Critics Take Issue With Dean Complaints

[quinnox]

DES MOINES, Iowa - While former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean complains about the incessant criticism he gets from rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, opponents of the front-runner argue he's not a bit shy about launching his own assaults.

"I think he's been lobbing attacks on the other Democrats in the race for about a year," said Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri. "He only sees negative campaigning when it isn't him."

...

Rival campaigns point to a direct-mail piece that landed in the homes of Iowa Democratic activists over the weekend.

"A good biography isn't enough," the piece argues. "Dean is the only candidate motivating the Democratic base and who is electable in every region. Sen. (John) Kerry and Rep. Gephardt voted for the president's war in Iraq (news - web sites) and for Bush's No Child Left Behind Act. Only a candidate who opposed the Iraq war can make the case as a Bush alternative — we can't win with Bush light."


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=694&e=1&u=/ap/20031222/ap_on_el_pr/dean_tenor

On Gephardt's quote, ain't it the truth. It says it all.

[helleborient]

1. This from the candidate who has staffers threatening unions in Missouri...

And staffers giving nasty phone calls to homes in Iowa.

Yep...Dick Gephardt is a real reliable resource on dirty campaigning...well, I guess maybe he is, since he does it so well.

[Monte Carlo]

6. Then it would seem that we're in the same big, happy family...

... exchanging put-downs and insults and negativity.

[ibegurpard]

14. Gephardt makes me puke

Seriously. The only reason I don't say much negative about him is because I really haven't considered him much of a serious contender. He deserves MORE contempt than Kerry or Lieberman because he was INSTRUMENTAL in scuttling all the compromise work that was going on behind the scenes...cutting the legs out from under the alternatives to the IWR by showing his smiling face to support Bush in the Rose Garden while his caucus in the House voted heavily against his position. What a leader!

[libview]

27. Dean is leading this party where it's been heading since "94"

down the toilet. We will not win the swing voters with Dean as the nominee, he is too divisive.
If Dean wins, we are toast. IMHO

[Padraig18]

29. Question:

If so many besides Dean, Gore and Clinton supposedly have this divinely-inspired notion of where the party 'should be', why have they proven singularly unsuccessful in convincing fellow Democrats of that? :shrug:

[DancingBear]

38. In this regard

They have so far far been unsuccessful in convincing PRIMARY voters, who often times see it as a popularity contest, and are often times severely lacking in political acumen. I fear that many Dean supporters are involved in the campaign as raison d'etre, nothing else. I fear many are quite young, and many are to the far left of the general populace. The campaign thus becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, and a recipe for disaster. Why do you think so many of us "seasoned" folks are working so hard for other candidates? Not because we dislike Dean personally, but because we absolutely KNOW how badly he will be beaten in the GE. This takes a savvy understanding of the political landscape, something that I believe Dean supporters refuse to undertake. They are so consumed with the campaign itself that the real issue of electability becomes concealed in the thrill of the chase.

Forest, meet trees.

[Padraig18]

41. You *know* no such thing.

Sorry, but you don't and can't 'know' what motivates Dean supporters, because we are not a homogenous group.

[ibegurpard]

42. "seasoned", "KNOW"

a "savvy understanding of the political landscape?" If you did indeed possess all of these qualities, you would not be making arrogant assumptions about both the Dean campaign and the people who support it. You KNOW nothing about how Dean will fare in a general election...however, if that is your OPINION then I can only say that I disagree.

[DancingBear]

53. You're welcome to disagree

But I stand by my comments. You must remember an important part of the equation, that being that this (Dean) campaign is nothing new. Perhaps to you or others, but this is a campaign strategy that has been used over and over. Dukasi used it against a President who carried military gravitas with him (perceived as such) and lost big. McGovern tried the same thing, as did Mondale. Doesn't work. All it does is portray Democrats as soft on national defense (terror, in this case) - that is what will happen here, as well. In order to become a viable political force, the Democratic party must take the issue of defense/security away from the Republicans. Dean can not do it - Clark can.

Whether I agree with this strategy or not (personally, I do not) this is what must happen. This is why the heat is coming down as Dean - this is his negative, and it is HUGE. We (non-supporters) can not afford to lose to Bush.

I can understand why you want to believe in Dean, but you are in the minority here (speaking of all voters) in thinking that having strong patriotic beliefs is akin to "Bush-lite." This would be true if Dean tried it, or Gore last year, or any of the others. They do not have 4 stars on each arm, hence it is seen by most voters as phony. Nothing phony about Clarks patriotism, nor his beliefs. The "Bush-lite" argument falls flat here.

Again, sorry to offend, but the Dean movement is nothing new, and I'm pretty sure I can gauge the reasons for his support. He is a godsend to those who believe what he is preaching, but the believers lose to the non-believers in a GE, sad to say, and unless the earth is flat I know the strategy will fail again.

[Padraig18]

55. We disagree.

Again, you have no particular omniscience or insight as regards the Dean campaign. :shrug:

[ibegurpard]

59. Where do you get off saying anyone is accusing someone

of having strong patriotic beliefs as being "bush-lite?!" I DEFY you to question the patriotic beliefs of ANY of the candidates. No one is questioning the patriotism of anyone. "Bush-lite" comes from the perception (real or not and I happen to believe it) that some Democrats are more interested in securing their careers than representing traditional Democratic ideals and constituencies. If your beef is with Howard Dean, you might want to do some homework and you will find that he is NOT anti-war or anti-military or anti-increasing American security. He is anti-THIS war (by which I mean Iraq) because it was plain to many people from day one that this was an exercise in diversionary tactics, a radical departure from traditional foreign policy respected by both Democratic AND Republican Administrations, and a venture supported by questionable evidence at best.

[DancingBear]

101. Calm down

Patriotism, as defined in todays climate, rests solely on the shoulders of Republicans. For Dean to try and paint himself in terms of patriotism, especially in lieu of his war stance, is political suicide. It is no longer considered by the masses as a Democratic issue. Sorry. Clark can make it so, and can kill it as a campaign issue forever. Dean will give it new life.

Don't scream at me of Deans positions - I've done enough political homework in my time for the both of us. What you are doing by your arguments is attempting to lay out rational, reasoned thought in terms of your candidates position. Fair enough. What you say is true. However, you fail (once again) to understand the national dynamic of the electorate. DU is not the electorate. Let me ask you this - are you in agreement that the majority of the electorate will make up their minds very late in the campaign, predicated on the most "shallow" of issues? If so (and the answer is a resounding "yes", by the way), then how a candidate is "defined" will be of great importance. Dean will be defined as anti-war, which will be a short jump to weak on terror in the minds of many. That is a simple fact of how politics works. McGovern was defined as such, and he was a decorated vet in WWII (political homework rears its ugly head). Howard Dean will be seen to the voters that matter as a liberal Socialist (think Bernie Sanders) from Vermont who dodged the draft and can certainly not be trusted to undertake the job of fighting terror that our glorious President is currently winning. Do you HONESTLY beleive he will not be painted that way??

This election is too important to have to remove baggage in order to win. Despite your beliefs to the countrary, Dean is carrying enough for a family of six. I mean no disrespect in this, but I implore you once again to get out of the Dean coccoon and look around. His base are those who follow him now, and that is what he will bring to the table should he be the nominee in November. It is not enough. Do not fool yourself into thinking that it is. Crossover vote is always needed no matter what the final score, and he does not show the ability to garner it.

[ibegurpard]

108. On the contrary

You have offered me NO reason to think that Clark has any crossover appeal to contrast the indications I have seen of Dean's crossover appeal. Contrary to being in a Dean "coccoon," as you put it, I have been following reactions to him from many different political circles. I have seen polls that show him doing better than other candidates with the "elusive white male" vote. I have a friend who is an official in the Montana Green Party. He likes Dean, not because he agrees with Dean on all the issues but because Dean gives him the appearance of being willing to stand up and fight for Democrats. The organizer of the Dean meet-ups that I have attended is a disaffected former Republican voter. Dean's positions on some issues that would normally cause many voters to bypass the Democrats without a second look, such as his views on firearms, resonate with these people without completely alienating many more "liberal" Democratic constituents. Granted much of this is anecodotal but considering there is NO way to definitively measure such a concept as "crossover appeal," I'll stick to them over vagues claims of someone else's crossover appeal. I'll end with this anecdote: I overheard a couple of guys talking about politics in the kitchen of the place I work. They are not political junkies and I have never discussed politics with them. One of them was asking about whether Clark had a chance of winning the nomination. The other said "Are you kidding? Howard Dean is so far ahead in the polls and Wesley Clark is just a Republican anyway." So that's the perception a lot of people have of Clark you're going to have to change. Will he appeal to Republicans? Perhaps. Is that going to make up for Democrats/sympathizers who might be turned off at that perception? I don't know.

