Is it time for other campaigns to lay off Dean?

Are the candidates just hurting themselves every time they go negative on Dean? I often read this here, and I wonder. Is it time for the other candidates to leave Dean alone, or start putting positive messages about Dean, like pointing out his remarkable internet-driven campaign?

All the candidates have legitimate differences in policy, and they should talk about that.

But the ganging up, the digginfg for dirt, this misleading mud slinging tendency needs to stop. That goes for everyone including Dean.

If you go negative, do it with facts, don't make mountains out of molehills, and Gep, DON'T LIE.

Seriously, as a Gep supporter I want to know. I haven't decided for sure, so I'd like to know if any of his criticisms of Dean are lies. It would make me reconsider.

Thanks.

has used some of the most underhanded tactics to try to sway people away from Dean. His campaign created a whole website with the intention of spreading bad information, false information about him. Here is a page that outlines some of his tactics:

http://www.dickfacts.com/slick.html

Gep and the others have a serious issue in not being able to find any part of Dean's actual platform to attack. So they jump in their time machines and find stuff from a decade ago that they can take out of context and rehash as an actual issue.

I didn't ask for a link to an anit-Gep website.

Thanks anyway.

Did you look at it? The whole purpose OF the website is to point out how misleading Gep has been. Is that not information you were looking for?

But here's a lie. Gep says that Dean wants to cut medicare, that Dean doesn't care about medicare. Dean's whole health care plan is based on expanding medicare. Geps LYING.

You're welcome.

I could have gone to any number of websites of Gephardt opponents, including RNC research, or Rush Limbaugh's website, or any of his dem opponents, or Green opponents, or whoever.

What I was asking for was for what you yourself had in mind when you said don't lie, in capital letters.

The one about medicare is not a lie. Gephardt was using things that Dean had said. There isn't any dispute about the facts of what he said.
You don't have to agree with Gephardt's interpretation. I do, but you don't have to, but it's not lying.

You wanted proof that Gep lies. That would be negative info, which you claim you don't want. Can we get a little consistency here, please?

I could have gone to any number of websites of Gephardt opponents, including RNC research, or Rush Limbaugh's website, or any of his dem opponents, or Green opponents, or whoever.

I dare you. Go to Dean's website and bring back a link to negative information about Gephardt. You said ANY of his opponents websites. This is your chance to make good.

What I was asking for was for what you yourself had in mind when you said don't lie, in capital letters.

deanfacts.com, a purely mean spirited, hateful, desperate, misleading pile of trash.

The one about medicare is not a lie. Gephardt was using things that Dean had said. There isn't any dispute about the facts of what he said.

Yes there is dispute. Because Geps misleading quotes don't give any impression of what Dean was talking about. Dean was talking about HOW MEDICARE WAS RUN, which is miserably. Look at his website and tell me he is against medicare. PLEASE show me.

You don't have to agree with Gephardt's interpretation. I do, but you don't have to, but it's not lying.

It is lying to stand up there in the debates and claim that Dean is against medicare when Dean clearly and frankly wants to EXPAND it. Your bar may be set pretty low, which is up to you, but that's shady as hell.

His past positions on abortion, social security, school prayer, the ERA, health care and civil rights are all eyebrow raisers.

The evolution of Richard Gephardt

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/special/gephardt.nsf/0/DA1ED8BF2C9D33C486256D5A0005DD3C?OpenDocument

Some folks don't think that how he voted inthe 70's and 80's really pertains to his platform today. I believe in growth and change. Apparently Gep only believes in it if it's HIM doing the growing and changing.

In my case, Gephardt's past politics do matter to me. As a Gephardt supporter, I would have preferred that he held his current positions consistently through his career.

I don't hear a lot of people, any people really, apologizing for Gep's inconsistencies, I know I haven't.

Do you have any links? When you say "some folks" are you talking about people at DU?

Do you really think that the fact that he voted with republicans 85% oif the time in 1977 is bothersome? If such inconsistencies bother you, then why do you support him?

From ABC News in 1988: "He's changed on school busing, the minimum wage, ERA, supplied side tax cuts, Social Security and the MX missile"

What he did thirty years ago matters NO more to me than what Kucinich did two years ago.

Some folks includes me. Shall I put it on a blog and send you a link?

except you used capital letters.

Never mind. I have the answer to my original question. By Gep lyiing, you mean you don't like Gep. You should have just said that.

I don't like Gep. I did before his mud slinging campaign.

You can differentiate between lying and misleading. I don't see the point.

complain about others dragging out quotes from years ago, but don't mind it when they do it themselves.

BTW, Gephardt has explained in detail why he changed his views. Dean says "I changed my opinion when the facts changed" but never explains what facts changed and how that affected his thinking.

