Dean: "If I Win, Congress will be scurrying away like cockroaches"

Gee - his diplomatic skills are on a par with Dubya's. Wonder if he'll start up his own "axis of evil."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/15/politics/campaigns/15DEAN.html?ex=1066795200&en=84bccfa6893a8e51&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Dean Spares No Opponent as He Sprints Across Iowa
Howard Dean, who is increasingly giving his presidential candidacy an anti-Washington cast, cranked up his rhetoric on Tuesday, saying that if he won, members of Congress were "going to be scurrying for shelter, just like a giant flashlight on a bunch of cockroaches."

His jab at Capitol Hill, institutional home to four of Dr. Dean's five main rivals for the nomination, came in response to a question about how he would handle Congress and the entrenched Beltway bureaucracy. The questioner mentioned Republicans and Democrats alike, and Dr. Dean made no distinction.

The remark was one of dozens of sharp comments about "Washington politicians" that Dr. Dean, the former governor of Vermont, tossed out in a 15-hour, nine-city, 329-mile sprint across Iowa, as he intensified his effort to separate himself from the pack by claiming the "outsider" mantle.

Trotting out a new laugh line, he criticized his fellow Democrats as compromising on party principles, saying, "Harry Truman said if you run a Republican against a Republican, a Republican wins every time."

Dr. Dean was not shy about criticizing his opponents, particularly Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, who has emerged as his chief rival in Iowa, which holds the first caucuses in the Democratic contest. "Many of the people who are running for president left their constituencies a long time ago," he told reporters.

.....Dr. Dean also took a slap at Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who is retired from the Army. Asked by a voter about General Clark's appeal, he began, "General Clark has not attacked me, and I'm not going to start by attacking him." He then proceeded to point out that the general had advised a Congressional candidate to support the resolution on Iraq and had praised the Bush administration at a Republican fund-raiser.

As he sped east across Iowa from Council Bluffs on Monday night to an Oktoberfest in tiny Montrose on Tuesday, Dr. Dean was blunt in his attacks. For example, he denounced his opponents as spending a collective 67 years in Washington without providing a prescription drug benefit to elderly people.

"These guys have been in Washington talking for all those years, and what do you have to show for it?" he asked 150 elderly people in Council Bluffs. "When I am president, we're going to have prescription drugs instead of hot air in Washington."

Unlike the guy who posted this exact same thing last night... :eyes:

I am sure you are an authority on lack of diplomatic skills. This actually endears me to dean even more. After the votes supporting the invasion of Iraq for making Israel safer, and the sanctions on Syria there is nothing I would like more than to see the flashlight turned on them.

at least I know better than that...

and the voters don't like them much, so saying that probably helped him more than hurt him with actual voters.

Next you'll be seeing him campaigning with a broom. And this, too, will be seen as another brilliant, original strategy thought up by Dean.

Priceless Deanhonesty:

Dr. Dean also took a slap at Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who is retired from the Army. Asked by a voter about General Clark's appeal, he began, "General Clark has not attacked me, and I'm not going to start by attacking him." He then proceeded to point out that the general had advised a Congressional candidate to support the resolution on Iraq and had praised the Bush administration at a Republican fund-raiser.

Every day, I find myself disgusted by this guy a little more. He's down there with Nixon now in terms of integrity.

when a TRUE statement about wanother person's record is called a personal attack.

I guess pointing out that Clark wasn't even a registered Democrat until like a week ago would be a personal attack, too?

going to attack Clark -- prior to doing just that. Of course, it's too late for that anyway, as he's already lied to attack Clark in the past.

Yes, unless it's not an attack.

Honestly, how long would your relationship last if you looked at every criticism from your partner as a personal attack? You'd need counseling quick.

I think we need to expand the definitions here. What Gephardt did to Dean with Deanfacts was an attack because it was false, and he knew it was false, and after it was pointed out to him, he continues to spread the false message.

If what Dean has said is false, then please show it to me and I will agree with you. I like Clark, and I didn't like in the debate when Dean brought him up. But if it's true, then it is not an attack. And Dean never said Clark is a bad guy or make a character judgment.

1 : to set upon or work against forcefully
2 : to assail with unfriendly or bitter words
3 : to begin to affect or to act on injuriously
4 : to set to work on

It doesn't matter if the words are 'true' or not: it's an attack, delivered immediately after Dean said he wouldn't do it. In other words, Dean lied. Again.


Lie: 1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression


By the way, the 'partner' analogy was ludicrously funny. Clark is not Dean's 'partner,' and 'partners' do not attack each other for the purpose of personal gain. Dean has no partners -- only his ambition contained in his pudgy little body :-)

Except that apparently I personally attack my job every day.

Everything else is up to interpretation. But whatever, it's your interpretation and you're entitled to it.

If you want to carry your own private definition around to keep your image of Dean intact, be my guest. That's called mental dishonesty, by the way.

And you do, indeed, attack your job every day -- that was one of several definitions. Three of them applied to what Dean did. Amazing, to have to resort to fighting over the dictionary definitions of simple words, but something about Pudge seems to awaken the child in people. It's a remarkeable gift of his.

Another 100% true "attack."

break down in detail how Billys argument was fallacious or flawed.

whose meaning I suspect you have a tenuous grasp of, at best.

Semantics - attack or no attack, he stills looks bad.

Dean needs to look presidential - he needs to act like a leader, offer ideas, policy, direction - he looks bad saying this stuff in this way. It is petty because most voters want to hear about the issues - not about labels and names and slaps. That's what turns people off from politics.

Team Dean should trust their gut and ignore advice from those not doing as well.

you don't mean that. The only other "team" that does that is Bush's team - and there is no way Dean would equate with them.

Dean's doing well up until now had alot to do with going after Bush - and very little to do with going after Kerry, Clark, et al. That is what attracted all of the contributions and the support. My point is just don't screw it up by being petty.

Kerry has lost alot of support by going after Dean, makes Kerry look bad. I don't think Dean should adopt that philosophy - that's all.

Do what you want Team Dean - but supporters of other democratic candidates are not the enemy.

Even Clark has Fabiani and Lehane on his staff, two extremely nasty people. Politics is a contact sport, and I'm fine with that. If Dean can win by running against Washington, more power to him.

Your principles, applied in the California scenario for instance, would have dictated Schwarzenegger *not* run against Sacramento. You should rethink their efficacy.

It's blind loyalty....

HOWARD TAKES BOLD ACTION AGAINST CORPORATE GREED!

HOWARD DISPELS MYTH OF WIMPY DEMOCRAT! BITCH SLAPS CASHIER WITH REVOLVER!

'That's campaign finance reform,' Dean angrily yelled, as he was led away by police in extra-large handcuffs.

Semantics - attack or no attack, he stills looks bad.


I can't honestly say I disagree. I don't like how it looks for the very reason that some people view that as an attack. I do question whoever told him that would be a good idea.

But dean does talk about issues. You really can't say that he avoids them in general.

Alot, and That is When He Does well.

... maybe Dean is more interested in "getting elected" than in "looking good". Contrary to popular opinion, those two goals don't necessarily spur equivalent behavior.

Frankly, I could go for Clark or Dean. But Dean knows what he is doing, he is tapping into the MAJOR DISGUST Americans are beginning to feel with renewed intensity over the way the game is played in Washington. The game that gets nothing done but useless wars and bogus tax cuts.

I, for one, agree with him.

And BTW, if you want to hear an ATTACK on Clark, you should have heard the hatchet job NPR did on All Things Considered. I could hardly believe my ears. A bunch of whiners with non-specific complaints who all sounded like a tankard of sour grapes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5841-2003Oct9.html

CLARK: Well, Judy, I would like to rebut this. I am not going to attack a fellow Democrat, because I think everybody on this stage shares the same goal.

(APPLAUSE)

I think it's a little -- I think it's really embarrassing that a group of candidates up here are working on changing the leadership in this country and can't get their own story straight.

'lest you forget. Clark was a registered independent not a republican. Dean didn't let that stop him from saying Clark was a republican though, did it?

He was absolutely wrong to say it. What he should have said was that Clark was not a registered Democrat until xx days ago. His point remains the same: Clark is new to the Democratic party and has in his history voted for, worked with, and praised Republicans and members of the b*sh administration. It doesn't mean that Clark can't be a good Democrat, simply that compared to the other candidates, Clark doesn't have a documented record of being a good Democrat. Dean has every right to make that accurate assertion, and of course Clark has every right to respond. Dean is making a mistake by allowing a legitimate criticism to be marginalized by a misleading statement.

As far as the scurrying cockroaches comment goes, I think that's an apt analogy for certain members of this Congress on both sides of the aisle. Although I think Dean should've been less polite...

registered with. So he should have said nothing. In the real world, Democrats do vote for repukes sometimes. Dean is preaching to the chior when he attacks Clark on this issue. The choir being the people who already support him. He would be surprised to find out that most Democrats could care less who Clark or anybody else voted for. The truth is a lot of Democrats voted for Nixon, Reagan and Bush. And the reason why they voted for those republicans is because Democrats nominated candidates just like Dean (who attract the same base of support) and they were rejected in favor of their republican opponents who were seen as stronger on defense and national security.

If Clark's nebulous ties the Democratic Party is an issue with voters, then maybe they won't choose Clark. If it's not, then maybe they still will. Regardless, they have a right to know the truth about Clark's past, and Dean is within his rights to bring this issue up.

That Dean didn't know what party Clark was registered with is not reaasuring in my mind, because the fact is, up until he made it official, none of us really did. It may not have stopped you from supporting Clark, but it certainly gave me pause. Since we both have the common goal of defeating b*sh, you would think that we could find some common ground here.

To be truthful, I'm not sure which worries me more, Clark's past, or the DU Clark supporters' flippant attitude about criticism of Clark's past. I'm honestly afraid that if we don't uncover all of the stones now,some tidbit of information will turn up about Clark that will screw us all. The last thing I want see in a tough campaign against b*sh, is a nasty surprise about our nominees past. Since Clark doesn't have as much of a public record as the others, I believe it is incumbant upon him to be as forthcoming as possible.

Specificly I want to know more about his post-military MIC activities. I already know who he worked for, now I want to know in detail what he did, and why he did it. And until I find this information out, I cannot safely endorse Clark- for whatever that's worth. :shrug:

If Clark's nebulous ties the Democratic Party is an issue with voters, then maybe they won't choose Clark. If it's not, then maybe they still will. Regardless, they have a right to know the truth about Clark's past, and Dean is within his rights to bring this issue up.

Exactly what 'truth about Clark's past' hasn't been revealed? You are implying that there's some dark secret out there -- it's ridiculous. He's released every fitness report he got in the military. Stated whom he voted for in the past 6 presidential elections. His professional resume is an open book. Exactly what more can he do to get 'the truth' to the voters? His life and records have been subjected to far more scrutiny than any other candidate, but you're still mewling about 'the truth.' Unless you have some evidence that he's been hiding something, this is more Deanhonesty,however hard you try to dress it up as genuine concern. Dean's locked up governor's records are likely to be a far bigger timebomb than anything in Clark's past. All it takes is the Repubs to find one negative piece of paper that hasn't been locked up, and it will be smear city -- 'This is what we found, and he locked the rest up! Governor Dean, what are you hiding from the American people?' But it's Clark who must continue to get 'the truth' (conveniently left undefined) to the people.

That Dean didn't know what party Clark was registered with is not reaasuring in my mind, because the fact is, up until he made it official, none of us really did. It may not have stopped you from supporting Clark, but it certainly gave me pause. Since we both have the common goal of defeating b*sh, you would think that we could find some common ground here.=

Sloppy. I dislike Bush, you dislike Bush, so I should suffer from the same political nationalism you're infected with? I dont care what party Clark was registered with. Neither do most people. I care about his integrity, his intelligence, his electability, his general outlook, and his stands on the issues. The same as I do with any candidate.


