Anatomy of a Kaus smear (of Dean)

Kaus wrote this about Howard Dean.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091291

"He had been asked where he would find fault with President Bush, and he replied, "As far as domestic policy is concerned, I can't think of anything he's done that I agree with." He ticked off a list of Bush "outrages," ranging from an education bill he called the "largest unfunded mandate in history" to Bush's "appointment of ideologues to the courts." Heads were nodding in agreement. And then he added, almost as a throwaway line, "I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism."

The "he" in question was Gov. Howard Dean, who is now on the verge of winning the Democratic nomination by virtue of his angry opposition to the war in Iraq. But Dean wasn't showing much of that anger at the end of June, 2002. In fact, Broder's piece chides Dean for failing to pay sufficient heed to the anti-war sentiments then cropping up on the Democratic left. (At the time, Dean's big anti-Bush issues were health insurance and tax cuts)."

Mr Kaus didn't provide a link to Mr. Broder's column. I wondered why. So I went hunting. Here is what I found.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64313-2002Jun28¬Found=true

"He had been asked where he would find fault with President Bush, and he replied, "As far as domestic policy is concerned, I can't think of anything he's done that I agree with." He ticked off a list of Bush "outrages," ranging from an education bill he called the "largest unfunded mandate in history" to Bush's "appointment of ideologues to the courts." Heads were nodding in agreement.

And then he added, almost as a throwaway line, "I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism."

"Are you sure?" responded Vi Neil, a veteran Democratic worker and the wife of Dave Neil, the head of the United Auto Workers in Iowa. "A lot of us think we are wasting a lot of money on trying to find the guy with the beard . We have to find a new way to fight terrorism."

Taken aback, Dean said, "I don't agree with that," adding that he believed that the United States had to strike back against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks and arguing that it is not the war, but the Bush tax cut, that has pushed the budget back into deficit."

Note that no where in this exchange, and when you read the column you will find, no where in the column, is Iraq mentioned at all. Not a single solitary syllable. Not only that, Broder says nothing suggesting that Dean or anyone else should become anti war. He does say that he felt the primary electorate might be anti war. He sights some evidence to support that supposition. But he doesn't state, nor does him imply that Dean or anyone else should become anti war. Mr. Kaus lied to your face while decrying "the cynical liar" Howard Dean. Make no mistake about the depths to which Mr. Kaus sank here. He not only took a quote out of context, refused to provide a link so we could find that context, he also made up a context for it entirely out of whole cloth. He pretended (lied) that the quote was about Saddam when it was about Osama. Then he used his lie to say Dean lied. He played us. He counted on us being too lazy to look for Broder's column. Shame on him for playing us. Shame on some of us for being played.

Why is it that Clark gets so much more shit for it? Anyone? Bueller?

He raised funds for an adulterous sleeze of a Senator who voted to Impeach Clinton. He could have been talking about the weather for all I care.

outside of that Republican fundraising speech context as well. I don't care if either of them "praised" Bush, really - the point is that they are now running against Bush, and are both providing alternatives to Bush policies. And the "praise" in either case can be interpreted as basic courtesy, benefit-of-the-doubt, etc. In any case, nothing to piss one's pants over.

Back to your original post: It seems to me Dean's appeal to anti-war Democrats is basically a very successful campaign strategy. He was uniquely positioned to make this a core part of his platform, and it's working. I never thought of him as a hypocrite for doing this; I just think he's a jerk for bashing other Democratic candidates about it.

And what is Dean going to DO about the Iraq war once in office? His position paper on deanforamerica.com is pretty lame compared to Clark's and Kerry's. This is why Dean has yet to approach #1 status for me.

on NATIONAL TV to back up Bush instead?

Dean, July 2002:

Russert plays clips of Gore and Kerry criticizing Bush on military strategy:

 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.

For the record I wish he would have criticised Bora Bora.

Kerry's problem is that he gets stuck in the nitty gritty details, which bores the average voter. Combined that with a lackluster performance on the campaign trail, and you have the making of a loser.

Kerry would be better as Secetary of Defense than President.

:shrug:

:P

but it doesn't hurt to look into it like you did.

Now, who was "played" by this? I wasn't, and I'm not totally sure how much I believe Dean's anti-Iraq-war stance.

information out there about how Dean really felt about the war (in favor of) to believe the campaign hype designed to appeal to the anti-war crowd whom Democratic politicians knew were going to carry the day.

People here get too defensive in an extremely irritating and juvenile manner when instances of their candidate's political opportunism are exposed.

It's not even worth discussing candidates at DU anymore because it's become nothing more than one huge rah rah board.

Whichever of the leading Dems gets in (if any), 3 years from now many Dems will be wringing their hands saying "We didn't know, we had no idea" - but we did, and we do but infantile partisan supporters are shouting down all discussion in the hopes that their team will get to the finish line first.

If the foot-ball game keeps going like this, count me out- I'll be on the green grass watching from afar. It's too annoying to watch this election get treated like a game where you dare not scrutinize the quarter-back.

of my post. I guess that was too much to ask.

While doing work for Dean last night, my wife and I were also discussing frustrations with the negative political advertising in Iowa against Gephardt.

As well as speaking with the Dean supporter I was meeting about concerns on the "how I will do it" portion of Dean's message, not merely "what I want to do." We don't see a lot of that from any of the candidates - in particular, how the candidate will face the at least 50/50 likelihood of dealing with a hostile Congress.

I continue to be amazed by the Dean campaign - much thanks to Joe Trippi. In reading history of political campaigns, and my own memory back to the 70's, there has been no campaign like this, and it is exhilarating.

I also am in full recognition that I agree with Hillary Clinton - this is the strongest batch of candidates since 1960. When Joe Lieberman is the worst (in my estimation), you've got a pretty good set.

The bickering gets very very old...and requires stepping back into the real world for fresh air, in my opinion.

addresses the congress issue when he says he doesn't advocate the single payer plan for health care .. he says is wouldn't pass congress. He has more experience influencing legislation than any other candidate.

influenced the law, and the way corporations act significantly.

However, I don't want to spoil the book for anyone...

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

Iow, :kick: lol

I guess they just can't handle the truth.

...you about how it makes sense to go back to at 2001 (or, you argue, 1993) tax code.

If rich people in 93 or 2001 were told that they'd be 50-200 percent wealthier in 2005, but would be paying according to rates and brackets set out then, they'd say "fucking sweet!" If you told them that a Republican was going to give them a tax holiday from 2001-2005, and that it was a DEMOCRAT who was going to give them those rates, they's say "super fucking sweet! We're in fucking control of this world."

following people from thread to thread is directly against the rules. I have told you why I won't discuss that issue any further. Hint, you owe me a link.

I think you made my post relevant by talking about people ignoring you. You make "ignoring" relevant.

You want a link to Lieberman's plan?

http://www.google.com/search?q=lieberman's+tax+plan&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

maybe both. I asked for both and got neither but am unsure I asked for both in that thread or only Lieberman's.

OK.

George Bush has been making the tax code less fair. That means making it less progressive, as you say--but there's also something bigger at work. By trying to eliminate the dividends tax and the estate tax (even for billion dollar estates), by cutting the capital gains rate and proposing massive new tax shelters for the wealthiest, George Bush is trying to shift the tax burden away from the wealth of the most fortunate and onto the work of working Americans. This means that a millionaire who just watches his stocks for a living is paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. This is wrong, for two reasons. It's not true to our values. And it is lousy for our economy. We make the economy grow in America by making the middle class grow, and that is not what George Bush is doing. The middle class is struggling today--bankruptcies are up, foreclosures are up, families that saved money a generation ago are in debt today.

So I do think we need to reform the tax code. I would raise the capital gains rate on the top 1%, as you mention--but I'd also do more than that. I'd take back all of George Bush's tax cuts for families making more than $200,000 per year--income, dividend, capital gains. I'd reform the estate tax, but not repeal it. And, at the same time, I'd offer new tax cuts to working families--to help them buy a home or save for college or retirement. By helping the middle class save today, we can help the economy grow over the long term.

http://blog.johnedwards2004.com/article.pl?newsid=&sid=03/11/20/1624218&mode=nested&commentsort=1

Lieberman's plan is in the link above, which I included in my previous post.

Also, I gave you the link to Edwards's web site in that other thread.

So, you really didn't have any excuses not to answer the question, do you? (The question, I believe, is post 128 in the Dean/Social Program thread.) And even if I didn't give you these obvious links and type in "lieberman tax plan" in the google search engine for you, it still would justify your dodge which I've addressed in the other thread (post 127, I believe).

You are hardly the only one, nor even close to the worst offender, but I shouldn't have to google every claim made by every Dean opponent on this site. I will look and see if you really provided them.

You only asked me what the other candidates thougth. It wasn't that big of piece of my argument.

You're a tireless researcher when it's to defend Dean.

I asked you to name a candidate who supported your position. You then gave me a name but no link. Sorry, but if you say candidate x believes y, then it is up to you to prove that candidate x believes y.

...from the ideal. He's the MOST regressive and backwards and shifty on taxes.

I told you what I believe, and I told you who was best and worst on that issue. You know you don't have a counterargument, so we go in circles, with you being as duplicitous as you're always shouting that everyone else is.

:kick: