Is the GOP attacking Clark and Kerry as openly as they do Dean?

I ask because I am scratching my head here at all the "GOP is scared to death of Dean" news citations that show up here lately.
Why don't the national polls showing Clark and Kerry as Bush's biggest threats in the general election motivate Ed Gillespie to say nasty things about them?

Someone help me out here? :shrug:

Dean is so easy to beat. They must be trying to knock him out early so they can get someone tougher co campaign against like Kerry or Lieberman, just to make it all a little more sporting, you know.

maybe it's because Dean offers the only radical departure from Bush's policies. They know that Clark and Kerry would be easier to defeat because they do not present a vision that is all that different than Bush's. In other words, Clark and Kerry operate in an policy-environment similar to Bush's. Dean, on the other hand, Dean vs. Bush in a debate? Bush would be humiliated.

What's this 'policy environment' within which Clark and Kerry operate which is so different than Dean's?

In fact it was not far from any random sequence of words.

Anyway, having a sane person in the White House would be a "radical departure" from the present arrangement.

Kerry voted for damn near every piece of crap Bush sent him in the last 3 years, and sat out votes where taking a stand might hurt his career.

Clark is a republican who was working as a lobbyist for Henry Kissigner.


THe main difference is that both CLark and Kerry are DC power elite insiders who are owned by special interests, mainly MIC and war profiteers. Dean is not. If Kerry, CLark, or Bush win then the same people behind them who are pulling the strings win. So it really makes no difference to them if it is Kerry, Clark or Bush, because they will serve the same master.

Dean is outside of that mess and is openly attacking the corproate control of the political system and war for profit. And Dean is showing that the people can move outside that system and win. Dean has gotten this massive grassroots movement going, and that scares the folks who hold power that depends on the people being stuck in the old system.

Dean represents a change, Clark and Kerry represent a new face on the status quo.

What does Gov. Dean's attitude to the Dec. 2001 Brattleboro Police killing say about his attitudes towards the mentally ill?

"On the morning of Dec. 2, Woodward had entered All Souls Unitarian Church in Brattleboro in an agitated state, asking for "asylum" and claiming to the congregation that the CIA and other government officials were after him. When church members began to leave, Woodward drew a small knife and threatened to harm himself. Three police officers soon arrived, having been called by churchgoers. After events that remain in dispute, officers Marshall Holbrook and Terrance Parker opened fire, hitting Woodward at least six times...."

"Since Dec. 13, Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, whose office has jurisdiction over the case, has suspended any official comment."

"....the family is calling on Vermont Gov. Howard Dean to appoint both an independent counsel to oversee the investigation being conducted by the Vermont State Police and a grand jury to examine whatever evidence is collected."

Dean didn't. And Sorrell (whom he appointed) is his oldest and closest Vermont polticial friend.
The victim's family and friends felt the lack of an adequate investigation into the case was so great that they established this website I link below. Whether or not Dean and Sorrell in fact wanted to extend the benefit of the doubt to the officers, the fact is a complete and adequate investigation was never performed, and no one from the state of Vermont looked into the possible violation of this mentally ill person's rights. They simply didn't care. Exonorating the officers was the goal.

http://justiceforwoody.org/media/articles/html/kanaracus5.htm

aren't "owned" by anybody.

Clark and Kerry are both special interests soft money whores all the way. Dean is getting his money from hundreds of thousands of people... while those guys get the bluk of their money from special interests.


Clark used to be a lobbyist for Kissinger... Kerry has been bending over for Bush since Dec 12 2000. Are you sayig they did that because they thought it was the right thing to do... and not because they are basicaly policy puppets for special interests?

I'm fully convinced that all politicians at the Federal and State levels got to where they are today by either sleeping with the right person, being on the take, or both.

is starting to sound like a chicken hawk on every single military action by the US except one which he narrowly defines.

See how easy it is to say stuff like that?

Kerry, Dean and Clark are all operating withing the same "policy environment" (or whatever the term is used up above).

The idea that Dean is on a plane different from them is laughable. He talks a good talk, but his record is probably a lot less liberal thank Kerry's on several fronts.

As for Clark, he's such an undefined character, comparison is almost impossible. But, in many repspects his talk without substance to back it up isn't much different from Dean's new post-2000 liberal persona which doesn't exactly have a lot of facts substantiating his claims.

As I have said here before, Kerry's long time record as a proven liberal is why I know I could vote for him in the General if he won the nomination. It is his recent behavior that prevents me from working to help him win that nomination.

Julie

But all this time as a elite DC insider trying for the white house has gotten him into that place where good politicians turn into career minded puppets who don't want to rock the boat.

Kerry sold out, simple as that. When Kerry casts a vote now he doesn't think "Is this good for the poeple?" He thinks "Will this be used against me in some campaign 4 years from now... will this piss off the special interests who give me the money I need to campaign?"

He was a good man, not he's just another sell out whore who is more concerned about covering his ass than doing what is right.

that LIBERALS (as good as anything DC has produced in the last 30 years, which isn't great, but still pretty good) are smeared as poodles, and fiscal conservatives who were enthusiastic about energy deregualtion are now liberal saviors.

Kerry didn't change. Bush changed the landscape.

over and over and over again in the last 3 years.


You can repeat the crap about Dean being an energy puppet, ignoring things like net metering and his push for renewables. But that will not change Kerry's voting record.

He doesn't have the courage to run on his record as a fiscal moderate, utility privatizer who made concessions to IBM, and doens't like tax policy as a tool to promote policy outcomes (pre-2000, at least). Instead he has to smear all the Democrats who have acted no different (if not better) than Dean would have had he been in the Senate so that people don't pick up on the similarities between Dean and Republicans on the issues that really matter -- the economic issues.

At least that's the way I see it.

Why can't you come and and say you don't like Dean? Why this facade of objectivity?

on the issuess that really matter to me: middle class opportunity, fiscal policy (including taxation), and race.

It's not him that I don't like. It's his politics. (And his campaign style. I think it isn't that smart.)

You spend a lot of time ragging about him on this board, to little avail. I think it's a little more than just not liking his politics. Like many others here, I think your scorn goes deeper.

I'd love to know what your isses with him are regarding race.

So you can drop the argument that I'm not changing opinions as being a good reason to stop.

My "scorn" goes this deep: I care about the future of America.

And by "scorn", I mean my willingness to ask hard questions and state the facts as I see them.

I'm asking to admit that you have a deeper scorn for the man than you let on. It's the only reson someone rails against a candidate NONSTOP without advocating anyone. You don't have a mnessage, all you have is an attack on someone else's. I'd like to know why you don't have a message.

And by "scorn", I mean my willingness to ask hard questions and state the facts as I see them.

You ask hard questions but the "facts" and the "truth" behind these questions is suspect. And you have no interest in clearing that up. I'm supposed to go to google to find the clarity in your questions that you can't provide.

But if you want to know my psychology: I have a deep concern for liberalism and the future of this country that's the only reason I find it so easy to break down all these facts and sythesize them to form an argument.

I'm not saying I'm right. But if you want to turn this into a quesiotn about my psychology rather than Dean's politics (which is a technique I notice popular among right wingers), well there's my psychology.

So what's your psychology, now that you've made it a relevant issue.

Or is your motivation pure politics?

Making someone's psychology an issue is actually a very political move. Nixon tried to do that with Ellsberg. Rush does it every day with Clinton and other liberals.

to make a judgment. That much is painfully clear to evreyone but you.

But if you want to know my psychology: I have a deep concern for liberalism and the future of this country that's the only reason I find it so easy to break down all these facts and sythesize them to form an argument.

All these facts? You can't even back up "all these facts". You just cling to them.

I'm not saying I'm right. But if you want to turn this into a quesiotn about my psychology rather than Dean's politics (which is a technique I notice popular among right wingers), well there's my psychology.

I want to know your psychology because there has to be something behind these weak attacks of him. Do you notice a technique among right wingers for push polling and only sharing tiny bits of information with hopes that no one will ask for the whole story? Becuase that's where you would have learned those tactics you employ so well.

So what's your psychology, now that you've made it a relevant issue.

Oh mine is simple. I'm open minded. I want to know more about any claims made against any candidate. It's obvious that I can't deny decisions that Dean has made. But it's important for me to understand those decisions if I am to honestly ask myself if he deserves my continued support. But none of his bashers here, least of all you, has ever been able to give me the information they claim to have, whether explicitly or not. I was irked by his stance on the death penalty, and I got more information and was able to continue to support him. And that isn't the first or only issue. But I'm not about to make up my mind about anything or give anyone any credibility if they can't provide FAIR information, and you haven't.

Making someone's psychology an issue is actually a very political move. Nixon tried to do that with Ellsberg. Rush does it every day with Clinton and other liberals.

OOoooh! More comparisons to the right! Yeah, it's easier to discount what I'm saying if I resemble the ENEMY! Nope, I'm just beginning to figure out your angle, but you're making it more and more clear with every post. You're just another Dean basher who can't back up your story.

What in the world is wrong with listening to Dean's own words at the Cato Institute where he said that the should like him because he didn't have the enthusiasm for tax policy that the democrats had, etc?

Why can't I just point to the man's onw words?

What's wrong with that Argus report on Dean's campaign donations and the policies which probably encouraged them?

What's wrong with the myriad of articles and arguments people post here which are dismissed with arguments appealing to emotion rather than reason (e.g., "you're just a scornful basher")?

One thing that I think is beyond doubt is that Dean is no Mario Cuomo or Paul Wellston on anything about a few social issues. That's OK. He should run on that. Instead, to gets the masses excited by passing himself off as an across-the-board Wellstone, and he has to knock down the other Democrats for acts that just as if not even less egregious than trying to sell a power plant for 1/7th its value to a big corporation, just so that their politics don't show his up for the fiscally conservative policies they are.

As for your "ooooh" stuff, hey, you're the one who made psychology an issue. You could have just asked me what my politics were. When I have you that answer, it wasn't enough, and you got on to your 'scornful basher' jag. Is that REALLY an argument?

What in the world is wrong with listening to Dean's own words at the Cato Institute where he said that the should like him because he didn't have the enthusiasm for tax policy that the democrats had, etc?

Show me the words you are talking about when arguing his words, please.

Why can't I just point to the man's onw words?

Don't point to them, post them!

What's wrong with that Argus report on Dean's campaign donations and the policies which probably encouraged them?

Nothing wrong with it. Back up the "probably". And stop talking like it's the Truth until you've demonstrated it as such.


What's wrong with the myriad of articles and arguments people post here which are dismissed with arguments appealing to emotion rather than reason (e.g., "you're just a scornful basher")?

If the article is valid in anyway, we will. You take the negative responses people get and apply that to everyone, when there are numerous people here who will happy discuss any valid claim you can make. You know this.

One thing that I think is beyond doubt is that Dean is no Mario Cuomo or Paul Wellston on anything about a few social issues. That's OK. He should run on that. Instead, to gets the masses excited by passing himself off as an across-the-board Wellstone, and he has to knock down the other Democrats for acts that just as if not even less egregious than trying to sell a power plant for 1/7th its value to a big corporation, just so that their politics don't show his up for the fiscally conservative policies they are.

Dean admits he's not as liberal as Wellstone. I saw him say it first hand. I was there and everything. Odd that somehow despite this you rail on a disproven assertion. Well, not Odd.

And of course, you are again making claims without offering the whole story. And you're claiming to know motive. Sorry, this may be considered acceptable with the people you normally argue with, but not me.