Specificly I want to know more about his post-military MIC activities. I already know who he worked for, now I want to know in detail what he did, and why he did it. And until I find this information out, I cannot safely endorse Clark- for whatever that's worth.

It's on his resume. He did it to earn a living, same as everyone else. Fortunately, or not, not the time I spent typing this. Still amazing: you insist on knowing every little detail of Clark's life, whereas Pudgo sealed his records from 11 years in the governor's office, and that's perfectly OK. Yep, not the time I spent typing this.

I'm not implying that Clark has a dark secret, I'm outrightly stating that since he has connections with the MIC and less of a public record, he could have a dark secret. What's on his resume is not enough. And yes he did earn a living, but not like everyone else. I think the less we find out about Clark now, the easier it will be to torpedo him in the future. Dean's records aren't an issue with me precisely because they are sealed. Is Clark's involvements with the NED, Jackson Stephens, et al a secret? If you can honestly say that Clark's MIC skeletons won't be an issue in the generals, then I will curb my criticism. Because at least with Dean, I know which skeletons I'll have to deal with, and I can adequately prepare myself now.

What 'MIC skeletons'? Tell me what they are. I can't disprove the existence of something that isn't there. I do know that Dean sealed his records; I know what he's on the record as saying about the reasons for it, and I know that it would come up in a general campaign. Some Vermont Dean hater is all but guaranteed to have some kind of paper trail dirt, and that, as I said, is all it will take to start a smear campaign. The very secretness of the rest of the information would work against Dean, as nothing fans the flame of rumor like a lack of information. But because Clark, by far the single most closely-examined candidate in the race, was in the military, you believe he has some 'MIC skeleton' in the closet, and obsess about it. Not much more I can say. :shrug:

I know Clark was an independent until a week ago. Where did Dean claim he was a republican until 25 days ago? And when did he say it?

two eyes. K? Couldn't believe that crap. I used to support Dean too, boy am I glad to have that behind me.

http://centristcoalition.com/blog/archives/000147.html
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/6773.htm
http://pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id167.html
http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2003/09/29/build/political/runners.php?nnn=4
http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2003/09/29/build/political/runners.php?nnn=4

updated to provide variety of links

It was a lie and Howard knew it, and you know it too.

looking like an outsider who listens to, speaks like and is for the people whos comin in to clean house is a HOT theme right now.

smart move dr. :toast:

peace

like "gee I sure like that Dubya...he's MY president!"

We need fighters. Dean is a fighter. Clark is a fighter.

...I am incredibly impressed he only called them cockroaches...I think My term for them would be a little more severe. "War mongering assholes" comes to mind, but that's just me!

Students today on his plan for "Reclaiming The American Dream"


http://images.deanforamerica.com/docs/031016.speech.pdf

"The Dean economic program consists of:

JOB CREATION: A short-term stimulus to create 1 million new jobs through a $100 billion Fund to Restore America that will help states and local governments create jobs in health, education, and homeland security, as well as build or restore schools, roads and other infrastructure.
FISCAL DISCIPLINE: Repeal all the president’s tax cuts, pay for new programs without increasing the deficit, and a pledge to balance the budget.
HELP FOR SMALL BUSINESS: A new Small Business Capital Corporation to expand the secondary market for small business loans and make capital for these job creators available more easily and at a lower cost.
TAX FAIRNESS: An aggressive effort to clean up the tax code, end corporate welfare, close tax loopholes, enhance enforcement against tax cheats and to shift the burden of taxation back toward corporations giving fairer treatment to individual taxpayers.
TAX SIMPLIFICATION: A commitment to tax simplification so that at least half of American taxpayers will no longer have to fill out forms.
A BETTER DEAL FOR WORKING FAMILIES: Addressing working families' anxieties about making ends meet with a higher minimum wage, universal health care, greater assistance with early education and care and college for their kids and a secure retirement."

Like it or not. I happen to like that image myself.

Cockroaches sounds about right IMHO.

who actually speaks his mind. God forbid. We need someone who won't offend anyone. Someone who fundraises for Republicans, maybe? Hm.....let's see, who could that be?

This is stupid, circular and doesn't advance the ball against Bush. I could respond with a slap at Dean's record, but I am not going to.

Dean Vs Bush in debates - what a treat that will be.

The two go together remarkably well.

:9 Mm-Mm good!

It seems that some good Democrats, David Obey for one, didn't appreciate being called cockroaches. Dean may also have recognized that although calling people cockroaches in a public statement may temporarily tickle a few people's Organs of Stupidity (we all have one), more will consider it a sign of bad character.

but no cigar for you.

... in fact, I explicitly said that some people would like it. You apparently like it when your candidate calls people cockroaches. It makes you feel good. But more will see it as a sign of bad character, lack of self-control. "Running against Washington" is one of the commonest ploys in American politics because it's so often successful, but it can be done without using language usually associated with far-right rabble-rousers and, you know, fools.

At any rate, as I said before, Dean himself has said that his language was a mistake. I wonder why he thinks so.

even know...you're just projecting.

I'm strongly behind Dean and just because he tells it like it is ...is no reason for me to get all huffy and puffy about his language...I trust Dean to do the right thing and so far I am not disappointed!

... just the numerous other Dean supporters I've seen here and elsewhere who pronounced themselves all "fired up" by Dean's "fighting words" and whose trust in Dean is so total that it didn't occur to them that for a candidate for president to say that his intention upon election was to make Congress, one of the three branches of government, scurry away like a cockroach might be a mistake. (Note that in the quote he did refer to Congress as a whole, not just to the bad evil nasties.) Although Dean himself now says that it *was* a mistake.

If Dean were any different I wouldn't like him.

Why, if these words were so right, Howard felt the need to apologize for them (admit he was wrong?)

Besides, I'm more of a "get-it-done" type of person, not a character oogler, so Dean appeals to me in this regard. I'll bet many, especially independents, feel the same.

I forget Bush, Cheney, Condi, Rummy aren't members of congress...

Like Dean isnt the only fighting Bush in fact there are some who have fought Bush very brilliantly and I include my candiate among them.
Dennis Kucinich is no cockroach, John Conyers is no cockroach, I could go on and on and name those who have fought Bush who are in Washington as congresspeople or senators.

Those cockroaches fight to get money for Governors like Dean.

repeal parts of the patriot act, if so Go Durbin, thats just great. It is the actions of many that leads the way to victory, one person can in fact make a difference but one person needs people to lead the charge.

Durbin is the pinnacle of Statesman... the type who SHOULD be President but who most likely won't. :(

He seems like a good guy too.

he'll have to WORK with Congress - if he wants to get anything passed.

Like that prescription drug thing he mentions...

And like somebody told me once - "It's easier to attract bees with honey than with horseshit."

Keep that in mind, Dr. Dean.

And like somebody told me once - "It's easier to attract bees with honey than with horseshit."

Wha? Bees make honey! Isn't it flies? and isn't it vinegar, not horseshit?

Honestly, having visited many farms, bees like horseshit a lot.

:)

duh...

now i feel really stoopit...


:dunce:

you'll have to work with those "cockroaches" and they're NOT going to forget you said that." He thinks he can bully them the way he bullied the Vermont legislature to get his way but people in Washington are more experienced in dealing with bullies.

It's a comment in the same what-were-they-thinking class with the Pentagon official who talked about Satan being the enemy and said that when confornting a Muslim leader, "I knew my God was real and his was an idol."

There are some thoughts that are best kept to oneself.

Besides, if the Democrats in Congress were willing to destroy what we stand for in order to get petty "revenge" on Dean's off the hand comments, perhaps they would be cockroaches.

that any one in congress would hold a grudge to the point of holding back good legislation.

First of all, a President Dean would VETO any crap that congress can slide through right now. We're not going to attract doodely-squat, but we will need to repel the flies. The republicans - if they still hold majority (likely) - will have to work with HIM. Dems won't be able to pass anything, anyways...the partisan block voting will be worse than ever. The best we can hope for is Gridlock, which Clinton handled ok...the worst we could hope for is more independent councils and other subversions of democracy. That's the reality of the next term.

