Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

the Gephardt campaign has hit a new low in attacking Dean

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
pruner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:20 AM
Original message
the Gephardt campaign has hit a new low in attacking Dean
CLAREMONT, N.H. The New Hampshire press secretary for Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., was the first to greet reporters at the Earl Bourdon Senior Center Monday morning.

Was she lost? After all, it was the Howard Dean presidential campaign that was holding a morning event with about 140 senior citizens at the center.

No, Kathy Roeder wanted reporters to see Saturdays story in the Manchester Union Leader, criticizing the former Vermont governors stand against the rate of growth of Medicare, based on a 1995 article in the Barre-Montpelier Times-Argus.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/72756.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AWD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. If he had...
....attacked Bush with 10% of the effort he's attacking Dean with, we might not have had to strip him of his leadership position.

Unbelieveable, Dick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GregW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Amen!
I'm sure that "Dick Gephardt" is somehow an anagram for "Milquetoast Quisling"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
54. <snarf>
good one! hahahahaha!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #3
64. Hick Dept. grad!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
2. Dems Who Go Negative on Other Dems Suck
Wouldn't you agree?

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Maybe they don't suck
But it sure is obnoxious when they do it.

Stay good, Clark, stay good!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AWD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Attacking other DEMS....
...there's a key word you used there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Very Key
All nine candidates running for the Democratic presidency are Democrats. Haven't you heard?

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AWD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. You mistook my comment
...I was continuing my anger at Gep for attacking Dean and not attacking Bush.

However, I do understand why you thought I was attacking Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Eh?
Not sure what in the world you're talking about. You emphasized attacking other DEMS, as in the object of the attack. Unless you're talking about Dean, it doesn't make sense to be referring to Gephardt, as that would be criticizing the maker of the attack. As in, key word being DEMS attacking other Dems.

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AWD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Read the very first repsonse to this thread...
....in which I expressed that Gep would still be leader if he had attacked Repubs and not Dems. The reference is that he should be attacking Repubs and not DEMS.

It makes sense in my own head, which has been known to be a wasteland in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Um, OK
Peace.

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #7
45. Oh, too funny! You are just sly there.
*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AWD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
5. Kerry's no better....
...from the same article.

The campaign of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., which had attracted fewer than 100 students at a similar rally at the college less than two weeks ago, was busy nonetheless.

Kerry campaign workers were busy handing out frozen waffles to the Dean crowd, a not-so-subtle reference to increasing criticism that Dean has switched his stand on several key issues from Medicare to Social Security to trade policies


Hey, you can't get people to show up at your event, John-John? Just attack the others!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
einsteins stein Donating Member (398 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #5
52. I think Dean Supporters should carry some Vermont Maple Syrup
So when these waffle tossers show up, we can all sit down together and have a meal. Nice and cozy. Show them how to deal with waffles, and division!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #5
60. Dean is no better
Dean is the one who pioneered intra-party attacks, calling the other candiates names to hide his own conservative positions on taxes, Medicare, welfare, the environment, social programs, crime, civil liberties, etc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robsul82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
6. Ahhh, Gephardt...
...I think he really does believe the "miserable failure" line has given him a shot at winning the nomination, seriously.

And sniff sniff, Clarkite.

Later.

RJS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. How Hypocritical!
To complain of Gephardt and Kerry going negative on Dean, while not criticizing the same behavior from Dean.

Unsurprising, really. The lack of consistency I've seen from many Dean supporters is quite waffle-worthy.

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. Dean criticism = 8 year old warmed over bullshit.
Clark doesn't have a political record to pore over, and what little public record he does have reeks of Republicanism, opportunism and indefensible invasions of privacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Dean Has Told Outright Lies About Clark
Clark, however, has treated Dean politely and with professionalism.

You've already been educated countless times about Clark's votes for Clinton, Clinton and Gore, and his sole donation of $1,000 to Democrat Erskine Bowles (and that's $1,000 more than Dean has donated) in 2002, and Clark's support of Democrats Max Cleland and Katrina Swett in 2002, so I have zero confidence in your ability to discuss this issue with anything approaching a fair or unbiased perspective.

It's fun seeing you squirm about the hypocrisy and inconsistency in your positions, however.

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TLM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. What lie did he tell about Clark?



"You've already been educated countless times about Clark's votes for Clinton, Clinton and Gore,"

As well as Reagan, Reagan, and Bush.


"and his sole donation of $1,000 to Democrat Erskine Bowles (and that's $1,000 more than Dean has donated) in 2002,"

And his speakign at a republican fundraiser in 2001... and that's one more republican fundraiser than Dean spoken at.


"and Clark's support of Democrats Max Cleland and Katrina Swett in 2002, so I have zero confidence in your ability to discuss this issue with anything approaching a fair or unbiased perspective."

Nobody is denying that Clark did support some dems in 2002, as he was moving into position to run for office. The doubt comes in to play with the decade or two before 2001 when he was a raisign money for republicans, voting for republicans, heaping praise on republicans.


Oh and lets not forget the fact Clark was a corproate lobbyist for Kissinger un until the day he declared.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. and...
He was "heaping praise" on Republicans during a fundraiser for Republicans that he was invited to. He then called the Democratic party (I believe it was the Arkansas chapter, but I could be mistaken), and did an event for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #21
39. So he was an equal opportunity mercenary? (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. Dean Lied When He Said Clark Was a Republican 25 Days Ago
And he lied about Clark's alleged support for the war.

These are falsehoods verifiable at the time of Dean's speaking them.

All the other BS in your post above has been rehashed countless times, so I'm not going to bother rehashing them again. Obviously, Clark's Democratic bona fides are not good enough for you, while they are good enough for me.

Those bona fides don't alter the fact that Dean told lies about Clark, however.

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TLM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #22
36. Clark did support the war and his statements prove it...
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 01:44 AM by TLM

Clark has already admitted he has said both that he would suported the war resolution and that he would not have.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030922-105420-9821r...

Since entering the race, Mr. Clark has made a series of gaffes.
He waffled last week over whether he would have voted for the resolution to launch war against Iraq. Eventually, he settled on saying, "I don't know whether I would have or not. I've said it both ways."



A rare moment of honesty from the General, admitting his flip flop on the issue. How can you accuse Dean of lying about Clark's position when even Clark admit he has given contradictory answers?


http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

(CNN (1/21/03)"I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations."

(CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."



"All the other BS in your post above has been rehashed countless times, so I'm not going to bother rehashing them again. "


Typical... amazing how Clark corps have all the time in teh world to attack Dean and dog pile on anybody who questions Clark, but when you ask them about Clark being a lobbyist for Kissinger... suddy they don't have the time to waste on a response to refute that.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. The War Thing Has Been Rehashed To Death
And all of my saved quotes are on my work computer, so I'll defer for now. Suffice it to say, your posts from the Washington Times RW rag and the pacifist-oriented, anti-Kosovo action "FAIR" organization who proved how inappropriate their name is, considering the misleading nature of the very title of their hack job piece against Clark, are not exactly confidence inspiring, save to the fringe leftists both of those publications seek to target with respect to their Clark pieces.

You still have ZERO response to the FACT that Dean lied about Clark's party affiliation, however.

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TLM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #40
47. Did Clark or did he not say that he gave contradictory answers


to the war resolution question?

You can attack the sources all you want, that's what you clark boosters do... but it won't change the facts about what Clark has said and done, nor the fact that was he said BEFORE he was runnign for office is a total 180 from what he says now.



"You still have ZERO response to the FACT that Dean lied about Clark's party affiliation, however."


Dean said he was a republican... what would you call someone who went to a republican fundraiser in 2001 and said:

"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."


"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."



"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."


If someone went to a KKK rally and heaped praise on the grand dragon for his great vision and leadership... would you believe him if 2 years later, he was trying to become the leader of a civil rights organization, and claimed he was not a racist?

Clark has not registered as a democrat... and his campaign lied about him registering as a democrat. But Clark boosters say that silly stuff is just paperwork.

If Clark was such a strong democrat for so long, why then did he refuse to say so until only a few days before he announced he was running for the dem nomination?


Clarks action speak a lot louder than his current script.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #47
49. That's NOT What Dean Said
Dean said, multiple times, that "25 days ago, Clark was a Republican." That is false, that was false 25 days ago, and Dean knew it was false.

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #16
53. Did Dean lie?
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 03:13 AM by stickdog
I've yet to any evidence of Clark's supposed long standing rejection of the Republican Party.

Is this July, 2003 transcript true or false?

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2003/7/2/1020...

