situation that would encourage terrorists to take large numbers of hostages in attempts to exchange for him. They have done this kind of thing before. So there really is no advantage to leaving him alive.
Dreagon
Don't read too much into the "martyring" concern, that only applied when Dean was pro-International due process.
Now that he's "give him the death penalty he deserves" it's OK.
Dr. Pedant is right on the money:
Read here: How George W. Bush helps to fund terrorism - the increase in opium poppy production since the withdrawal of most US troops.
Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan doubled between 2002 and 2003 to a level 36 times higher than in the last year of rule by the Taliban, according to White House figures released Friday.
The Taliban was cracking down on poppy production in the year before the U.S. military drove the movement out of office in late 2001 in response to its friendship and cooperation with the al-Qaida organization of Osama bin Laden.
The new Afghan government, led by President Hamid Karzai, has not been able to impose its will in many areas of the country, which remain under the control of warlords.
The White House statement said, “A challenging security situation ... has complicated significantly the task of implementing counternarcotics assistance programs and will continue to do so for the immediate future.”
“Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan is a major and growing problem. Drug cultivation and trafficking are undermining the rule of law and putting money in the pocket of terrorists,” it added, quoting office director John Walters.
Dreagon.
Sorry, I was so busy making snarky remarks about Dean's latest flip-flop I didn't comment on your post (hey, it was a low-hanging curveball, and I'm only human)
That's a really tough question, I remember when al-Qaida hijacked that Indian airliner and threatened to kill the passengers unless some al-Qaida prisoners were released.
Well, India caved and released them, and one of them went on to murder WSJ reporter Danny Pearl.
So I guess it's a "cost/benefit" argument.
Is it better to have the international legitimacy and resulting resources in the fight against terror, like Wesley Clark's argument posted upthread?
Or do we execute the convicted terrorist to prevent another scenario like I referred to above?
It's a tough call, but I go with the former - international legitimacy, especially in the Muslim world, would be far more valuable in the fight against terrorism than the risk of individual acts of terror an execution might prevent.
IMO
Hey, I am sure Dean wouldn't want to have prejudged Hitler either, so what's the big deal?
Sovok,
Reporter: "But wouldn't most Americans feel strongly that bin Laden should be tried in America - and put to death?"
Original Statement: "...So I'M SURE THAT IS THE CORRECT SENTIMENT of most Americans, but I do think if you're running for president, or if you are president, it's best to say that the full range of penalties should be available. But it's not so great to prejudge the judicial system."
Later clarification: "As a president, I would have to defend the process of the rule of law. But as an American, I want to make sure he gets the death penalty he deserves."
Seems like the flip flop you speak of is the flip-flopping of the order of what he said. The second statement was stronger and clearer and in a different order, but calling it a flip-flop is an exaggeration. A flip flop would imply that what he said in his second statement contradicted his first statement. It does not.
OK,
I retract "flip-flop" and replace it with "unplanned tap-dance".
OK?
Hey, I am sure Dean wouldn't want to have prejudged Hitler either, so what's the big deal?
And we won't pre-judge Bush either. Even he deserves a proper war crimes trial.
Unless, of course, he manages to kill himself before justice comes.
Hey, and I am sure Bush wouldn't want to have pulled out of France early and allowed Hitler to escape, and his army to regroup, to go fight in an easier country that was not involved in the initial war. Or would he?
Help Iranian Earthquake Victims:
https://www.redcross.org/donate/d...nation-
form.asp
Choose "International Response Fund"
Spin this any way you like ... the Dean comment was idiotic given the political realities of this country, the vast majority of which would see Bin Laden drawn and quartered upon capture. When the hell will this party wake up? Tut-tutting about "innocent until proven guilty" in this case is the worst kind of ivory-tower bullshit and anyone who doesn't realize it deserves top get slaughtered in November, as Dean probably will. Geezus. Take of the freaking blinders and quit trying to CONVINCE voters how they SHOULD feel.
Nick's absolutely right!
I don't know if the bloggers had anything to do with this, but Drudge has dropped the Dean link from his site.
This is funny. Dean says "fair trial", Dean is a bad guy. Dean says "I think he should be executed", Dean is a bad guy.
Notice, by the way, that Dean's take on this is indistinguishable from Bush's comments on Saddam Hussein.
Also, please note that Dean's position on the death penalty for Osama bin Laden is not a "flip-flop" -- it's been his position the whole time. Here's what his site has said since, like, forever:
I believe the death penalty should be available for extreme and heinous crimes, such as terrorism or the killing of police officers or young children. But it must be carried out with scrupulous fairness.
Anyone who claims Dean has "flipped" on this just hasn't been paying attention at all. This is exactly what he's been saying since day one of his campaign.
--Kynn
PS: For what it's worth, I noticed this because it's one of the areas in which I disagree with Dr. Dean.
One of the few things I disagree with is his real flip-flop on free trade. Before he was for free trade, now he's against it.
Also, not sure about his gun-rights record. Though, I am sympathetic to the idea of having the states determine their gun laws.
Personally, I just think it's highly fubar-ed up that "tut-tutting" about the rule of law and what this country was founded on legally, is considered "ivory tower bullshit". I ain't attacking Nick, mind you, because he's got a point. Most Americans simply don't care is bin Laden ever gets any sort of trial or, frankly, if we ever get any real concrete proof - instead of the rather stretched-thin theories we have now. They just want a bullet put through his brain.
And what's really screwed up is if you attack the problem from an intellectual standpoint rather than an emotional one, you're considered "weak".
Maybe Dean should just buy him a ranch. Izint this about the time in 1999 when Bush bought his'n?
Oh for Cripes Sake!
Backslider, do you honestly believe that OBL IS NOT an enemy of the USA?
You flatter yourself that you "attack the problem from an intellectual standpoint."
Hey, look, Mr. Intellectual, check out what OBL himself says at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/fr...shows/binladen/
It's a lefty site, so you can believe everything that's posted there.
Backslider, you're a blame-America-first, back-the-underdog-everytime, morally blind ignoramus!
Kaffir,
Ah. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I don't remember saying bin Laden wasn't, as you say, "an enemy of America". He clearly is. There's no question he has a deep loathing for the United States on several levels, from our foreign policy to the basic make-up of our society. You gotta figure even the question of "secular versus spiritual" aspect of Christmas that pops up round about this time has gotta drive him flat gonzo nuts.
Nevertheless, this wasn't what I was talking about. I'm talking about the question of what to do once we got him. In other words, what distresses me is the very idea that a large number of my countrymen are all for just blowing bin Laden away the minute troops lay eyes on him rather than follow legal proceedures. There's plenty of evidence against him - even though I must admit to a kernel of doubt concerning 9/11, but that's just the skeptic in me talking - so let's use the legal system to shut the SOB down, be it our's or the Hauge.
Please point out where I "blamed America first". And to your other statements, I make it a practice to question and double-check everything I read. And, frankly, PBS is as about as "lefty" as NPR...and you gotta admit it's sorta funny the first source they use on the "evidence" page is Judith Miller, who's reliability on this topic is a bit suspect.
Osama has in a variety of audiotapes pretty explicitly admitted, indeed boasted of, his involvement in 9/11.
What politician but a complete idiot would bring up the whole issue of due process for such a man, and make a big point of insisting on his due process rights, when the guy has himself gladly acknowledged his role in the crime?
Sometimes I think Dean is just a pretty stupid guy who talks a whole lot faster than his brain thinks, and this is certainly one of those occasions.
you know what? this is not a suprise. we may want to have a more intelligent look at the issues, but we can do that all the way to a 2004 defeat. for god's sake, we KNOW how they opperate. we know their supporters take the bait. why on EARTH would you give them fodder.
don't get me started on the "Primary of Dunces" everyone but dean, clark, and edwards is campaigning like the have to shoot the dem. party in the foot before they can have their own little victory...andyou know what? joe lieberman...if EVERYTHING went your way, you STILL wouldn't be winning.
frankly,
True, but there's still due process to consider. Even if someone admits to a crime, they've gotta go through the process. I personally agree with Dean's statements, but I also see where you're coming from.
No, Backslider, you made yourself perfectly clear.
You sought to detect some kind of extenuating nuance, where there exists exactly none.
You claimed to be an intellectual, because you felt you could find thousands of interesting facets of pseudo-truth in a plain situation.
You value skepticism over reason, dissent over plain facts, even-handedness over survival.
You're a ridiculous lefty shit-for-brains.
Osama is toast if any westerners find his big scary sandflea-bitten ass. We pretty much need to count him as already convicted. That doesn't mean we have to give up due process for everyone else.
I wonder how Kaffir feels about George making kissy-kiss nice-nice with Ghadaffi? What about it Kaffir - he get a free pass?
Somewhat OT, but on the local news here in San Francisco they just did a short spot on Dean criticizing Shrub about the BSE issue. No mention of his comments about OBL, and no use of the word "pessimism." That was it for Dean on the news; it was followed by an equally short piece on how Preznit AWOL has "had some ups and downs this past year" that might affect his run for four more years fucking up everything in sight and killing more Americans.
Back on topic: Why do Craig/Sovok/Kaffir/Nick hate America?
No, Yoda, the sooner Kadafi dies, the better.
See, it's real simple!
All of this is fairly academic.
We'll need a competent president to work with our allies and find Osama. We need assistance tracking down terrorist cells and fixing Iraq.
Georgie Bush has demonstrated his total incompetence from the very instant he usurped the presidency, and on 9/11 we all saw the horrible price of having a cocaine-addled idiot (and his power-drunk handlers) in charge of our country's security.
I know a lot of you lefties claim to have big hearts. After all, you bought Atrios a new computer!
So try to outdo this knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, Neanderthal winger: contribute something to help the Iranian earthquake victims.
https://www.redcross.org/donate/d...nation-
form.asp
Choose "International Response Fund"
Kaffir,
"You sought to detect some kind of extenuating nuance, where there exists exactly none."
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here, frankly. I never said bin Laden should be tried because he might not be guilty. I said he should be tried because we have the process, and it's that process that makes our legal system, flawed as it may be, head and shoulders above any other. Does it not bother you that so many people would abandon that process - in this case and many others, on both sides of the ideological fence - for pure vengence?
"You claimed to be an intellectual, because you felt you could find thousands of interesting facets of pseudo-truth in a plain situation."
Um, now here's where you're flat out wrong, my friend. I said if one attacks a problem from an intellectual, logical standpoint in this day and age, one is considered weak and ineffectual. I never said, "I'm an intellectual, so I think blah blah blah." Whether I am - or consider myself one, which I really don't - or not is, frankly, a moot point. My statement was more of a general view; perhaps I shouldn't have used the second-person, a fallacy in writing to be sure.
"You value skepticism over reason, dissent over plain facts, even-handedness over survival."
Well, skepticism and reason run hand-in-hand, actually. The latter often comes from the former, or so my debate profs often told me. A skeptic asks questions in order to achieve logic and/or reason, unless, of course, you define "reason" as "common sense". Then that's just semantics, which I refuse to argue.
As for the other two comparisons you make - from what, I have no idea - they're really not connected. A fool who ignores "plain facts" in order to "dissent" is no less a fool than the fool who ignores "plain facts" to support the government/boss/what have you. But, then again, we're not discussing the facts of 9/11 or bin Laden's crimes, are we? We're discussing the process and it's value. And as for "survival" over "even-handedness", well, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Do you favor locking up folks who "might commit crimes" simply because of the danger they "might" pose to society? I would hope not, but the same argument's been used in that case.
"You're a ridiculous lefty shit-for-brains."
Awww, how adorable. Reasoned debate jettisoned for ad hominem attacks, misdirection and name calling. And you're a big poopy-head who wets his bed. So there, nyahh nyahh nyahh.
"Well, skepticism and reason run hand-in-hand, actually. The latter often comes from the former, or so my debate profs often told me."
Name me one professor who says that reason comes from skepticism.
You had not one, but several, "debate profs?" You're lying.
Way to go, Backslider. 
I'm fairly conservative, Kaffir. While I do hope that the Iranians are alright, I don't have enough money to spend willy-nilly. I have to look out for #1. #2 is my family and friends. #3 is my country.
May God look over them, and give them people that are more charitable and/or have the means.
Backslider, I do believe I've caught you in a lie! So there, nyahh nyahh nyahh.
Kaffir - what other dictators should we go after? How about that bastard in Uzbekistan? Saudi Arabia? Equatorial Guinea? Any other ideas?
What politician but a complete idiot would bring up the whole issue of due process for such a man, and make a big point of insisting on his due process rights, when the guy has himself gladly acknowledged his role in the crime? frankly0
Easy...an AMERICAN!
Adam 4-4-2, here's how you can donate to your country:
National Military Family Association
2500 North Van Dorn Street, Suite 102
Alexandria, VA 22302
703-931-6632
http://www.nmfa.org/
Army Emergency Relief
200 Stovall Street
Alexandria, VA 22332
703-428-0000
www.aerhq.org
Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society
NMCRS
4015 Wilson Boulevard
10th Floor
Arlington, VA 22203
703-696-4906
www.nmcrs.org
The Air Force Aid Society Inc
Suite 202
1745 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22202
www.afas.org
Coast Guard Mutual Assistance Inc
4200 Wilson Blvd Suite 610
Arlington, VA 22203-1804
800-881-2462
202-493-6622
www.cgmahq.org
Sorry, bubba, but this is degenerating into nitpicking and petty parsing. It does neither of us any good, brodens no one's mind and is little more than a high-tech dick measuring contest. You wanna sashay back to the topic at hand - the value of the due process system even in heinous cases like bin Laden, or even Dean's statement - I'm all for it. Otherwise, I wish you a good night.
But, for edification's sake, do check out some of James Randi's writings on the topic. And hell, even if could remember all their names, would you take philosophy professors from UF - 10 years ago, at that - as proof positive? Somehow I doubt it. Again, good night to you, sir.
Backslider wrote: "Well, skepticism and reason run hand-in-hand, actually. The latter often comes from the former, or so my debate profs often told me."
That was pure bullshit. I called him on it, and guess what? He says "good night to you, sir."
He's a ridiculous lefty shit-for-brains.
Backslider: Mr. Lying Lefty Intellectual. Ha ha!
I wonder if Backslider, Mr. Intellectual, ever had _any_ profs at all.
He likes to cite his "debate profs;" will he name any?
Kaffir - Backslider was quite accurate in describing the purpose of debate.
You sure as hell aren't going to learn critical thinking skills if you accept everything you hear. You've called someone a liar, but not offered any alternative theory.
Lefty Backslider lies, then when he's caught out, he whines "nitpicking and petty parsing."
Fact is, I've read Randi. Read his Flim Flam. Read the Skeptical Inquirer. Read Martin Gardner's stuff on scientific fraud.
Backslider is a liar and a fraud. I don't care how big a cloud of words he can spout. He lies.
Yoda, if someone posits A notequal A, I can call him a liar, without offering an "alternative theory." Grow up!
"Kaffir - Grow Up"
Once again Kaffir shows himself to be laughably stupid and confirming that he is a highly useless troll.
Thing is, you lefties sit around the student union, in your Che sweatshirts, with your nose-rings, purple hair, and patchouli-soaked pits, and you bullshit each other, and delude yourselves into thinking that you're Speaking Truth To Power. "Bush is Hitler, Ashcroft is the Antichrist, yada yada." Then, once in a while, someone overhears your nonsense, and calls you on it, and right away you decry Prejudice, Racism, Censorship, Anti-Intellectualism.
And everyone who challenges you is a troll.
And the tattoos. Forgot about the tattoos.
No - Kaffir is a liar - Kaffir is specifically a troll.
Kaffir = Troll
Kaffir is trying to delude others who might be new visitors here, and who may not realize that he is a useless troll.
This board is made up of many folks with family in Iraq, or veterans themselves - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Independents.
We support the troops.
We do not support those who lie, such as the pathetically sycophantic and useless Kaffir.
C'mon, Yoda, you can do better than that.
I catch your buddy, Backslider, in a plain LIE, and all you can do is attack ME?
i spent christmas with some relatives today who are (sigh) repubs, so i got to watch fox. all day, they keep pushing the theme iraq is safer now that saddam is jailed, or the theme the bush admin foiled a major terrorist attack in th air france imbroglio, or the theme why is dean such a hypocrite for mentioning jesus. at one point the anchor, some bubble headed beach blond, started making odd expressions as she was repeating something dean said. and they contrasted the alleged oppurtunism of dean with the "sincerity" of george bushs deeply held religious convictions. ah well, at least one relative agreed with me when i pointed out how what a mistake iraq was, so maybe bushs support is a little softer than rove would like.
"Kaffir is trying to delude others who might be new visitors here."
Dear New Visitors: Yes, you'll note the opinions of "many folks" here.
The lefty, blame-America-first, Iraq-War-is-a-quagmire, opinions are the prevailing wisdom here.
Once in a while, someone speaks out against the suffocating ambient Eschaton conventional double-plus-goodthought.
But disregard them; they're TROLLS!
"bubble headed beach blond, started making odd expressions as she was repeating something dean said."
I'll make an odd expression: Dean said [on Dec 15] that Saddam could have been captured six months ago.
Would any of you Deaniacs care to explain what he meant by that?
Poor pretzelattack. Had to actually share THE SAME SPACE with some Repubs. Of course, pretzelattack is better educated and far more worldly than all those old fogies. If only those withered fossils would listen to pretzelattack's superior learning and reasoning, then they'd discard all the wisdom of experience. If only those wizened old people could appreciate pretzelattack's modern education, if only they surfed the same lefty websites, if only they had the same hip friends, if only they would just Get It ...
Word has it Steve Murphy will enlist Atrios as the poster child for the angry white guy who is pessimistic and supports Dean.
Murphy getting to the point.
"I mean, first, he said that, you know, that southerners shouldn't vote on guns, God and gays, and now he says he's going to use religion more."
Can we get an Amen.
You've got more to worry about than some writer. You got the Democratic Party and labor unions ganging up on you and your man.
How about a third party for you Deaniacs, you could call it the HMO party.
The Help Me Oprah party.
I'm a little curious about this concern that the death penalty would be "martyring" bin Laden and therefore by implication creating more danger. You do realize that imprisoning him for life would merely create a situation that would encourage terrorists to take large numbers of hostages in attempts to exchange for him. They have done this kind of thing before. So there really is no advantage to leaving him alive.
Dreagon, good point. But we should establish straight away that we do not negotiate with terrorists, so this strategy shouldn't work. With that said, it's an interesting juxtaposition, and I'll need to think on it.
I'm not aware of Clark's position as stated by Sovok, so this ought to be reviewed as well.
Perhaps Atrios will sponsor a post discussing the pros and cons of executing suicidal terrorists, Bin Laden especially, with emphasis on strategy and success, rather than revenge and furthering cycles of violence.
pretzelattack's right! I'm sick of having to visit with my troglodyte, FoxFan relatives. None of them has read Zinn's People's History; they're all brainwashed by the BFEE. I try to explain to them how they've been lied to, but they just keep on being happy, productive and family-oriented. They usually laugh at me! I don't think a single one of them realizes how America is actually a terrorist empire, no matter how hard I try to explain. Thank goodness my friends on campus understand the REAL TRUTH!
Also, some people have no lives, and thus must seek out people who carry different opinions and attempt to antagonize and belittle them.
These people are, in some circles, called losers, and should be treated with respect and deference, since it is what they seek and seem to have been denied their whole lives.
Then, if you continue to harass and insult people who treat you with respect, regardless of stated opinions, then you prove your "troll" status, and also show that you have a lot to learn about what it means to be a human being, let alone one who believes in the inalienable, as is required to be a true American (though I acknowledge we are not all Americans here, though I would hope that respect for the inalienable be shown, or given reason as to why not).
What am I talking about? I'm not sure, but I do have a lot of words to spew! I could be specific and focused, but I prefer to be vague. I think that beating around the bush is far preferable to saying what I mean.
Does anybody know what I should be saying?
That if anybody here wanted to read the Freepers vs. DemUnderground they would just go to CapitolGrilling and waste time in the food fight?
freelixer, let me enlighten you. Lo, many months ago, when I posted here with my real name, and my real opinions, I was immediately branded a troll, a dumb monkey, and worse.
So I decided I could be anonymous and nasty too.
Get over it.
Who did I harass tonight? Backslider? I proved him to be a liar.
Do I have a life? Better than yours in every way, I'll bet, butthead.
Uh, freelixir, what does it mean "to be a human being?"
YOU know how to be a HB, and I don't?
Can you give me some metrics, or are you just pulling a turd out of your ass?
Is it quantitative? Does it have anything to do with generosity and charitability? Does it involve a sense of Good and Evil? Is honesty or hard work involved?
Freelixir, do you have some kind of monopoly on humanity?
Let me put it another way.
Who the fuck do you think YOU are to lecture ME about what it takes to be a human being? Seriously, where do you get the stones to ask that?
You libs think you've cornered the market on compassion and humanity, and I think you wouldn't know humanity if it was pasted on your stupid fucking nose.
Throw me a bone here, Mr. Humanitarian. Tell me what all you know about being a human being, asshole.
Kaffir - man, what a piece of work you are dude. You got your feelings hurt a couple months ago, and you're still whining? Get over yourself or go see a shrink. Man, if you weren't such a jackoff, people here'd probably talk to you. Acting like you do isn't patriotic, it's just self-centered. You care about others, or just yourself?
Talk to me, BA! I'm so hurt and lonely! I don't care about anybody except myself!
I don't care about anybody except myself! Oh, and the US soldiers, whose charities I've posted tonight (all of which I've donated to.) Oh, and the international relief charity I've posted tonight (to which I donated $100 tonight.) And my family, who I support and send to college. And my may cats, etc.