[DancingBear]

114. I can't believe it - we still disagree

:)

Well written response, but don't use the Green Party as evidence of crossover appeal. You lose points there. :)

I am curious - this is not meant as any type of insult, but could I ask your age? I'm 50, and I am trying to put together some type of "voter profile", for lack of a better word. I believe that the Dean camp has attracted a lot of those who feel "disenfranchised", and well, I'm somewhat curious as to the ages of those folks. I'm wondering how one can be disenfranchised at an early age if one has actually never even been "franchised." :)

My first campaign was for McGovern in '72, and I see (I think) parallels in Deans campaign. I was shocked when he lost! - so wrapped in in meeting like minded folks that I lost track of the rest of the world. As you have gathered, I think the same thing is happening again re: Dean, and I just want to do a little homework.

Have you spoken to military/civilian military re: Dean? That is a huge swing component, which could easliy (and would) go to Clark, but not Dean. A block of that magnitude could easily carry states w/heavy military populations.

I do not doubt your anecdotal testaments, but I would argue that the gun issue, while nice, will not nearly be enough to carry the south. That will be national security and "terra." How does Dean handle these voters in the GE? You've not convinced me of his ability to shed the "Vermont Socialist" label that he will be branded with. Come to think of it, you didn't address it :)

For this discussion, let us disregard the primary, for I think we both know the "typical" voter is nowhere to be seen in the primary.

Thanks again for a well reasoned response.

[bearfartinthewoods]

95. it goes beyond that...the grassroots aspect isn't new either.

McGovern was grassroots, and perot! jeeze..thoses people were so convinced that they coould do anything if they just worked hard enough and believed. for those of us who have been around for a few cyles, the pattern becomes obvious and the outcome predictable.

[lurk_no_more]

31. The only reason I don't say much negative about him is because ?

"Gephardt makes me puke"?!?!?

Good point!



“JAFO”

[ibegurpard]

37. I generally ignore Gephardt.

which is what I meant.

[poskonig]

2. Gephardt and Kerry *did* vote for the war.

eom

[quinnox]

4. Yes, they did

but that isn't the issue the article raises, is it.

[Padraig18]

8. The issue it raises is Gephart's hypocrisy.

What sort of leap of logic does it take to turn 2 true statements (DG and JK voted for IWR and NCLB) into an attack? :eyes:

[quinnox]

17. The only hypocrisy here is on Dean's part

It's right there, plain as day.

[Padraig18]

23. That DG and JK are Bush Lite?

You're correct--it's there plain as day.

PS--- Gov. Dean is hardly the 1st candidate to use that phrase, is he, Congressman Gephart? :eyes:

[quinnox]

24. No, the hypocrisy

of Dean calling for an end to attack politics, then the next day distributes flyers that attack his opponents.

Clear enough?

[Padraig18]

26. The truth is not an attack.

Unless we're living in some sort of Orwellian world where war = peace, etc. :shrug:

[quinnox]

28. But that isn't the truth

See, Kerry and Gephardt wouldn't agree that they are "Bush-lite".

Just as Dean wouldn't agree to the term being applied to him.

It isn't that hard to understand.

[poskonig]

30. Agreement is a test of truth?

I'm glad someone is holding people accountable for Bush's war. 23 Democrats voted against it in the Senate, so there was no reason for Gephardt betray his colleagues and cut off debate in the House to get his photo op with Bush. Kerry knew better also, but now thinks giving Bush absolute power to do what he wanted in Iraq was the right thing to do, since we caught Saddam.

Don't want to be called Bushlite? Stop being Bushlite.

[Padraig18]

33. well said. n/t

[quinnox]

36. Kerry has a fine liberal record

One vote does not invalidate all his others.

Also, there are many Democrats (rank and file as well as Dem senators such as Edwards) who supported the Iraq invasion. Just because you happen to disagree with them on that one issue doesn't mean they are Bush-lite.

[Padraig18]

39. more than ONE issue

NCLB, Patriots Acts I & II, etc. . Those are not the votes of someone with 'a fine liberal record', IMO...

[Monte Carlo]

44. Come on now....

The Patriot Act... every Senator save Feingold voted for that one. Even Wellstone. And the act is not all bad. And the Patriot Act II? Kerry knows what a danger Ashcroft is with unaccountable powers.

