My Opinion on Dean's New Iowa Ads: Aggressive But Fair

The Associated Press reports on Dean's new $250,000 media buy in Iowa that criticizes Richard Gephardt's support for the Iraq War.

My opinion is that the new TV ad and mailing are aggressive but fair. Here's why I think this advertising is fair:

1. It highlights a genuine policy difference between Democratic candidates. Democrats should have a vigorous (and still civil) debate about U.S. domestic and foreign policy.

2. There are no adjectives used in the ad copy to describe Gephardt. Each statement is purely factual. "October 2002, Dick Gephardt agrees to co-author the Iraq war resolution — giving George Bush the authority to go to war." It's not, "That awful, corrupt weasel Dick Gephardt..." or anything like it. No adjectives.

3. The ads describe very recent events. For example, Dean did not pull something out of Gephardt's 1980s record, such as Gephardt's opposition to busing or his anti-choice stances.

4. Gephardt opened the door already by trying to tie Dean to Newt Gingrich. Here's what Dick Gephardt said in September according to an article in the Ft. Worth Star Telegram:

"Howard Dean actually agreed with the Gingrich Republicans," Gephardt told a union audience.

"It was in this period when Gingrich said Republicans wouldn't immediately kill Medicare. Instead, they would let it wither on the vine," Gephardt said. "And it was also during this time that Howard Dean, as chairman of the National Governors Association, was supporting Republican efforts to scale back Medicare."

With these inflammatory comments, Gephardt obviously opened the door to Dean using far more recent video footage where Gephardt literally stood (in the Rose Garden) with George W. Bush, supporting him on a major policy issue despite majority opposition by Democratic House members at the time, including another Democratic presidential candidate, Dennis Kucinich.

5. Candidates must be prepared for dealing with Karl Rove and Republican media operations. Rove will not be as civil as Dean or even Gephardt are toward each other. Gephardt needs to know that Dean will respond to attacks, and an honest fight helps build stronger candidates for the big contest against Bush. That's why we have primaries.

On edit: One more reason:

6. Gephardt quite obviously wanted the Rose Garden photo op, otherwise he wouldn't have chosen to appear with President Bush to announce his support. He had no objection to appearing in front of the media and organizing that press availability.

It would be a problem for Dean to use that photo if Gephardt was an unwilling participant, but Gephardt expressly sought out that photo opportunity.

you hear the outcry "negative campaigning" but this is a campaign and policy differences should be examined and will be. Now if Dean criticizes Bush on the war, why shouldn't he criticize his democratic rivals who gave authorization to Bush to conduct this war?

And this one is the Senator Robert Byrd argument. (Isn't he terrific?)

The framers of the Constitution saw problems with monarchs and emperors who had unchecked authority to wage war. The Founding Fathers wanted a nation that was prepared and capable of defending itself against threats, but they also wanted a check on war making for what they saw as expansionist empire building and conquest.

So what they did -- in a stroke of pure genius -- is they made the President the Commander-in-Chief, but they reserved the power to declare war (and fund war making) in the people's branch, the Congress. The Congress has democratically elected representatives who have time and talent to make expert assessments -- to weigh intelligence information, for example -- but who are answerable to the people through democratic elections. The founders did not trust that one person could make such weighty decisions -- even a person who faces voters every four years.

This Constitutional system has pretty much worked and worked well for over two centuries.

Dean's ads are entirely in keeping with that system so brilliantly architected by the Constitution's framers. (I think they would be pleased they got it correct.) The framers wanted Congressmen and Senators to sweat, to feel the heat as they weigh whether or not to take the country to war, and to suffer the people's retribution (or reward) at the ballot box.

So we're having that debate, and it's a healthy one. Perhaps overdue, but that's part of the magic of this system of ours: it's often self-correcting.

Dean needed to respond aggressively to Gephardt's attacks, but he had to do it so that he could bind wounds of ego after Gephardt bows out of the race.

Showing that infamous photo of Gep with Bush in the Rose Garden last year was fair game. It was a photo published in most newspapers around the nation.

I have questions about this portion:

"Howard Dean has a different view," the ad says. Dean then says, "I opposed the war in Iraq, and I'm against spending another $87 billion there."

I remember watching Dean at a debate say that he was in favor of the $87 billion because we have no choice. He said something like our troops are there now and we have to support them. That no longer seems to be his position. I would like him to clear up the reason(s) for this.

All the stuff about Gep in the Rose Garden is fair because it is true. This is not a negative ad, but it does go against something Dean has said in the past.

Bush would repeal his tax cuts; otherwise, Bush's request was a credit card transaction on our future.

"I'm against spending another $87 billion there."

I highlighted the key word.

But you're incorrect on Dean's position on the first $87 billion (that just passed). Dean says he opposed that specific bill because it contained no workable policy toward Iraq, and he says he would have voted against it. He was not opposed in principle to spending money, but he opposed that particular bill because of its numerous defects.

structure.

even if it is true that "Howard Dean actually agreed with the Gingrich Republicans" and true that "It was in this period when Gingrich said Republicans wouldn't immediately kill Medicare. Instead, they would let it wither on the vine, and it was also during this time that Howard Dean, as chairman of the National Governors Association, was supporting Republican efforts to scale back Medicare."

Whattsa matter, you getting slow?

You can say what you believe his intentions were all you wish but what exactly were the policies he put into place? It is my understanding that he increased healthcare benefits for a large portion of the people in Vermount. Also remember that Medi-care is a federal program that he had no control over what-so-ever. Let's talk medi-caid.

for the commercial?

however, if they should should mention a word even sounding like "Dean", are, of course low down, uncalled for, snake in the grass ATTACKS, and totally unfair!!!!

Front-runners are supposed to stay above the crowd. Dean is sinking back in with the neg ads. He should be focusing on the positives of his own campaign, not the negatives of others.


My 2 cents.

i like Dean BTW, as I like Clark and Edwards.

once in a while. Gephardt has been backbiting Dean, so Dean has to nip back.

I think this Rose Garden scene with Bush should show Gephardt in the light that he deserves. Who would have thought that invading Iraq was a bad idea? It takes someone with ethics and foresight, like most of us at DU to see what was coming.

At least, that's what the polls say. In a highly competitive race like that, it's important to draw legitimate contrasts between your vision (and record) and that of your opponent.

This debate is a healthy one and fairly waged, in my opinion.

Why can't he just state his own position? It's a negative ad, and it's being described as such in all the news articles I have read.

If it looks like a negative ad, talks, walks - is.

Dean lies and implies that because it's true, it's not negative. It's true that Bush* is an idiot, so obviously, "idiot" is not a negative.

:boring:

Bush is who we're after. Do we want to beat Bush or beat Dean?

That's what I've heard every time another candidate says a word against Dean. Now this is okay against Gephardt?

:crazy:

It highlights a major policy difference between Gephart and Dean, who are neck-and-neck in the IA race; the anti-war vote in IA is sizeable, so Dean has a valid reson for drawing attention to this issue.

that is, if you are in the group of Serial Dean Bashers.

and yes, "It's completely legitimate" is a true statement.