BA, you are TRULY a butthead asshole!
BA, maybe YOU could help me to be a complete, whole human being. Maybe, just maybe, between you and freelixir, I could be taught how to be a true soul.
Would you please try? I'm depending on you!
BA, I can see that YOU aren't a "jackoff."
BA, your humanity shines through every word of your post.
I act so self-centered, I really need you to straighten me out.
Please guide me!
Puuuuhhhleeeze, butthead asshole, instruct me! Guide me! Set me on the true path to humility and compassion! I know you have what it takes!
Is there not one "conservative" that posts here who isn't a complete GOP ass-kisser? There doesn't seem to be any idea of what to do other than maybe OBL shouldn't be given a trial. Is that it? That's all you've got? That is the "conservative" position?
I'd like to see, just once, rather than trying to make sense of the Bush admin's totally self-serving "terrorist" policies, a real "fuck them and everybody they know" stance. Something along the lines of going after every bin Laden extended family member in the world. Kill those you can't capture, take all their money and hand any you do capture over to the worst, most sadistic people we can find in our prison systems and mental institutions. Make a recording of OBL's mother screaming in agony and cursing the day she gave birth to him. Have her begging her husband for forgiveness for having mated with the dog who sired him. Then start on the rest. Make it well known that to be associated with A.Q. means everyone you have the slightest relation to will die. And their families. Your whole line will cease to be. There is no escape, your only choice is to surrender and MAYBE we won't wipe out everybody. That at least would be something to do and might give pause to anybody thinking of getting in the fight.
Letting the bin Ladens go free while locking up children of others is just a bunch of crap. Sending people to Gitmo for years at a time is just a political CYA, with no damn sense whatsoever. Derbyshire called for the death of Chelsa Clinton but has he called for the extermination of the bin Ladens? If not then it's real obvious he, like so many "conservatives" here, are just political ass-kissers. Grow some balls and take a goddamn stance. This "you're all a bunch of liberal weenies" crap from a bunch of pussified GOP lapdogs is sickening.
good point sac666.
Also I would respect "Kaffir" a little more if he didn't use a handle that is a racist slur.
"SYLLABICATION: Kaf·fir
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. Kaffir or Kaf·firs also Kafir or Kaf·irs
1. Offensive a. A Xhosa. b. often kaffir Used especially in southern Africa as a disparaging term for a Black person. 2. Kafir A Nuristani. 3. also kaffir Islam An infidel.
ETYMOLOGY: Arabic kfir, infidel. See giaour."
so Mr. "Kaffir"-- go fuck yourself.
What was the topic again? Oh yeah, Dean's comments. Surprisingly, CNN's coverage was pretty reasonable, with "Dean: Bin Laden guilt best determined by jury" for a headline.
Loud Mouths - uh, the unions are against Dean? Then why did the biggest one - SEIU - endorse him? And why did AFSCME - whose leadership has "issues" with the leadership of SEIU - also endorse him, against the expectations of virtually everyone who pays attention? The only large union that hasn't specifically endorsed Dean at this point is AFL-CIO, which has long-standing ties to Gephardt - but whom, interestingly, they still have not endorsed.
If getting the endorsements of two of the biggest three unions, with the third holding out because their first choice looks doomed to exit the race early, constitutes having "big labor gang up on you," I'm sure there are other Democratic candidates in the field who would welcome having big labor "gang up" on THEM.
Where do you guys GET this shit? Do you just sit around pulling it all out of your asses?
Well, I didn't catch it at first, socialized sociopaths are skilled at mimicking intelligence and briefly fitting in, but as soon as "Kaffir" started talking to himself and his inner five-year-old came to the surface (as it always does when he goes on for more than four posts or the first person points out his inconsistencies -- which ever comes first) it became obvious he's our ever present regular adolescent pseudonym-shifting troll back again to try and fill the hole that is his pathetic little fantasy life.
Note to parents: This is what happens when you completely ignore the kids and force them into anti-social behavior to gain your attention. Hug your kids. Don't let them grow up to be trolls. Such a waste of a life.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread:
. . . Dean, Dean, Dean . . .
Note to Kaffir's Mommy. Spank first. Ask questions later.
Boy, the boilerroom really racked up the OT on this thread!
Be of good cheer Deanies!
This is WAAAY to soon for the GOP/DLC/SCLM hit squads to be pulling this crap if they expect their negativity to have any impact in November 2004.
Negative attacks suffer from the law of diminishing returns. The more of them you make, the less effective each successive one is.
The inordinate amount of negative press now merely innoculates Dean for later. By the time the REAL campaign rolls around, and Howard is still standing, the meme 'just another silly attack on Dean' will be dominant.
Just watch.
Hmmm, I think that this is the farthest down thread I have ever posted. Kudos to Dean, I still haven't settled on my candidate, but I tend to favor guys who believe in constitutional government. The biggest mistake that the Bushistas made was declaring war on a nebulous concept that they call terrorism. I think that this war will be at least as brief and effective as the war on drugs.
We should be treating Al-Queda like the gang of criminal thugs that they are, and not giving them the dignity of being enemy combatants.
Night Owl - Spot on!
I was having the same thought a couple weeks back when I got my flu shot; the DLC attack ad had just come out and I remember thinking all these attacks have a vaccination effect on Dean by introducing a neutered [limited market], early version of what the Repubs would be throwing full force and from all directions in a few months, thus giving Dean's growing army of anti-bodies the necessary leg up for when it counts.
[BTW - I'm all for a competitive, drawn-out, down to the wire primary. That is still a positive on whoever eventually takes the nomination, as long as attacks can stay focused on Bush! The candidates (all of us, really) have to remember that we'll need to be fighting the fight of our lives, side by side, in a matter of months. AnybodyButBush]
osama can't be given a trial - we might actually find out about the attacks. can't have that.
and right on Night Owl.
Guys, I think there are worse things than this. Night Owl is right -- at this point, just about all this does is get Dean in the headlines, and considering the fact that what he said could be taken more than one way, and considering the fact that it bought him more airtime in which he clarified his remarks, I think this won't hurt him. In fact, it's likely to help.
The election is still a long ways off, and the headlines Dean is garnering are actually rather tough to use against him without opening the GOP up for discussions they probably don't want to have publicly.
This isn't like the misquotes regarding Gore and the Internet, etc. And even those could have been turned around, had Gore taken the initiative to do so...
Did I just read that Dean retracted his comment about Osama from the other day? Flip-flop, once again. Don't you guys get tired of defending Dean only for him to pull the rug out from under you? Better luck whining about the next "injustice" laid upon Dean, tomorrow.
If you continue to ignore our thesis, third party readers will think you are a little self-consumed. Thanks to your posts about yourself, this thread is now Pete talking about Pete and asserting things about us.
Sorry, K&Y, I usually enjoy your posts, but you got this one absolutely bassackwards far as I'm concerned. By the time I got to this one, I was hoping you were signing off. Seems you were pretty self-absorbed up to here.
I guess the Anonytroll is talking about this tidbit from that bastion of journalistic integrity, Newsmax.
Of course, only a complete idiot would see any inconsistency in these two comments. But we should expect no more from Republicans and their apologists.
According to Newsmax: NewsMax called attention to his bizarre comments to the Concord Monitor, which posted its interview with the leading Democrat earlier in the day.
In remarks that went unnoticed till late Friday, Dean had told the New Hampshire paper, "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."
His "bizarre comments"? How bizarre is Newsmax's comment?
Don't you guys get tired of defending Dean only for him to pull the rug out from under you? Better luck whining about the next "injustice" laid upon Dean, tomorrow. Anonymous
Hang in there, Anonymous. Dean just doesn't quite yet have the orchestra to cover up, change, reinterpret, or lie about, his every statement, like your guy does!
BTW, what part of Dean's statement, as quoted in that Newsmax article, do you find bizarre?
Also I would respect "Kaffir" a little more if he didn't use a handle that is a racist slur.
Good try, Alex. I posted the same thing a couple of months ago -- maybe it's a different "Kaffir", or perhaps he just chose to ignore it.
I post on this and other Dean embarrassments here: http://www.freespeech.com/archiv...ves/
001592.html
The funny thing is that apparently both this site and Dean are confused on the same point, on why Dean's comments were so stupid.
"Third, clearly Dean doesn’t understand the difference between being governor and being President. Mr. Dean, in case you did not know this, sometimes you will have to decide to take people’s lives yourself. As President, you just might be required to bomb the fuck out of a country. That means that alot of people are going to die. So for instance, imagine you, Dean are the President, it is around October 2001, and you just found out that bin Laden is in Afghanistan. You are going to have to decide just how important it is to get him, because you are going to have to kill alot of people to do so, some innocent and some not so innocent. You are going to have to pronounce life or death over those people. So you better be ready to have an opinion on the guilt or innocence of bin Laden, before you bomb the fuck out of a country, over him. And the fact that in reality, you think it is okay for you to be publicly agnostic about bin Laden’s guilt, says to me you have never even thought about that issue in a serious way. You have never thought about what it means to be President."
And of course his embarrassment was further complicated by his stupid follow up statement, which you can read about in that link.
The Osama statement was a mistake on Dean's part, not what he said but how he said it. It is reminiscent of the way Dukakis answered the question about his wife being raped and murdered, and would he support the death penalty? He gave a technically correct answer, but the answer had no heart, and it made him look weak and out of touch. That's the problem with Dean's Osama statement. He gave a "medical opinion" type of answer, technically correct, when he should have started with what everyone feels, that Osama should be exectuted in the most painful way possible, then he could have backed up and discussed the details. Quite frankly, this made Dean look foolish and uncaring, and is one more indication of how vulnerable Dean will be in the general election if he is nominated.
This is so much "beat on him until he snaps and shows everybody he's unstable, if he doesn't snap, paint him as a cold unfeeling son of a bitch" crap. If ANYBODY out there has a better idea than a trial, wich doesn't parrot the "we don't know what the fuck we stand for until we decide how we can profit from it, but you're wrong" can we please hear from them? ANY goddamn conservative, American, hell, ANYBODY who thinks a trial is not what should be done, got the guts to post what YOU think should be done?
It was a big fucking MISTAKE to say what he said.
One of his points was that people with executive power of government should not prejudge the guilt of the accused.
How is a prosecutor--an agent of the executive branch--going to convict anyone without prejudging the guilt of the accused?
It is the job of the executive branch to get the job done... to EXECUTE the law. Dean is sounding like some kind of pussy who can't handle an executive office, despite the fact that he's had many years of practice.
Nobody gives a shit whether Osama gets a trial. Unless he's caught alive on American soil he doesn't necessarily have that right at all.
Dean should have said that he would beat the shit out of Osama, trial or not.
Hmmm, sounds like I'm favoring Clark (I am).