Wednesday, July 2, 2003 10:23 a.m. EDT

Gen. Clark Won't Rule Out Running as Republican

HANNITY: Yes, and you would not run as a Republican under any circumstances you can think of?

CLARK: I haven't said that.

HANNITY: Would you?

CLARK: I just haven't said that. I just haven't crossed that bridge. So I'm not going to cross it.

HANNITY: Have you ever voted for a Republican in your life?

CLARK: Absolutely.

HANNITY: Are there Republicans now that you admire that you would tell us about?

CLARK: Well, I served in the Ford administration. I was a White House fellow. I worked for Paul O'Neill and Jim Lann in the Office of Management and Budget.




And is this report accurate or not?

http://www.cse.org/informed/issues_template.php/1576.ht...

General Wesley Clark, Democratic candidate for president who is not a registered Democrat, has been criticized for being a keynote speaker at a Republican fundraiser in 2001. There, he said President Ronald Reagan "was truly a great American leader" and praised President George H.W. Bush for his "tremendous leadership and statesmanship" and said he was "very glad weve got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul ONeill people I know well our president, George W. Bush."







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #53
59. What's new?
Seriously... what new information have you presented here? He didn't take the opportunity to say "Your party sucks"?

The bolded word refers to whether he voted Republican before, btw, something which is not in dispute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Julien Sorel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. In other words, since there's nothing to attack -- make it up.
And it's OK for Dean to attack other candidates, but anyone attacking Dean is sinking to a 'new low.'

Howard Dean -- the waterwalker. The rules just don't apply to him. Polls? Irrelevant. He has an army of voters who are 'off the grid.' Plain vanilla policy positions? Policy isn't important. Flip flopping on the issues? No he isn't -- he's 'evolving.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TLM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. Oh I smell a new meme...


Since the criticisms of Clark can't be refuted... instead attack the act of criticizing as hypocritical.


The idea seems to be to blur the line between cheap stunts or baseless attacks like this one from the Gephardt campaign and valid criticism of votes and policy, so if someone says that an attack was underhanded or a new low etc, the Clark mercenaries drop in and act as if that statement applies to all criticism... especially that of Clark. SO if you criticize Clark, that makes you a hypocrite because someone complained about a cheap shot from Gephardt.

Yet another way to attack a critic and silence a criticism without actually answering the question or addressing the criticism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. So you don't mind going negative
So long as it's not 'cheap'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TLM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #26
33. There are a lot of valid things to criticize with these dems...


So no, my problem is not with going negative in general. My problem is with the way they (Lieberman and Gephardt and Kerry) continue to take some decade old statement way out of context, then when their attacks dont catch on, resorting to this kind of stunt.


Kucinich for example has taken some hard shots at other dems and Ive had no problem with it Edwards, Graham, Jackson, CMB, and Dean have all been Ok to me with their criticisms of other dems. But Lieberman, Gephardt, and Kerry have been real dicks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #33
41. context
So no, my problem is not with going negative in general. My problem is with the way they (Lieberman and Gephardt and Kerry) continue to take some decade old statement way out of context, then when their attacks dont catch on, resorting to this kind of stunt.

Agreed. However, I believe that taking a comment, no matter how long ago it was, out of context, is unfair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TLM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #41
44. Time is an issue however...


Taking something someone said 10 years ago that was an answer to a hypothetical question based on circumstances that have changed and acting as if it is a reflection of the current policy based on current circumstances is very dishonest... they did this on medicare and social security to compeltly misrepresent Dean's possition and record. I have no doubt they'd do this to whoever was frontruner though.


Now if Dean has said that stuff like 2 years ago, at say a republican fundraiser, there would be a hell of a lot more validity to the attacks.

But it tells me something when they have to look for 10 years to find some policy issue to go after Dean on, and even then they have to seriously misrepresent the quotes out of context to float the attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Julien Sorel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #23
28. Of course.
'The criticisms against Clark can't be refuted.'


Right. You mean the Clark is a bloodthirsty war criminal 'criticisms.' Yep, those are pretty ironclad, well-thought out criticisms. When the media get ahold of them, I'm sure his candidacy will come to a standstill, and the next time we see Clark he will be defending himself in front of a tribunal at the Hague.

