Dean said "sleazy" goes over the line but Trippi used the word in attack

[MIMStigator]

In an article at Boston.com Dean says he doesn't approve of calling other candidates sleazy and says it goes over the line but his own campaign manager Trippi said "Sleazy tactics like yours are exactly the reason that people have stopped participating in the political process," when he wrote to Dick Gephart's campaign.

I think this is hypocritical don't you? Saying you think something goes over the line if your own campaing manager does it.

<snip>

"I don't like calling other candidates `sleazy' or any of that kind of stuff. I think that kind of stuff goes over the line."

<snip>

On Thursday, Dean's campaign manager, Joe Trippi, sent a letter to Gephardt's campaign addressing its allegation that Dean may be trying to get out-of-state residents to participate in the caucuses.

"Sleazy tactics like yours are exactly the reason that people have stopped participating in the political process," Trippi wrote.



The link to the article where this information is contained

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/dean/articles/2004/01/10/dean_gets_boost_at_crucial_time

[Padraig18]

1. So?

What is the point? :shrug:

[MIMStigator]

2. So isn't that HYPOCRITICAL?

I think it is

[Padraig18]

3. What has he done that's 'sleazy' in this campaign?

:eyes:

[MIMStigator]

4. He said using WORD sleazy is over the line but Trippi uses it

that's hypocritical

[tedoll78]

6. Mincing words here..

There's a difference between calling a candidate sleazy and calling a tactic sleazy.

[MIMStigator]

9. Do you really think there is a difference

REALLY REALLY?

[Padraig18]

12. Yes.

Read what the article actually SAYS.

[edzontar]

59. Padraig is right..,calling a TACTIC sleazy is not calling a...

PERSON sleazy...

It's like here--if you call a person.s post insane..it will probbaly not deleted, but if accuse the psoter of BEING an insane person, it might...

Got the distinction?

Now, why not go find something constructive to write about?

[tedoll78]

14. Look..

I called it 'mincing words' for a reason.

No matter what I tell you, you won't be happy.

[JVS]

7. WHOO HOOOO 1000 POSTS!

:toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:

[HFishbine]

57. Conratulations!

That's a lot of beer though.

[JVS]

77. No it is MIMstigator who now has 1000 posts

I have around 4500

[Padraig18]

8. No.

He said using it as an adjective in reference to a CANDIDATE is. Reading with comprehension can be a useful skill to have...

[kerry-is-my-prez]

49. Not hypocritical. Either a subtle reprimand to Trippi or a Freudian sl

It was a very interesting word for him to use and I don't think it's a coincidence.

[Closer]

5. You're fooling no one.

but I'd be scared of Dean, too, if I were you.


eom.

[MIMStigator]

10. i already said I'm scared of dean. Scared he won't beat *

I never said I wasn't

[chimpymustgo]

11. By golly I think you've done it!

This might be unlockable...

[Padraig18]

13. Nah-- it's still inflammatory.

it'll get locked, too.

[MIMStigator]

15. No it isn't it raises a question about hypocrisy

It isn't inflammatory

[Padraig18]

17. it is.

And i'm sure a moderator will tell you why shortly--- again.

[tedoll78]

18. Question

Has Gephardt done this, would you be griping about it? Or how about Carol Moseley-Braun? Be honest..

[MIMStigator]

20. I don't know if I would be griping if Gephart or Carol MB said it

I think Dean will lose to * so I pay more attention to what he does

[tedoll78]

23. Ahh..

very interesting..

[MIMStigator]

29. Why is that interesting?

I gave you the reason. I don't think Gephart could win so if he was in the lead I would complain about it

[tedoll78]

38. So..

you complaint is more with Dean being in the lead than this issue. You're using this issue in an attempt to bring him down. With Dean not in the lead, you probably wouldn't bring it up, correct?

[MIMStigator]

43. I would bring it up about any one I thought could not beat * if they

had a chance of being nominated

[JVS]

48. So this has nothing to do with principles, it's all about electability?

[MIMStigator]

50. The electable ones have principle

and if you don't get elected you don't get a chance to put in your principles

[JVS]

76. No, I was asking if your anger has nothing to do with principles

[kerry-is-my-prez]

52. hmmmm a lot of locked threads lately.....

n/t

[1floridademocrat]

16. Hello and my my my

Ello.. just finally gotten around to registering here (I post a fair bit at dkos)

Oh and.. really...

Based on this logic, if lehane says something bad about anyone else.. then Lehane is wrong because Clark says hes not going to bash other canidates?

Clarks my #3, but based on the posts I see by Clark people around here.. hes dropping like a stone. Just like I don't approve of over the top Dean people (and I'm not one) I don't approve of over the top Clark people..

Besides.. aren't you the guy who said Kerry was going to get the Harkin endorsement?

[tedoll78]

Welcome to DU!

Thank goodness this'll be over soon! :)

[Padraig18]

24. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[JVS]

26. No that was a different person who said Kerry would get the endorsement

Welcome to DU

[patricia92243]

19. get a life!

[MIMStigator]

25. Why don't you discuss the issue instead of attacking me

eom

[Padraig18]

27. because there is no 'issue'

There is, however, a clear 'agenda'...:eyes:

[MIMStigator]

33. There is an issue and an agenda

The issue is that Dean says one thing and his campaignb manager did something else so he looks like a fool

The agenda is not getting a fool nominated because he can't beat *.

What is wrong with an agenda to beat *?

[Padraig18]

35. Logic here:

In order to accuse one of hypocrisy, one must point to a hypocritical act or sdtatement, which you have failed to do. Reading with comprehension is a useful and marketable skill.

[MIMStigator]

37. The article saw it as a hypocritical act or statement, so do I

eom

[Padraig18]

39. Actually, ther article DIDN'T.

I read it, and it did NOT say that, my friend.

[MIMStigator]

41. Are you kidding

You don't think quoting Dean on "SLEAZY" then quoting the letter was pointing out the hypocrisy? You kidding?

[Padraig18]

44. What part of the difference between...

...calling a *CANDIDATE* 'sleazy' and describing a *TACTIC* as 'sleazy' is unclear?

There is NO inconsistency and, hence, NO hypocrisy.

Jesus, Mary and Jospeh! :eyes:

[mouse7]

21. If the phrase "rat bastard" is in title, probably an agenda there

Clark appears at VFW: IS Clark a rat bastard?

Public Official endorses Dean: Is Dean a rat bastard?

Kucinich Promotes Peace Agency: Is Kucinich a rat bastard?

New Book released about Kerry: Is Kerry a rat bastard?

Edwards discusses Court appointments: Is Edwards a rat bastard?

Gephardt talks about son's illness: Is Gephardt a rat bastard...

Yeah, someone with good detective skills can find possible bias in the above thread titles.

[HFishbine]

22. Think of the DU rules

On DU, I cannot call you sleazy (ad hominem attack), but I can describe your tactics as sleazy. It's the same distinction you fail to recognize, Trippi did not call Gephardt sleazy but condemned his tactics as such.

[MIMStigator]

28. If a person uses sleazy tactics they are sleazy. I don't think Dean

would want to go on TV and say what you said because he knows it would look bad

[Padraig18]

31. What does that have to do with the initial post?

:eyes:

[MIMStigator]

34. It was a reply to a reply to the initial post

has everything to do with the reply.

[Padraig18]

36. Where is this alleged 'hypocrisy'

I see the allegation, but I see no demonstrative proof of it.

[MIMStigator]

40. Here it is

Dean says......

"I don't like calling other candidates `sleazy' or any of that kind of stuff. I think that kind of stuff goes over the line."

Trippi says in a letter to Gephart.....

"Sleazy tactics like yours are exactly the reason that people have stopped participating in the political process," Trippi wrote.

Everybody knows it's hypocritical.

[Padraig18]

42. Tactics and candidates are completely different.

Dean said he wouldn't call another *CANDIDATE* sleazy. :eyes:

[MIMStigator]

45. right

:eyes:

[Padraig18]

46. They are.

Nice attempt at reaching, though. :eyes:

[HFishbine]

55. You just made the point

Your insistance on trying to make an issue out of this is a sleazy tactic. But, I will refrain from calling you sleazy for doing so.

[MIMStigator]

58. It is an issue, Dean's hypocrisy

Even the article saw it

[Padraig18]

62. The article did NOT 'see it'.

Point out the EXACT words where it says that.

[MIMStigator]

63. Why do you think they put the Trippi quote right after Dean quote?

:eyes:

[Padraig18]

66. oh, please!

That's an incredible stretch.

[MIMStigator]

69. You must be kidding. If it were not related then it would look

out of place. They put the Dean quote about "sleazy' and then they put the Trippi quote FOR A REASON

[Padraig18]

73. ya think so?

I don't read minds, so I don't know that, unfortunately.

[JVS]

32. A lot of things look bad on TV. Especially things that are true.

[Closer]

30. You're trying too hard at

common sense and rationalization.

I don't think that will work, if you catch my drift.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

47. I take that as a subtle "reprimand" towards Trippi... Anybody else?

I might be wrong but it sounds like it to me. If so, could be some interesting dynamics going on in the campaign. The Dean campaign has been getting an awful lot of bad PR lately and has gone down in the numbers. When that happens - heads roll.

Just some musings on my part.

[BootinUp]

51. *peers around corner for mods*

So you finally worded it acceptably.

It shouldn't surprise anybody that Dean's campaign does not practice what it preaches with regard to campaign tactics. SHOCK!

[Padraig18]

54. Still smarting over the flyer.

Sorry, truth isn't sleaze...

[BootinUp]

67. No

I stated my opinion which has been developed by watching his campaign for months. You are suggesting that I am just attacking for spite. I resent that.

[Padraig18]

70. Suggested no such thing.

Just an inquiry.

[Terwilliger]

53. Well, MIMS, you're a Dean-hating machine

do you get paid by the thread?

[MIMStigator]

56. I'm a * hater

Why don't you talk about the issue of my post?

[Padraig18]

61. Because your post contains no 'issue'.

This has been demonstrated *REPEATEDLY* throughout this thread using logic--- repeatedly.

[MIMStigator]

65. Dean poster Ramsey addresses issue

in post 60

[Padraig18]

68. So, everyone but ramsey is being dishonest?

:eyes:

[MIMStigator]

71. Is that what you think?

Ramsey talks about the issue that is there instead of acting like it isn't.

[Padraig18]

72. No, it's the clear implication of your statement.

"Honest Dean poster Ramsey"...

[MIMStigator]

74. so if someone is called honest everybody else is dishonest?

ok

[Padraig18]

75. If the shoe fits.

One must wonder why the adjective 'honest' would be placed before "Dean supporter Ramsey", if that was not the clear implication, mustn't one?

[Ramsey]

60. Your title misleading

While I agree that in the future, now that Dean has said he doesn't like the word sleazy, Trippi should refrain from using it at all, he did NOT use it in an attack. Trippi sent the Gephardt campaign a letter denouncing "sleazy tactics".

Two points. He called the tactics sleazy, not the candidate, which is still a bit too close, I'll grant. Secondly, it was not an attack or a flyer or in a public interview, but in a letter to the campaign. Which the Gephardt campaign must have given to the press. I think that is an important distinction.

[Padraig18]

64. The title was misleading the 1st 3 times, too, and it got locked.

This title must be marginally acceptable, for some reason...