What Dan really means:
The Osama statement was a mistake on Dean's part, not for what he said but for how the GOP spun it. It is reminiscent of the way any Democrat answers any question about anything. They give a technically correct answer, but the GOP has no heart, and they will do or say anything to make any Democrat look weak and out of touch. That's the problem with Dean's Osama statement. He gave a "medical opinion" type of answer, technically correct, when he should have started with what the GOP wants everyone to feel, that Osama should be executed in the most painful way possible sans trial, then he could have backed up and discussed the details in a futile attempt to regain his base, who would find themselves in shock that a Democrat would be as quick as a Republican to disregard Constitutional protections in a blatant play for the Neanderthal vote. Quite frankly, this allowed the GOP to make Dean look foolish and uncaring, and is one more indication of how vulnerable AnybodyButBush will be in the general election if he is nominated.
I don't think the GOP had anything to do with spinning the Dean statement about Osama. They didn't need to spin it, it spun itself. I'm a good Democrat and I had no trouble understanding that Dean goofed, just as I had no problem understanding that Dukakis goofed with his death penalty answer in 1988. Dean should have been aware of how his comments would come across. The fact that he wasn't is a major campaign blunder. Combined with his national security hole-in-resume blunder last week, Dean is beginning to sound less than presidential every time he opens his mouth. Of course, some would say, using past GWB utterances as a yardstick, Dean is actually beginning to sound more presidential!
I don't think the GOP had anything to do with spinning the Dean statement about Osama. They didn't need to spin it, it spun itself. I'm a good Democrat and I had no trouble understanding that Dean goofed, just as I had no problem understanding that Dukakis goofed with his death penalty answer in 1988. Dean should have been aware of how his comments would come across. The fact that he wasn't is a major campaign blunder. Combined with his national security hole-in-resume blunder last week, Dean is beginning to sound less than presidential every time he opens his mouth. Of course, some would say, using past GWB utterances as a yardstick, Dean is actually beginning to sound more presidential!
I don't think the GOP had anything to do with spinning the Dean statement about Osama. They didn't need to spin it, it spun itself. I'm a good Democrat and I had no trouble understanding that Dean goofed, just as I had no problem understanding that Dukakis goofed with his death penalty answer in 1988. Dean should have been aware of how his comments would come across. The fact that he wasn't is a major campaign blunder. Combined with his national security hole-in-resume blunder last week, Dean is beginning to sound less than presidential every time he opens his mouth. Of course, some would say, using past GWB utterances as a yardstick, Dean is actually beginning to sound more presidential!
I don't think the GOP had anything to do with spinning the Dean statement about Osama.
And that proves you're not paying attention. 
It's actually just depressing to read the "explanations" offered here by Dean apologists for this latest egregious political mistake by their glorious leader.
When is blunder finally a blunder for them? Isn't Dean's own "clarifying" remarks soon thereafter as obvious a instance of damage control as you might ever encounter? Don't you think even he realized what a terrible mistake his original statement was? Why are you people driven to defend the very statement he is so frantically trying to back out of?
When, for you, is a blunder finally a blunder?
Dean is obviously not ready for prime time, and his gullible supporters are becoming an embarassment to the Democratic Party.
Hey franklyO, I didn't see the obligatory ABB anywhere in your post. You either Dan. What kind of Democrats are you anyway? Can we count on you two when the real fighting gets tough or are you going to sit on your hands in a corner pouting because your favorite candidate flamed out?
"When, for you, is a blunder finally a blunder?"
Rarely is the question asked: Is our Democrats learning?
Actually, the only embarrassment in the Democratic Party is so-called Democrats who are working hard to discredit the guy who's going to get the nomination.
What are you folks going to do? Go away, pout and refuse to vote if Dean is the Democratic candidate? You sound more like "Nader Raiders" every day...
By the way, A.W., Dean has consistently supported our action in Afghanistan. Nice try, but if you're going to attempt to slander him, you might want to use material that isn't so easy to double-check.
Assuming, of course, you folks (frankly0 and others) are Democrats. Sadly, it's a real possibility.
Okay, I concede, it wasn't a Dean blunder. There is a better explanation. The press has been reporting that Dean is a Congregationalist, but I think that maybe he is really more Pentacostal, and that explains his recent comments. He's been kind of speaking in tongues lately, and has had to have his interpreter back at Dean headquarters tell everyone what he really was saying after he said it. Now, that makes good sense to me!
What am I talking about? I'm not sure, but I do have a lot of words to spew! I could be specific and focused, but I prefer to be vague. I think that beating around the bush is far preferable to saying what I mean.
Does anybody know what I should be saying?
Kaffir was so mad at me last night that it appears he posted under my name before going on a run of 4-5 posts talking to himself (and me, but I was long gone, out on the town, Friday night).
That is truly lame behavior.
Though I would prefer Clark, I will vote for Dean if he gets the nomination. Problem is, I am beginning to wonder if anyone but hardcore Democrats will vote for him...
Will hardcore Democrats alone be enough to win the presidency?
I hope so, but I doubt it.
spiritraveler,
Give it time! most people have never heard Dean speak, and know nothing of his record in Vermont. That's one of the reasons painting him as a hard-core lefty early on will work in his favor: it makes use of the Bush "underestimation" factor. But his record (and, in fact, what he says) is solidly moderate.
Actually, the only embarrassment in the Democratic Party is so-called Democrats who are working hard to discredit the guy who's going to get the nomination.
That remains to be seen... A couple weeks ago, I was a Dean fan myself.
If he keeps screwing up like this, there is no guarantee he will get the nomination.
ANYONE is entitled to question him... even "so-called Democrats." If he can't handle the heat, he shouldn't have walked into the kitchen.
spirittraveller - Given that the Democratic "base" is some 35% of voters and the "swing vote" is more like 15%, can a Democratic nominee win if he DOESN'T appeal to the base first and foremost?
Abandonment of the base is what has put the Democratic Party in the sorry state it's in right now. If the base doesn't turn out to vote, we're toast and appealing to the "swing" vote won't matter.
Will hardcore Democrats alone be enough to win the presidency?
There are plenty of [gasp] blue-collar Republicans who, based on Dean's record of supporting individual's and state's rights, "A" rating from the NRA and history of fiscal prudence are giving him a long hard look. Dean's differences with, and defiance of, the DLC are also attractive to many centrists. Dean's being a medical doctor will help with the senior vote, and don't even get me started on the youth vote.
Based on conversations I have with people commenting on the Dean sign we have at our shop Dean's appeal runs far wider than hardcore Democrats.
Jennifer,
I agree with you that you need someone who appeals to the base. At the same time though, 35% will not win the election.
Using this line of reasoning, Lieberman is the obvious loser because he is just a Republican with a D after his name... but Dean at this point is hitting the other extreme.
That's why I think Clark gives us the best combination of both. He appeals to the base, but he also doesn't say things that sound sympathetic to Osama.
from the most recent Wash Post/ABC poll ...
"when asked in the poll whether they trusted the president or Dean more to handle national security and the war on terrorism, 67 percent said Bush and 21 percent Dean. Even on the kind of domestic issues that normally favor Democrats, such as Social Security, health care and education, Bush bests Dean by 50 percent to 39 percent"
It seems Dean is toast anyway, no matter what his base thinks. He hasn't got the national security credentials to look Bush in the eye and make him blink first (Dean says as much himself when he highlights his resume hole), and thus he will not be able to gain the trust of the American people to be their choice as commander in chief over Bush. The Osama comment just gave more people reason to distrust Dean to keep them safe.
spirit - If Clark appeals most to the base, why isn't he leading?
ANYONE is entitled to question him... even "so-called Democrats." If he can't handle the heat, he shouldn't have walked into the kitchen.
Spiritraveler,
All other things being equal, I would agree with you completely. Unfortunately, all things aren't equal, and Democrats need to be at least a little circumspect with giving the GOP material to distort and run with, if they want to win in 2004.
I think Dean can hold his own, but he'll have a terrible time if the Democratic party is fractured in the face of GOP solidarity.
Dan,
Given the fact that most people have never heard Dean speak, quoting polls this early on regarding how he fares against Bush is ludicrous.
As far as "national security credentials", what the heck kind of credentials do you think Bush brought to the office?
from the most recent Wash Post/ABC poll ...
"when asked in the poll whether they trusted the president or Dean more . . .
1) It's a national poll and those numbers are reflective of Dean's national name recognition
2) It's a Washington Post/ABC poll
3) The election is, electorally speaking, still light years away.
4) The results are no different than if you asked someone if they trust their brand or unknown brand X to clean their dishes best.
Instead look at the trend line among voters who've had a chance to see/hear Dean speak or learn his positions. There's no reason to believe similar results won't continue to hold as more and more people in the coming year are exposed to Dean, in spite of the Heather's best attempts to thwart him.
Jonathan - Give it up. Dan's already bought in to playing this game by the GOP rules. Which is, let them define us.
The only reason Bush polls high on "national security" is because most people haven't heard enough of what a miserable failure his record is. 2 years after 9/11, we still have no security at chemical plants or ports. First responders, his promises to the contrary, are woefully underfunded. Infrastructure is completely unprotected. Bush's national security cred is a joke, albeit not a funny one.
Dan's take is that rather than fight the battle by pointing this out, we accept the GOP caricature of Democrats as weak on national security, then try to deflect the GOP criticism by saying, "Oh HUH! WE'VE got a guy in uniform as OUR nominee. We are SO good on national security." The irony of it is that by so transparently choosing a candidate based on what your opponents say about you merely underscores their original talking point.
This argument ain't gonna die until the nominee is chosen, but I still say that anyone who insists on playing by the rules the GOP sets has already accepted defeat.
Bush had awful national security credentials in 2000. The fact that Dean has even less credentials is not reassuring to the American public, and the fact that some Democrats want to go through the learning curve again with Dean is amazing to me. Two incompetents do not make a national security expert.
Of course, we aren't running against Bush 2000 this time. Bush 2004 has won the confidence of the majority of the American people when it comes to national security (see Wash Post/ABC poll quoted above if you doubt this), so Dean's lack of any national security experience will make Bush's record seem sterling. Dean has no resume to counter the Bush image as a strong leader.
The Democratic Party, if it wants to win the general election next year, must nominate someone who has been tested under fire as a commander, someone who has the national security credentials to nullify the Bush advantage and gain the confidence of the American people.
Wes Clark is the only Democrat who can go eyeball to eyeball with Bush on national security and defense and win. With Dean we lose that debate every time, and with it we lose the presidency to Bush again. With Wes as our standard bearer, we can win that debate and the White House.
I told you so.
GWB owes his entire political fortune on national security - it's the only reason that a dead cat couldn't kick his ass in the general election.
Unless a candidate can clearly outshine GWB in this area, they are doomed to lose.
I'm sorry, but every relevent poll bears this out - Shrub's approval ratings are directly correlated to 9/11, the Iraq invasion, capture of Saddam, etc. those are the hard facts.
Wesley Clark is the only candidate who can go toe-to-toe on this issue.
Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves and actively working for the re-selection of George W Bush.
After 9/11, you don't get the American people to entrust the nation's security and defense to you by attacking the other guy with opinions, you get their trust by showing that you have what it takes to do the job because you have a proven record of doing just that under fire.
When it comes to national security and defense, experience will count for everything in 2004. If you have no experience, you will not be able to make an effective case that you can do a better job than the guy who is already doing a job deemed okay by a majority of Americans.
Going into the voting booth next November, every voter will have one question in the back of his or her mind. That question, "If 9/11 happens again, who do I want as commander in chief protecting my family and our country?", will determine who will be the next president.
Democrats should understand this. Four stars on one's shoulders and being commander in chief of NATO during a war will be a lot more convincing to the American people than showing up at a draft board with x-rays and being commander in chief of Vermont.
We can win with Wes Clark. With Dean, we will lose.
GWB owes his entire political fortune on national security - it's the only reason that a dead cat couldn't kick his ass in the general election.
Unless a candidate can clearly outshine GWB in this area, they are doomed to lose.
I'm sorry, but every relevent poll bears this out - Shrub's approval ratings are directly correlated to 9/11, the Iraq invasion, capture of Saddam, etc. those are the hard facts.
Sorry, but it's still "the economy stupid." Not that I have anything against Clark, and I do believe he could kick Bush's ass just as easily, but with him as our candidate Bush's lone strength becomes cemented center stage for the election. If you don't think Rove has already put together a dozen ways in with they can pound/smear/distort Clark then you're not paying attention. There are dozens of issues where the GOP's asses are hanging out; spiraling deficits, crashing educational systems, environmental degradation, deteriorating liberties . . . these need to be topics that get equal airing. With Clark, whether or not we like it the focus will be strictly national security, the only issue Bush wins. Great plan. Not.
Dean has no resume to counter the Bush image as a strong leader.
And Bush has literally no resume to support his image as a strong leader. What's your point? I do however believe a Clark VP would help put the issue to rest, as much as is possible, without keeping the entire focus of the election on the only issue Bush wants to run on.
Dan,
It's not just about war. People want jobs and honest leadership. Change.
Clark's is going to have a hard, one might even say impossible, time beating Bush if he cannot win the Democratic primary. True Clark believers need to get their candidates campaign kicked into high gear, because right now it's in neutral. And quit bashing the other Dems. Except for Lieberputz.
Thumb, I know you don't like to admit that the American people trust GWB on national security and defense, but every poll for the past two years shows that they do so even as the same polls show they don't really like Bush's policies.
Yes, Bush is vulnerable on domestic issues, but you are dreaming if you think Dean will ever get a chance to attack Bush's domestic record without first nullifying Bush's national security advantage. By his own admission, Dean's national security resume hole will prevent him from doing that, and thus the Democratic advantage on domestic issues is lost.
The only way a Democrat will be able to focus on domestic issues is to neutralize the trust the American people have placed in GWB since 9/11 to keep them safe, and this is something that can only be done by showing an equal ability based on performance. Only then will the domestic arguments come into play as deciding campaign issues.
My gosh, even I can tear apart Howard Dean's credibility by focusing on his national security resume, so what do you think Karl Rove and $200 million dollars will be able to do with it? If nominated, Dean will be so busy defending his resume hole that he won't ever be able to go on the attack against Bush.
As to your argument that having Clark as VP would fix things (that isn't going to happen, by the way), just think how much better it would be to have Clark at the top of the ticket. We Democrats would have a complete candidate, one with no holes in his resume, and one who could attack the Bush record on all fronts without having to apologize.
Wes Clark ... All Patriot ... No Act ... No holes!
We Democrats would have a complete candidate, one with no holes in his resume
You mean other than the fact that Clark, the "complete candidate" has never before held elective office? You don't think that's a "hole" waiting to be exploited should Clark win the nomination?
In marketing it's important not to confuse features with benefits. Clark's national security creds are a benefit, not a feature. There's an important difference.
If it was "the economy, stupid" GWB would be struggling to hold onto his dead girl/live boy base.
I am not attacking any of thre other candidates, except Lieb, of course.
I am simply stating my honest opinion about who I think can win the general election.
The "why can't Clark take the lead in the Dem primary?" argument is silly, and you know it.
We're not campaigning for the president of the Democratic party.
Thumb, Howard Dean's national security credentials are neither a feature nor a benefit ... well, Dean's lack of any credentials is a benefit to the Bush/Rove reelection effort, but that's all. The latter is hardly a good argument for giving Dean the Democratic nomination, is it?
Dan,
Once the media spotlight is on a Dean campaign pointing out all the failures, deceptions, and inconsistencies in the Bush foreign policy, this trust will no longer be.
He's only hovering around 50% support right now, and noone is seriously attacking him in national campaign mode yet.
I know of more than a few Republicans who say directly, "Bush is full of s@#t!". People are fed up.
As for those without jobs, that's a big problem, and they don't trust Bush either, or won't.
Look at the windfall in sales of luxury items this Christmas season, and the dramatic drop in durable goods.
This will get played ad nauseum, and your faith in the faith and trust in Bush will be shown to be naked.
Only the true faithful, the Fox devotees, will end up still in Bush's corner.
Everyone else is up for grabs, and, among the Democrats, Dean is the best positioned to do that.
What does the Dean campaign do with people like me who cannot vote for Bush or Dean? I don't trust either one with the national security. Bush had made a mess of it and Dean has nothing but opinions, no plan of his own based on any experience. I will have no choice, and there are many I talk with who feel the same way.
Everyone else is up for grabs
The present facts on the ground say otherwise, from the latest CBS poll:
Republican Voters
Bush 91%
Dean 3%
Democratic Voters
Bush 20%
Dean 70%
Right now the electorate is split Dem/Repub 45/45.
This election will be battle for the middle 10%.
How is Dean postioned to appeal to that golden middle?
I'm not saying he's not, but I've yet to see any evidence that he is - especially when 20% of Dems say they would vote for Bush over him.
I am perfectly convincible on this issue, but this election is far too important for me to put my faith in even fairly reasonable "wishful thinking".
Presumed innocence is a legal concept, not a personal one. By Dean's lights, he would consider Hitler and Stalin innocent of mass murder, since they have never gone to trial. I can accept the idea that
OJ is legally innocent, because he was found not guilty in a court of law, while feeling in my heart that he murdered two people.
Wes Clark ... All Patriot ... No Act ... No holes!
I don't care about anything but ABB in the end so far, but I have to tell you that slogan makes me want to puke. If you are a representative Clark voter, your man has even less chance than Dean. Running a platform trying to out bullshit a bullshit artist isn't something very atractive. Insisting everybody plays to the GOP bullshit is just nuts. If Bush is so fucking wonderfull, just say so and vote for him.
BTW, what is Clark's stance on justice? Does it involve the Law in any way, or is he one of the "take him out back and kill him" crowd?
Do you know or care? Or are you just stirring shit for fun and profit?
And dear God, why would somebody advocating Clark as the only possible Dem winner post poll results for Dean and Bush, but not Clark? What the Hell is that supposed to prove?
stirring shit for fun and profit?
Pot, meet kettle.
If you were really interested, you would have read Clark's stand on the issue upthread:
From Hardball with Chris Matthews
MATTHEWS: General, do you think Osama bin Laden, if we catch him, when we
catch him, should be tried here at the U.S. or in the Hague, the international court?
CLARK: I would like to see him tried in the Hague, and I tell you why. I think it's
very important for U.S. legitimacy and for building other support in the war on terror for
trying them in the Hague,e under international law with an international group of
justices, bringing witnesses from other nations. Remember, 80 other nations lost citizens
in that strike on the World Trade Center. It was a crime against humanity, and he needs
to be tried in international court.
MATTHEWS: Well, 3,000 Americans were killed here. Do you believe he should be
held exempt from capital punishment, because if you send him to Hague he will be. They
don't have capital punishment at the Hague.
CLARK: I think that's a separate issue. I think that's a separate issues.
MATTHEWS: No, it's a key issue, because the sentencing limitation, they do not
execute people at the Hague.
CLARK: I think that you can adequately punish Osama bin Laden, and you've got to
look beyond simple retribution against an individual. You have to look at what's in the
long-term security interest in the security in America and you have to look at how we
handle the war on terror from here on out.
MATTHEWS: But doesnâ?TMt life in Holland beat life in a cave?
CLARK: Not in a Dutch prison. Chris, they're under water, they're damp, they're
cold, they're really miserable.
Having said that, you sir, are an asshole.
Sac666
CBS declined to even ask the same question about Clark, Dean has already won the nomination, or didn't you get the memo?
Those pesky voters are a pain in the ass anyway.
How is Dean postioned to appeal to that golden middle?
By pointing to the fact that he balanced his state's budgets while most of the rest of the country went into fiscal hell. Bonus points - True conservatives respect this position and resent Bush for breaking the bank.
Thumb, Howard Dean's national security credentials are neither a feature nor a benefit
But I would consider both his ability to raise massive amounts of cash and huge armies of highly productive Dem volunteers a definite feature.
What does the Dean campaign do with people like me who cannot vote for Bush or Dean? I don't trust either one with the national security. Bush had made a mess of it and Dean has nothing but opinions, no plan of his own based on any experience. I will have no choice, and there are many I talk with who feel the same way.
Dan, I have faith you'll pick "the lesser of two evils", if that's how you see it.
Also, I think it's safe to say that if Dean wins, Clark or Zinni or going to have some say in foreign policy. Do you really think that Bush is running foreign policy?
By the way, you don't do Clark any favors in this thread by saying you can vote for Clark, the true Democrat, and not for Dean, against Bush.
Also, if you don't trust Bush with the national security, then how do you think it's going to be such a big issue?
If Bush runs against Dean, national security will be an issue, and it will be about agendas.
Personally, I don't think national security will be as prominent as many believe, and I've been saying that for over 6 months now.
The key vote to decide the election will likely be won by who can convince these constituents that their overall plan will result in greater prosperity.
Sovok,
I didn't call you an asshole, I asked why you would post Dean's and Bush's poll standings and not Clark's. If nobody asked him is what you're saying, how does the post prove anything? What is it you want? How is Clark's position regarding OBL such a different, winning view from Dean's?
I'm not a Dean supporter any more than I'm a Clark supporter, but so far your and Dan's posts don't make me feel good about Clark's supporters. Being called an asshole because you can't better articulate your position isn't making me a Clark supporter.
the fact that he balanced his state's budgets
True, but profoundly un-sexy, I hope he's got more arrows in his quiver.
I don't think national security will be as prominent as many believe
Maybe true, many polls say that, but then how do you explain GWBs approval ratings?
Dan -
All I can say is, thank God we aren't going to choose our nominee based on who you think you can vote for.