What's a 'Clark mercenary?'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. That'd be us (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Julien Sorel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. The question was a gut-check.
Which was failed, as usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TLM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #28
38. Clark Mercenaries you know exactly what they are.


Not sure if you're attacking my spelling or the concept... no matter.

"Right. You mean the Clark is a bloodthirsty war criminal 'criticisms.'"

The fact Clark bombed journalists and then defended the action is not in question, is it?

The fact Clark worked as a lobbyist for Henry Kissinger is not in question, is it?

The fact Clark was heaping praise on the amazing leadership of republicans Bush and Reagan in 2001 at a republican fundraiser is not in question, is it?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Julien Sorel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #38
50. Your dishonest argumentation is worthy of Dean.
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 02:40 AM by BillyBunter
No, I have no idea what a 'Clark mercenary' is. I know who Clark is, and I know what a mercenary is, but I don't know of mercenaries who work for Clark. Do you?

The fact Clark bombed journalists and then defended the action is not in question, is it?

No, NATO bombed communications infrastructure after warning that they would do so. The action does't need defense, as it is perfectly standard and legal during war time. It's a version of the wife-beating fallacy: you start by assuming guilt, and move from there. Unfortunately for you though, there is absolutely nothing wrong with bombing communications centers. It's been done in every modern war that's been fought, and no one has ever been prosecuted as a war criminal for it. Pretending that when NATO did it is somehow a criminal act is gross Deanhonesty.

The fact Clark worked as a lobbyist for Henry Kissinger is not in question, is it?

Who cares? I don't even care enough to verify it. It's more wife beating fallacy at work. Why is working for an organization that Kissinger chaired somehow in need of defending? Did he do something evil in that time period? It's the usual guilt buy association stuff: you have nothing, so you invent something.

The fact Clark was heaping praise on the amazing leadership of republicans Bush and Reagan in 2001 at a republican fundraiser is not in question, is it?

He isn't 'heaping praise' on anyone now. Does this in any way impair his ability to lead this country? Perhaps to you. Not to me. And not to the many people who are core members of this party, who have encouraged and supported Clark's candidacy, including Clinton.

In short: non-issues all, which you continue to bring up at every turn. Why does nobody defend against them? Because no one except you and a couple of other zealots cares.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TLM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #8
17. Didn't look to me as if the problem was the criticism itself...


but the cheap ass grandstanding way of doing it.


That and the fact they are taking what Dean actualy said about cutting the administration of medicare to expand coverage, and spining it.


But I understand that you feel the need to try and take every opportunity to push the meme that criticizing Clark is somehow unfair, hypocritical, or hurtful to the party.

After all, you're just following orders, right?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. No, My Position Is a Principled One, Namely That ALL Smear Campaigns
Of Dems by other Dems is counterproductive and lame.

You're the one taking the incredibly hypocritical position that somehow it's unfair for Gephardt and Kerry to attack Dean, but that it's just fine and dandy for Dean to attack Clark. It's hypocritical, and it's logically untenable.

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TLM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #20
30. Just keep that meme a rolling...maybe somebody will fall for it...
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 01:17 AM by TLM
"You're the one taking the incredibly hypocritical position that somehow it's unfair for Gephardt and Kerry to attack Dean,"

No you are the one trying to spin a criticism applying to this single incident as if it were regarding all criticism or attacks on Dean, and not simply a cheap shot, which this was.

Nobody has said ALL attacks or criticisms on or about Dean are somehow unfair. That is your spin to try and twist this view into the latest meme so you can use it to silence those who would criticize Clark by labeling them as hypocrites.

Yours is the position that is hypocritical, intellectually dishonest and devoid of even one shred of integrity.


" but that it's just fine and dandy for Dean to attack Clark."

It is fine and dandy for one candidate to attack another or criticize another... provided the attacks or criticism has some merit and isn't some cheap attempt to hijack an event because they couldn't get anybody to even show up at their own event.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. LOL! My Position Is Simple and Consistent.
Yours is the one requiring tortuous, hair-splitting contortions based on a subjective viewing of events.

You obviously don't understand what intellectual honesty means, since you've so utterly failed to display it in your ridiculous flailing against Clark, even while you bristle and take offense at anyone daring to criticize Dean.

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TLM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #31
35. Yes simply and consistantly dishoenstand to the end of attacking
anybody who would question Clark.



"Yours is the one requiring tortuous, hair-splitting contortions based on a subjective viewing of events."

