Campaigns of Fear

Cruising this forum, one sees many opinion delivered about what sort of campaign must be run to win in 2004. One sees many opinions about which candidate would be the best choice, and just as many opinions on what traits make a candidate the best choice. But one common thread in much of the discussion, regardless of which candidate the speaker supports, is fear.

Fear of Rove. Fear of Bush's 200 million. Fear of Diebold. Fear of the GOP hate machine.

You see it all the time here. One person makes a post extolling candidate X. Someone else comes in and says something like this:

"Rove will tear candidate X apart because of his stance on (insert most feared wedge issue here)."

Or this one:

"But candidate X has not yet faced Bush's 200 million in attack ads. Candidate X cannot survive that. He won't get a single electoral vote."

And the ever popular, last ditch effort:

"It won't matter if we choose candidate X anyway, because Diebold is not going to let our votes count."

You see these things said about most of the candidates. Same things thrown around, only the names change. This is to be expected. But you see it more often from the supporters of certain candidates. The candidates that are running campaigns based on fear. And those are most of the candidates.

Take a look at posts by Kerry supporters. What you see, consistently, in their attacks on other candidate, most particularly Howard Dean, is an appeal to fear. They fear Karl Rove. They fear Bush's 200 million. And they want you to fear it to.

Then there's Gephardt. Fear of taking a stand on principle (IWR), fear of standing out too much. Fear of being a target. Let's just stay quiet in the background and maybe once it all shakes down our man will be the only man left standing...

Clark? War hero? Courage? Honor? BS. Clark's campaign is based on making us afraid of not running a military man.

Lieberman....fear of being a democrat.

Edwards. Fear of being negative. Fear of saying what needs to be said. fear of drawing attention to himself and getting attacked in turn.

Mosely-Braun and Sharpton? Not really fear there that I can see. But not much else either. They say some of the right things, but very few are foolish enough to consider either of them as serious candidates. Sorry, but it is true.

Who's left? Dean and Kucinich.

My view of the Kucinich candidacy is well-documented. I think he is a good man, but I do not think he has even the slightest chance at winning he nomination, to say nothing of the White House. But Kucinich is NOT afraid. Neither are his supporters. They and he will say what needs to be said. They do not fear Bush or Rove or anything else. In fact, their campaign has something very deep and abiding with the Dean campaign, the thing that is going to win back the White house in 2004.

Hope.

These two campaigns, alone together out of all the 9, represent hope. For those of us who support them, Rove is not, as he is with all the others, an enemy to be feared and hidden from, but an enemy to be measured and then defeated. Ground into the out of history. Bush's 200 million? So what! We will raise our own and match him. We do not fear. We hope. Our candidates did not offer fear. They offered us hope.

That is why we support them. That is why we will win. Even in not winning the nomination Kucinich will have gotten his message out, and that in itself will be victory. And then he will be working with President Dean to get us national health care, and all the other issues that both men hold dear.

Those that follow the campaigns of fear do not understand this. They have given up hope.

But we hold onto it.

of his impressive LIFETIME record and his words to a greater degree than any other candidate.

The fear is that Dean who is now held to little scrutiny on his record which doesn't match his rhetoric, and his obvious inconsistencies in some of his position statements, will be on full display once Rove has him as a primary opponent and it effects the rest of the Dem tickets in competitive races across the country.

We're not just up against Bush's certain 3oo millions, we're up against that 87 BILLION dollars that Bush will use to buy some semblance of success in Iraq and the way the media will boost him further on that leadership pedestal.

Not a post about hope for the future with Kerry as candidate.

It's a post about fear for what will happen with Dean as the nominee.

:)

They told you HE was of the Democratic wing of the party when he was a centrist more compromising with the GOP than ANY of those he criticized.

They wanted you to FEAR the status quo, same as the GOP. Yet the fears THEY were selling were based on lies.

:)

And we did, which is why Kerry and all the other Bush enablers are sinking like a lead-filled submarine.

And so do the other candidates. The only one who really shares the center with Dean is Joe Lieberman.

If you were honest about how Dean actually governed you'd admit it, but instead you choose to ignore his last 11 years as governor for his last 11 months of campaign rhetoric.

Only the perception matters. Kerry is a Bush enabler and corrupt Washington insider. In case you had not noticed, that is the current great sin in politics. Being an insider, "typical politician." By 2008, it may be something else, but right now that is THE worst thing a candidate can be seen as. Kerry is seen as such, and therefore his campaign is dead. Finito. Belly up. Pushing up daises. Out to pasture. Passed on. The Kerry campaign's inability to recognize this trend and adapt to it only shows that he would be equally rigid and uncreative as President, which is why he will never BE President.

get it?

...oh, wait, of course not, you are too afraid.

And who is pushing that perception?

You should be ashamed of what you wrote, since NO OTHER lawmaker has faced down MORE government corruption than John Kerry. And THAT is in the Congressional Record and in the History Books.

To try to sell him as a corrupt insider, proves how DISHONEST the salesman is. In fact, the guy selling that crap must FEAR the truth about Kerry's real record and level of honesty to attack with such amazingly grotesque lies.

Proof means nothing. It does not matter one whit if he really IS a Bush enabler and corrupt insider. He is PERCEIVED as one. And that makes it true as far as the campaign goes. If he had tried earlier, and used different tactics than simply copying Dean, he might have been able to shake off that perception, but it is too late now. You can hold up all the proof in the world that he is a living saint, and it won't make one bit of difference.

In a political campaign, truth, if it exists at all, is perception. Period. Facts do not matter. Issues are irrelevant, and a candidates record is barely a blip on the radar, if even that. History? It doesn't even exist! Congressional record? Get real.

You have a great commitment to the truth. That is very commendable, but in politics it is also incredibly naive. Hell, it is BLIND. YOU should be shamed for serving your candidate so poorly. You should be ashamed of not recognizing reality. And the Kerry campaign should be ashamed for squandering every advantage it had.

WRONG.



"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." -- Abraham Lincoln

Truth doesn't even exist.

.

Wake up to that or your guy will keep dropping like a paralyzed falcon.

how often do paralyzed falcons drop? How do they get up in the air in the first place, does someone toss them up there?

as a CORRUPT Washington Insider? The ONE man who has exposed more government corruption than ANY of the other candidates PUT TOGETHER?

That's sick.

No excuses are required. It was the right thing to say and the right time to say it. It was brilliant. It WORKED, and that is all that matters.

how perception is everything, facts are irrelevant, etc?


Why is it suddenly ok to have absolutely no ethical considerations whatsoever again? I missed that part of the explanation. Does the possibility of wielding absolute power justify anything? Usually people wait till after they have power to be corrupted by it.

To get anything accomplished at all, you have to win the election. I do not care what the candidate does to win the election, so long as he wins. Once he is in office, I will hold him to a standard of high ethics, but for now the gloves are off. I want him to play dirty.

.

Is either in need of a lobotomy or at the very least some shock therapy. Politicians all lie. They have to, because the majority of this country will not tolerate them telling the truth.

bald-faced lies?

No thank you.

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

When does a Democrat get a pass on ANY lie? Dean's teflon has an expiration date. And that is when it is clear that he is Bush's opponent. Then all Dean's lies you all applaud as a tactic will be used to smear the entire Dem party.

Therefore also no lies.

Period.

Kerry's record is based on TRUTH. Dean NEEDS to lie and Deanies need to lie FOR him because his campaign rhetoric doesn't match his actual record of governance.

And playing it safe. just like all the other Washington insiders.

In a political campaign, truth, if it exists at all, is perception. Period. Facts do not matter. Issues are irrelevant, and a candidates record is barely a blip on the radar, if even that. History? It doesn't even exist! Congressional record? Get real.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=84177&mesg_id=84488&page=

So, now, after arguing that lying is OK, truth doesn't matter, winning is everything -- after all that, we are supposed to believe your unsupported, blanket assertions?

The belief or not of one supporter of the presumptive loser in the campaign is meaningless.

Even the belief or not of one supporter of the presumptive winner in the campaign is meaningless.

Why should anybody believe anything you say if you are arguing in favor of deception?

You may be right. Maybe it's all about perception and image instead of reality and substance. I hope not. Because I have a feel if we try to outlie the Republicans we will find ourselves ill-equiped to do so. But even if we win, once the campaign is over, issues do matter.

Electing someone who's natural allies are on the right side of the aisle, even if he has a D next to his name, would be a Pyrrhic victory at best.

Electing someone who has allies on the right - AND left - side of the aisle means some of his ideas actually get put into practice. If we attempt to govern by fiat, by steamrolling any opposition, then we are no better than Bush.

Dean would make the best president BECAUSE of his record of compromise, not in spite of it.

How many of those Democratic Congressional cockroaches are going to be eager to raise middle class taxes and cut Medicare to satisfy Dean's budget-balancing zeal?

Working with Republicans does not automatically working against Democrats. Dean will work with whoever is willing to work with him. Both sides will have to give. As it should be.

It does not show what you claim it does.

What it does show is that Democrats, upon learning that they had the governors office, thought they would have everything their way. Kind of like the Republicans are doing now. Dean did not let them run roughshod over the opposition. He compromised. And Vermont prospered.

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

THAT'S exactly why I'm supporting him.

Funny how some people use it to "prove" he's not a liberal....

That is exactly why I find myself using the phrase "you don't get it, do you?" so often with the Dean haters.

I wish more people were as informed as you are. I guess I'm just a starry-eyed idealist but I still believe the Democratic party is the party of liberal values and ideals, and I don't think Dean will be nominated if enough people are able to pierce the media fog and see him for the conservative career politician he is, as you do.

Kudos for your insight!

At least we understand each other.

Or are you just going to ignore Northwind's attack as all fair?

There is no such thing as truth in a campaign, therefore there are no lies.

Whatever is said about him is working, so yes I approve.

n/t

Kerry holds up positively under the scrutiny. If he didn't he would have folded when the GOP operatives tried to take him down full bore during IranContra.

If you think Dean and his inconsistent stands on various issues hold up, then explain WHY they will hold up.

what will happen with Dean as the nominee as much as I fear what will happen with Dean as President. Will he continue his campaign conversion to liberalism or will he revert to his conservative governing style? With the moral bankruptcy and mismanagement of Bush becoming more apparent every day, 2004 is our best chance to elect a real liberal who will truly fight for progressive ideas in a long time. I hope we don't blow it.

Vroooming onto the stage on Leno a/k/a 'jr. high run amok!!!!!'

Kerry supporters fear Kerry's next antics and it is so evident here.

Dean '04...

Kerry supporters... want you to fear {Bush & Rove} too.
We should fear Bush and Rove. I've hear good and bad, positive and defeatist talk from all the candidates' supporters. I won't characterize all Dean supporters like this, but you in particular seem to lack a healthy respect for--which you may call "fear of"--just what that $250 million (so far) of Bush's can do. It will be a huge advantage and we need to be ready to deal with it.
On the plus side, your candidate is certainly NOT pretending that Bush's quarter billion is no big deal.

Gephardt. Fear of taking a stand on principle (IWR).
Gephardt knew he wanted to run for president and that the War Resolution vote would cost him. I've seen him explain his vote, which I strongly disagreed with, and I found it logical, sincere, and consistant with how he's voted in the past. He's also not just "staying quiet in the background." He may not be getting all the coverage that Dean is getting, but that's more a function of the east coast media's biases and self-fulfilling fixation on the horse-race facet of the primary process.

Clark's campaign is based on making us afraid of not running a military man.
Are you watching the same Clark I'm watching? He's running as an outsider and his campaign is hardly based solely on his military career. What he's focusing on is Bush's bad decision making process and his own foreign policy experience. The military is his experience base, but hardly his political base. The Clarkies I meet are professionals and are mostly older (and more ethnically diverse) than the Deanies.
But fear is one emotion you won't see pandered to in the Clark campaign. His message is strongly optimistic and hopeful and grounded on a strong understanding of how the Constitution ought to work.

Lieberman....fear of being a democrat.
This is the most tired meme. People think they say anything negative about Lieberman and no one around here will think critically about what is said. He doesn't fear being a Democrat--he's taken a lot of boos from crowds over his positions and yet sticks to them. He simply isn't afraid to stand up for his positions, even when he's in the minority within the party.

The notion that Lieberman fears being a Democrat is rooted in the presumption that he must really be a liberal but only acts conservative in order to be elected. Why must you impugn the intellectual integrity of people you disagree with? I usually don't agree with Lieberman's politics, but that doesn't make him a poser or a hypocrit. It just makes him more conservative.

Edwards. Fear of being negative. Fear of saying what needs to be said. fear of drawing attention to himself and getting attacked in turn.
Please share a bowl of that stuff for me, dude. On second thought, don't. Whatever it is, it's making you paranoid and making you susceptible to psychological projection. Edwards does a pretty good job indicting Bush for his failed economic and public welfare policies. If Wall Street bounces back this year and enough people get burger-flippin' jobs to lower the unemployment rate, Edwards may be the strongest candidate for making the economic case against Bush.

Mosely-Braun and Sharpton? Not really fear there that I can see. But not much else either.
Cute. You lump the two black candidates together. If you don't hear substance in the speeches of Al Sharpton, then you're not really listening. I mostly knew of him from the Tawana Brawley mess, so my expectations were pretty low. Yet he's surprised me with much of his on-target and very precise indictments of the status quo and hypocricy of the Bush Administration.

Dean and Kucinich... alone together out of all the 9, represent hope.
What a bunch of sillniess. Emotion and rah-rah rhetoric are pisspoor substitutes for a substantive policy debate. Dean and Kucinich deserve kudos for running tough, honest races. Dean in particular deserves credit for running a smart campaign and expanding the party's base, even when, as with the Rebel flag stuff, his reach excedes his grasp.

But Northwind, you only deserve to take a logic class.

Yeah..don't count on the Fear Factor. The average citizen will see thru this ploy from THE TALKING HOUSE PLANT.

The average citizen will see thru this ploy from THE TALKING HOUSE PLANT.

Didn't we say that in 2000? No, sorry. The average swing voter is concerned about Bush, but will be reassured by his listing to the center during the fall '04 campaign, while watching the aggressive character attacks on the Democratic nominee and getting fretful about the cultural issue attacks from the far right elements "unaffiliated" with the White House (*wink, nudge*).

What people will be looking for in the era of OMG! Terror! Look Under Your Beds America!! is a comforting, securing figure. Dean ain't that. He's untried, he's unpredictible, he's feisty, by criminy! But he's not a comforting figure.

Will Rove & Bush be effective in using surrogates to keep America scared enough to vote, however reluctantly, to reelect? Don't bet your ass against it. You're already wagering your Constitution and Bill of Rights on this election.

A Kerry Presidency is what we're all looking for. He has the 30 year record on the environment, minorities, women, safety, jobs, families, education and everything else Democrats care about. It's right there, we know exactly what he would do and there's no doubt he'd do it because he's been doing it for 30 years. He has the foreign policy and military experience, not just to beat Bush, but to make the kinds of changes in our international relationships that we all want to see made. Kerry would be the kind of Democratic President we've been wanting since Kennedy.

So I get angry when people throw out lame excuses to bash him, particularly the IWR vote, but the Patriot Act and Homeland Security as well. Those two little items really ought to be the Democratic answer to 'Clinton did nothing on terrorism'. Because various things in those two acts were part of Clinton's anti-terrorism measures that the Republicans fought. But we have such kneejerk anti-Bush partisanship, that we just ignore all of that. And I know Kerry was a big part of Clinton's plans to fight terrorism because I know his work on money laundering, drug trafficking, WMD trafficking and terrorism. And because I know that, I know why he voted for the IWR and that it was not a vote for war.

Then, when you turn to Dean, you just look at his record and statements and know he isn't going to stand for traditional Democratic values. He didn't have to vote so he doesn't get tagged with any of this stuff, even though there's no doubt in my mind he would have voted for all of it as well. Yes it makes me mad to think we're looking at risking the election on a guy who doesn't represent Democratic values anyway. And it's because of my hope for what the next Presidency could bring to this country and the world, not my fear of fatass Rove.

I'm looking for a Howard Dean presidency.

I didn't mean the actual President, necessarily, but how the country would look as a result. Maybe the country really has moved way right and that's why some Democrats are supporting Dean. It makes me very sad.

to "Clinton did nothing on terrorism"?

To me, the Patriot Act and Homeland Security were the Democratic response to their fear of GOP bullying, and have helped bring us closer to a police state than I think we've ever been in American history. I hold Dean accountable for succumbing to this post-9/11 fear as well, with his comments that were sympathetic to these acts.

And as for Dean's record, I see someone who is committed to Democratic values, chief among them having an open mind. The other candidate have this commitment as well. You can disagree with Dean all you want, but I am tired of all these allegations that he isn't a true Democrat. Bobby Kennedy worked for McCarthy, for God's sake. I suppose he would have been worse than Nixon had he lived and won the election in '68.

Read Hart-Rudman, right off the bat it recommends a Dept. of Homeland Security. Scroll down to the Road Map and click there.

"Thus, in Phase III, it recommends a new National Homeland Security Agency to consolidate and refine the missions of the nearly two dozen disparate departments and agencies that have a role in U.S. homeland security today."

http://www.nssg.gov/Reports/reports.htm

And here's another page with alot of links to various articles on Homeland Security going back to the mid-nineties.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/greenspan1.html

It's how Ashcroft has abused these ideas, which weren't intended. Which is why we now know we have to go back and rework it to protect against these abuses. But the people who voted for this shouldn't be beat up over it, they've been trying to get something done along these lines for years. If they had, maybe Sept 11 wouldn't have happened.

had they raised these issues and put things in context before so eagerly jumping onto the Bush bandwagon to vote for these things. I seem to recall that hardly anyone even read the damn things, let alone stood up and tried to debate them (except for Byrd).

Consequently, I do believe the people who voted for these reprehensible acts should certainly be held accountable.

Don't you get that? They had been trying to get this stuff passed to protect this country? People criticize Graham and Edwards because they wrote the Patriot Act. That kind of makes my point. A whole lot of this was Democratic proposals. The way Ashcroft and Bush have implemented it is the problem. Our candidates keep saying this, but nobody wants to hear it because it's kneejerk hate Bush, hate Republicans. And Dean doesn't even call for repealing either Homeland Security or the Patriot Act for the exact same reason.

Now what the Republicans may have added, or exactly what was in here originally, that caused Kucinich to freak out, I really don't know. But alot of this was Democrats trying to improve our security and the Republicans blocked those efforts completely. It should be our ace-in-the-hole next year, and instead it's being turned against our own party. We had the policies they blocked and then when they finally enacted those policies, they abused the intent and trampled on our civil rights.

I was counting on these people to protect what I value about this country and to have the courage to offer some kind of dissent to Bush's cynical exploitation of 9/11. Instead, I got a rousing rendition of "God Bless America" on the Capitol steps while I watched most of them cave without so much as a whimper of protest.

It passed with almost no debate by the House of Representatives. In the Senate, one Democrat, Russ Feingold (not Byrd...I was thinking of the IWR), had the courage to reject what he called a "truly breathtaking expansion of police power." Almost a year after the vote he said, "I would cast the same vote today, but even more confidently, as we see how law enforcement is beginning to use the new powers in the bill and how the Department of Justice has proceeded on a variety of fronts not directly addressed in the bill."

And I said I hold Dean accountable for his early views on this fascist rubbish, and I do the same now if he wants to preserve it.

I understand about the Hart-Rudman stuff, but you have to know that the Act contained a lot more dangerous stuff in it that very few in Congress even read, let alone debated.

For an overview of the dangers posed by the Patriot Act, check this out:

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1109-02.htm

I've been able to come up with.

those were scary times...the trauma of 9/11, of course, plus the anthrax mailings. I have to remember that these Congressmen and women are human too, and they are as prone to fear and hysteria as all of us.

Still, I can't forget how their vote for the Patriot Act made the times a helluva lot more frightening for many of us.

Only Kucinich.

I'm not saying that the thing doesn't have some serious problems. But listen to what Feingold says, he says it's even more obvious now because we see how badly it's being abused. This Administration abuses their powers. They would do that whether there was a Patriot Act or not, they'd find a way.

There's a thread along these lines in GD I think, talking about how alot of this stuff was in the works during the Clinton Administration. An article by Gore Vidal. People really do need to step back from ALL the hysteria, both the reaction to our civil liberties being abused AND the reaction to the terror attacks and try to come to a reasonable course of action. Try to see who is really saying what, what each person would REALLY do, and make a choice.

Most people who are vehemently opposed to Iraq, the Patriot Act and Homeland Security ought to be in the Kucinich corner because he's the only candidate who has consistently fought all three.

and the war in Iraq without actually being against them and definitely not to the degree of Kucinich.

Is all that matters. People will vote based on their perception, not based on your version of "the truth."

about the pessimism present in so many campaigns. Most people think that all we need to do is win the White House, and everything will change.

NOT SO. We also need a candidate who can get our base energized to vote, and to vote for Democratic congressional candidates, too, so our president will be able to get his/her agenda passed.

However, I don't necessarily agree with your assesment of Dean & Kucinich. IMO, Dean has played on the fear the public has of RoveCo, and has turned that fear into anger and then into hatred. I don't see a lot of hope in the Dean campaign, nor any optimism for real change. What I see is a lot of talk about "electability", and how it's more important to get Dean in the White House than to change the direction this country is headed in.

I also don't see a lot of hope in Dean's platform, either: "universal" healthcare that leaves 10+ million people uninsured, keeping the country "strong" by throwing more money into defense, not ruling out pre-emptive attacks, more money for small businesses yet no protections for them from predatory big business. It all seems about "settling" for whatever we can pry loose, because that's all we can hope for, because we'll truly never get what we REALLY want. Not to say that there's no room for compromise-- but why start negotiating from an already-compromised position? Why not start with what you REALLY want, as opposed to what you "think" they'll let you have.

Kucinich's campaign, OTOH, is all about HOPE. It's about REAL CHANGE that people thirst for-- not just some minor changes around the edge. People are fed up with politicians doing whatever they think will "get passed", as opposed to standing up for the RIGHT THING, no matter how "unpopular" it seems to the media and the right-wingers.

Voters need hope. They also need candidates who are DIFFERENT from what we have, offering REAL SOLUTIONS to our problems-- not just "adjustments" and window-dressing to our currently broken programs. Nearly 1/2 of eligible voters didn't bother voting in 2000 because they didn't see much difference between the two major-party candidates. How can you blame them, when they seemed to agree on "free trade", "welfare reform", the death penalty, taxes, and many other issues?

If the Democrats want to WIN, we need to put forth a candidate that represents DEMOCRATIC values and beliefs-- the ones that led us to REAL VICTORY with Roosevelt, not the plurality of Clinton.

We CAN win this race, if we represent ourselves as the party of REAL CHANGE-- the party willing to take a different road, as opposed to just driving on the other side of it.

Dean '04...Where are they!!!!!!!!!

"The Spartans (Deaniacs) are not wont to ask how many the enemy are, but where they are." -Agis II, 450 B.C.

Hope and optimism and clarity is what these campaigns are about. We Kucinich supporters and Dean supporters (I'll be fair) are the way out of this social and political mess. This isn't just about a presidential campaign, and who wins the nomination, it's about social change. The change is beginning with us. By doing what we're doing we are causing much needed public debate on the issues. We offer alternatives, within the Democratic party, to the establishment Democrats who have done nothing but lie down, until the spotlight is on them. Thank god for Kucinich and Dean, think about where the debate would be going without them, it would be a debate which Republicans would win.

They say Americans have short memories. Maybe that's true, but that's why we must constantly remind them what happened by keeping this movement alive, even beyond next year's election, regardless of the outcome.

As a public service, I would like to provide the following summary and translation of the responses of supporters of the fear based candidates:

"Nuh uh!!! Nah nah nah nah! Waaaaah! Not listening! Not listening!"

This has been a public service announcement. In the event of actual debate or any form of coherent thoughts by the supporters of the Fearful 7, you would have been stunned because it would be so totally out of character. Afterwards, you would have discovered it was all dream, because only in fantasy land could that group make an effective point. Thank you.

we say you are not listening either. And where you see fear, I see common sense.
Also, my candidate, John Kerry, has a decidely cool, unemotional demeanor, which I feel is a very attractive and appropriate quality for our President to have. I see no fear in him either.

How is it one wise man defined common sense?

"A collection of prejudices acquired before adolescence (roughly paraphrased)."

Hmm... pre-adolescent thinking. I would have to agree with you, that sums up the Kerry campaign perfectly.

Given all the fury that Kerry and Gore were giving Bush over his WORST failure in Afghanistan, Tora Bora, Dean never grasped the ENORMITY of that failure. That failure is the REASON why Al Qaeda regrouped and strengthened. It is the REASON Bin Laden is still out there.

Dean couldn't grasp what Kerry and Gore were saying at the time and supported Bush OVER them? Feh....it's stuff like that kept Bush's credibility up. Of course he wanted to run from the center at that point.

July 2002:
 MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the military operation in Afghanistan has been successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: Yes, I do, and I support the president in that military operation.
       
       MR. RUSSERT: The battle of Tora Bora was successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: I’ve seen others criticize the president. I think it’s very easy to second-guess the
       commander-in-chief at a time of war. I don’t choose to engage in doing that.

He was doing what is necessary in a campaign. You time your shots. Dean has timed his well. Kerry has timed his badly. Very badly. Dean has a run a better campaign, period.

Right now that is ALL that matters.

and an incompetent. If he was really great presidential material he wouldn't have to lie as much about the others, and as much as Saxby Chambliss had to distort the perception of Max Cleland.

Gutter. That's Dean.

Gutter wins. Bottom line. Nothing else is relevant.

THAT kind of lying?

"Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.): I've said many times that I think we should raise the retirement age about the year 2015--raise it by that time to about age 70.

"Howard Dean: I am very pleased to hear Bob Packwood because I absolutely agree we need to reduce the--I mean, to increase the retirement age. There will be cuts and losses of some benefits, but I believe that Sen. Packwood is on exactly the right track."
--CNN's Crossfire, Feb. 28, 1995
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804/

Here we have Dean on the record as supporting raising the retirement age.

Russert: ...calling for that, and this is what Howard Dean said. "The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. 'It would be tough but we could do it,' he said."
Dean: Well, we fortunately don't have to do that now.
Russert: We have a $500 billion deficit.
Dean: But you don't have to cut Social Security to do that.
Russert: But why did you have to do it back then?
Dean: Well, because that was the middle of--I mean, I don't recall saying that, but I'm sure I did
--Meet the Press, June 22, 2003
http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/001560.php

Here we have Dean being reminded, and acknowledging, on national TV on June 22 that he did hold this position.

"I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68."
--AFL-CIO Democratic presidential candidate forum, Aug. 5, 2003
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804/

Here we have Dean denying on national TV on August 5 that he ever held that position.

Where'd you read that Dean like about the poll, by the way? Could you provide a link?

and a "misstatement" when Kerry talks about current polls.

My point is that they BOTH have misspoken. I don't think Kerry intentionally lied about the poll numbers, I think he made a mistake.

Dean's admitted that he made a mistake when he said that he'd never supported raising the retirement age to 70. The difference is that some posters insist that this was an intentional lie (as if any high-school journalist couldn't have found evidence to the contrary). If anything, Dean can at least make a case that it was an 8-year-old quote and his position has changed since then. Kerry has no such defense.

I'm a Dean supporter and I have no problem saying that Kerry simply misspoke. I have no problem saying that I believe Kucinich is now pro-choice, even though he was anti-abortion until very recently. Why do you have such a problem giving Dean the same consideration?

Where's the link?

"Where'd you read that Dean like about the poll, by the way? Could you provide a link?"

I didn't understand what this meant. If you want me to post a reply, please clarify.

what are you talking about? Did it happen? Please provide a link?

.

I can dig up more, if you have some problem with Drudge:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

Hell, I HEARD him say it. Comments?


(on edit)

the transcript of the forum:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64721-2003Nov4?language=printer

No wonder I missed it.

"right-wing" bias. When facts are facts, and neutral sources post the SAME facts, why does it matter if Newsmax and GOPUSA post it too? The fact that they carried the story doesn't make it any less true.

throw around charges like someone lying. And maybe say why it's a lie? And I didn't know about this 'story' because apparently it's only being carried on Drudge and NewsMax and some GOP site. So why do you assume I know all about it? I don't. Why don't you explain what it is you are charging Kerry with? That way, we can judge it. When I say Dean lied or flipflopped on something I at least show you what I am talking about so you can dispute me if you want. You are just throwing around insinuations. And I think in another thread you were arguing that all promises are the same. Maybe you think all misstatements are the same, but not everyone agrees. So if you want to make a case against Kerry make it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=696937

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=78578

I thought Kerry's statement was general knowledge.

That aside, I'm NOT attacking Kerry for it because I believe he just made a mistake, not intentionally lied. I'm just asking why there are a few people hee (yourself at least occasionally included) who nearly always make the worst of anything Dean says or does (or the pictures that are taken of him). What's so difficult about disagreeing with policy issues but allowing that all candidates will say the wrong thing from time to time and just letting it friggin' GO?

(on edit)

I think Padraig18 said it well:

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-07-03 09:30 AM
Response to Original message

49. I actually like this post.

Edited on Fri Nov-07-03 09:35 AM by Padraig18
I don't like it because it caught Kerry in a white lie; I like it because it shows how anyone can play 'Gotcha!' with any candidate. We have so overused the word 'lie' that it is on the verge of becoming meaningless.

Dean making misstatements. It's too often, and too often the context does not lend itself to the interpretation that it was 'just a mistake'. Frankly, however, I do prefer the policy discussions but it is alot harder to get responses on those threads lol. Usually you gotta put something controversial in there or it sinks like a stone. But this thread is all about politics anyway, the thread starter says issues don't even matter, truth doesn't exist, facts don't matter, perception is everything. I vehemently disagree, however my perception of Dr. Dean is that he is not honest, or, let me put it this way, definately no more honest than Bill Clinton IMHO. And although I don't think perception is everything, that perception means a lot to me.

What 13 days are you referring to?

I skipped a month (sheepish grin) ok, 44 days not 8 years:

Russert: ...calling for that, and this is what Howard Dean said. "The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. 'It would be tough but we could do it,' he said."
Dean: Well, we fortunately don't have to do that now.
Russert: We have a $500 billion deficit.
Dean: But you don't have to cut Social Security to do that.
Russert: But why did you have to do it back then?
Dean: Well, because that was the middle of--I mean, I don't recall saying that, but I'm sure I did
--Meet the Press, June 22, 2003
http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/001560.php

Here we have Dean being reminded, and acknowledging, on national TV on June 22 that he did hold this position. 44 days later he says:

"I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68."
--AFL-CIO Democratic presidential candidate forum, Aug. 5, 2003
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804/

Here we have Dean denying on national TV on August 5 that he ever held that position.


I hate posting this stuff over and over but if people are gonna pretend it doesn't exist I don't know what else to do.

of "mistake", not "lie".

Just as I consider Kerry's phantom poll numbers to be a "mistake".

That's my entire point.

But of course, reality is always subject to interpretation.

Issues are not important. Only perception is important.

As long as Kerry people fail to acknowledge this, they are doomed to lose.

You seem to have picked the right candidate to make the attempt though.

In a political campaign, there is no such thing as truth. What is a "lie" is therefore irrelevant at best and non sequitar at worst.

If Kerry is this obtuse it is no wonder his campaign is dead.

I'm just amazed that you are saying what you are saying. Keep going...

resembling a lie. Only Bush and Republicans get a pass on the lying. As soon as Dean appears to be the nominee, the teflon is OFF and all his lies and shifting positions will become FRONT and CENTER on all the news channels.

DEAN DOES NOT HOLD UP TO THAT KIND OF SCRUTINY.

You should be ashamed that you're applauding lying as a campaign tactic.

You are a riot. Nobody gave a damn about Clinton lying. People freaked because there was a sex scandal. The lying was just an excuse to impeach, which ultimately did not good, I might add. No one really cared about it.

You are the one who should be ashamed for being so willfully blind.

for the Democratic party.

Where have you been for the last ten years?

Are you really this clueless, or is it an act? Seriously.

You actually believe that the Dems can win a campaign by being totally honest, while Bush lies as easy as he breathes? You sit there and say that the media will give him a pass on any lie, but at the same time claim the Dems have to therefore be straight arrow? Do you say any of this stuff out loud so you can hear yourself?

Try an analogy:

The race is a boxing match. According to you, the media will not cry foul, will not object in any way, if Bush comes to the ring with broken glass and razorwire sewed to his gloves, and with a man on the side holding a gun ready to shoot the Dem candidate if he gets the upper hand. So you sit in the Dem candidates corner, insisting that he play totally by the rules, because you FEAR that the media will call attention to it if he cheats.

In case you cannot figure this out for yourself, in this scenario, the Dem candidate gets killed. By insisting on the Dem playing by rules the Rep will ignore, you guarantee the Dem will lose. Period.

It is right to do whatever is necessary to beat Bush.

And you're right, it is the reason I support Dean, because he is the only one doing what is necessary.

So there's nothing that would be over the line? 'whatever is necessary'?

No lie too great?

No act too evil?

How far do you think Bush would go?

But I don't mind answering your question.
"How far do you think Bush would go?" Bush would happily kill thousands of innocent children in order to hold on to power.


So I'll ask again.

There's nothing that would be over the line? 'whatever is necessary'?

No lie too great?

No act too evil?

Whatever it takes. You can take it to a stupid extreme as you wish, and ask me if I would eat a live baby every morning to oust Bush. I'll say yes and you can sit there and feel superior while your candidate falls like a suicidal anvil.

I answered with a question so maybe you would understand the necessity, understand what is at stake. Obviously it is beyond your grasp.

ANYTHING goes.

Get it?

as long as it helps Dean to seize power.

Yeah, I get it.

Feel free to bask in moral superiority as your candidate loses his ass.

I'll send you a fruit basket from the Dean victory celebration.

Could you please explain the difference between right and wrong, again? I just want to make sure, you are saying, anything you do in order to win power, is right, as long as you win? What if you lose anyway? Would your evil acts still be justified?

In a political campaign, right is what works (what wins), wrong is what doesn't (what loses).

Out in the real world, right and wrong are subjective, so its different for everybody.

Some would agree with your sentiment, others would not. So?

It's not my sentiment. It's what I understand to be your sentiment. "As long as you win, you're right. " Isn't that what you're saying?

This doesn't help. Stick with the particularities of the issues. You're just being mean.

Kucinich man, Kucinich.

I'm being mean?

Politics already IS totally amoral.

that Dean is totally amoral. Or at least that's the impression I have.

Since I have said it quite clearly about 80 times in this thread, I am glad you have finally picked it up.

Geez...

So?

By definition, if you lose you were not doing something right.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

And incidentally, you helped prove the original point of the thread. You are afraid. Afraid, in this case, that you will lose. You are actually worrying that some action or other will not be justifiable if you lose

Funny..

I'm not afraid of losing at all. All I'm doing is drawing you out so your morally bankrupt ideas can be seen for what they are.

So if, after adopting this strategy of having no morals and being willing to tell any lie in order to obtain power, if after it's all done you haven't obtained power, all you've done is lie.

But guess what, even if you 'win', we've lost. Because you'll have become the very thing we are fighting.

This is reality, not some lost episode of He-Man and the Master's of the Universe.

You can beat your breast and cry your moral superiority from the rooftops all you want. no one will care. no one will even hear.

I did not say you were afraid of losing. You are afraid of doing what it takes to win. You are afraid that your precious fantasy world of honor and integrity is a lie. Well, guess what, your fears are reality.

Enjoy watching your candidate lose.

being very, very nice to Dean. I think I even read somewhere that the press don't really seem to like him much on a personal level, but I won't testify to that :) .

So, if Dean gets the nomination, how will he handle civil unions in America being used against him to manipulate the religious, or his switch on public financing to discourage those of us who believe in a democracy not for sale from voting for him, or his signing on to an NRA contract to keep assault weapons in Vermont. These are the very issues which will be manipulated to defeat us (particularly the civil unions, honestly, I can just imagine Bush chiding "marriage is between a man and a woman" and Dean countering "everyone equal under the law!" Well much of the public doesn't care about law, they care about what they were raised to believe.

With a Dean vs. Bush debate, we're likely to have a lot of very formatted issue debates, lasting about 1 minute per issue, Bush being completely scripted.

With a Kucinich vs. Bush debate, we're likely to see Bush snarl and refuse to debate and seem like the mean, idiot that he is. I honestly believe that Kucinich is the only one who CAN beat Bush. Now I know I haven't necessarily laid down my case for that right now, but I'll try my best in another thread soon.

I have never considered the debates to be particularly important in a Presidential campaign. I know the common wisdom says they are a big deal, but in my experience the common wisdom in politics is about on the same level of validity as the tripe certain Kerry supporters are spewing in this thread. I consider the debates basically pointless fluff. Not enough people watch them for them to make even a small dent in the campaign.

...that makes the public want to vote for the candidate.

The only rule in going about creating this perception is this: Anything goes.

Amazing.

but in January and February, especially as things get worse here and in Iraq, voters will watch. And I think the debates are extremely important at this point, because the media has so saturated the airwaves with so much garbage, and their are so many candidates, that the debates are one of the only ways a voter can distinguish the candidates. That and what the media tells him. But we have to change that, or we will get a candidate without the talent to beat this asshole. We need talent, not a committe to choose which issues will grab the most constituents based on stereotypes.

Kucinich man, Kucinich.

I just don't think the debates are important. They always have very low ratings. They are sort of a necessary farce in Presidential politics. If they didn't have them, people would scream, but when they do have them, everyone watches "Survivor" instead.

They just don't make an impact.

we have to change that NW, we just have to be visible! And right on the issues!

Dean is the media's representative of the movement to come (election or no election). Kucinich is the real leader of the social movement to come. This isn't going to be over in three months. And this isn't going to be over in one year. Because we can't let it be.

So have some optimism man. We can win, we just have to fight. I'm fighting right?

Keep fighting! I think the Dean and Kucinich people should be working together!


And you are totally right, we do have to change it, but that change is going to have to be slow. You are not going to change a cultural focus in one election cycle. We DO have to keep fighting after the election, but for that fight to be effective, we have to win the election first.

but we may not win. And that can't be the end of it.

I think we Kucinich supporters and the Dean supporters should work together too, either by supporting Kucinich or by demanding Dean make serious changes in his campaign (which may be tantamount to surrendering). NAFTA and the WTO must go, slave labor cannot be justified by consumer ignorance. Some don't believe the universal health care system can be achieved, a very real possibility in the short term, but the NAFTA and the WTO must go. It's the first step to a better world. Anyway, you may already know this so I won't preach.

Not only fires staffers, he insults them on the way out.

The campaign would be "better off" without them.

What a stupid argument.

Hmmm...maybe it's an alarming tendency to speak unwisely under pressure?

than he does about speaking unwisely under pressure.

He said "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks"

and that's true, he does want that. Do you really not understand why he later apologized for saying that?

Change the subject when your candidate is caught in an embarassing situation of not being what he is advertised to be.

which was not a part of the discussion until you did so, is candidate apologies. And the fact is both Dean and Kerry have apologized publicly lately.

And we can look at those apologies and the facts surrounding them and judge for ourselves what they mean.

Thanks. Sometimes I need to be reminded what initially drew me to Dean. Hope. The rest seemed like gravy.

and I don't quite see it that way. Its more or less what I see out in the streets or on TV. Its knowing the incumbant's strength and weaknesses and realizing what you need to do to counter it. I'll take a retired four star general, multilateralist, former NATO and Supreme Allied commander that knows and has worked with world leaders and is fluent in several languages, Rhodes scholar, registered investment banker, and professor of economics any day and feel comfortable its a good choice against Bush.

only if you fear failure.

and while he slowly attempts to destroy us bit by bit, instead of trying to remove him, we run scared.

Rove is most likely the asshole who leaked the name of Wilson's wife to Novak. I would prefer that we do what we can to send him to prison or atleast minimize his political power.

My view of the Kucinich candidacy is well-documented. I think he is a good man, but I do not think he has even the slightest chance at winning he nomination, to say nothing of the White House.

Case Closed.

How is it hypocritical to face the fact that Kucinich's positions are far to the left of the majority of America?

Facing political reality is not fear. It is practical. I think that the endless hand-wringing and outrage over what is "right" and "true" in a campaign makes it very clear that the other candidates supporters have little grasp of reality.

support for Kucinich.

You are saying (in not so many words) Kucinich is
unelectable, though you obliquely chide other folks
for doing the same to Dean.

That's hypocritical.

It's also hugely misleading to say Dean has run a
campaign of "hope" given the fact that he has used
fear and name-calling (remember "Bush-lite" and "Republican-lite")
as much as anyone.

There are pluses for Dean to be sure, but offering a campaign
"based on hope" devoid of "fear" is not one of them.

Debasing support for Kucinich?

Kucinich and his supporters are the only ones, along with Dean, I say are about hope. They are the only ones I consider equals in this race. You don't see any Kucinich supporters feeling debased and getting angry here, do you? I can give my opinion of Kucinich's chances without automatically debasing his supporters. Did I not, in this thread, say that he and the Dean folks should be working together?

Nice attempt at rilijng up the Kucinich people though. Next time try Kerry supporters, they're easy.

"Edwards. Fear of being negative. Fear of saying what needs to be said. fear of drawing attention to himself and getting attacked in turn."

Fear of being negative? Nonsense! He is offering a positive vision, which is what people other than those of us who spend five hours a day looking political sites on a computer screen want.

"Fear of saying what needs to be said?" What are you talking about?
He called Bush a phony on the Meet the Press. Stephanopoulus said on the trail he was harder on Bush than any of the candidates.

"Fear of drawing attention to himself and getting attacked?" This is the stupidest of all. He spent 20 years in fights in courtrooms. You think he isn't ready for the fight? Dean thought so, too, I guess, but he doesn't think so anymore.

The Rs have run ads against Edwards and only Edwards in Iowa, New Hampshire (both billboards) and SC (TV). Why do you think that is?