Though I have researched each and every position Gephardt has taken and then changed in his political career, I have heard Gephardt speak about what caused him to change his mind on a variety of issue such as abortion, GLBT rights, etc. As far as Dean's changes on issues like a Balanced Budget Amendment, increasing the age for Medicare eligibility, and others, all I've heard is that Dean has changed his opinions as the known facts changed, but I've never heard a description of what changed and why that affected Dean's thinking on an issue.

Here's what he did...

He took a handful of very old quotes Dean made and snipped the majority of those quotes out of what he's been repeating. The result of that is that the quotes imply something entirely different than what Dean actually said. What Gephardt has done is dishonest and misleading to voters. He knows full well that what he's doing is dishonest, but he cares more about winning than he does about what is right and honest. Bill Clinton told voters at Harkin's Steak Fry in Iowa that no one is better on health care than Howard Dean.

Basically, Gephardt is sorely misrepresenting who Howard Dean is and what he stands for, and that ultimately is lying.

lying would be if Dean actually hadn't said those things.

He did say them.

It's arguable how accurately they represent Dean. I happen to believe Gephardt's characterization, which is backed up by John Kerry and Leon Panetta and others, though you of course can disagree.

It's arguable how accurately they represent Dean.

No it isn't. It's only arguable if you subscribe to the notion that one can take decade old comments out of context and use them to counter current policies.

Bottom line, your man has nothing on Dean. He is having unions plucked out from under him. He can't address Dean's message, so he goes back and digs up irrelevant dirt from the early nineties in an attempt to SCARE d's away from him.

Gep thinks we're all stupid enough to fall for it, or, instead of confederate flag waving votes, he just wants the dimwit votes.

Gep did not lie. Thanks!

You're a Gep fan, so why should you care. You buy into his tactics.

You're citing Gephardt's positions from years ago, providing no quotes and no context, while at the same time, complaining when Gephardt does it Dean.

the first thing I wanted to know when he made the criticisms was whether they were true, whether Dean really said what he said.

Then I wanted to know whether Gephardt was correctly characterizing what he said, and based on what I read, including what Kerry and Panetta said, I judged it to be fair.

You don't think it's fair. That's ok. You're interpreting it differently, but I wouldn't say you are "lying." See the difference? Lying actually means something, it's not a generic word that means whatever we want it to mean.

the first thing I wanted to know when he made the criticisms was whether they were true, whether Dean really said what he said.

At this point were you a Gep fan? And do you really care more about what Dean said a decade ago than you do about his current platform?

Then I wanted to know whether Gephardt was correctly characterizing what he said, and based on what I read, including what Kerry and Panetta said, I judged it to be fair.

Of course. If TWO opponents of the front runner agree, then it HAS to be true!

But please tell me why what Dean said so long ago means more than his platform.

Lying actually means something, it's not a generic word that means whatever we want it to mean.

Of course it means something. From m-w.com: "2. to create a false or misleading impression."

SO you're right. It does mean something. Just like we can't make it mean whatever we want it to mean, we can't act like the word doesn't apply when it so clearly does. I'm glad you know the rules of the language. Adherence to them means something different if you support Gep vfor America, though.

you just wanted to start a fight.

I think it's possible that he did at some point. I would be disappointed in him if that were true.

It's looking like I might not be disappointed, because so far the closest anyone has come to a lie, is his criticisms against Dean, which I arleady knew all about and which I never considered to be lies.

It's looking like I might not be disappointed, because so far the closest anyone has come to a lie, is his criticisms against Dean, which I arleady knew all about and which I never considered to be lies.because you are a gep supporter, and the bar apparently gets set way lower for him.

so when people post years old quotes of Dean, you complain, but then you do the same thing for Gephardt, and cite his positions from years ago.

and I think Kerry lies worse than everyone else combined. If you want to see how Dean REALLY feels about Medicare why don't you read all the testimonies he's given to Congress over his political career in favor of helping more seniors get services? Do a google search using the terms "Howard Dean testimony" and you'll find all kinds of information that prove Gephardt wrong.

I live in Vermont and I know the criticisms of Dean are way off the mark, out of line and totally inaccurate. He was my governor for a long time, afterall, and who would know what kind of leader he is better than someone who lived under his leadership?

You can believe whatever you want, but I know that the criticism is baseless, wrong, dishonest and misleading.

I like Dean, but if I were running any of the campaigns I'd say continue to pound on him. The only ones who might benefit from easing up on Dean, particularly on the Confederate Flag comments are Sharpton and Kucinich, both of whom would get the chance to portray themselves as more moderate than they are currently percieved.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

The more I read about it, the more I realize that Dean REALLY stuck his foot in his mouth. He managed to offend both white southerners and blacks in general - quite a feat.

Dean's problem is that he's a rich silver-spooner who has NO IDEA about how the majority of Americans feel on social issues. Dean's comments remind me of the anti-southern and anti-Christian bashfests on DU. Of course, the majority of Americans are VERY turned off by that.

Dean is starting to sound like a mirror image of Pat Buchanan, ranting about a "culture war". He needs to stop, ASAP.

That being said, the pile-on of the last week is doing more damage to the party as a whole than Dean's remarks did.

even I know that the front-runner is always the target of negativity in a world where negative attacks is the norm

You'll just have to hope that Dean loses his front-runner status, so he won't be picked on. Oh...wait...I guess you wouldn't like that... :eyes:

If you can't demonstrate your own superiority without insulting someone else.... you don't have much of a case.

(Pointing out the flaws in the current administration's policies and behavior is OK.)

You have to take down the front-runner. If I were running a campaign, I would be absolutely hammering Dean right now to try to pull him back to the pack.

Unfortunately, that's how you end up giving the Republicans things like "Willie Horton" and lose elections.

One of the main advantages of incumbancy is that you get to sit back and look presidential while your opponents ruin each other's good names for a year.

Dukakis had something bad happen in his administration which was not directly his fault, but it was used as a symptom of bad liberal policies. Being governor, the "buck stopped with Dukakis" on this issue.

Now, 16 years later, could you imagine Gore going after Duke in the primaries on "Willie Horton"? I could. And it would probably have worked, in that it would have scared more conservative Democrats away from him and towards Gore. However, those were different times, and it's doubtful Gore would have done it. Nowadays, I am not so sure the Democrats should withold the stops, in that we want the strongest candidate possible to oppose Bush.

And that is to win. Most candidates have had a dream of being President since they were 16 years old. It's all they think about.

(The exception to this is W, who seems to have decided that being President wouldn't be so bad during the fourth inning of a particularly boring Rangers-Mariners game a few Augusts back).

If you have this ambition to be "The Most Important Person in the World," woe to those who try to stop you. Al Gore was raised to be President. He would tear into any opponent's neck like a badger, regardless of the circumstances. He made Bill Bradley look like a lying, socialist dupe who may drop dead at any moment from ill-defined health problems in 2000.

Truthfully, the only way to avoid the problem is to attack your opponets without really looking like you are attacking them. Bill Clinton is pretty much the only candidate in my lifetime who could pull this off. It was like a magic trick.

All his opponents are doing is create TV commercials for Rove.

If Dean can attack, they can attack. Actually I would be happy if all of the campaigns followed General Clark's lead of not attacking other Democrats.

And then what? The only other candidate who can endorse him without having past statements thrown in his face would be Clark (so far). How could the GOP avoid running quotes from Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Lieberman, et al, in their own ads?

The old claim that "well, that was a campaign ploy" wears pretty thin pretty fast.

I don't know how long the Clark campaign will hold back from the attack (hopefully forever) but the damage is already done.

There was an old political joke about a guy whose only chance at losing was being found in bed with a dead woman or a live boy. The more the Democrats tear at each other, the more Dubya looks like that guy.

Bush I came up with the concept of "voodoo economics" and characterized him as a dumb actor whose biggest dream was to start a nuclear war. And then he was his Vice President.

And watch your numbers sink into the mudpit while Dean rakes in the money.

this smearing serves only the GOP.

good practice for what he'll get from Rove and crew.
I think Dean is getting used to picking out the buckshot from his butt, but he's out front and a target.

Of course, it makes the people unfairly bashing him on non-issues look stupid as well as desperate, but they'll catch on eventually.

..so no, its not time for anyone to lay off. It's called politics. That's the way it works. No one said it was pretty. :)

If Dean does indeed get the nomination, the GOP media onslaught will be absolutely brutal. He had better learn to get his message out above all the noise and static, because it's only going to get worse.

but they won't until people grow tired of it or it backfires.

Because the more Dean gets attacked the stronger and better he gets. All the attacks do is fuel Dean's campaign and make the others look petty and out of focus of what's important. There is no real dirt on Dean to be found, so his opponents have to work really hard to create something from nothing. Since they are focusing all of their energy on trying to hurt Dean, they don't have time to help themselves. As someone who is very familiar with Howard Dean, how he campaigns and how people react to him, this is my advice...

Support and vote for whoever you want to support, but also start looking at Dean more impartially and fairly and find a reason to like him, even if you don't agree with all of his positions. I say this not to criticize or put down anyone else's chosen candidate. I say it because I know that there is no way Dean is going to be stopped. He's going to win the nomination and he's going to politically humiliate Bush. Regardless of how you feel about Dean right now, you're going to love him once he's president. The winds of change are a-blowin', and we're all going to be better for it. When all is said and done, Howard Dean will be remembered as one of the greatest and most effective presidents in US history.

Please. I like Dean, he's my second or third choice, but that's a pretty arrogant statement you've got going there.

He "apologizes" (for the way he said it, not the point behind it), and Zogby reports his numbers go up.

It used to irritate me that some of the statists supporting Gephardt, Kerry or Lieberman would giggle like a drooling crocodile at the mere thought of dissecting every phrase Dean uttered from now on. But now I see that it serves to strengthen Dean.

So, in the words of the WarChimp - "bring it on".