If you're the type who would sit out the election in a snit rather than vote for a nominee who, though not your first choice, would represent a massive improvement over Bush on all fronts, I'm glad that the Democrats aren't bending over backwards to make sure you don't get your widdle feewings hurt. The Democratic Party should first and foremost represent loyal Democrats, not fickle folks like you.
Maybe true, many polls say that, but then how do you explain GWBs approval ratings?
People don't know all the information yet. Dean will inevitably bring it in order to boost his campaign and question Bush's accomplishments.
It's going to be sweet. People, and the mainstream media, will not be able ignore much that they have to date.
I called you an "asshole" because of the tone of your post - go back and read it, if the shoe fits...
I fail to see how you could find an enthusiastic campaign slogan invented by supporters as nauseating, campaign supporters tend to do that sort of thing.
Clark's view is extremely similar to Dean's, only more clearly articulated due to his intimate experience with this subject - he is a key figure in the Milosevic prosecution, and he didn't pander by insisting on the death penalty when he clearly views this as detrimental to our on-going success in the fight against terrorism.
How did I fail to articulate my postion?
I haven't heard one convincing argument why I should trust Howard Dean to keep me and my family safe in the event of another 9/11-type attack or worse on this country.
If you plan to try to convince me, do so with concrete examples from Dean's record, not with assumptions on how you think he might perform, nor by listing his criticisms of Bush's record (criticism of the Bush record is not a plan of action).
Quite frankly, I don't think even Dean could make a convincing argument, so I don't expect any of you to be able to do so either. I just thought I'd ask rhetorically.
However, don't dismiss my question altogether. It is THE questions millions of voters will be asking in November if Dean is the Democratic nominee.
On the other hand, you might try the same thing with Wes Clark's record, which is substantial as it pertains to national security. If you do so with fairness, you will get a much different result.
Wes Clark ... All Patriot ... No Act ... No holes in resume!
Other than the rather gaping one under "elective experience."
Do us all a favor and be honest about your efforts to re-elect Bush.
Jennifer, I'm a loyal Democrat who has put his life on the line in combat so that you can have the right to question my loyalty and my credentials as a Democrat. You might just back up and say "whoa" to yourself. I also have a lifetime of battling for civil rights, the environment, civil liberties, economic justice, and a whole host of things that Democrats have stood for over the years. I've paid my dues and then some. However, having said that, my loyalty to and concern for the future of the Democratic Party is one of the main reasons I can't vote for Howard Dean for president.
It's going to be sweet. People, and the mainstream media, will not be able ignore much that they have to date.
Yes, I would love to see it, but do you really think a single campaign can accomplish what the entire news media has (willfully)failed to do?
This sort of "information blitz" will be available to any candidate via MoveOn, Soros, etc.
Rove plans to characterize such a campaign as "negative, angry, and pessimistic" - he will contrast it with happy-go-lucky George, who led us through the dark days of 9/11, being visciously attacked, without ever offering any substantive rebuttal to the emminently valid criticism hightlighted by Dean.
And a fawning media will amplify this message X10.
Wesley Clark offers a significantly different strategy, his personal accomplishments and qualifications are so superior to Bush's, especially during "wartime" that the necessity to go negative on Bush is significantly diminished.
Place the two (Bush/Clark) side-by-side, who do you think the average independent/moderate voter would choose?
This is the winning strategy, IMO, and Why I support Clark.
PS I like Dean and will vote for him, should he get the nom, but right now I just honestly don't think he can win.
Dan, since you don't trust Bush or Dean with national security, who will you vote for in 2004, and how will that secure your family's security?
I'm unclear why Dean is seen as too incompetent to assemble a quality and savvy foreign policy team, which will likely be led by your man Clark himself.
Talk about that, independent of the primary.
Or quit talking about national security, because not voting at all, or for a candidate who can't win, will not help in that area either.
This sort of "information blitz" will be available to any candidate via MoveOn, Soros, etc.
Sovok, I don't mean to limit this to Dean. It's available to any candidate, including Clark, who will seriously challenge Bush's record.
Dan - That's a nice cover story, but it doesn't wash. Anyone who has concern for the "future of the Democratic Party" must certainly realize that if the party continues its drift into GOP-Lite, pandering to big money and corporations, it will cease to exist. Already these tactics have eroded the base significantly. Many average working people who formerly voted Democratic don't bother to show up at the polls anymore, because the Democrats no longer represent their interests.
As to your military background, hey great. Unless you served in WWII though, your service did nothing to preserve my right to speak freely, because there has been no conflict since WWII where American freedom was at stake. So while your service is appreciated, can that canard unless you're a WWII vet. Your service may have gone to further American geo-political or economic interests, but they didn't preserve my right to free speech.
And in response to your prior post, I haven't heard one convincing argument why I should trust George W. Bush to keep me and my family safe in the event of another 9/11-type attack or worse on this country. After all, he failed to protect the lives of the 3,000 who died that day, and as we know, that was largely due to his administration ignoring the problem of al-Quaeda which was stressed to them by the outgoing Clinton administration.
See how easy it is to turn that around? And I'm not even wearing a uniform.
I think everyone needs to stop this fawning over Rove. He lost the last election, and that was when people were fairly ambivalent.
Dan, I've got to go offline, but I do hope you reconsider the stance you can only vote for the general.
That doesn't sound very Democratic to me.
Dan,
That's too bad. I, by contrast, could vote for any any Dem candidate, since we learned in 2000 what a "protest vote" will get us.
"Nader Democrats" -- makes you think, doesn't it? I guess ideological perfection matters more to you than taking back the government. Nader would indeed be proud.
If you're really for the Democratic Party (anyone can claim anything on the Internet, after all), you have a funny way of showing it.
Freexlixir,
Those "Clark as VP","Clark as SecDef" arguments are not effective in winning over Clark supporters. (probably nothing would be, we're a pretty enthusiastic lot) ;o)
They are moot, because many of us believe, not without reason, that Dean cannot win against Bush.
I respect your posts very much, but please save that stuff until after the Convention.
freelixer,
Well said. Dean has at least as much experience in foreign policy as Bush had (I don't exactly consider ducking out of a year of National Guard service as "foreign policy experience"), and the same holds true for many Presidents we've had. Dean could hardly do worse than Bush has done in that area, and given the positions he's espoused (often at political risk) and the people he's consulted in formulating his positions, I'd say he'll do quite a bit better.
Jennifer, if you think that the men and women who have served and died in the U.S. military since WWII had nothing to do with your rights as an American, and your freedom to express your rights, then I do truly feel sorry for you. If there are more like you in the Dean campaign, I feel sorry for that campaign. Thanks goodness a majority of people in America still understand that freedom does not come without someone paying a price. I hope one day you will be able to see your error.
Sovok,
For the record, I (unlike many of the Dem candidates, it seems) believe several of the candidates could beat Bush. That includes Dean, Clark, Edwards and Kerry.
It's really time we stopped being afraid of our own shadow. Bush is likely the most vulnerable Presidential incumbant we've seen in a long time. His polling, despite the temporary bump he's received from the capture of Saddam, is nothing to crow about, and on every single front he's had to distort his record in order to crow about anything at all.
Let's stop this "your guy is unelectable!" bull and start concentrating on unseating Bush. It's high time we stopped taking our campaign advice and political talking points from the wingnuts...
Sovok - I think you confuse "opinion" with "reason".
It's easy to say "Dean can't beat Bush," but all you have to back it up is your opinion. I think that Clark, Dean, Edwards, even Kerry or Gephardt could beat Bush if they ran a good campaign. He's vulnerable on virtually every front if we take control of the issues rather than react to them.
And for the record, I will have no problem casting a vote for Clark should he win the nomination, though I'm not crazy about the DLC-centric face of his campaign. In this case, I like the candidate far more than the people working for him.
Jennifer -- you're channeling me
I haven't heard one convincing argument why I should trust Howard Dean to keep me and my family safe in the event of another 9/11-type attack or worse on this country.
How about this:
The PNAC had a far flung, well articulated agenda that basically distills down to Global Military Domination (because historically it's always worked out so well, right?). The PNAC states that one of the necessary events for their plans to come to fruition was a "Pearl Harbor" type event.
First, Bush seemingly dismisses what intelligence was presented to him as he took over. FBI agents are thwarted in their investigations of several of the 9/11 hijackers. By Aug 01 Ashcroft, responding to intellegence, refuses to fly commercial and Bush heads to the ranch for "extended vacation." Two years later and after grossly underfunding and attempting to "stack the deck" of the 9/11 investigation committee and they're still stonewalling over releasing pertinent information on pre-9/11 intelligence.
Bush also whisked out of the country, days after 9/11, Saudis and Bin Laden family members of whom he has extensive business ties to. Did I mention the terrorists were Saudis, funded by Saudi Royal family? Now Bush goes on to piss off [on] the rest of the world, alienate all our traditional allies and inflame the Middle east into what at this point I hope is more Vietnam than Poland.
And you want to hear one convincing argument why you should trust Howard Dean to keep you safe over Bush? Uhh, he's not in business with the family of the person behind 9/11? Or . . . how about Dean's father and friends don't base their growing fortunes on defense industry contracts? Wait, here's one; Dean doesn't depend on America being under attack to be credible to the American people and give cover to ramming through politically unpopular initiatives that screw the average Joe.
I don't want to sound condescending but buddy, buy a vowel.
You wrote, "Dean has at least as much experience in foreign policy as Bush had ..."
Geez, now you are claiming Dean is Bush-like ... and only like Bush was three years ago! If that is the best I could say for my candidate, I'd be silent.
However, I shout from rooftops ... Wes Clark is a proven world-class leader, tested under fire, with vision for the future that allows America and the world to go forward together!
Thumb,
The fact that Dean has said repeatedly, seemingly despite prevailing wisdom, that we shouldn't waste our time, effort, resources and diplomatic capital on unrelated adventures right now (e.g. Iraq) alone indicates to me that he's more interested in doing what will actually keep this country safe than is the current incumbant...
No one can see the future, of course. But Dean has publicly backed the campaign in Afghanistan, and criticized Bush failures to secure our ports, spend enough funds on first responder and other homeland security issues. Sounds to me like he's promoting the right ideas.
Dan,
You'll be taken more seriously if you don't set up obvious straw men. I didn't claim "Dean is Bush-like". Good Lord, that's insulting.
Other than that, you're making decent points.
The "unelectable" thing isn't intended as a smear, it's just my current "opinion" (Jennifer ;o) of the prospects of the current Dem candidates.
Perhaps I should say "most electable" instead.
Maybe I am overestimating Bush, but I would rather overestimate and field what I believe to be the strongest Dem candidate rather than get a nasty surprise in November.
The biggest gaps I see in Clark's backgrounds are his lack of political experience (military leadership is great, but you get things done differently in elected office) and domestic policy background. Like it or not, the President is more than a military leader. Not that Clark couldn't learn, mind you. But he does have his own vulnerabilities.
Thumb, you said a lot about what's wrong with Bush, but you didn't give one example of something Dean has done to demonstrate his capability to do any better than Bush. The reason you didn't is that you can't if you are limited to Dean's record. He has no experience. There is nothing of substance in his resume (holes don't count), just a lot of posturing and speculation.
The fact that Dean has said repeatedly, seemingly despite prevailing wisdom, that we shouldn't waste our time, effort, resources and diplomatic capital on unrelated adventures right now (e.g. Iraq) alone indicates to me that he's more interested in doing what will actually keep this country safe than is the current incumbant...
Ironically, after the "Fiscally Responsible" argument your's is another argument that appeals to real conservatives, and why I don't worry about Dean being able to peel off some moderate Republicans in the middle. Hell, in a sane world Dean would be a moderate Republican.
Dan - Sorry that you take umbrage to my simple observation that US troops haven't been involved in any war since the end of WWII where American sovereignity was at stake. The invasions of Panama and Grenada had exactly zero impact on my right to free speech, and I could say the same of all the others.
That's not to say that I don't appreciate the service of the men and women who have served in uniform since then, or question that they have guarded our safety. I just get a bit tired of people who have served acting as though their service is a trump card that proves their superior love of country and by extension the rightness of their opinion. It doesn't. Sorry, it just doesn't. So thanks for your service to country, but please drop the bit about how you served in combat to protect my right to speak freely. The fact of your service alone - that we have a standing military - does protect us all and our rights. Our military engagements for the past 50 years have been about other things, though. We've put a lot of lives on the line for grand overarching geo-political strategies and economic reasons, but in none of those conflicts were our basic rights as Americans on the line.
What Dean should have said:
Gee Tweety, sounds like you'd like to kill him yourself. Ever killed man? Betcha think it feels good, doncha? That wife of yours sure thinks killing people is exciting. That book she wrote about Andrew Cunanan -- she seemed downright envious of him -- didn't she? What's the real story there,Tweety?
Thumb,
I continue to think that Dean's actual positions amount to the media and the GOP underestimating him. As 2000 demonstrated, that can be a serious mistake, and translate into tremendous capital as the public realizes, "hey! He's not the anti-war, spend-and-tax, anti-gun liberal they all said he was!"
And you're absolutely correct that he amounts to a moderate Republican. The GOP has abandoned that position, though. And a lot of GOP'ers, from what I hear, aren't too happy about it.
Jonathan, I wasn't being disingenuous, I was pointing out that you said Dean's qualifications on national security were just as bona fide as Bush's qualifications in 2000. I agree, Dean is no more or less qualified.
Then the Dean campaign's argument is extended to say that Dean will get good advisors to surround and steer his foreign policy. Well, the same argument is made by the Dean campaign about Bush, but it is a criticism, since the advisors came up with PNAC. Bush, with a hole in his resume, bought it, and look where we are. That's the main crriticism that Dean has against Bush's foreign policy, that his advisor's led him astray.
So, who's to say Dean would do any better with a group of advisors. You think so, but so did many Republicans, especially all those Republican crossover votes for Dean that the Dean campaign keeps telling me are dissatisfied with Bush.
Don't you see? It's better to have a president who can formulate foreign policy for himself, based on having national security/defense/foreign policy experience. We don't need a president who has to follow the lead of others. We need a leader who can direct his own policies.
Wes Clark can be his own foreign policy expert, because he has that experience.
We need a guy smart enough to know his ass from a hole in the ground. Clark and Dean both fulfill this requirement.
Thumb, you said a lot about what's wrong with Bush, but you didn't give one example of something Dean has done to demonstrate his capability to do any better than Bush.
You hire an employee, X. You find out X is stealing from you. You find out he's stealing tons from you, leaving the doors open and backing the truck up. Personnel says they have someone else for the job, Y. You say Y has no experience for the job (though the person currently in that position, X, the one stealing you blind, didn't have any previous experience either. Nobody enters this job with previous experience) and you tell them, "you said a lot about what's wrong with X, but you didn't give one example of something Y has done to demonstrate his capability to do any better than X?"
You're missing the point here; if your goal is to not be stolen from, how does ANYONE not do a better job??
Thumb,
More to the point, and in answer to Dan, direct military experience is only one (albeit a good one) way to ensure that a leader will be competent in military affairs.
Dean has specifically elucidated his positions on foreign policy and the military, and they are based upon people he's already chosen as advisors. This isn't an unknown.
As for Bush, well, his foreign policy prior to the election amounted to "no nationbuilding". His affiliations, however, were known, and his current policies were predictable.
Jennifer, every right you have has been paid for by the sacrifice of members of the armed services of this nation over the past two hundred years or so.
You wrote, "We need a guy smart enough to know his ass from a hole in the ground."
I would add to that " ... and who does not have a self-admitted hole in his national security resume!"
No it hasn't.
Since Bush clearly fails Test #1, we don't even have to get into Test #2.
You wrote, "You're missing the point here; if your goal is to not be stolen from, how does ANYONE not do a better job?"
But, if the choice is between hiring someone who has a history of never stealing and who has set up several other businesses so that no one else can steal from them, or another someone who has no experience at all, then which is the better choice to achieve the goal.
Our choice as Democrats is not Bush or Dean, it's Clark or Dean right now. We need to choose the one who will be the best against Bush. Since Bush will run mainly on his national security credentials (i.e., his perception that he is a strong leader), that means we need Clark.
Sovok.
So I'm an asshole because of tone. What are you ducking? I am still waiting for you to address the point of the poll you posted. I'm guessing you don't feel this "asshole" deserves an answer on that. Or maybe you just haven't got one.
But I'm the "asshole".
Thanks, I know now to skip all future posts by you.
P.S. Dan? I have a DD214 too and I would think that by now you would be over getting a woodie for a person in uniform. BTW, here is a question for you to avoid...What the Fuck does "All Patriot" mean?
Oh, and what David said.
For example, my right to vote. The US military did nothing to secure the right to vote for me. It was female civilians - protester types - who got that right for me.
But, if the choice is between hiring someone who has a history of never stealing and who has set up several other businesses so that no one else can steal from them, or another someone who has no experience at all, then which is the better choice to achieve the goal.
Both candidates have a history of never stealing and who have set up several other businesses [General, Governor] so that no one else can steal from them. But the job is President of the United States first, and President of the World second. And it's a distinctly civilian job at that.
But hey, Bush is toast either way. And one way or another Clark will be involved in a future administration. Bank it.
That's right, Jennifer, those brave ladies got you the right to vote independent of the Constitution and the rights to peacefully assemble and exercise free speech it guarantees. And, we all know the Constitution just kind of protects us in and of itself without the need for human intervention. No need to fight to defend the Constitution, boys and girls, let's all head for the slopes of Colorado instead 'cause it will defend itself!
Dan - Please elucidate which war we have been involved in in the past 50 years where American rights and sovereinity were at stake. As you know, this was my original statement.
Let me come at it this way, Jennifer. Assume we had had absolutely no military personnel at all for the past 50 years ... no Army, no Navy, no Air Force, no Marines, no Coast Guard, no National Gurad or militia. How many Constitutional rights do you think you would still have had? If you think you would have all of them, then I can't think of anything else to say to you.
Dan - By offering as an alternative to political military adventurism "no Army, no Navy, no Air Force, no Marines, no Coast Guard, no National Gurad or militia" you display a type of mental polarization we normally see in the fanatical Right. As an argument it's insane to make and totally misses the point. The point is that many (not all) of the military's foreign involvements had little to nothing to do with American's security. I have to believe the US would be just as safe (maybe more so?) with the military staying closer to home and not working as private security for certain economic interests. I think this is what Jennifer is trying to say.
No, the original point was that every Constitutional right we enjoy as American citizens is a gift to us by the people who have served in our military over the years since the founding of this nation. That point was disputed by Jennifer. I argued my point by theoretically removing the military from the equation. That is not an absolute proof that the military presence over the past 50 years has preserved our rights, but I think it takes a very great leap of some kind to believe otherwise in view of the history of the past 50 years. As for saying that all of our military operations have been to preserve our freedoms, I did not say that. That is a completely different subject.
Sac666
You questioned why I didn't put the numbers for Clark in, and I answered you.
because CBS didn't ask that question about Clark.
The point is, in a head-to-head matchup, more Dems (20%) will vote for Bush than repubs (3%) will vote for Dean.
Meaning, according to this single poll, Dean is losing the battle for the middle.
Why is that hard to understand?
Dan - Look back at my previous (second) post on this subject, and it's very clear that you're constructing another strawman. Yes, our standing military probably has protected our rights through deterrance from those who might have otherwise sought to control us. My post makes that clear.
Let me clarify further: no one who died fighting in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or any of the dozens of smaller skirmishes of the past 50 years died to protect my rights or yours. They died to advance the geo-political goals of whoever was sitting in the White House at the time, or to protect the economic interests of whoever had paid to put that person in the White House at the time.
I know the fiction that we only use military force to protect our god-given rights makes our more questionable military adventures and the huge cost of maintaining our military machine easier for most people to swallow. But it doesn't make it any less of a fiction.
Jennifer, as a veteran, I'll just say, "You're welcome!" and leave it at that.
Those "Clark as VP","Clark as SecDef" arguments are not effective in winning over Clark supporters. (probably nothing would be, we're a pretty enthusiastic lot) ;o)
They are moot, because many of us believe, not without reason, that Dean cannot win against Bush.
Sovok, you're missing my point. I like Clark, and think he would be a great candidate. I feel the same about Dean.
My point was that a few of the Clark supporters in this thread are using a strategy of overemphasizing national security and then claiming that Dean can't be elected because of that.
Only Clark can.
So I was pointing out that, given Dean wins, he will bring on people, likely Clark, who will assure we have a strong foreign policy and engage security threats, including international terrorism.
I'm not saying Dean will win, though he's not far away. But I'm pointing out that a strategy of insisting Dean can't win, and his foreign policy will be too weak to support your family, denies the reality of politics.
What is Clark really going to radically do, that noone else would, as president rather than as Secretary of Defense or as a trusted adviser.
Other generals for that matter, should Clark refuse to sign up?
If your best strategy is convincing someone that Dean can't win, rather than that Clark is the best candidate, or the most electable, then you will not win.
Especially when you predicate it solely on Dean having no foreign policy experience, which I've countered time and again as overplayed and not cognizant of political realities.
...but you didn't give one example of something Dean has done to demonstrate his capability to do any better than Bush. The reason you didn't is that you can't if you are limited to Dean's record. He has no experience. There is nothing of substance in his resume (holes don't count), just a lot of posturing and speculation.
Similarly, Clark has no domestic political experience, and security begins at home by being able to pay the rent and bills. To do this, you need jobs, and a strong economy.
How will Clark manage such an important sphere?
With advisers. Perhaps he'll bring in Dean, who has proved that he can steer an economy, balance budgets, and create jobs.
Oops. Now who's the expert, who can rely on his own expertise?
And by the way, I like and support Clark, as I do Dean. I think both men are great candidates, and, at the moment, that Dean is the better of the two.
Dean's experience, and campaign, for the full range of the tasks at hand, including winning the election, seem to be strongest. Though I'm willing to hear better arguments for Clark than I've heard today.
We have more to do here in the homeland than we do abroad.
I firmly believe this, and this is why I like to emphasize that the election will be about security, but in a global sense, that begins with paychecks and jobs, not to mention securing the homeland.
No, the original point was that every Constitutional right we enjoy as American citizens is a gift to us by the people who have served in our military over the years since the founding of this nation.
Dan, you are dead wrong. You work for the American people. We are all responsible for assuring our liberty - the military in active physical defense, and the citizens in eternal vigilance at home against corruption and subversion.
I very much appreciate your service, but don't keep lording it around. At first, I took you as a sentimental figure, a retired soldier. Now, you're pissing a bunch of people off, including me, with your attitude, and in the process putting military service in a negative light by your single-mindedness (not to mention your candidate Clark).
We should all be grateful that the American people, generation after generation, have always been willing to fight for our freedom. That you were one of them is to your credit.
I'll leave it at that.
And I do believe that every military endeavor, whether protecting our security in a traditional way or not, is equally valuably performed by our soldiers.
Jennifer, I'm sensing a bias you have against the military, and Dan is right that we need it.
What we do with it is another story.
Well, I haven't heard any arguments at all that would make me have confidence in Dean's ability to lead the nation in time of crisis. All I've heard is speculations and references to his domestic agenda.
I can understand that you want to subjugate Dean's national security qualifications to his other qualifications (he himself has admitted the inferiority of his national security qualifications), but I don't believe the American people will be inclined to do similarly in the voting booth. Nothing I have seen in any polls or in recent history leads me to believe that they will not think about strength of leadership on security issues first. I think that will be _THE_ issue that trumps everything else.
So, I don't think all the other issues mean much if a candidate can't pass muster on national security and defense, which means having a proven record to go with policy positions. In the coming general election, I don't believe a Democrat without such credentials can win against GWB.
I won't make that argument again here. It seems that all minds have been made up on this matter, so there really isn't much need to dispute further. Thanks for hearing me.
Wes Clark for President ... All Patriot ... No Act
freelixir - You make a bad assumption then. I have no bias against the military; I do however have some bias about the way it's been used many times in the past 50 years and with the fiction that every military adventure in which we engage is to protect our freedom. This is demonstrably untrue. That's not a slam on soldiers; it's a slam on our political leadership.
Just for the record, I might qualify as some sentimental old fool of a soldier at reunions, but I only volunteered for and served three years in the Army in the mid-1960s, so most of my life has been lived as a civilian. I really come at these election matters as a longtime Democrat. My first presidential election was in 1960. I was dazzled by JFK and worked hard for his election, and cast my first-in-my-life vote for him. I marched with MLK when it was dangerous to do so. I have worked in many Democratic presidential campaigns, most vigorously for Jimmy Carter (I'm from Georgia), and most recently for Al Gore in 2000. I sat out the 1972 election, couldn't vote for Nixon or McGovern, never voted for Nixon or Reagan when many Democrats were doing so, and I don't recognize GWB as president. I consider him a court-appointed regent of some sort, or a dauphin. I'm thrilled to have Wes Clark as a candidate. I haven't felt this much excitement since that first JFK election. Wes is a rare individual, the enlightened warrior who knows how to use and not to use force, and who has a world view that can bring people together, and he has the experience to do it. He will make a great president if we Democrats can exercise good judgement and nominate him. I have no doubt that he can win next November if we do.
Jennifer, fair enough.
Dan, if Clark wins, I'll be rallying right there alongside you.
I have only the greatest respect for Clark.
Also, I'm not sure how anyone else, including Clark, will win, if all they have left is to try to cut Dean down.
If you will notice, our man Wes has been careful not to say anything negative about other Democratic candidates, only negative things about Bush. That doesn't prevent me as a supporter of Wes from questioning the qualifications of other Democrats independent of his campaign, but the Clark campaign has not done so itself. It has responded to attacks from others with a suitable defense on a few occasions, just to keep the record straight.
Bush has proven his foreign policy incompetence on many occasions.
9/11. The failure to work with our allies to catch Osama. Playing games with North Korea. Lying about Iraq. Botching the invasion of Iraq. Botching the occupation of Iraq. Botching the rebuilding of Iraq. Negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan, or what parts of it aren't dominated by poppy-farming warlords. The spectacular inconsistency of praising Libya for doing the very same thing Iraq did before the invasion.
The notion that Georgie Bush has any real foreign policy credentials is a carefully crafted fantasy. People just need to be educated.
Oh, and lest I forget: a senior White House official compromising our national security for petty political revenge, and the subsequent non-cooperation in the effort to find the perpetrator.
spirit - If Clark appeals most to the base, why isn't he leading?
I didn't say he appeals most. I said he appeals...
You--presumably as a member of the Democratic "base"--pointed out that you would vote for either Dean or Clark. He doesn't have to be the one that the base loves the most... just someone that the base likes.
We need someone who is going to kick some Republican ass. Not someone who is going to say stupid things and then back down all the time.
I used to think Dean was a straight talker. But really, he is coming off like Bush... someone who simply speaks without thinking.
Difference is, Bush doesn't apologize. He is comfortable with himself, and people respect that.
Even Clinton knew better than to say we should give Osama a trial... he tried to bomb the daylights out of him... too bad he missed. If he had gotten Osama, Bush might not have the advantage that he is enjoying right now.
I used to think Dean was a straight talker. But really, he is coming off like Bush... someone who simply speaks without thinking.
Difference is, Bush doesn't apologize. He is comfortable with himself, and people respect that.
This is so idiotic, on so many levels . . .
Even Clinton knew better than to say we should give Osama a trial...
Which conveniently ignores the fact that Dean was answering a hypothetical "What if we catch him" and not a "What if we think we located him" question.
Is "spiritraveller" another native-American Indian pissed off at Dean because of some Vermont tribal sovereignty issue? At least MB is honest about it and not just trying to submarine Dean through GOP/Nader style distortion.
Why is that hard to understand?
Sovok
Because it doesn't have anything to say about how Clark IS the man to beat Bush no matter what you imagine I should plainly see. Show me a poll that has Clark beating Bush and Dean, that would make sense, using a poll that has no mention of Clark and not even adding any data about Clark, to prove that Clark IS the only one who could win is some sort of wierd Chewbacca Defense.
I am willing to listen to reason, you just haven't provided any.
sac666, turn that around. Where there are polls that ask about both Clark and Dean against Bush, list any polls that show Dean doing better than Clark. There may be one somewhere, but all I have seen (several dozen national polls) indicate that Clark is a stronger candidate against Bush. In most polls, Dean is the weakest Democratic candidate (i.e., weakest among the major candidates) against Bush. And, you can't ignore that WashPost poll above, which say definitively that, as of now, Dean is a big loser to Bush on both national security and domestic issues (you can't really separate the two in this election). That's why Democrats should be looking for an alternate to Dean if we want to win the White House next year.
By the way, these polls results reflect perceptions before Dean pointed out to the nation that he has a national security hole in his resume, and before he blundered into looking as if he would not be tough on Osama.
sac666, turn that around. Where there are polls that ask about both Clark and Dean against Bush, list any polls that show Dean doing better than Clark. There may be one somewhere, but all I have seen (several dozen national polls) indicate that Clark is a stronger candidate against Bush.
What is the difference in points? 1 or 2? That's my recollection. This talk is nonsense, and these polls meaningless, until someone is actually running against Bush nationally.
And, you can't ignore that WashPost poll above, which say definitively that, as of now, Dean is a big loser to Bush on both national security and domestic issues (you can't really separate the two in this election). That's why Democrats should be looking for an alternate to Dean if we want to win the White House next year.
Again, most of these people haven't heard of Dean other than his opposition to the war, don't know his foreign policy agenda, don't know his domestic agenda, while Bush has nothing new to offer.
People go for change during presidential elections unless you have a strong record.
Also, what is Clark's domestic agenda? Do people know what it is? Do they know his foreign policy agenda? No.
Ignorance doesn't usually associate with confidence, so I imagine that Clark would fare just as or nearly as poorly as Dean in a hypothetical matchup right now.
Either way, we're taking about 1 or 2 points right now, and mainly because of the war, and having nothing to do with the domestic agenda.
This will change drastically, and these numbers are less than meaningless right now. They are harmful if believed, because there is no basis in reality to make assumptions from them.
See Clinton's numbers when he ran around this time.
To put is simply, noone is running nationally against Bush yet. Rove himself admits that, once the Democrats have a candidate, the campaign will start around 53-47.
This might lead one to think that 1-2 points would be very important amongst the Democrats, and they would be right, if they were seeing this difference at a relevant time.
Now, it's not relevant yet. Clark has a 1-2 point lead on Dean in a hypothetical matchup against Bush solely because of the war (and mainly due to Dean's opposition and Clark being a general on TV). There is no reason to believe this will hold, or that things won't get worse in Iraq.
They won't get better. The best we can do is maintain course after capturing Saddam.
The numbers don't count yet. Let the primary shake out, and let the best man win. If Clark supporters need to generate support only be focusing on Dean and his unelectability, this will be a loser strategy.
I realize Clark isn't doing it himself, but his supporters ought to follow suit. If Clark is taking the high ground, why can't they?
Is "spiritraveller" another native-American Indian pissed off at Dean because of some Vermont tribal sovereignty issue? At least MB is honest about it and not just trying to submarine Dean through GOP/Nader style distortion.
Um, interesting guess... but no, I'm not a "native-American Indian".
I'm a white Southerner who owns neither a pick up truck, nor a Confederate flag.
I don't follow the reasoning that if things get worse in Iraq, this will somehow help Dean in a general election. Why would people choose someone who has absolutely no foreign affairs or military experience to straighten out a foreign affairs and military mess? If things get worse, it's still a war, even more so, and the American people don't change horses in the midst of a war unless the new horse is a proven winner in war. Dean will not be able to convince many people of that with his record.
Dan, the man who makes the correct calls on foreign policy, as opposed to shady and wrong ones, for the past year and a half will earn respect.
That man is Dean. Clark also managed to come in as opposed to the war, and that is to his credit.
As for changing horses, it won't matter, because the American people don't care about Iraq. They cared about Saddam, and we caught him.
They'll care about the war on terrorism, and Bush and his team have made a lot of enemies and mishaps in their time.
And, as you keep conveniently forgetting, I've said all along that security starts at home and the dinner table, and the domestic agenda will trump the foreign policy agenda.
This is Dean's strength.
He can come out even on foreign policy, by assembling a credible team and positions, as he has already done, and win the election on basic security issues like jobs.
I'm not saying Clark couldn't either, just answering you saying that Dean can't. I'm sure Clark can, and will if he wins the nomination. And so (emphatically) can Dean.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