Nope, just the honesty to admit that a criticism of one attack on a candidate, is not a broad criticism on all attacks on all candidates or the act of attacking a candidate in general. You are attempting to act as if this criticism of the way Gephardts campaign attacked Dean somehow applies to the act of anybody criticizing any candidate, especially Clark. When the truth is this is a criticism not of the act of going negative or criticizing a candidate, but rather an attack on this particular incident and how it was done.

But as I said you are looking for anything to spin into an attack on those who would question or criticize Clark. Rather than refute criticisms or answer the hard questions, you find it easier to spin things like this and scream hypocrite at anyone daring to question Clark.


"You obviously don't understand what intellectual honesty means, since you've so utterly failed to display it in your ridiculous flailing against Clark, even while you bristle and take offense at anyone daring to criticize Dean."

Repeating the meme will not make it any less of a lie.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. Funny, It's the Dean Supporters Who Scream at Anyone Daring to Question
Their hero, as I see it.

Moreover, you completely fail to note a key distinction: the difference between candidates slamming each other, and supporters slamming each other. Frankly, I think both are counter-productive, but candidates slamming each other are even more counter-productive.

As for me, I am nowhere near as upstanding as General Clark, it's true. I won't hesitate to fight fire with fire against people who spread paranoid, or false, or otherwise BS claims against Clark.

I have no problems with legitimate questions about Clark. I have also defended Dean in the past. By those two actions alone, I'm way ahead of you in the intellectual honesty and objectivity department.

Again, your position is that some slams by candidates against other candidates are fair game, and the indicator of whether it's fair or not appears to be directly related to the fondness you hold for the particular candidates in question. That is a subjective and hypocritical position.

Mine is simple: it is counter-productive for candidates to slam other candidates. No hypocrisy. No subjectivity.

Do keep trying, however. Perhaps some day you'll get it.

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TLM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #37
42. You continue to prove my point, all you can do is attack Dean

And attack those who would criticize Clark.


"Moreover, you completely fail to note a key distinction: the difference between candidates slamming each other, and supporters slamming each other."

On the contrary it is you who are trying to act as if there is no difference there, by trying to act as if the statement in this thread about the Gephardt campaign attacking Dean, applies to Dean supporters attacking Clark on DU.

Did you forget about that already or did you just hope nobody would notice you sudden switcharoo?

"As for me, I am nowhere near as upstanding as General Clark, it's true. "

Yes he truly is a purely amazing individual, really a super man, better than all of us put together, so clearly the idea he could do something wrong is sacrilege, isnt it? At the very leas it is treason or mutiny.


"Again, your position is that some slams by candidates against other candidates are fair game"

Nope rather my position is that here is a difference between a valid criticism or even a substantive attack, and cheap shots. You position is to blur them all together and dishonestly act as if it is all the same thing, so you can attack anybody who criticizes Clark.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. Bingo
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 02:09 AM by DoveTurnedHawk
On the contrary it is you who are trying to act as if there is no difference there, by trying to act as if the statement in this thread about the Gephardt campaign attacking Dean, applies to Dean supporters attacking Clark on DU.

Actually, I'm talking about Dean attacking Clark, on one hand, comparing that with Gephardt and Kerry attacking Dean, on the other hand.

A completely separate issue is the fracas here, where I typically defend Clark against the unprovoked attacks of mostly Dean supporters. I actually don't typically slam Dean, unless we're talking narrowly about the issue of Dean slamming Clark, which I obviously oppose.

Yes he truly is a purely amazing individual, really a super man, better than all of us put together, so clearly the idea he could do something wrong is sacrilege, isnt it? At the very leas it is treason or mutiny.

Glad you're seeing the light! ;-)

Nope rather my position is that here is a difference between a valid criticism or even a substantive attack, and cheap shots. You position is to blur them all together and dishonestly act as if it is all the same thing, so you can attack anybody who criticizes Clark.

And MY point is that the difference between what constitutes valid criticism and a cheap shot is completely subjective, especially when someone has displayed such a complete lack of perspective and balance, as you have (and again, I have defended Dean in the past, and acknowledged legitimate questions about Clark; you cannot say the same, or at least you can't say you've defended Clark in the past). That subjectivity helps expose your hypocritical argument when you say those who criticize Dean are taking "cheap shots," even while you yourself, and Dean, criticize Clark with supposed "valid criticism."