As for your "ooooh" stuff, hey, you're the one who made psychology an issue. You could have just asked me what my politics were. When I have you that answer, it wasn't enough, and you got on to your 'scornful basher' jag. Is that REALLY an argument?

Yeah, deny that you ever made childish "this is what the right wing does" comments. Let's just forget context altogether, shall we?

And I'll give you a valid argument when you give me a valid argument. It's that simple. I've asked you repeatedly for more information on subjects that you use to draw conclusions about Dean because I can't make a judgment on the selective information you gave. You've as yet failed.

They don't change their minds, no, the "landscape" changes. When Jr. went back to the UN recently to ask for help (read: be obnoxious) some asked Why the change in policy? Oh no, they were told, Team Bush hasn't changed, the bombing of the UN changed the landscape.

There have been other changes too, none of them by Team Bush, according to official enabling statements, no it's always the landscape that has changed. No changes because of political goals/circumstances. Mmm hmm. Sure. You bet.

So, I hafta ask, what will you do if your arch-enemy Dean wins the nom?

Julie

rickety though it will be. Kerry is the stronger span to bridge the chasm to better tomorrows. And he is a bridge to the Democratic Party's traditional liberal past.
Kerry is the most experienced and mature candidate we have. And he doesn't have a motor mouth that makes more enemies than friends in the general electorate.

cause no one is paying attention to him. He's just Old John Kerry, our buddy in the senate. Feel free to charge a Fresca to his tab at the congressional country club.

With your hate-mongering I can't say I blame you.

Julie

I hope to hell that doesn't happen but I will support Dean 100%.

Can you point me to evidence that he supportS energyu deregulation? That is, can you be more specific? That's a broad term, so how will this deregulation that Dean supports manifest itself?

before he saw how it was abused by Enron in CA.

What Dean's goal was, was net metering, where homes that have solar or wind power generation, can feed power back onto the grid at the same rate that they are charged to pull power from the grid. Also where green energy producers can seel their power on the same markets.

Dean has said however, after seeing the abuse of deregulation that Enron pulled in CA, that he does not support it and is glad that the state legislator defeated it. But the bashers won’t say that part.

And, significanlty, that one was only words, not backed up by action.

Dean thanked the legislature for blocking a bill he ardently supported because it would have caused devestation. Yet, in February 2002, his seed money for running for president came from energy company connections. Has Dean's philosophy changed? Or do you think that those energy execs were just greatful that he didn't give them what they wanted, thus saving them from being scorned by polite society -- rich, but scorned?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=61503#61573

ciiting this:

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/43125.html

Nearly a fifth of the roughly $111,000 collected in its first months by Dean’s presidential political action committee, the Fund for a Healthy America, came from people with ties to Vermont’s electric utilities, according to a recent Federal Elections Commission filing.
...
A list of the Governor’s Council of Economic Advisers includes Green Mountain Power Corp.’s chairman, two company board members and a vice president, all of whom made donations to the Fund For A Healthy America. It also includes two longtime utility lobbyists.

Over the years, the governor has sided with the utilities on many of the most pressing issues, including the push for deregulation of the electric industry, and later backing away from that as a goal.

One issue cited over which Dean sided with privatizers isn't clearly defined, but it looks like he tried to sell an energy plant for 1/7th the value of the plant (ie, perhaps a giveaway of a public asseet to a large corporation...the kind of stuff CA wouldn't do and which resulted in their bond rating dropping as punishment).

Of course, this is stuff that doesn't bother Republicans. However, Demorcats should probably know about it.

You seem to be using this big Monster "Deregulation" to scare people. You have no evidence that he thinks deregulation is approproate for the US economy just because he sided with energy companies on some issues in Vermont. This doesn't stick. It's just the usual scare tactics.

Your article attempts to sum up what are clearly complex issues with a single paragraph that paints dean in an ugly light. They're welcome to do that, but it is one side of the story. Where are the links to full stories about those controversial issues? More importantly, why are you so readily swayed by a single paragraph?

Regulation isn't a zero sum game. If there are stupid regulations, get rid of them. If an industry needs more regulation, then do it. I want to know more about those examples, and would appreciate any info you can share.

daylight between Dean and Bush? Especially given all his criticism of Dems?

That article was more than a single paragraphy. And, anyway, if you're going to dismiss DU arguments for their small number of paragraphs, you're in the wrong forum.

Also, the notion that energy companies are supporting Dean because they're encouraging him to engage in a "zero-sum game" (does that even mean anything in this context) is laughable.

Google away if you want more information. However, I suspect the information you really need might be in those sealed governor's files.

My brain is poverloading. Hold on. I don't think that stories like this don't put as much daylight between bush and Dean blah blah blah.

Sorry, I can't wrap my mind around that question. But let me say that I don't look for articles to put daylight between Bush and Dean. I can put the daylight there on my own, given that I have ACCURATE and COMPLETE information to work with. Your srticle seems accurate, but it is far from complete. If there's anything that I have learned about Dean it's that he puts a lot of thought into problem solving. Your article states some facts, but never lends insight into the decision making process, therefore I don't have the information I need to judge it.

And I didn't refer to the article as a single paragraph, for chrissakes. I was referring to the single paragraph EXAMPLES given about Dean's Eeeeeeeevil doings, those same examples which withhold the information I need in order to reach an objective conclusion. You and I may differ here. You appear to be far more willing to accept any information you hear that suits your needs, but I can't work that way.

I didn't say that Dean earned his MD buy bumming around. I'm saying he earned it after bumming around, and it was the third time he reinvented himself -- and we wasn't done. Since them he reinvented himself as a politician, and in 2000 he reinvented himself as a Democrat.