It'll take one tough MF to handle that. Clinton did not attack back, though there was alot in his executive power he could have done to investigate members of congress. He didn't because he was attacked first. Getting key house republicans on the defensive EARLY will be key - and you know there's plenty of dirt worth investigating.

Let's face it. There's no working with this congress...only stopping them. The only way to get those pigs a-squealing is, as Dr. Dean said, to "shine a light on 'em". How's that for a mixed metaphor?

n/t

but I dont get this comment honest to god, I am trying to be fair honest but it seems like hes impling that members of congress are Bush ass kissers, I can tell you my candiate aint, I can tell you John Conyers aint how brave demanding Rove resign, and the names go on and on. I dont mean to overreact but thats insulting to those in DC who have been fighting Bush. Yet I always see as the things that make DK "unelectable" is a supposed unablity to work well with the congress yet he doesnt consider congress cockroaches.

I've been following what Dean has to say for almost a year now

and I know he's talking about the "cockroaches" in Congress not the people who are trying to fight the "cockroaches" in Congress.

same thing with "weepy and liberal", look I will support him if hes the nominee I can do that but I think thats a horrible way of phrasing things. I am not bitchin or anything but hes impling it seems to me that he was all alone in his opposition.

part every little thing Dean has to say...

Dean is out there fighting bush at every turn and all some of you can do is whine that he's not some diplomat.

Have you checked out Dean's Economic Speech at Georgetown University, today?


http://www.deanforamerica.com

Trust me I am far from whining on this. Sheesh, if you wanna see me whine then try getting me up too early, I am not whining at all, just wondering what he means. If I cant ask that what the fuck can I ask, it just seemed odd to me ok. No I didnt see the speech. Ive been the fairest I think I can and believe me I could react like an asshole and I dont feel like it.

then because I am doing anything but whine, I am wondering about what he said and commenting that it was a bad choice of words theres a big difference between that and whining.

I see the pile on from the usual suspects and after a While it does
begin to look like Whine.

telling half-truths, leaning on the people who have been keeping us free from the full excesses of a Republican Congress and Republican White House. Think about it -- and think how bad it could be if these candidates were not fighting, at levels that Dean apparently does not begin to understand. Committee work, holding blue slips, threatening (and actually) filibustering. He constantly blames the Presidential candidates for the tax cut when I think every one of them voted against it (including Lieberman) twice.

Now if you want to see an example of whining, look at Dean's performance in the debates. He reminds me of that old song: "Charlie Brown, he's a clown . . . 'Why's everybody always pickin' on me?'" (How 'bout: cause you're wrong!)

Too bad you and the other blind Dean supporters block out Dean's actual record.

Dean has a history of disrespecting Democrats all the while cozying up to the Wall Street Bushlovers at the Cato Institute.

And while he bashed Congressional Democrats as Governor... those cockroaches were fighting to get money to the states for little things like unemployment and medicare.

You are a serial Dean basher who is calling me "blind" so don't try and tell me about my candidate who I have been studying for almost a year.

and I don't know if calling everybody names is just going to quite do it. Dean ain't no Armold.

Let's see 600,000 white Vermonters (less the .05%) were happy in their little little kingdom with Dean.

Yea, I guess ordinary voters are going to pass him the baton on the War on Terror......

Think again!

you say that likes it's a bad thing.

You still here?
I thought you'd busy in Sacramento meeting with smirk and kenny-boy about giving more money to enron.
What's the deal with that???

Young Rush look just like my favorite actor Jack Black!
I don't know if I can let Jack play me in my aoutobio pic now!?!

Don't tell me I have something in common with A-Swartzenegger.

he told Gehpbehaertdt to "g*t fuck*d" on TV. Now he
insluts cockroaches everywhere. As of now I am
for ... I forget who I'm for now. The arguments
here are all so subpelling and corgent that every
time I read one I have to switch candidates.

DUers a reason to "switch candidates"! :)

Well, that's not exactly going to win him big points with people who think that small d democracy is important. Whatever else may be true about Republicans in Congress, they got voted in by majorities of their constituents.

Secondly, I don't think he has taken proper measure of Tom DeLay. Dean is no Clinton at winning the high ground, and in races to the bottom I'd put my money on DeLay winning against him every single time.

So this tough talk amounts to wanting to bully the Democrats in Congress. Tactically it's not a bad idea per se, but strategically the problem is that Democrats don't have majorities.

I guess it's more of what seems to be a Dean pattern of being good at tactics but deficient in the strategic realm.

Dean is Dean and I'm putting "my Money" on him "winning Every time!"

Just don't cry too much when he goes belly up. The odds are longer on him than Dean groupthink admits.

are jealous that Dean has so many supporters.

Dean has what is possibly the largest grassroots following of foot soldiers in the history of American politics, just waiting to fan out and multiply. He is setting fundraising records not only in dollars collected, but in the amazing number of contributors donating less than $100.

Personally, I'm gonna donate as much as I can toward the best batteries that money can buy for Dean's flashlight. I am especially interested in finding out the un-named partners on all of those Enron vehicles. Shine the light!

I'm gonna hurt you enough anyway, so you'd better toe the line. Oh goody. Last time I checked, we already have a threatening tough-guy who likes to make grand proclamations in the White House.

Schmoe versus the Volcano.

Yep, no punkass legislator this upper-crustacean. He's gonna show 'em. He's an EXECUTIVE.

Who the fuck does he think he is, a SURGEON?

I'm all for him bashing the Republicans in congress, but he needs to stop with the Clark bashing. We need a Democrat to win in 2004. Whether it's Dean or Clark that you support we need to work to defeat Bush not each other.

quote? I find that oddly interesting.

The article attempts to smear Dean, that's obvious. Though I loved every word of what Dean said...

Dr. Dean also took a slap at Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who is retired from the Army. Asked by a voter about General Clark's appeal, he began, "General Clark has not attacked me, and I'm not going to start by attacking him." He then proceeded to point out that the general had advised a Congressional candidate to support the resolution on Iraq and had praised the Bush administration at a Republican fund-raiser.

Hmmmm, no direct quote? C'mon...

he said publically yesterday. You sure have a funny definition of "smearing."

Oh - I get it saying anything other than "Dean is a saint" is "smearing."

a Dean-bashing thread with a slew of snarling Clark fanatics.

:-)

And they get pissed when I post a solitary post wondering -with great trepidation, just who exactly the General is---aside from being the general. of course.

them -- on every single Clark thread, with the same comments. No Clark thread is free of nonsense, whereas I pointed to a Dean thread yesterday, for example, that was clean as snow -- except for the deleted rantings of a Deanite, who snarled at one of her fellow cultists for not being effusive enough in his praise of the master. So I'm delighting in repaying the favor. That being said, I really do despise the fat little liar, and am actually thinking about a Nadir vote should Pudge win the nomination. Nadir is scum, but he is straighforward in his scumminess. :-)

Sauce for the goose.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You really blew a gasket there.

Charred Pot calling the kettle black!

I make that statement as a fact, not to bash him. The future will reveal who he really is.

Who is Howard, other than the quasi-emperor of a state of less than 1/4 of the population of Chicago, of course.

Are you pissed?

with those local congressional endorsements and "get out the vote" drives in the individual states when the primaries start.

"When I said they were all a bunch of roaches, of course I didn't mean -insert local congressperson here-, he/she is a great guy/gal!"

:eyes:

He won't need the endorsements of congress members. He'll inspire people who are sick of all the double talk and sugar coating to actually get out and vote.

:toast:

I'm discussed by the Congress and their rubberstamping
of Bush's war, tax cuts, DHS, and Patriot Act.

I hope Dean sweeps some of them out when he win next fall.

THANK GOD at least one of the candidates plans to take Congress to task. And that includes every last one of them--Dems and Pubs (except the men and women who were brave enough to take a stand, i.e. Kucinich, etc.)