My way is easier. Negativity is bad, I'd rather have a positive primary where the best man or woman wins. This would leave the Thugs with less ammo to use against the eventual nominee, it would elevate the tone and reflect favorably upon ALL Dems, and it would save money.

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TLM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. You did exactly what i said you did...
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 02:20 AM by TLM
"Actually, I'm talking about Dean attacking Clark,"

Yes and attacking Dean supporters as hypocrites.


"How Hypocritical! To complain of Gephardt and Kerry going negative on Dean, while not criticizing the same behavior from Dean. Unsurprising, really. The lack of consistency I've seen from many Dean supporters is quite waffle-worthy."





"And MY point is that the difference between what constitutes valid criticism and a cheap shot is completely subjective,"

Not really, like the difference between farting and shitting your pants... prety easy to tell when the line has been crossed.



"I have defended Dean in the past, and acknowledged legitimate questions about Clark;"

Really what questions about Clark?


"you cannot say the same, or at least you can't say you've defended Clark in the past). "

I was very excited about Clark... not sure if i defended him. However I did express support for him until I started reading more about him and looking beyond the hype to see some things I find very bothersome about him.


"That subjectivity helps expose your hypocritical argument when you say those who criticize Dean are taking "cheap shots,""

So you still continue to try and twist this into something about ALL criticisms of Dean. Why do you continue to take a statement about one incident that I consider a cheap shot, and act as if I have said all attacks on Dean are cheap shots?

Kucinich has attacked Dean a few times and I've not considered them cheap shots, a little shrill maybe, but not cheap shots.



" even while you yourself criticize Clark with supposed "valid criticism.""


And it all comes back to trying to attack the act of someone criticizing Clark. At least you're consistent.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #46
48. Are We Getting Somewhere?
Yes and attacking Dean supporters who attack Clark as hypocrites.

Not at all, just those Dean supporters who attack Clark, but then complain about attacks against Dean.

Not really, like the difference between farting and shitting you pants... prety easy to tell when the line has been crossed.

There is a huge difference between objective, empirical evidence (such as the physical act of defecation versus flatulence), compared to subjective, statement of opinion (such as deeming an ARGUMENT to be either valid criticism or a cheap shot).

"I have defended Dean in the past, and acknowledged legitimate questions about Clark"

Really what questions about Clark?


Let's see:

1) The stumbling of his campaign out of the gate;
2) The degree of his commitment to the Democratic cause (this is a question of degree; IMO, it's fine to ask exactly HOW Democratic Clark is, and it's fine to say one is troubled by Clark's past statements about Bush's cabinet, but saying he's a secret PNAC or Thug plant is ludicrous);
3) His relative lack of hands-on domestic policy experience;
4) The absence of clearly defined and detailed positions on several topics of importance;
5) The question mark as to how well he will do down the stretch, both as a campaigner and as a fundraiser.

Now, I have reasonable counter-arguments for all of these, but I have frequently acknowledge to reasonable people that there was room for us to simply disagree on these issues.

I was very excited about Clark... not sure if i defended him. However I did express support for him until I started reading more about him and looking beyond the hype to see some things I find very bothersome about him.

See, THAT is a fair statement, in my view. It's a statement of opinion, certainly, but it's at least posed fairly.

So you still continue to try and twist this into something about ALL criticisms of Dean. Why do you continue to take a statement about one incident that I consider a cheap shot, and act as if I have said all attacks on Dean are cheap shots?

Because it's not an isolated incident. You were one of the ones who screamed at me for even daring to post a LATEST BREAKING NEWS piece that painted Dean in a negative light. You've also dismissed other criticisms of Dean raised by certain others as baseless attacks (i.e. cheap shots).

And it all comes back to trying to attack the act of someone criticizing Clark. At least you're consistent.

Sure. I care the most about people attacking Clark, after all. But I've also defended Dean from baseless attacks in the past...although I did so with much greater frequency before Dean started going negative on Clark.

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
10. And after all of the trouble
Kathy Roeder went to...

"The seniors didnt ask Dean a single question about his commitment to Medicare, despite the Gephardt campaign visitor."

One of Dean's newest supporters...

" Im impressed with Dean. I think this man has the integrity to be president," Gilmour said.