What's laughable is your either A) inability to understand what I'm saying or B) conscious mangling of what I'm saying. You are doing the same thing you did days ago- saying that an action he took in the past = his agenda today. In fairness, do you think Dennis Kucinich is Pro Life? It's not relevant, except to help me figure you out.

And of course the usual happens. I'm talking to a person who at least acts like they are well versed on a subject. I ask for more specific info, and I'm sent to Google. This is the part where you admit that you have no idea what the FULL STORY is, and that you are jumping around here waving your arms about an issue you don't have a full grasp of.

then whehter Kucinich feels that abortion is wrong. How didn Kucinich manifest his opposition to abortion? If he voted against bills I would have voted for, that's a problem. Did he do that?

Dean as an executive, actuall engaged in bad policy which made utilities, and IBM, and other big businesses very happy when he could have been acting like a democrat. But that's ok...if he'd be honest about it. Instead he has to slander other Democrats for operating in a political landscape no different from the one in VT which resulted in him acting like a fiscal moderate who, in Dean's opinion, should have made the Cato Institute like him.

I told you it wasn't relevant, but you didn't answer the question, asking me how it's relevant. Come on! I want to know if you're giving Dean special attention. Round about the time Dean was apparently pushing for deregulation, Kucinich was voting against reproductive rights. Kucinich is running on a platform that protects reproductive rights, and I want to know if you trust him on that. I think you're viewing Dean unfairly through a more powerful microscope.

Dean as an executive, actuall engaged in bad policy which made utilities, and IBM, and other big businesses very happy when he could have been acting like a democrat. But that's ok...if he'd be honest about it. Instead he has to slander other Democrats for operating in a political landscape no different from the one in VT which resulted in him acting like a fiscal moderate who, in Dean's opinion, should have made the Cato Institute like him.

And you're just astonished at the free ride he's getting from hundreds of thousands of democrats, never actually considering that maybe you're not understanding the complete story behind some of his past decisions, information which you aren't apparently able to share with me but somehow know in your heart of hearts?

When there's a possibility that Kucinich might get nominated, I'd be more than happy to engage in that argument.

Obviously, my time is better spent on Dean right now.

And you're just astonished at the free ride he's getting from hundreds of thousands of democrats, never actually considering that maybe you're not understanding the complete story behind some of his past decisions, information which you aren't apparently able to share with me but somehow know in your heart of hearts?

Actually, I'm not astonished at all. Listening to people like you, and seeing how he uses the internet, and watching how he appeals to anger, I'm not surprised at all. It actually makes a lot of sense.

By the way, what does that have to do with anything?

You only hold electable candidates to this higher standard of yours. A standard that you don't apply to yourself, incidentally.

Actually, I'm not astonished at all. Listening to people like you, and seeing how he uses the internet, and watching how he appeals to anger, I'm not surprised at all. It actually makes a lot of sense.

Eah, we;re all a bunch of mindless sheep, jumping on the bandwagon of the outsider! You couldn't be more right!

Or something.

I don't have time to address EVERYTHING EVERY politician says, so we'll focus on the imporatnt stuff first.

I'll throw in this too:

Kucininch may have changed his position on abortion (don't know, need to hear the debate first). What's the most significatn issue in American politics today? The shift in wealth in power to the richest individuals and corporations in America. If Kucinich changed his politics, why was that? Because he has exactly the right message on the most important issue in American politics.

What is the position that Dean had his deathbed conversion over? Well, uhm, that would be THE ROLL OF THE CORPORATION IN AMERICAN POLITICS. He was pretty fiscally conservative as Governor. And now he has abandoned those politics to get elected in a year in which the persona he is abandoning is one that would have been all wrong for the America Bush is creating.

So. between the two, I would definitely prefer the candidate who has been consistently on the liberal-Democratic side of the most important issue confronting America today.

I don't have time to address EVERYTHING EVERY politician says, so we'll focus on the imporatnt stuff first.

Well it would be nice for you to establish some consistency, since you're the holder of Truth, trying to enlighten all of us brainwashed masses.

Kucininch may have changed his position on abortion (don't know, need to hear the debate first). What's the most significatn issue in American politics today? The shift in wealth in power to the richest individuals and corporations in America. If Kucinich changed his politics, why was that? Because he has exactly the right message on the most important issue in American politics.

Well, that's debatable. But even then, that's subjective. You're far from convincing me that your thoughts on tax policy are right.

What is the position that Dean had his deathbed conversion over? Well, uhm, that would be THE ROLL OF THE CORPORATION IN AMERICAN POLITICS. He was pretty fiscally conservative as Governor. And now he has abandoned those politics to get elected in a year in which the persona he is abandoning is one that would have been all wrong for the America Bush is creating.

Even though he has aditted publicly NUMEROUS TIMES that he's fiscally conservative?

your own desperation?

"is starting to sound like a chicken hawk on every single military action by the US except one which he narrowly defines."

Really and how is that... are you still using the dishonest repuke meme that he dodged the draft when he was in fact rejected as Y1?


"See how easy it is to say stuff like that?"

Lying is easy for you... your point?



"The idea that Dean is on a plane different from them is laughable. He talks a good talk, but his record is probably a lot less liberal thank Kerry's on several fronts."

Not on the war, or no child left behind, or the patriot act, or taxes. Dean has done more to insure the poor, protect kids, and defend the environment than Kerry and Clark combined.



"As for Clark, he's such an undefined character, comparison is almost impossible. But, in many repspects his talk without substance to back it up isn't much different from Dean's new post-2000 liberal persona which doesn't exactly have a lot of facts substantiating his claims."

Bullshit... on both fronts. Clark does have one hell of a history, working for Henry Kissinger as a lobbyist, bombing civilians and journalists in Kosovo etc to see what kind of character he is.

And you bashers continue to try and label Dean as a far left liberal, then attack HIM when your label turns out to be bullshit, as if it was Dean's fault your labeling him as some far left liberal was unfounded. Dean is a moderate and always has been a moderate, and he has a fantastic record of using a pragmatic moderate approach to achieve progress of liberal issues. From gay rights to universal health care to the success by six program to education... Dean's record is so far above and beyond Kerry that comparison is a fucking joke. Kerry votes for the benefit of his career first and foremost, and to please his special interest backers second... the people are lucky if they come in 3rd or 4th with Kerry.

please don't blame us.

Bush, Clinton won without foreign policy creds.

BIG DEAL.

and in 1992 the economy was the only issue. The 'war on terror' was way off the radar.

That's all it is. You're making too much out of the war on terror.

I'm predicting it to not be as big an issue as people here think.

And that takes us back to that whole "you need military experience to be president" argument I see so much of, which is of course BS.

Dean's not as smart as Clinton? He's smarter than you or me.

So our respective 'smarts' are not even at issue here. The comparison between relative gray matter is between Clinton and Dean.
and foreign policy extends to so many other issues besides terrorism.

Is Clinton running against Dean? The comparison about relative grey matter really comes down to D and Bush, and that's not an issue.

But you don't address my thought that foreign policy isn't going to take over this election.

Bush has tried desparately to redefine it through war, whether there was LIHOP help or not.

The fact is the economy is in shambles and close to 4M jobless, +3M during Bush's tenure. This is the problem.

Dean is every bit as smart as Clinton, just not as "slick". Dean doesn't have the personal issues (bimbo eruptions) that Clinton had, and which tarnished his tenure in office. This caused quite alot of damage to the Democratic party IMO.

he has "Dean eruptions". and publicly too. And I find them embarassingly intemperate for a potential POTUS.
His inability to control his temper is a sure sign of a low IQ.

However judging by your post it looks like a clark coprs person is pushing the only someone with the shiny stars can win meme.


Dean has been to more countries and met with more leaders than Clinton, Bush, Carter or Reagan had when they were elected.

Unlike Clark who has foreign policy experience, but too bad that expereince is limited to bombing civilians and pissing off our allies by ordering them to attack our other allies.

Was Dean also a Rhodes scholar BTW?

But Kris Kristofferson was. I hope he runs in 2008.

I have no illusions about the impact of what I'm saying. DU'ers have all made up their mind. (I did a poll the other day and I've come to that conclusion as a result). I just like to practice my chops ... you know, just writing the truth...seeing how it comes out...seeing how people react to the truth.

What's your game?

Lying is easy for you... your point?

Actual, satire was my point.

Red flags go up whenever someone claims to be Posessor of Truth.

Your truth is narrow in scope. And dangerous as a result. And by being complicit in the obfuscation of broader information, you're playing a dirty game.

You're nuts.

Why should only one side of the debate get free run of the board?

You don't think that the Dean campaign doesn't engage in obfuscation?

Why can't you just address the arguments?

Why should only one side of the debate get free run of the board?

I don't know. Why? WHo made that claim. Show me where.

You don't think that the Dean campaign doesn't engage in obfuscation?

I think that changing the subject is pretty weak. I think that yeah, the dean campaign probably does engage in some obfuscation, although my conversations with them AND doctor Dean have never resulted in anything but straight answers. Maybe your phone calls with him have been different. But yeah, they probably engage in some obfuscation.

I laugh when I see people complain about something by engagin in the same thing. The hypocrisy market is not cornered by the right, that's for sure.

Why can't you just address the arguments?

I more than addressed the arguments and you know it. Now you're just being a baby. I addressed your comments and asked for more information, and you came back with the #1 answer, "Google!". SO let's stop the childish games and talk about this. You made vague claims, are you going to back them up or not? Even realchange.org provides links.

It's also nuts to say that I'm changing the subject. You've jumped into two or three threads now where you've absolutely peppered the threads with allusions to personality flaws, where you throw around words like "bashing" and where you change the subject left an right.

After post 200 over three topics, it's fuuny that you think that I can be discredited for not staying on topic. I'll stay on any topic you want to stay on topic. Go start a new thread with whatever substantive issue you think Dean has been falsely accused of being too conservative on, and then we can talk about staying on topic.

Point me back to the post where I said Google. Maybe that would be a good place to start.

It's also nuts to say that I'm changing the subject. You've jumped into two or three threads now where you've absolutely peppered the threads with allusions to personality flaws, where you throw around words like "bashing" and where you change the subject left an right.

Holy cow. I've also asked you pointed questions you can't answer and asked for information you don't have. But you ignore that. It's fine. And I didn't use the word "bashing" until it became clear to me that that is exactly why you're here. In these threads. Bashing Dean.

And you've done all the same things. So why don't we focus on the important stuff, like you giving me background on all of these evil deeds Dean done...

Dirt cheap.

It's an allusion to the song, an attempt at humor, not a commentary on you or your posts, so let's not go there either.

After post 200 over three topics, it's fuuny that you think that I can be discredited for not staying on topic.

This is so easy to fix! You're discredited because you can't back up any of your assertions. If you can, then you will be undiscredited! It's that easy! It's not because you can't stay on topic. That's more coincidental.

Go start a new thread with whatever substantive issue you think Dean has been falsely accused of being too conservative on, and then we can talk about staying on topic.

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? What's that preemptive strike mentality all about? I'll defend him with what I know and seek more information about that which I don't. And some people will help me. And some people, *cough*, won't. I'm not going to waste my time defending him against an attack which does not exist. That would be just silly.

Point me back to the post where I said Google. Maybe that would be a good place to start.

Oh, I have to go back through all of these posts to find the words you know you said? It might take time, but I'll do my best.

Point me back to the post where I said Google. Maybe that would be a good place to start.

OK, post #57 in this thread:

"Google away if you want more information."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=548093&mesg_id=548769&page=

Bullshit... on both fronts. Clark does have one hell of a history, working for Henry Kissinger as a lobbyist, bombing civilians and journalists in Kosovo etc to see what kind of character he is.

Show me your proof. And it had better be from a source that can be triple-checked, not counter-punch. I want proof that Clark

A.) Worked for Kissinger (He's been in the military for 34 years, so unless this is something VERY recent, then I doubt it will be something in his past)

B.) That he bombed civilians and journalists. Can you back that one up? From what I heard, the bombing of Serbian positions was a LOT cleaner than the recent ones in Afghanistan and Iraq. If he did something like that, it would have been all over the media and would not be hard to find.

I don't think the GOP really NEEDS to attack Clark until he gets the nom, he gets enough flak from Dean and the rest of the nominees because THEY know that he will do a better job then they will and they want power, nothing more. As far as Clark's positions being vague, he has never been in politics until just now. That SHOULD answer that question.

to safer altitudes. The bombing was not as precise and there were some civilian casualties. The goal of avoiding American deaths was met though.
No link but I read this not too long ago.

What crap. Dean has a vision? Now there is a funny thought.

Just curious.

so that the Democrats can be "humiliated" in the general election.

But dean supporters ignore facts and reality, and repeat the mantra "the GOP is afraid of Dean." Yeah right.

My conservative neighbors are already gloating about a Bush victory. I find it unbelievable that some people on this board have the tenacity to question the intelligence of the rest of the American public, they should take a good hard look in the mirror.

says bush will win, that means that all the polls showing Dean ahead, all the meet up numbers, the record breaking fundraising, the record breaking number of volunteers from the far left all the way to moderate republicans... that's all meaningless and wrong because Cletus next door says Bush will win?


I have yet to see ONE, even one, solid argument as to why Dean can't win. Care to be the first to present one?

It's not like people aren't trying to explain it.

but not one solid reasoned argument so far.


Care to be the first... go right ahead?


Or would you prefer to whine that Dean is really a libertarian?

Here's just one place you could engage (and this is, by no means, the full extent of the interesting debates one could have about Dean if not for the preoccupation with throwing around words like "whine" and "bash" and attack and defamation).

> (1) How many people will bush be able to rally to the Republican side
> because he's running against an anti-war social liberal out of touch
> with the values of a lot of moderates?

The answer in New Hampshire appears to be: zero. Here, we have a
significant number of "voted for Bush but are now disgusted with
how he lied to us!" Republicans and undeclareds volunteering for
the Dean campaign. And I've known some of these folks for a long
time and have gotten to know others quite well; if they're faking
it, they're managing to sound a lot more sincere than a lot of
our "friends" who inhabit DU.


I think it will be important to consider this number when (if) Bush starts running agains Dean. There are Repulbican defections in NE now, sure. Olympia Snowe-style NE Republicans will defect. However, I think that once Bush starts running against the nominee, there is a possibility that Bush will be able to turn Deans attack-style campaigning against him. Remember how Gore did that thing where he walked up to Bush during the debate and Bush have him a what-the-fuck? look. That was probably good for about a 200,000 vote swing in Bush's favor. Bush has a knakc for turning attacks against him to his advantage. It may not be enought to win it for Bush, but it definitely makes narrows the potential advantage. I think that Bush will get a lot of traction with that kind of thing in a lot of states, if not NH.

> (2) How many democrats who vote on their perception of the
> candidate being in touch with their experience of America are not
> going to get energized to go out and vote for one of two Yale
> graduates from wealthy families, who bummed around before having
> their family connections and/or money buy them second and third and
> fourth chances at reinventing themselves?

Spurious question. Everybody who might get nominated is a graduate
of those same sorts of schools. And what does "who bummed around
before having their family connections and/or money buy them second
and third and fourth chances at reinventing themselves?" have to do
with Howard Dean, M.D., anyway? One doesn't earn an MD by "bumming
around on the family money".

Spurious? Kevin Phillips thought this was an important enough issue that he writes about it in the introduction to Wealth & Democracy. He chides the Democrats for running Harvard and Princeton graduates, and sons of bank presidents and senators. If you want to dismiss this just because there are two other Democrats with Yale degrees, you're silly. At least Liebermann was the son of immigrants, and at least Kerry fought as a soldier in Vietnam (and I'm not saying that Kerry wouldn't have the problem too). I can't think of a bigger social leveler other than the army, which isn't far behind poverty.

I didn't say that Dean earned his MD buy bumming around. I'm saying he earned it after bumming around, and it was the third time he reinvented himself -- and we wasn't done. Since them he reinvented himself as a politician, and in 2000 he reinvented himself as a Democrat.

> (3) How many of those people who are new to the process and don't
> understand the nunances of political policy might get turned off
> when they start to realize that their candidate might be, fiscally,
> closer to Herbert Hoover than FDR at a time when a Great Depression
> II is a real possibility?

Again, exactly who are you speaking of? If you're trying to fit those
words into Dr. Dean's programs, you are sadly misinformed. Or maybe
you were just hoping none of us actually understand Dean's proposed
programs.


I'm speaking of the disappointment people will feel when the learn the difference between fiscal conservativism and fiscal liberalism when it's too late.

I think it will be important to consider this number when (if) Bush starts running agains Dean. There are Repulbican defections in NE now, sure. Olympia Snowe-style NE Republicans will defect. However, I think that once Bush starts running against the nominee, there is a possibility that Bush will be able to turn Deans attack-style campaigning against him. Remember how Gore did that thing where he walked up to Bush during the debate and Bush have him a what-the-fuck? look. That was probably good for about a 200,000 vote swing in Bush's favor. Bush has a knakc for turning attacks against him to his advantage. It may not be enought to win it for Bush, but it definitely makes narrows the potential advantage. I think that Bush will get a lot of traction with that kind of thing in a lot of states, if not NH.

The problem with this argument is that it is based on the false premise that we have to convert republicans to win the election. The goal of the Dean campaign is NOT to convert anyone. Granted, we'll take republicans, greens, libertarians, natural lawyers, reformers with no qualms, but the secret to winning this election, and the thing that separates Dean and Clark from the others is this goal, to get out the votes. That's what grassroots is all about. It isn't making republicans regret their vote or come to our side, it's getting democrats to vote, simple.


I didn't say that Dean earned his MD buy bumming around. I'm saying he earned it after bumming around, and it was the third time he reinvented himself -- and we wasn't done. Since them he reinvented himself as a politician, and in 2000 he reinvented himself as a Democrat.

And this was the language in the press that helped bring Gore down. God forbid anyone grow in the public eye. God forbid anyone adapt to new surroundings. What was Dean registered as before 2000?

isn't mine. I've read it here from others, and I've heard the professionals say it. It also makes sense. In 72 Nixon used attacks on himself to solidify his supporters. The trick was in discrediting the protesters.

If you don't think this is going to be easy for the meida to do, you should refresh your memory by looking back at the WTO protests in Seattle.

There is a way to get out the votes whithout relying on anger, and without encouraging the other side to get out their own vote in response.

And that's the method that Jesse Jackson uses. Today, only at the very fringes of the right wing does black GOTV strategies encourage the racists to get out the vote. Jesse Jackson doesn't rely on fear and anger at whites or Republicans to GOTV. He relies on appeal to hope and to optimism. I'm not saying I know how this will translate to Dean or to the Democratic party generally. I'm just saying that there's a smarter way to encouraga your base than railing on Bush, Ashcroft and REpublicans for 90% of your stump speech.

However, the problem with Dean now is that he can't go back and still win the primary. If he stops constantly criticizing Bush, he'll look like the Democrats who are running sensible campaigns without appealing to anger.

Also, what if Bush pulls and LBJ? Dean has opened up that possibility. He has totally defined himself in opposition to Bush. If not for Bush, we might not be too sure about who Dean is. It's a remote possibilty, but I think the Republicans would pull that if they were losing to Dean next March.

You know, railing aginst Bush is the underlying theme of these primaries. To spotlight Dean is amazing. And of course it energizes republicans. The goal is to make that irrelevant.

If you don't think this is going to be easy for the meida to do, you should refresh your memory by looking back at the WTO protests in Seattle.

I must have taken something very different away from that than you did. Or maybe you're more cynical than I am, or more realistic, or whatever. But that came across as a real wake up call that a lot of people are pissed about what's going on with global economics.

And I think angry demonstrating is kind of silly in a lot of ways. It's an important political activity, but it's not something I am willing to do. But that's a whole nother thread.

There is a way to get out the votes whithout relying on anger, and without encouraging the other side to get out their own vote in response.

Maybe I'm more cynical than you, or realistic, or whatever. But anger is what got Dean to where he is. Trust me.

And that's the method that Jesse Jackson uses. Today, only at the very fringes of the right wing does black GOTV strategies encourage the racists to get out the vote. Jesse Jackson doesn't rely on fear and anger at whites or Republicans to GOTV.

Come on! Jesse Jackson has always relied on anger to get his message out! And why shouldn't he? And he will always mobilize more blacks to vote than racists. And the racism of the racists usually isn't that overt anyway.

Fact: Dean's anger is why a large number of people are supporting him. And why a large number of people are supporting ANY D this early in the race. And why ANY D's are getting any serious attention this early. Did you know that in the 1992 cycle Clinton didn't even declare his bid for the nomination until October? I've been with Dean since January, and even THEN there was political discourse all over the place about the primary. We're more aware this time than ever, and why? BECAUSE WE'RE PISSED!

However, the problem with Dean now is that he can't go back and still win the primary. If he stops constantly criticizing Bush, he'll look like the Democrats who are running sensible campaigns without appealing to anger.

If he stops criticizing Bush, I will be disappointed. The thought that leaders of the left shouldn't criticize Bush is absurd to me. We've been waiting for prominant D's to criticize Bush for THREE YEARS.

Also, what if Bush pulls and LBJ? Dean has opened up that possibility. He has totally defined himself in opposition to Bush. If not for Bush, we might not be too sure about who Dean is. It's a remote possibilty, but I think the Republicans would pull that if they were losing to Dean next March.

Let them. They're going to pull out the stops no matter what our strategy is. They might even copy and paste that push poll of yours! I'm ready. And so are hundreds of thousands of others. And this campaign has given US power to do address these concerns the way WE think they need to be addressed in our communities. People Powered Howard, man, like nothing you've ever seen, and like no other candidate can figure out. I have first hand experience.

People don't gravitate towards angry people per se, but positive people. He's got a lot of angry democrats right now - but that will not necessarily translate into a majority of general electorate votes.

isn't dragging your attacks from one thread to another a rule violation?


If you'l like to bring up an argument, I'll be happy to address it. However if you just want to repost the same crap over and over I see no reason to waste my time on it.

to my last set of comments?

Calling it a whine and a bash and then ingoring my replies isn't "shooting down."

Because you chose to reply to his comments and not mine. It's OK, I'm sure a lot of people ignore me here.

neighbors gloating about once again the "dumb" democrats walking off a cliff into the abyss.

There are many reasons why Dean will go down in flames though the fact that he will be painted as a draft dodging Deanie Weanie by itself will do the job.

You really hate dean, man. That's cool. Your credibility is in your claims. Wait, your LACK of credibility is in your claims. You can't prove him to be anything, and you have yet to outline for us all these reason why he will go down in flames. Makes the whole thing kinda funny.

What you're his son, and don't want to move to DC? Lay off that stolen liquor, kid.