These are litmus tests. Even the good, liberal Senators goof every once in a while, like when Ted Kennedy allied with Bush on NCLB. These are the disadvantages of having a Washington voting record.

[Padraig18]

46. It's just as fair to comment on that as it is for Kerry and Gephart to...

... comment on sealed gubernatorial records, Enron, etc. . You can't have it both ways, folks, so you better choose: are records fair game, or are they not?

[Monte Carlo]

47. Of course records are fair game, but that doesn't mean...

... we should start holding our politicians to near-impossible standards, just like I don't fault Dean for dealings for Enron or luring business to his state.

[Padraig18]

48. What a refreshing statement!

You caught my drift. See how easy it is to spin something into an 'attack' when it isn't, and make it an 'issue' when it's no such thing? :)

[Monte Carlo]

58. Well thank you.

In these sorts of contests, everything is a retaliation. No one can remember who fired the first shot, any more.

[Padraig18]

62. I couldn't agree more.

That's why I find this whole "Marsha! Marsha! Marsha!---he attacked me" stuff utterly ridiculous ; I'm frankly amazed that any of the candidates can say it with a straight face without being struck by lightning. :P

[Padraig18]

32. We disagree.

I see *-enabling votes on the IWR, NCLB, Patriot Act I & II as being far more *-like than NOT *-like. We'll just have to disagree, because I see the statements--- all 3 of them--- as truthful.

[cindyw]

56. Bush-Lite is an attack. You know it and I know it.

It is a serious personal attack on these men. Just because you see it as fact does not make it okay.

I think Bush is an SOB, but if any of the candidates called him that in public, it would be labeled a very negative attack.

[killbotfactory]

60. Would it make you feel better if Dean said:

"We can't beat Bush by voting with him on major issues like education, war, and civil liberties, and then saying we'd do the same things only better. We need to offer a clear alternative to Bush." Even though it would be the same point Dean is making by using "Bush lite"?

[cindyw]

64. Okay let's try this

Everyone, including Wellstone voted for the PA. It wasn't so much a vote for Bush it was post 9/11. So we'll take that out. Education is only a problem because it was unfunded. Plus he was voting with Kennedy. I trust Kennedy, so that's out.

Here are the things Kerry fought:

Healthy forrest, clear skies, tax cuts, massive budgets, 87 billion in Iraq, Medicare, ergonomic rule changes, overtime pay changes, ANWAR, PA II, extreme right wing judges and on and on.

So here is what we are left with:

We can't beat Bush by voting with him on major issues like the Iraq war, and then saying we'd do the same things only better. We need to offer a clear alternative to Bush. Thank you Senator Kerry and all the other Democrats in the Senate who in very difficult post 9/11 times have fought very hard to hold Bush Agenda to a bare minimum. Imagine what he could have done without you."

[poskonig]

9. That supposedly was the Dean "attack"

i.e., pointing out that Kerry and Gep voted for the war.

As you know, this is true.

Keep in mind, we don't see **Dean** running ads with bin Laden & Gephardt or Kerry.

[quinnox]

12. Read it again

Dean calls his opponents Bush Lite again.

Is this not an attack?

[Padraig18]

16. See post #13 for my thoughts on that. n/t

[Monte Carlo]

15. Dean has his own groupings.

Like grouping Gephardt and Kerry and Edwards together in with Bush, a man whom many at DU consider to be a greater threat to world peace that Osama or Saddam.

[cindyw]

54. Vote for IWR was not a vote for invasion.

Why does everyone have a mental ellipsis from October 2002 to March 2003.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

71. What does IWR mean?

I thought it stood for Iraqi War Resolution, which seems to me to be a vote for invasion. After all, it wouldn't be a war unless the US invaded would it?

But doesn't what the Congressmen themselves say have more weight? So how about this:

Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give you five reasons why I am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq, and why I will vote against this resolution.
http://bernie.house.gov/statements/20021009162754.asp

There is one Congressman that disgrees with your assesment that a vote for IWR wasn't a vote for invasion...

[Padraig18]

84. There are 23 Democratic senators who disagreed, too. n/t

[bigtree]

83. Rep. Gephart and Sen. Kerry

voted to give the president authority to use the force of our military in concert with the U.N.. The vote was primarily to give teeth to the U.N. resolution requiring Saddam to come clean on the WMD suspicions. Bush misrepresented the threat against us, portraying it as imminent. Bush lied. Bush betrayed the restraint implied in both the House and Senate resolutions. There is no guarantee that if Biden-Lugar had been passed that Bush wouldn't have used the same bogus intel to push past congressional admonitions. Some have correctly argued that he had the power to commit our forces without the Congress. Indeed, the resolution falls short of an actual 'declaration of war'. The lack of such a declaration has not restrained decades of presidents from putting our soldiers in harms way. The resolution that was approved actually went further that other such resolutions in that it expressly recognized the importance of seeking an international consensus through the U.N. It was Bush who chose to ignore the admonitions and it was Bush who pushed past an international consensus in his zeal to take the nation to war. Remember, not just Sen. Kerry and Rep. Gephart were betrayed. And, those who believed that Bush would keep his word and exercise restraint should not be labeled as stupid or incompetent. We have every right to expect the president to keep his word. And we have every right to hold him accountable for betraying our trust.

The sins of Bush should not taint any Democrat. We should not foist the blame for his arbitrary actions onto those who clearly are and were opposed to his preemptive and unilateral actions.

[jjmalonejr]

3. Kerry & Gephardt did NOT vote for the war

That talking point is such B.S. The Democrats in congress who voted for the Iraq resolution voted to give the President authority to use force in Iraq if he deemed it necessary to protect our national security interests. Bush's arrogance, failed diplomacy, manipulated intelligence and out and out lies are the reason we went to war in Iraq. Remember who the villain is.

We can argue the wisdom of granting the President this authority, and that is a fair question, but continuing to repeat the mantra that Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards voted for war is just plain dishonest.

[poskonig]

18. Kerry now thinks it was a good thing he voted for the war.

As for Gep, well...

[Padraig18]

21. So this week he thinks his vote was right?

I need a new calendar--- I thought it was LAST week that Sen. Kerry thought that...

[cindyw]

66. Here is Kerry position on IWR afte Saddam capture.

JK: I felt enormous understanding, empathy, sympathy and respect for the voice they were articulating. I completely understood it. I came from there. I understood the confusion over why someone with my long history, why there was confusion over my position, why people were questioning it.

  But I felt my decision was absolutely consistent with the counter-proliferation efforts I have been making as a Senator for my entire career. I felt proliferation was a critical issue. I thought a President ought to get inspectors back into Iraq. I thought a President ought to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. But I knew how to do it right, and my regret is that this President proved he not only didn’t know how to do it right, but was prepared to go back on his promises, be deceptive, and mislead the nation. I regret that he did that, and I regret that I put any trust in him at all. I shouldn’t have, obviously.

  Put it this way: Given the circumstances we were in at the time, the decision was appropriate, but in retrospect I will never trust the man again. That’s why I am running against him. He deserves to be replaced with someone who is trustworthy.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/122203A.shtml

[Padraig18]

69. "...I regret that I put any trust in him at all...."

If you had joined your 23 fellow Democrats who heard and saw the same evidence you did, Senator Kerry, you wouldn't have any regrets today...

[bigtree]

92. how do you know that a defeat of the resolution

would have kept Bush from invading Iraq?

What if he just committed forces without congresional imput? He could have, you know. Bush apparently never intended to follow the direction of Congress. He just wanted the vote as a fig leaf. Actually, using Sen. Kerry's vote to blame him for every action Bush has taken since plays into Bush's fig leaf strategy. When he voted he had every reason to expect Bush to act honorably. He didn't. That's the issue. Bush lied. Bush led us into a preemptive, unilateral war. He, out of all of those running against him, should bear most of the blame, if not all, and we should not let him or anyone else foist off responsibility for what he did on anyone else. I don't believe any of the Democratic candidates would have done what Bush did. Bush should bear all of the blame.

[Padraig18]

93. The issue is that he was 'suckered'.

Lots of Democrats weren't--- LOTS.

[bigtree]

100. god, I sure don't have the temerity to call these good people

suckers.

I watch these folks in action and I have concluded that most operate with the highest degree of integrity and with a intelligent sense of purpose. Sen. Kerry has painstakenly outlined his reasons for supporting the resolution and I don't believe that he deserves to be labeled as a sucker for expecting the President of the United States to tell the truth, especially when committing forces. That's what makes what Bush did so wrong. He took an oath that requires him to be faithful to the American people. Good people rely on him to be truthful. He betrayed that oath and lied. Lots of intelligent people believed that he would be straight with them because of that special responsibility that comes with that oath; here at home and abroad. He betrayed all of our trust.

One thing for sure, you won't find any of the Democratic candidates betraying our trust if they happen to get elected. What I don't understand is the insinuation that that vote is a precursor to some negative trait in those who happened to make that affirmative vote. I see no indication in any of the Democratic aspirants that they will make any decision approaching the duplicitous actions of Bush in regard to the nation's foreign policy.

This is a phony issue with regard to the qualifications of any of our Democratic aspirants. Bush alone should bear the blame.

[Padraig18]

103. It's not a phony issue

The only people here who see it as a 'phony issue' are, by and large, the supporters of one of the candidates who voted for the IWR. That said, I did not say that Sen. Kerry would not make a fine President; what I said was that the IWR was his 'magic beans' moment. He should have voted against the damned thing, like my Senator and 22 others did.

[bigtree]

106. but his vote was not to engage in a unilateral war

I was full-square against that vote, and I'm a raving advocate for what I believe. I won't hold anyone but Bush accountable for the preemptive, unilateral invasion. If I reach back and try to drag any Democrat to account for the sins of Bush it will be energy wasted, and one less nail in Bush's political coffin.

[Padraig18]

107. Come the GE, if Kerry is our nominee, I agree.

I hold Bush accountable for the 'crash', but I hold Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman and gephart accountable for handing him the 'keys'. I restate that I believe that Sen. Kerry (or DG, JL or JE) would be an *infinitely superior* President, when compared to *. But this is about the primary, and the illegal invasion of Iraq is my #1 issue. It wouldn't make sense for me to support a candidate who voted for the IWR in the primary election.

I am unabashedly "ABB" in November, however--- money-wise, phone-banking, canvassing, etc. .

[bigtree]

109. Thanks Padraig18

for your views. I think we blew our tops. Good exchange.

I am a committed Democrat, by the way. I cried in nursery school when the radio announced that Johnson wouldn't run, and I wore a Humphrey button that was larger than I was. Good luck with your candidate. If he (she) wins the nomination, I will kick ass on their behalf.

[Padraig18]

110. You're very welcome.

Like you, I am a diehard Democrat, and I will support whoever wins the nomination. Good luck to your candidate, too! :)

[LizW]

50. That claim leaves me speechless

almost.

Kerry and Gephart knew exactly what they were doing when they voted for the IWR. They knew exactly what was going to happen, as did we all.

[AWD]

80. Oh, I see....

...so it's NOT called the IWR, but now it's actually called the IRTGTPATUFIIIHDIN (Iraq Resolution To Give The President Authority To Use Force In Iraq If He Deems It Necessary)

Nice try at spin. He voted for war. He knew what Bush would do. He's proud of it....this week. Period.

[Padraig18]

5. *Gasp!* Dean said DG and JK voted for the IWR? The NERVE!

Get real, Dick and John--- thr truth isn't an 'attack'! :eyes:

[quinnox]

10. Wait a sec,

Is it my imagination, or did the flyer also talk about Dean's old attack, "Bush-lite"?

[Padraig18]

13. So?

Calling a spade a spade, it seems to me...:shrug:

[Monte Carlo]

19. So... it would seem that certain attacks and negativity are just fine.

As long as it's calling a spade a spade, whatever that is.

[killbotfactory]

20. Gephardt used the Bush-lite line a few times...

without any sense of irony, either.

It's just easier to say "You can't win by being Bush-lite" than "You can't beat Bush by adopting his positions and then moderating them a little bit and claiming your better". I refer to it as the "me too, only better!" complex.

[quinnox]

22. Huh?

So calling a fellow Democrat Bush-lite isn't an attack?

Ok, Dean is Bush-lite.

I guess I didn't attack Dean.

[clarknyc]

35. No, you didn't.

I just disagree with your characterization.

[killbotfactory]

7. LOL

"I think the other candidates seem to have nothing positive to say," Dean said Monday from New Hampshire. "Every other Democrat seems to be moaning and groaning about the terrible things I'm supposed to have done."

After months of hearing "Dean's too angry, we need a positive message!" I find this very funny.

[maddezmom]

11. the comparison to Bush Light

turns me off, but all's fair in politics right? :(

[drfemoe]

49. I would call them

bu*h back side kissers.

Why don't these people understand that we don't want a democrat with the same agenda bu*h has? They don't get 'it'. They continue to believe that they can go along with every repulsive doctrine put out by the current admin and STILL appeal to democrats and others who are SICK of that agenda. :crazy:

Pointing out differences is not 'attacking'- no matter how many times Kerry, Gep, et al SAY IT IS. They obviously believe in "clear skies", the "Patriot" Act and "NCLB" too!! That is more BUS* DOCTRINE. They can't distinguish real issues with phony attacks. Maybe that's why they line up behind bus* at every opportunity.

[cindyw]

61. Excuse me? who voted for Clear skies?

Soon we'll hear that Kerry voted for the tax cuts.

By the way, Wellstone voted for the PA.

[Cheswick2.0]

25. They can't see the difference between policy disputes and what they

are doing?

[KittyWampus]

43. Yeah, Calling Clark A Republican Until 25 Days Ago

Has alot to do with policy disputes...

:eyes:

[clarknyc]

45. That's not the issue here.

It's Gephardt's complaint about a mailing from yesterday. I do agree that it was a mistake to refer to Clark the candidate that way.

[drfemoe]

51. they can't *SEE* n/t

[clarknyc]

34. That was the attack piece?

Is that the same one Kerry waved around yesterday without disclosing it's contents? Weak. Seems to me like another case of grasping at straws to bring down Dean. I don't think this'll stick.

[cindyw]

65. Last time I checked Bush-Lite was serious charge.

Code word for devil-supporter around here, so I'd say calling someone that on front porch of Iowa Democrats is a pretty serious attack. If Dean doesn't know that then he opposes Bush a whole lot less than everyone in the Kerry, Clark, Gephardt, Edwards, Kucinich, Braun and Sharpton camp.

[RetroLounge]

77. I hold in my hand a list of Communist Americans

and no, you cannot see the list...

Poop!

[Loonman]

40. He's being ironic, right?

:eyes:

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

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

[helleborient]

57. Basically a Gephardt aide threatening to interfere with collective

bargaining in the state of Missouri if any union members do work for Dean, at a meeting with the governor of Missouri present, is not in the same ballpark as an attack for a vote that Gephardt made...or even referring to him as Bush Lite

One is threatening to interfere with other people's very lives for partisan political gain...and the other is directed simply at the candidate.

To me, Gephardt's campaign forever has sliminess on it.

I won't even start on the insulting phone calls friends of my wife's family have received in Iowa from Gephardt's camp.

[ibegurpard]

63. Not just a Gephardt "aide"

A longtime stalwart high-up in his organization.

[Patriot_Spear]

72. Crybabies; they can dish it out, but they sure can't take it...

Oh well.

[RetroLounge]

74. So what's not true?

So what's not true? Please point out which part in the following is not true?

"A good biography isn't enough," the piece argues. "Dean is the only candidate motivating the Democratic base and who is electable in every region. Sen. (John) Kerry and Rep. Gephardt voted for the president's war in Iraq (news - web sites) and for Bush's No Child Left Behind Act. Only a candidate who opposed the Iraq war can make the case as a Bush alternative — we can't win with Bush light."

"A good biography isn't enough," True

"Dean is the only candidate motivating the Democratic base" True

" and who is electable in every region." An opinion, not a fact, but not an attack.

"Sen. (John) Kerry and Rep. Gephardt voted for the president's war in Iraq" True

"and for Bush's No Child Left Behind Act. " True (and patriot act too?)

"Only a candidate who opposed the Iraq war can make the case as a Bush alternative" True.

"we can't win with Bush light" Again True.

So I ask again? What's not true?

[stickdog]

111. I beg your pardon. Wasn't that Bush & Geppy in Rose Garden? (nt)

[Moderator]

115. Unfortunately I have to lock this thread.

If you disagree with a moderator's decision or if you think a moderator has acted improperly, there is a procedure that should be followed.

From DU rules:


When a moderator enforces the message board rules, members are expected to respect their authority and abide by their decisions. If you disagree with a moderator's decision, you are encouraged to politely explain why you disagree. Do not send rude, dismissive, or disrespectful responses to the moderators.

If you think a moderator has acted inappropriately, please contact one of the administrators privately so we can deal with it.

Do not publicly post private messages you receive from moderators and administrators.

The only people on this board with the authority to speak or act on behalf of Democratic Underground, LLC, are the site administrators. The moderators only represent Democratic Underground when they are performing their official duties.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#moderators

If you have further concerns, please contact Admin at:

[email protected].

Thanks for understanding.


DU Moderator