Integrity. I like that word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Khephra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:08 AM
Response to Original message
24. Here's what's different about this action than anything Dean's
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 01:09 AM by khephra
done:

Dean's spokespeople haven't shown up at the events of other candidates to attack them. That's what's cheap about this.

Candidates attacking each other is par for the primary course--showing up at another candidate's function to trash them with the press...well, that's different, new, and quite disturbing. It reminds me of the disruption tactics of the GOP and LaRouche.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Agreed. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pruner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. that's exactly why I posted this
this is a desperate & despicable tactic for Gephardt to be taking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jburton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:27 AM
Response to Original message
34. pretty lame
The New Hampshire press secretary for Rep. Dick Gephardt was at a Dean event handing out articles from a 1995 paper.

Not just ANY paper like the Boston Globe or NY Times, but the investigative powerhouse that is the Barre-Montpelier Times-Argus!

Were there any Gephardt events in NH she should be at instead? I mean, we're talking state press secretary, not a random intern that usually hands out these hit pieces at other candidates events.

Was there a Gephardt event in NH that day for her to go to? Perhaps she should organize one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sleipnir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 02:45 AM
Response to Original message
51. Gephardt Knows it's over
He f*ing knows he can't win, so he's trying to discredit Dean. And all of you Clark supports out there, don't think that you'll be immune to this sort of treatment. IMO, Gephardt (and his ilk, Kerry, Lieberman) will try to take Clark "down a peg" too. They all know this race is comming down to Dean / Clark and they're mad as hell, and this is all they can do. What's to be expected from a Senator who's bends over for the Bushies...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:09 AM
Response to Original message
55. this thread saddens me
I am convinced that as far as the American electorate is concerned the Doctor and the General cover all the bases. Dean all things domestic and Clark security/foreign policy. It would be an unbeatable ticket.

Good reason for us to not beat on each other.

Let's stay focused.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:32 AM
Response to Reply #55
56. I used to feel the exact same way.
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 06:09 AM by stickdog
But boilerroom bullies who practice facile "gang arguing" and transparent good cop/bad cop in-thread dialogs consisting of logical fallacy after logical fallacy have a way of bringing out the worst in me.

I certainly hope that the General is on the up-and-up, but he has some fundamental questions to answer concerning Acxiom/CAPPS II & Kissinger lobbying and his 2001 praise of BushCo's neocons. These questions are critcal, but asking them around here will only subject you to a bullying battery of ad hominems, hand waving and other assorted logical fallacies. If these questions were on the level of 8-year-old quotes about whether or not Medicare growth should be cut by X% or Y%, I'd be happy to give the General a free pass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #56
58. I disregard the supporters
and I look for the ticket I think most likely to win. I don't see the supporters necessarily as a reflection of the candidate.

If we all focused our enrgies on unseating Jr. instead of attacking each other we may actually succeed.

I will say this, I think going to a rally of another candidate and passing out material to try to discredit that candidate is unacceptable tactics. Smacks of desperation. Desperate Dick. Sad. If only he used half this energy to speak against the fascist regime instead of "standing shoulder to shoulder" with Jr. we may not be in the mess we're in today.

Face it Dicky-boy, you missed the bus.

General Clark and Dr. Dean need to join forces. That would certainly help the desperados see the writing on the wall.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #58
61. How hypocritical!!
When Dean is attacked, it's "If we all focused our enrgies on unseating Jr. instead of attacking each other we may actually succeed. "

But when another Dem is criticized, you're all for it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #55
65. Dean yes, Clark no
I don't want Clark anywhere near Dean on the ticket. He's a flim-flam man. At best I'll support Clark for Secretary of Defense, which is what he is qualified for. He's not qualified for Prez or VP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:50 AM
Response to Original message
57. Take The Pledge....
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 05:51 AM by DemocratSinceBirth
I will not speak ill of another Democrat.....


Take it and you will not have to engage in the intellectual gymnastics displayed in this thread.....



Love,

Brian
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_H Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
62. This falls within the rubric of acceptable politics
unless she was passing around a now debunked story or lied about who she was. That being said, Dean and Dick should cool it. They're in danger of making their fight into a huge story which serves the interests of only one person--the chimp. The media would be only too happy to hype a story that makes not one, but two, dems look bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evanstondem Donating Member (306 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. Dick's the one who needs to cool it
He started the personal attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 01st 2014, 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC