When Democrats Attack Democrats
On Thursday, the New York Times reported that George Bush would begin attacking [Howard Dean] in January. We already know from the RNC ad in Iowa and New Hampshire that George Bush and Karl Rove will use fearmongering to attack Dean.
But using the war on terror for political gain is not just George Bush?s game. Some Democrats have now taken their strategy of acting like Bush Lite to a new low?launching an ad in South Carolina and New Hampshire that uses images of Osama bin Laden to attack Howard Dean?s commitment to defending America.
The ad was bought and paid for by Americans for Jobs, Health Care and Progressive Values, an organization that doesn?t have to reveal the identity of its donors?and it is one of the most despicable attack ads ever launched.
The ad shows a magazine with Bin Laden on the cover. As the camera zooms in, a narrator says:
(Click here to watch the ad)
The ad could have been bought and paid for by George Bush, but it wasn?t?it was bought and paid for by a secretive group of unnamed Democrats who will do anything to stop Dean.
Who are the Americans for Jobs, Health Care and Progressive Values? Their press secretary is Robert Gibbs?who, until recently, worked on John Kerry?s campaign. Their Treasurer is David Jones, who used to raise money for Dick Gephardt. The president of the organization, Former Congressman Edward Feighan, was one of the earliest $2,000 contributors to Dick Gephardt?s presidential campaign.
And as their press release says, they plan to air this ad in other early primary states, and they?ve bought ?over $400,000 of airtime in Iowa for ads focusing on Howard Dean?s positions on the issues of guns, Medicare cuts and NAFTA.?
We know John Kerry?s been attacking Dean on guns, and Dick Gephardt?s been attacking Dean on Medicare and NAFTA. And just two months ago the New York Times reported that, ?at least at a staff level, the Gephardt and Kerry campaigns? are sharing information about Dr. Dean that helps fuel each another's attacks.?
Maybe it?s all a coincidence that this new secretive group-- founded just last month-- has picked up the same line of attack that Kerry and Gephardt have been using for months.
We hope that their campaigns would have nothing to do with this ad?the type of ad that Senator Kerry denounced as ?political hate speech? when one like it was used against Senator Max Cleland in the 2002 election.
Will the Kerry and Gephardt campaigns, as well as the other campaigns, now step forward as Kerry did for Cleland and denounce this ad, as all Democrats should do?
Under any circumstances, using Osama bin Laden to attack Howard Dean is despicable. It is especially hypocritical if the attack comes from those who supported the war in Iraq.
Osama bin Laden is still at large because the President turned his attention away from al Qaeda to pursue his war with Iraq?the war that every major candidate for the nomination except for Howard Dean supported. John Kerry voted for it. Dick Gephardt wrote the Iraq resolution and stood beside George Bush in the Rose Garden when the president signed it.
As Vice President Al Gore said this week when he endorsed Howard Dean, ?It was Osama bin Laden that attacked us? so don't tell me that because Howard Dean was the only major candidate who was right about that war, that that somehow calls his judgment into question on foreign policy.?
There?s one thing that even the most cynical political operative knows is true: hateful attack ads like this might push someone down in the polls, but they do so by discouraging people from voting. People see this mud being slung around and they give up. It?s the same politics of the past that has led to more than 50% of Americans not voting at all.
But [the Dean] campaign isn?t just about winning this election. It?s about restoring our democracy. We welcome an open debate about policy, about the merits of going to war with Iraq instead of pursuing the war on terror. But all Democrats in this election should join Howard Dean and stand up for democracy. They should be standing up for the participation of everyone, instead of pursuing tactics that breed cynicism and discourage Americans from voting.
From: Blog for America
[note: if the stink of this makes it to the mainstream press, it could suck all the oxygen out of attack. And conversely, any future GOP versions of the same ad during the general election will fall on deaf ears.)
But using the war on terror for political gain is not just George Bush?s game. Some Democrats have now taken their strategy of acting like Bush Lite to a new low?launching an ad in South Carolina and New Hampshire that uses images of Osama bin Laden to attack Howard Dean?s commitment to defending America.
The ad was bought and paid for by Americans for Jobs, Health Care and Progressive Values, an organization that doesn?t have to reveal the identity of its donors?and it is one of the most despicable attack ads ever launched.
The ad shows a magazine with Bin Laden on the cover. As the camera zooms in, a narrator says:
Quote:
?We live in a very dangerous world. And there are those who wake up every morning determined to destroy western civilization. Americans want a President who can face the dangers ahead. But Howard Dean has no military or foreign policy experience. And Howard Dean just cannot compete with George Bush on foreign policy. It?s time for Democrats to think about that? and think about it now.?
?We live in a very dangerous world. And there are those who wake up every morning determined to destroy western civilization. Americans want a President who can face the dangers ahead. But Howard Dean has no military or foreign policy experience. And Howard Dean just cannot compete with George Bush on foreign policy. It?s time for Democrats to think about that? and think about it now.?
(Click here to watch the ad)
The ad could have been bought and paid for by George Bush, but it wasn?t?it was bought and paid for by a secretive group of unnamed Democrats who will do anything to stop Dean.
Who are the Americans for Jobs, Health Care and Progressive Values? Their press secretary is Robert Gibbs?who, until recently, worked on John Kerry?s campaign. Their Treasurer is David Jones, who used to raise money for Dick Gephardt. The president of the organization, Former Congressman Edward Feighan, was one of the earliest $2,000 contributors to Dick Gephardt?s presidential campaign.
And as their press release says, they plan to air this ad in other early primary states, and they?ve bought ?over $400,000 of airtime in Iowa for ads focusing on Howard Dean?s positions on the issues of guns, Medicare cuts and NAFTA.?
We know John Kerry?s been attacking Dean on guns, and Dick Gephardt?s been attacking Dean on Medicare and NAFTA. And just two months ago the New York Times reported that, ?at least at a staff level, the Gephardt and Kerry campaigns? are sharing information about Dr. Dean that helps fuel each another's attacks.?
Maybe it?s all a coincidence that this new secretive group-- founded just last month-- has picked up the same line of attack that Kerry and Gephardt have been using for months.
We hope that their campaigns would have nothing to do with this ad?the type of ad that Senator Kerry denounced as ?political hate speech? when one like it was used against Senator Max Cleland in the 2002 election.
Will the Kerry and Gephardt campaigns, as well as the other campaigns, now step forward as Kerry did for Cleland and denounce this ad, as all Democrats should do?
Under any circumstances, using Osama bin Laden to attack Howard Dean is despicable. It is especially hypocritical if the attack comes from those who supported the war in Iraq.
Osama bin Laden is still at large because the President turned his attention away from al Qaeda to pursue his war with Iraq?the war that every major candidate for the nomination except for Howard Dean supported. John Kerry voted for it. Dick Gephardt wrote the Iraq resolution and stood beside George Bush in the Rose Garden when the president signed it.
As Vice President Al Gore said this week when he endorsed Howard Dean, ?It was Osama bin Laden that attacked us? so don't tell me that because Howard Dean was the only major candidate who was right about that war, that that somehow calls his judgment into question on foreign policy.?
There?s one thing that even the most cynical political operative knows is true: hateful attack ads like this might push someone down in the polls, but they do so by discouraging people from voting. People see this mud being slung around and they give up. It?s the same politics of the past that has led to more than 50% of Americans not voting at all.
But [the Dean] campaign isn?t just about winning this election. It?s about restoring our democracy. We welcome an open debate about policy, about the merits of going to war with Iraq instead of pursuing the war on terror. But all Democrats in this election should join Howard Dean and stand up for democracy. They should be standing up for the participation of everyone, instead of pursuing tactics that breed cynicism and discourage Americans from voting.
From: Blog for America
[note: if the stink of this makes it to the mainstream press, it could suck all the oxygen out of attack. And conversely, any future GOP versions of the same ad during the general election will fall on deaf ears.)
Comments
On the ad itself. I don;t think it is that despicable. I wouldn't have created it...but it's not despicable.
As for your editorial, I think if you want to talk about Democrats Attacking Democrats, then that is a real issue. It's also a clever thread title. But your little rant against Bush is transparent and discrediting.
Dean is going to lose. Big. But thta won't stop Dems from believing he can beat Bush.
God North you can't hear the jingoism in that post? If you want to talk about secretive talk to Dean about opening up his records in Vermont.
Dean has said he is against the war in Iraq. He has said he would defy the WTO and act unilaterally. He makes all sorts of claims and then takes them back later when the mood or climate changes. He claims to be a fiscal conservative, yet won't touch Social Security with the same actions he said it needed to keep it solvent while he was working as that fiscally conservative governor.
He just opens his mouth and says whatever he wants. It is just starting to catch up to him because when you talk out both sides of your mouth, someone is going to see past the "Taking back your country while giving me your money and power" bit to get to the reality of the matter.
Nick
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
You've got the love the way that SDW and trumptman both insist that Dean doesn't have a hope of winning and then attack him as if nothing frightens them more than the prospect that the guy actually will.
Actually I'm just being consistant. I hate it when someone declares that somehow their guy is a saint and someone else a sinner while undertaking the same actions.
If anything I enjoy watching the Dean campaign because it is enjoyable watching Democrats rip into each other with the same sort of nonsense. Vermont as a secret tax haven where Enron and others got special breaks. Secret "Democratic" organizations working to undermine the "will of the American people."
It is actually humorous to watch how the tactics don't change even when the names and sometimes even party affiliation does.
Here are a couple more examples...
Rangel slams Gore and Dean
Some nice choice excepts..
"Of all the congressional districts we have in the country, I would think mine is one that Gore is least familiar with," Rep. Rangel complained to Newsday.
The leading black Democrat was no kinder to Gore's Vermont sidekick, telling the New York Post, "From what I gather, Howard Dean brought all of his black supporters with him to the announcement. I counted one black guy."
More...
Deriding Gore's antics, Rangel's chief of staff Jim Capel complained, "This sucker didn't come into Harlem to campaign" when he ran for president in 2000. "And he's coming [here] to endorse?"
Gov. Dean's pandering rubbed Capel the wrong way as well, saying his choice of the Harlem venue "sort of seems odd in that neither Gore nor Dean has a close association with this community."
Hmmmm...don't agree then you are a racist... got it.
Some more from James Carville..
"It was the perfect picture of a doctor and a corpse standing there," Carville told radio host Don Imus Thursday morning.
The Clinton hit man also derided Dean's decision to bring Gore to Harlem in a bid to appeal to African-Americans, saying Gore could never compete with his old boss.
"I don't think Al Gore should even get in the same ring with Bill Clinton when it comes to trying to impress black voters," Carville advised.
From here.
You think I want this to end? I want the Democrats and their tactics laid out there bare and for everyone to see for as long as possible. I LOVE this stuff.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Actually I'm just being consistant. I hate it when someone declares that somehow their guy is a saint and someone else a sinner while undertaking the same actions.
Originally posted by trumptman
You think I want this to end? I want the Democrats and their tactics laid out there bare and for everyone to see for as long as possible. I LOVE this stuff.
Don't you remember Bush vs McCain? So you'll ignore the last primary with Bush and McCain and pretend like Democrats attacking each other in a primary isn't what all politicians do. So does this mean you hate yourself for being inconsistant? You should.
Originally posted by bunge
Don't you remember Bush vs McCain? So you'll ignore the last primary with Bush and McCain and pretend like Democrats attacking each other in a primary isn't what all politicians do. So does this mean you hate yourself for being inconsistant? You should.
The difference bunge is that I don't consider Bush a saint. I don't consider him a vile evil man either. The day to day workings of the world aren't always clean and perfect. However if the candidate and general trend are going my way, I'm happy. Many leftists on here though portray the parties in practically religious terms. Good and evil. Disagreements become "lies" because they have the one true way and one true light.
That is such nonsense. That is why I slam groups for example for proclaiming themselves as appreciative of diversity but in reality they are thought police who are intolerant of other views. Or again for example Dean swearing he is grassroots when it was Clark who was drafted into the campaign. Dean declared himself a candidate, borrowed a few slogans and begs for money as well as anyone else. There isn't anything special about him. The fact that I point out, for example how he hides from Kyoto shows him to be a regular politician who will change what his views were to get elected. As for how that allows people to "take back their country" or any other such nonsense, they are nothing but slogans.
Dean offers nothing. All he does is toss out some anger and let others fill in what they are angry about and they project his support of their pet issues because darn it, we were both angry.
However anger isn't policy. When Dean has to be pinned down that support will drop. That is what made his website so pissed about that Democratic ad. How can a guy who has an A from the NRA really be true to the Democratic party gun control issue? How can Dean really be elected when he has no record of support for the war? The other Democrats have degrees of support, but then they can claim whatever they wish regarding their removal of support. Clark, Kerry and others can claim they answered the call, but that questioning afterwards isn't treasonous or wrong. Dean can't say he ever even answered the call. No national guard. No Vietnam, no support of any action, nothing.
Again we see the same issues, questionings strength in the south, support of minorities, ability to convincingly claim an alternative to what was done in Iraq, openness with regard to prior actions and statements on Vermont, Medicare, Social Security, gun control, etc. These questions are coming from the Democrats who haven't drank the Dean kool-aid yet.
Just as questioning Bush isn't supporting terrorism, questioning Dean isn't "working against taking your country back, destroying the parties attempts at building grassroots, etc."
Nick
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
You've got the love the way that SDW and trumptman both insist that Dean doesn't have a hope of winning and then attack him as if nothing frightens them more than the prospect that the guy actually will.
Good thought, but honestly untrue. If I was worried I would say so. That's how I am. Once again, I love how the libs on this board view each other as objective, while conservatives' statments are viewed under the viel of intellectual dishonesty. I am not speaking about what I want to happen...I am speaking about what is happening and what I think WILL happen. It's not about my personal views. And I'm telling you: Dean cannot beat Bush. I am willing to bet just about anything on that.
What is amazing is the zeal wtih which the left supports Dean, all the while calling him a fiscal conservative and centrist. He is anything but a centrist.
Originally posted by trumptman
The difference bunge is that I don't consider Bush a saint. I don't consider him a vile evil man either. The day to day workings of the world aren't always clean and perfect. However if the candidate and general trend are going my way, I'm happy. Many leftists on here though portray the parties in practically religious terms. Good and evil. Disagreements become "lies" because they have the one true way and one true light.
Same old straw man BS. No one here thinks of Dean as a saint, but you argue as if people do believe that. It's just deflecting the truth. Some people really do believe Dean would make a better president than Bush.
Who around here portrays the Democratic party in religious terms? ANY party? Who in the news? Who anywhere? Pratically no one. The closest you'll come is SDW's love of Bush. The only other religious-like language I see is your zealous attack of Dean right here in this thread about candidates attacking.
When Democrats attack democrats in a primary, it's normal. It's to be expected, just as it's expected from the republicans.
"oh... Dean must be the guy because eveyone is going after him."
And if a canididate goes "too negative" it turns off the voters that haven't picked someone to vote for yet.
Also... Bush had hardly left the U.S. before he became president... foreign policy experience rarely is an important issue for voters.
Originally posted by SDW2001
What is amazing is the zeal wtih which the left supports Dean, all the while calling him a fiscal conservative and centrist. He is anything but a centrist.
You keep saying this... Could you explain some of Dean's "hard left" notions?
Originally posted by trumptman
Note: Dean Gestapo using conspiratorial tones to discuss attack ads by Democratic interest groups.
I forgot, Trumptman would prefer if all Democratic candidates didn't fight, weren't upset, didn't bother to try and match Bush dollar for dollar, didn't point out hypocrisy from within and without the party...
...that way only Republicans will ever win.
If SDW got his way, we Dems should just quit. Pack our bags. Move to Jamaica and let the Republicans have their almighty monarchy.
Jeb Bush 2008!
Originally posted by SDW2001
Hmmm...seems like another Dean thread.
On the ad itself. I don;t think it is that despicable. I wouldn't have created it...but it's not despicable.
As for your editorial, I think if you want to talk about Democrats Attacking Democrats, then that is a real issue. It's also a clever thread title. But your little rant against Bush is transparent and discrediting.
Dean is going to lose. Big. But thta won't stop Dems from believing he can beat Bush.
Oh my god. A supporter for Howard Dean for President pointing out valid reasons and concerns to replace Bush. Was I really THAT transparent? I guess I should watch it. Next time I'll throw Bush more kisses.
One cannot discuss issues within the primary process itself without also drawing parallels with GWB. It's impossible. But, good job pointing it out. You're so clever.