It doesn't bloody matter if Dean isn't a draft-dodging northeastern liberal weanie. All that matters is that Bush makes the public THINK he is. Remember, this is AMERICA that we are talking about. Image has a big tendency to be taken MUCH more seriously than substance. And the image that Dean is giving NOW may win him the primary, but it gives Bush a rather large amount of ammo to use against him in the general. Clark is running in the primary with the aim of getting the swing votes as well as the primary election. That will win him the general election because, unlike Dean, he won't have to change his message after the convention. That is where Bush will strike is when Dean starts soft-pedalling his image.

A dashingly handsome figure with a penetrating gaze and 4 stars and a successful NATO command to back up his Rhodes Scholarship. Dean is an overweight shirt sleeve rolled up ex-drunk bum by comparison.
Yeah I am pretty worried about the image war.

I hate dean I hate dean I hate dean!


Are you the one whose voting green if Kucinich loses, or is that someone else?

It doesn't bloody matter if Dean isn't a draft-dodging northeastern liberal weanie. All that matters is that Bush makes the public THINK he is.

And he won't. Next?

Remember, this is AMERICA that we are talking about. Image has a big tendency to be taken MUCH more seriously than substance. And the image that Dean is giving NOW may win him the primary, but it gives Bush a rather large amount of ammo to use against him in the general. Clark is running in the primary with the aim of getting the swing votes as well as the primary election. That will win him the general election because, unlike Dean, he won't have to change his message after the convention. That is where Bush will strike is when Dean starts soft-pedalling his image.

Dean won't have to change his image. It's Dean's current image that has over 450,000 people signed up at his website and over 130,000 people meeting every month. As much as you want to, you can't argue with numbers like that. A six foot tall FEC filing report.

That still wouldn't be as tall as Senator Kerry.

You're right!

ANd his own FEC filing report comes up to the knees of a halfling.

But how tall a dude is is really the litmus test for presidents!

and was rejected. He has a Y1 classification.

Next?


See how easy lies are to shoot down. Now do you have a real argument or just bullshit?

by bringing his own private doctor's back x-rays.

Probably had lift tickets when he stopped off to deliver the x-rays on his way to return the cane, wheelchair, and seeing eye dog that he took with him to the physical...along with the rolls of hundreds 'just in case'.

I heard he went to his physical in his ski outfit and said 'I'm gonna be the prez'.

Dean The Ski Man...Whooooosh... is that the White House Ahead?????

Why can't we get along??? I think it's been so long since the demos have had a leader that now they don't know how to act.

You didn't address this last time I checked in that other thread.

Tell me, do you think the examining physician didn't have his full medical record? Do you think that a doctor giving a physical SHOULD have the persons full medical record?

PLEASE answer this, since it's apparently such a BFD to you.

But it's always hard to beat an incumbent.

detail, but there is a case to be made that in the general election folks want straight talk in the Dean manner -

I wish I knew what approach was better for the General - since ABB folks like myself would move in that direction as the goal is remove Bush - and not which pretty face - but I don't.

I wish all luck - and pray that we will pick the fellow that will beat Bush.

The man talks out of both sides of his mouth.

or you just like making stuff up? How about some links?

Traverse City Record Eagle story from a few weeks ago:

GOP meets on island, looks to '04

Cox takes shot at Dean

Mackinac Island--Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox planned ot have Republican activists shivering in thier seats Friday with these words:

"Imagine this: 'Michigan's 17 electoral votes go to Howard Dean.' Let those words haunt you as you go to bed tonight: 'President Dean.' Let those two words drive you to write one more letter to the editor, give another dollar and knock on one more door for the Republican cause."

<snip>

Your name calling and labeling claims of GOP fear as some mindless "mantra" do little but portray you as someone's shrill schill. Is there some constructive goal you are trying to achieve here or are you simply being counter-productive in an obnoxious way?

Julie

I must be missing it.

I contend some of you only notice the Dean attacks because you're sensitive to them.

to get the enemy to do what you want them to? Tell them not to because it would hurt us.

Yes Dean could hurt us....so please don't vote for him.

It amazes me that we all agree the Repugs are nothing but lying scum then believe it when the say their afraid of someone because he is the best one to beat them.



CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
So I Built This Web Site
Read The Book

Is it the general electorate or the Democrats or the GOP faithful?
That might answer the question here.

that it is everyone BUT the GOP faithful! I think it's meant to instill false hope in those that would like nothing better than to see some sort of change.



CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
So I Built This Web Site
Read The Book

Remember the Adman's adage: Any mention in the press is good advertising — even if negative. The point being that getting the guy's name impressed upon the public psyche FIRST and OFTEN are key to building an automatic popularity. So, the GOPers throw all the sturm und drang ex-gov ex-doc ex-stock Dean's way to build a buzz. The pubes know who they can beat. If they were to do that for Sen. Kerry or Gen. Clark, the hoopla would not be in their strategic interest.

by far. And it makes sense that the GOP does not want to afford Clark or Kerry that luxury.

From what I've seen on DU, the Dean people were ahead of the game last year. They did all they could to poison the pro-Kerry well while bandying about Dean Dean Dean Dean and crying the loudest if anyone pointed out the guy was really a turd*. Which, as far as being the best Democrat to take on W, he is.

* Ex-governor ex-doctor ex-stockbroker Howard Dean is NOT a turd in real life. Nor is he really hot shit on a silver platter. Nor is he really cold diarrhea in a dixie cup. This example only uses a simile to describe his chances of success against Turd Blossom Karl Rove, his biggest backer.

And somehow nothing sticks. Teflon! :hi:

Gep and kerry seem to be doing a fine tag team on him of late.

But republicans cut to the chase with Gov. Dean:

ITS THE MONEY THEY FEAR. WE CAN RAISE ENOUGH TO KEEP UP WITH THEM.