Are you guys honestly saying that Dean attacking DLC type candidates like Lieberman couldn't result in some Democrats staying home/defecting/spliting the party?
You're right I'm just making it up.
I mean I must be listening to right wing, echo chamber sources like ...
Obviously it's just some Republican talking points only being pushed by Republican talk show hosts and Fox.
Nick
Fvck the old-school Democrats!
If Dems want to continue to have their asses beaten and their politcal souls served on a platter by the Republicans, then sure, let's play nice. Let's not point out the problems within the party. Let's not do anything to shake things up. Let's not try to reinvent the Democratic party, because, after all, we know how we have a winning machine here. Right?
Not.
Will I support Dean to the bitter end? You betcha! Will Dean be gouged, maligned, distorted (already starting), shat upon, ridiculed, mocked and ultimately beaten silly by BushCorp and Rove, Inc? Will Dean get torched by the media while Bush continues to get a free pass ? You better believe it! But, I will not sit idly by and pretend to participate in civil discourse when civil discourse has led my party to the brink of extinction.
If any of you liberals out there (what few of us are left) truly believe that we need to play nice like Trumpt, et al, want us to....then they've fooled you into believing something blatantly false -- that they are playing fair and their discourse is civil. It's anything but civil..
If you want to label me a blind partisan -- please do!
okay, i may be oversimplifying here (after all, i was stuck in canada for the 200 elections, so i was a spectator at best during the lead-up), but wasn't a major problem with gore was that he was trying to be so moderate and republican in his statements, attempting to push himself as far from being associated with the scandalous clinton, that he lost many people who would have otherwise voted for him? (or, rather, the people who would usually be more fervently behind him just developed a sort of apathy before election day).
seems like dean is simply drawing his lines, come hell or high water. i may not agree with where he draws those lines every so often, but at least you know where he stands (well, as much as you know where ANy politician stands based off election campaign statements).
Gore lost because Rove, Inc. and the American media system decided that painting Gore as a "serial exaggerator" sold more newspapers, made better ratings, which got Bush elected. Every single instance of Gore "lying" has been proven so completely false that it is utterly amazing how an entire nation believes Gore lied. Tirelessly worked the senate to fund Arpanet. True. The Tennessean newspaper wrote that Al & Tipper were the inspiration for Love Story. True. Al Gore was the first to hold Love Canal hearings which led a major internation law. True.
But none of the real TRUE facts matter anymore. Al Gore invented the Internet and thusly was not qualified to be the president. Funny thing too, because he never used the word "invented the Internet" until it became a joke he delivered while hosting SNL.
Gore lost because Rove, Inc. and the American media system decided that painting Gore as a "serial exaggerator" sold more newspapers, made better ratings, which got Bush elected. Every single instance of Gore "lying" has been proven so completely false that it is utterly amazing how an entire nation believes Gore lied. Tirelessly worked the senate to fund Arpanet. True. The Tennessean newspaper wrote that Al & Tipper were the inspiration for Love Story. True. Al Gore was the first to hold Love Canal hearings which led a major internation law. True.
But none of the real TRUE facts matter anymore. Al Gore invented the Internet and thusly was not qualified to be the president. Funny thing too, because he never used the word "invented the Internet" until it became a joke he delivered while hosting SNL.
Ohh man you're so right, of course it wasn't Gore's fault for losing it was everybody else's. Poor defenseless Gore, shame on everybody who didn't like him, support him or attacked him. You are baaddddd people.
Ohh man you're so right, of course it wasn't Gore's fault for losing it was everybody else's. Poor defenseless Gore, shame on everybody who didn't like him, support him or attacked him. You are baaddddd people.
Good to see you condone lying. I'm sure you're proud.
In a surprising moment of candor, the Weekly Standard's Matt Labash told an interviewer:
"The conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage indsutry in which it pays to be unobjective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it, too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it, actually."
The idea of Republican centrism is a joke. Republican centrism died with George HW Bush. Republican centrism died when they proclaimed that Clinton "stole the election" and proceeded to bury him with Blowjobgate.
First and foremost. Try some decaf.
Secondly, I suppose you would base your claims on what... all the Democratic gains nationally since 2000? Oh wait, there weren't any.
Quote:
Republican centrism is yet another round of fake propaganda that the right wants you to believe. Move the goal posts so far to the right, anything in the center will appear far far left. Trumpt reveals his hand by stating, unequivocally, that "The only flaw with this is you assume the Democratic party occupies the political middle when it is actually to the left."
I made no claim that Republicans had "claimed" the 10% of swing voters in the middle. You're arguing with the mirror and getting spittle all over it.
My hand wasn't "revealed" in my reply to Moogs. He understood it perfectly. He assumed Dean creating a new third alternative that would automatically garner equal numbers of votes from both parties instead of splitting the Democratic party. His reply revealed that.
A valid consideration. I guess I was more coming from a "if we can create a long-term, third (moderate) political party, I'm all for it" POV. Obviously the near-term consequences could be a lost election... but we still have a long way to go before the Democratic contender is decided.
He considered the 25-20 split of the 45% of the electorate the Democrats have (remember I said Republicans have 45% as well) to be worth it if it would create more than a two party system.
Quote:
Of course, Trumpt will come out swinging, using all kinds of "evidence" to support his claim that BushCorp is the most centrist administration in the history of the GOP. Which is, of course, absurd.
Trumpt will also claim that Dean's attack on the DLC is proof that he's a leftist radical, further cementing the notion that the DLC is, in point of fact, a "centrist" Democratic organization. You can't have it both ways.
No what Trumpt will do is assume the Republicans have their 45% and are working on a strategy to get to 50% and an electoral college victory as well. What is very unclear is if Dean can unite a party by feuding with major elements of it. Calling the DLC "Republican-lite" does exactly what to unite the party?
Quote:
It's only a matter of time before Tumpt, Scott, SDW and the rest start repeating Carl Rove's latest attempt at Hemingway, "Dean is a pessimist."
Let the "pessimism" charade commence in three...two...one....
It isn't about whether Dean is a pessimist. It is about whether criticism constitutes a plan about how you can run the country better. The Republican AND DEMOCRATIC claims have been that Dean is light on substance heavy on anger.
Quote:
Then, Trumpt uses an old article about draft dodging, while systematically ignoring his own president's history during Vietnam and being dubbed "The AWOL kid". Again, the disingenuousness and intellectual dishonesty astounds!
Old article? I didn't know that Joe Conasan on 12/15/03 was somehow ancient or that it made the criticisms about Dean's actions any less valid. Dean claims conspiracy while sealing his records. He claims credibility on military and foreign affairs via being a ski bum.
Quote:
Further, Trumpt and his ilk of vile spewing Blame-America's-Ex-Presidents-First club insist on using the "Clinton never had even 50% of the vote" rhetoric when their own president didn't even win the popular vote. Again, the hypocrisy and distortions astounds!
No I'm citing a historical fact to show that a ideological fight on one side can hand a weak candidate on the other side a victory. Clinton won his first election with 43% of the vote and the second with 49%. I would in no way consider him a strong candidate because he has never shown any coattails. His party lost seats at the federal and state level while he was their leader.
If Dems want to continue to have their asses beaten and their politcal souls served on a platter by the Republicans, then sure, let's play nice. Let's not point out the problems within the party. Let's not do anything to shake things up. Let's not try to reinvent the Democratic party, because, after all, we know how we have a winning machine here. Right?
Not.
Will I support Dean to the bitter end? You betcha! Will Dean be gouged, maligned, distorted (already starting), shat upon, ridiculed, mocked and ultimately beaten silly by BushCorp and Rove, Inc? Will Dean get torched by the media while Bush continues to get a free pass ? You better believe it! But, I will not sit idly by and pretend to participate in civil discourse when civil discourse has led my party to the brink of extinction.
If any of you liberals out there (what few of us are left) truly believe that we need to play nice like Trumpt, et al, want us to....then they've fooled you into believing something blatantly false -- that they are playing fair and their discourse is civil. It's anything but civil..
If you want to label me a blind partisan -- please do!
I never said you had to "play nice." I said that splitting the party won't get them to their goal. You aren't a blind partisan. You are just blind. You can't even exercise reading comprehension skills.
I never said you had to "play nice." I said that splitting the party won't get them to their goal. You aren't a blind partisan. You are just blind. You can't even exercise reading comprehension skills.
Nick
Let me put it in big bold letters since you seem to completely ignore the point:
IF REBUILDING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MEANS POTENTIALLY SACRIFICING THE ELECTION--SO BE IT! I'M SICK AND TIRED OF REPUBLICANS TELLING US HOW TO RUN OUR BUSINESS!
If Dean doesn't win this election then that will be something liberals with have to live with. But, if in the process, we shake up the Democratic establishment, re-learn how to run a modern campaign, learn how to better tap into progressive liberal values--then that's a great thing!
Side note: You have a real penchant for personal attacks. I might try to pre-empt certain arguments by making my case, but I never challenged your intelligence, your "reading comprehension skills" or what not. So, thanks for making my point.
Secondly, I suppose you would base your claims on what... all the Democratic gains nationally since 2000? Oh wait, there weren't any.
I never made a claim of gains. If you've been reading any of my posts on these boards lately I've been complaining that Democrats are getting their asses kicked backward and forwards and we're going to continue to get our asses kicked unless these sissy Democrats GROW SOME BALLS and move away from this fake center you Republicans keep harshing on.
Quote:
I made no claim that Republicans had "claimed" the 10% of swing voters in the middle. You're arguing with the mirror and getting spittle all over it.
Another personal attack. Nice.
[quote]My hand wasn't "revealed" in my reply to Moogs. He understood it perfectly. He assumed Dean creating a new third alternative that would automatically garner equal numbers of votes from both parties instead of splitting the Democratic party. His reply revealed that.[quote]
First, arguing for or against a second Democratic party is stupid. It will never happen. We need to FIX the Democratic party FIRST! If the old-school Dems continue to scream and whine--oh well. Otherwise we will be under Republican dominated rule for at least twenty years if the Democrats fracture!
Quote:
No what Trumpt will do is assume the Republicans have their 45% and are working on a strategy to get to 50% and an electoral college victory as well. What is very unclear is if Dean can unite a party by feuding with major elements of it. Calling the DLC "Republican-lite" does exactly what to unite the party?
Dean feuding with major elements of the Democratic party? Hello? It's obvious you are only following the campaign through your own prism. The Democratic establishment decided to attack Dean because they're shaking in their boots, pissing on themselves that he might not beat Bush. Well, no fvcking shit.
Bottom line is if Lieberman were the front-runner we'd be all talking about how the old-school Democrats haven't learned a thing, are usiing the same old talking points from 2000, mired in stubborness, isn't differentiated from BushCorp enough, etc. But, since Dean is the front-runner we're arguing the exact opposite.
Quote:
It isn't about whether Dean is a pessimist. It is about whether criticism constitutes a plan about how you can run the country better. The Republican AND DEMOCRATIC claims have been that Dean is light on substance heavy on anger.
Well, we'll see how long into the campaign before that keyword is used in your rhetoric. It didn't take long for "grassroots" to get co-opted. Oh, and OF COURSE there's going to be democrats who are bitching and complaining about Dean. If and when Dean gets the nomination, Terry McAuliffe is out on his ass. Good riddance!
Quote:
Old article? I didn't know that Joe Conasan on 12/15/03 was somehow ancient or that it made the criticisms about Dean's actions any less valid. Dean claims conspiracy while sealing his records. He claims credibility on military and foreign affairs via being a ski bum.
So, the judge who ruled on sealiing the records was yet another Dean liberal conspiracy? Bush's credibility on military and foreign affairs weren't in question when Bush was running for president in 2000?
Give me a fvcking break Tumpt!
Quote:
No I'm citing a historical fact to show that a ideological fight on one side can hand a weak candidate on the other side a victory. Clinton won his first election with 43% of the vote and the second with 49%. I would in no way consider him a strong candidate because he has never shown any coattails. His party lost seats at the federal and state level while he was their leader.
Yeah, I remember the same ideological fight between Bush and McCain, and Bush and Bauer, and Bush and Keyes, and Bush and .... well, you get the point.
Again, all this talk about Clinton. Clinton is old news. History. We live a very different world and a very different political climate today. Clinton's political legacy no longer applies to today's Democratic candidates (evidenced by Lieberman's, Kerry's and Gephardt's abysmal polls).
It's time for the Democratic party to search its soul and find a new voice. That new voice is Howard Dean. If you don't agree -- well, I don't give a shit!
Let me put it in big bold letters since you seem to completely ignore the point:
IF REBUILDING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MEANS POTENTIALLY SACRIFICING THE ELECTION--SO BE IT! I'M SICK AND TIRED OF REPUBLICANS TELLING US HOW TO RUN OUR BUSINESS!
If Dean doesn't win this election then that will be something liberals with have to live with. But, if in the process, we shake up the Democratic establishment, re-learn how to run a modern campaign, learn how to better tap into progressive liberal values--then that's a great thing!
Side note: You have a real penchant for personal attacks. I might try to pre-empt certain arguments by making my case, but I never challenged your intelligence, your "reading comprehension skills" or what not. So, thanks for making my point.
I'm not ignoring the point. I'm telling you plainly that you rebuild a party around ideas. Even if you don't have a perfect agreement of ideas, you find a way to get enough people to support what you are going to do by getting them to buy into what action you can take now. Dean isn't creating a new center to hang the party around. He is using his anger like a shotgun and just blasting away at whatever comes into his view. The Democratic core enjoyed this at first since they pretty much would enjoy seeing Bush shot with regard to verbal rhetoric. However it is clear that he can't limit this anger and the attacks to Bush. Within his own party he is slamming and demonizing those who disagree with him on issues where the gap is much smaller.
As for personal attacks, you are laughable. Your entire post is Trumpt will... and then some negative characterization. If you don't consider that personal then you need help. You turn up the heat, I gladly match.
The real problem for the Democrats is that they have been using such contradictary language and beliefs for so long, their base is starting to come apart. The unions are supposed to blend with the NAFTA supporting DLC. The unions are supposed to support the unlimited immigration that makes unionization and raising wages almost impossible. You have those same immigrants, mostly hispanic and Catholic being asked to support homosexual marriage. Then we go onto Jews with concerns about the UN/Europe who spend lots of energy bad mouthing Israel for dealing with the Palestinians. You have the anti-war multilateralists who have to deal with the interests of those Jewish folks. Then we could go into the church based black civil rights movement and the portion of the party that wants religion out at any cost.
It is too hard to hold together. Dean is driving the wedges and blowing it apart almost on purpose. He is the one dividing and conquering. As for Republicans telling you how to run your business. I think of it more as mentioning that your own house is built out of glass while you are busy tossing rocks.
Hey if you spend a few hundred words postulating on Trumpt will... you get told to try decaf.
Quote:
I never made a claim of gains. If you've been reading any of my posts on these boards lately I've been complaining that Democrats are getting their asses kicked backward and forwards and we're going to continue to get our asses kicked unless these sissy Democrats GROW SOME BALLS and move away from this fake center you Republicans keep harshing on.
I understand that. I was responding to your claims that Republicans don't have any "centrism" while repeatedly making gains and that somehow Democrats do. I didn't care to debate gains, but rather your oddball belief that Democrats really are the majority but there is no voice for them. Percentage-wise they are no better off than Republicans.
Quote:
Another personal attack. Nice.
Look when you spend the majority of a post assigning actions to people that you THINK they will take, but haven't yet, and then argue against them, I hate to break it to you, but you are arguing with yourself. When I call that arguing in the mirror, it isn't a personal attack, it is reality. You spent your entire rant assigning actions to people on this board and then arguing against the actions you assigned to them. If you can't understand how that is both a personal attack to me and also arguing against yourself, well that us your problem.
Quote:
Dean feuding with major elements of the Democratic party? Hello? It's obvious you are only following the campaign through your own prism. The Democratic establishment decided to attack Dean because they're shaking in their boots, pissing on themselves that he might not beat Bush. Well, no fvcking shit.
Bottom line is if Lieberman were the front-runner we'd be all talking about how the old-school Democrats haven't learned a thing, are usiing the same old talking points from 2000, mired in stubborness, isn't differentiated from BushCorp enough, etc. But, since Dean is the front-runner we're arguing the exact opposite.
Well apparently my own prism has grown to include Democratic Underground, The LA Times, etc. since I only listed at least half a dozen links to support my view from Democratic sources.
If Lieberman were the front-runner they would probably be talking about how his and Gore's platform won the majority of the votes last time and they would make sure to win the electoral college this time. Only someone as blind as you would call the platform that won the majority of the votes in the last election a losing proposition.
Quote:
Well, we'll see how long into the campaign before that keyword is used in your rhetoric. It didn't take long for "grassroots" to get co-opted. Oh, and OF COURSE there's going to be democrats who are bitching and complaining about Dean. If and when Dean gets the nomination, Terry McAuliffe is out on his ass. Good riddance!
Only the Dean campaign would be pretentious enough to think they own certain words in the first place. I guess my finding of Bush using grassroots in 2000 wasn't enough to convince you how much bullshit sloganism you have bought into.
Quote:
So, the judge who ruled on sealiing the records was yet another Dean liberal conspiracy? Bush's credibility on military and foreign affairs weren't in question when Bush was running for president in 2000?
Actually if it were Bush running, they would make fun and play endlessly the Dean error where he mentions the Soviet Union several times while discussing foreign affairs. The media would of course tease that Bush is dumb and didn't know the Soviet Union was gone. Dean of course gets a pass.
Dean said...?Iran is a more complex problem because the problem is not as clearly verifiable as it is in North Korea. Also, we have less - fewer levers. The key, I believe, to Iran is pressure through the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is supplying much of the equipment that Iran, I believe, most likely is using to set itself along the path of developing nuclear weapons. We need to use that leverage with the Soviet Union and it may require us buying the equipment the Soviet Union was ultimately going to sell to Iran to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons."
I could imagine every Sunday pundit teasing that Bush couldn't handle foreign affairs because he didn't know the Soviet Union has been gone for over a decade, but of course where were the Dean comments??
The Dean records affair has been well detailed and the person having issues with it, Joe Conasan is hardly a member of the Republican echo chamber. Open is open, and Dean isn't open.
Quote:
Yeah, I remember the same ideological fight between Bush and McCain, and Bush and Bauer, and Bush and Keyes, and Bush and .... well, you get the point.
Again, all this talk about Clinton. Clinton is old news. History. We live a very different world and a very different political climate today. Clinton's political legacy no longer applies to today's Democratic candidates (evidenced by Lieberman's, Kerry's and Gephardt's abysmal polls).
It's time for the Democratic party to search its soul and find a new voice. That new voice is Howard Dean. If you don't agree -- well, I don't give a shit!
Except you forget that ideological fights aren't the same as calling names (DLC are Republican-lite) calling liars (I didn't give Clark the VP nomination) or outright demonizing parts of the part (Those secretive other Democratic interest groups are running ads against me)
Dean doesn't represent the Democratic party searching for it's soul. He represents the worst of the party. Slogans over substance. Anger over a real plan. Criticism with no real answer or plan to replace that which you are criticizing. Dean is a mercenary pretending to be a revolutionary.
Let's see. Just a little while ago Dean was complaining about how tired he was of "coming to the South and fighting elections on guns, God and gays." I guess he only meant the guns and gays part.
The more I see of this guy the less impressed I am. I didn't like Clinton very much but at least I could appreciate his ability as a politician. Dean will win the nomination but he'll go down in flames in the general election.
... No I'm citing a historical fact to show that a ideological fight on one side can hand a weak candidate on the other side a victory. Clinton won his first election with 43% of the vote and the second with 49%. I would in no way consider him a strong candidate because he has never shown any coattails. His party lost seats at the federal and state level while he was their leader.
True, but winning the presidency despite all his personal baggage still pries loose from me a kind of begrudging admiration.
Basically, Dean said that he wouldn't want to pre-judge Osama's guilt if he were the President. Later, he amended this first statement:
"I share the outrage of all Americans. Osama bin Laden has admitted that he is responsible for killing 3,000 Americans as well as scores of men, women and children around the world. This is the exactly the kind of case that the death penalty is meant for.
"When we capture Osama bin Laden, he will be brought to justice and treated in the same manner that President Bush is recommending for Saddam Hussein."
So, there you go...I'm calling this a medium-to-large political gaffe because it establishes a perception that Dean might actually be "soft on terror". The meaty middle portion of the Democratic party has no doubt that Osama Bin Laden is directing terrorist attacks on America. Some of the party might sense this wiggle by Dean as a little offensive.
Revising his original statement is what raises eyebrows. No doubt his managers were pulling their hair when he made Statement #1 without expanding his thoughts.
All politicians put their feet in their mouths at some point...this shows that Dean is a politician, not the second coming of anyone particularly special. This shows that Dean has yet to develop the chops to discuss International policies...he too needs handlers.
True, but winning the presidency despite all his personal baggage still pries loose from me a kind of begrudging admiration.
Oh I've expressed admiration for Clinton's political skills myself many times. The man had a 12 point plan for national flossing for goodness sakes and targeted tax cuts to promote it.
Clinton was an amazing speaker, even if you didn't believe a word coming out of his mouth.
Let's see. Just a little while ago Dean was complaining about how tired he was of "coming to the South and fighting elections on guns, God and gays." I guess he only meant the guns and gays part.
The more I see of this guy the less impressed I am. I didn't like Clinton very much but at least I could appreciate his ability as a politician. Dean will win the nomination but he'll go down in flames in the general election.
And better yet, he won't be discussing God up North where culturally it is a private matter. Just down South where it is okay to discuss. (Read: Help, I'm behind in the polls there and I'm going to get killed)
I think he only meant the Republican God, guns, and gays.
What seems weird to me is that he basically announces "I'm going to start working religion into my stump speeches." There's no doubt that the American public is overwhelmingly superstitious... err, religious , and Dean's apparent non-religiousness would be a problem. But to make paying lip service to religion part of a campaign strategy, uh, that's just absurd. Oh man this general election is going to be embarrassing. I think I'll avoid the news for the next year.
Religion is a "sleeping giant" issue. If Dean is perceived as godless then it will solidify the conservative Democrats against him.
Politics is always fascinating, how interesting to see how quickly things can change on candidates, it's like going to the rodeo. Sometimes they're thrown clear of a contest and have to pick themselves up like a rodeo rider and look around saying "what just happened?". Gephardt and Kerry have been looking for the rodeo clown to distract the Bull (Dean) from running over them. I'm not about to name which candidate might be the clown....
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Are you guys honestly saying that Dean attacking DLC type candidates like Lieberman couldn't result in some Democrats staying home/defecting/spliting the party?
You're right I'm just making it up.
I mean I must be listening to right wing, echo chamber sources like ...
The New Republic
Democratic Underground
Alternet
The LA Times
New Democrats Online 1
New Democrats Online 2
Obviously it's just some Republican talking points only being pushed by Republican talk show hosts and Fox.
Nick
Fvck the old-school Democrats!
If Dems want to continue to have their asses beaten and their politcal souls served on a platter by the Republicans, then sure, let's play nice. Let's not point out the problems within the party. Let's not do anything to shake things up. Let's not try to reinvent the Democratic party, because, after all, we know how we have a winning machine here. Right?
Not.
Will I support Dean to the bitter end? You betcha! Will Dean be gouged, maligned, distorted (already starting), shat upon, ridiculed, mocked and ultimately beaten silly by BushCorp and Rove, Inc? Will Dean get torched by the media while Bush continues to get a free pass ? You better believe it! But, I will not sit idly by and pretend to participate in civil discourse when civil discourse has led my party to the brink of extinction.
If any of you liberals out there (what few of us are left) truly believe that we need to play nice like Trumpt, et al, want us to....then they've fooled you into believing something blatantly false -- that they are playing fair and their discourse is civil. It's anything but civil..
If you want to label me a blind partisan -- please do!
Originally posted by rok
okay, i may be oversimplifying here (after all, i was stuck in canada for the 200 elections, so i was a spectator at best during the lead-up), but wasn't a major problem with gore was that he was trying to be so moderate and republican in his statements, attempting to push himself as far from being associated with the scandalous clinton, that he lost many people who would have otherwise voted for him? (or, rather, the people who would usually be more fervently behind him just developed a sort of apathy before election day).
seems like dean is simply drawing his lines, come hell or high water. i may not agree with where he draws those lines every so often, but at least you know where he stands (well, as much as you know where ANy politician stands based off election campaign statements).
Gore lost because Rove, Inc. and the American media system decided that painting Gore as a "serial exaggerator" sold more newspapers, made better ratings, which got Bush elected. Every single instance of Gore "lying" has been proven so completely false that it is utterly amazing how an entire nation believes Gore lied. Tirelessly worked the senate to fund Arpanet. True. The Tennessean newspaper wrote that Al & Tipper were the inspiration for Love Story. True. Al Gore was the first to hold Love Canal hearings which led a major internation law. True.
But none of the real TRUE facts matter anymore. Al Gore invented the Internet and thusly was not qualified to be the president. Funny thing too, because he never used the word "invented the Internet" until it became a joke he delivered while hosting SNL.
Originally posted by Northgate
Gore lost because Rove, Inc. and the American media system decided that painting Gore as a "serial exaggerator" sold more newspapers, made better ratings, which got Bush elected. Every single instance of Gore "lying" has been proven so completely false that it is utterly amazing how an entire nation believes Gore lied. Tirelessly worked the senate to fund Arpanet. True. The Tennessean newspaper wrote that Al & Tipper were the inspiration for Love Story. True. Al Gore was the first to hold Love Canal hearings which led a major internation law. True.
But none of the real TRUE facts matter anymore. Al Gore invented the Internet and thusly was not qualified to be the president. Funny thing too, because he never used the word "invented the Internet" until it became a joke he delivered while hosting SNL.
Ohh man you're so right, of course it wasn't Gore's fault for losing it was everybody else's. Poor defenseless Gore, shame on everybody who didn't like him, support him or attacked him. You are baaddddd people.
Originally posted by Argento
Ohh man you're so right, of course it wasn't Gore's fault for losing it was everybody else's. Poor defenseless Gore, shame on everybody who didn't like him, support him or attacked him. You are baaddddd people.
Good to see you condone lying. I'm sure you're proud.
In a surprising moment of candor, the Weekly Standard's Matt Labash told an interviewer:
"The conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage indsutry in which it pays to be unobjective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it, too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it, actually."
Proud indeed.
Originally posted by Northgate
The idea of Republican centrism is a joke. Republican centrism died with George HW Bush. Republican centrism died when they proclaimed that Clinton "stole the election" and proceeded to bury him with Blowjobgate.
First and foremost. Try some decaf.
Secondly, I suppose you would base your claims on what... all the Democratic gains nationally since 2000? Oh wait, there weren't any.
Republican centrism is yet another round of fake propaganda that the right wants you to believe. Move the goal posts so far to the right, anything in the center will appear far far left. Trumpt reveals his hand by stating, unequivocally, that "The only flaw with this is you assume the Democratic party occupies the political middle when it is actually to the left."
I made no claim that Republicans had "claimed" the 10% of swing voters in the middle. You're arguing with the mirror and getting spittle all over it.
My hand wasn't "revealed" in my reply to Moogs. He understood it perfectly. He assumed Dean creating a new third alternative that would automatically garner equal numbers of votes from both parties instead of splitting the Democratic party. His reply revealed that.
A valid consideration. I guess I was more coming from a "if we can create a long-term, third (moderate) political party, I'm all for it" POV. Obviously the near-term consequences could be a lost election... but we still have a long way to go before the Democratic contender is decided.
He considered the 25-20 split of the 45% of the electorate the Democrats have (remember I said Republicans have 45% as well) to be worth it if it would create more than a two party system.
Of course, Trumpt will come out swinging, using all kinds of "evidence" to support his claim that BushCorp is the most centrist administration in the history of the GOP. Which is, of course, absurd.
Trumpt will also claim that Dean's attack on the DLC is proof that he's a leftist radical, further cementing the notion that the DLC is, in point of fact, a "centrist" Democratic organization. You can't have it both ways.
No what Trumpt will do is assume the Republicans have their 45% and are working on a strategy to get to 50% and an electoral college victory as well. What is very unclear is if Dean can unite a party by feuding with major elements of it. Calling the DLC "Republican-lite" does exactly what to unite the party?
It's only a matter of time before Tumpt, Scott, SDW and the rest start repeating Carl Rove's latest attempt at Hemingway, "Dean is a pessimist."
Let the "pessimism" charade commence in three...two...one....
It isn't about whether Dean is a pessimist. It is about whether criticism constitutes a plan about how you can run the country better. The Republican AND DEMOCRATIC claims have been that Dean is light on substance heavy on anger.
Then, Trumpt uses an old article about draft dodging, while systematically ignoring his own president's history during Vietnam and being dubbed "The AWOL kid". Again, the disingenuousness and intellectual dishonesty astounds!
Old article? I didn't know that Joe Conasan on 12/15/03 was somehow ancient or that it made the criticisms about Dean's actions any less valid. Dean claims conspiracy while sealing his records. He claims credibility on military and foreign affairs via being a ski bum.
Further, Trumpt and his ilk of vile spewing Blame-America's-Ex-Presidents-First club insist on using the "Clinton never had even 50% of the vote" rhetoric when their own president didn't even win the popular vote. Again, the hypocrisy and distortions astounds!
No I'm citing a historical fact to show that a ideological fight on one side can hand a weak candidate on the other side a victory. Clinton won his first election with 43% of the vote and the second with 49%. I would in no way consider him a strong candidate because he has never shown any coattails. His party lost seats at the federal and state level while he was their leader.
Nick
Originally posted by Northgate
Fvck the old-school Democrats!
If Dems want to continue to have their asses beaten and their politcal souls served on a platter by the Republicans, then sure, let's play nice. Let's not point out the problems within the party. Let's not do anything to shake things up. Let's not try to reinvent the Democratic party, because, after all, we know how we have a winning machine here. Right?
Not.
Will I support Dean to the bitter end? You betcha! Will Dean be gouged, maligned, distorted (already starting), shat upon, ridiculed, mocked and ultimately beaten silly by BushCorp and Rove, Inc? Will Dean get torched by the media while Bush continues to get a free pass ? You better believe it! But, I will not sit idly by and pretend to participate in civil discourse when civil discourse has led my party to the brink of extinction.
If any of you liberals out there (what few of us are left) truly believe that we need to play nice like Trumpt, et al, want us to....then they've fooled you into believing something blatantly false -- that they are playing fair and their discourse is civil. It's anything but civil..
If you want to label me a blind partisan -- please do!
I never said you had to "play nice." I said that splitting the party won't get them to their goal. You aren't a blind partisan. You are just blind. You can't even exercise reading comprehension skills.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I never said you had to "play nice." I said that splitting the party won't get them to their goal. You aren't a blind partisan. You are just blind. You can't even exercise reading comprehension skills.
Nick
Let me put it in big bold letters since you seem to completely ignore the point:
IF REBUILDING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MEANS POTENTIALLY SACRIFICING THE ELECTION--SO BE IT! I'M SICK AND TIRED OF REPUBLICANS TELLING US HOW TO RUN OUR BUSINESS!
If Dean doesn't win this election then that will be something liberals with have to live with. But, if in the process, we shake up the Democratic establishment, re-learn how to run a modern campaign, learn how to better tap into progressive liberal values--then that's a great thing!
Side note: You have a real penchant for personal attacks. I might try to pre-empt certain arguments by making my case, but I never challenged your intelligence, your "reading comprehension skills" or what not. So, thanks for making my point.
Originally posted by trumptman
First and foremost. Try some decaf.
Nice personal attack. Again.
Secondly, I suppose you would base your claims on what... all the Democratic gains nationally since 2000? Oh wait, there weren't any.
I never made a claim of gains. If you've been reading any of my posts on these boards lately I've been complaining that Democrats are getting their asses kicked backward and forwards and we're going to continue to get our asses kicked unless these sissy Democrats GROW SOME BALLS and move away from this fake center you Republicans keep harshing on.
I made no claim that Republicans had "claimed" the 10% of swing voters in the middle. You're arguing with the mirror and getting spittle all over it.
Another personal attack. Nice.
[quote]My hand wasn't "revealed" in my reply to Moogs. He understood it perfectly. He assumed Dean creating a new third alternative that would automatically garner equal numbers of votes from both parties instead of splitting the Democratic party. His reply revealed that.[quote]
First, arguing for or against a second Democratic party is stupid. It will never happen. We need to FIX the Democratic party FIRST! If the old-school Dems continue to scream and whine--oh well. Otherwise we will be under Republican dominated rule for at least twenty years if the Democrats fracture!
No what Trumpt will do is assume the Republicans have their 45% and are working on a strategy to get to 50% and an electoral college victory as well. What is very unclear is if Dean can unite a party by feuding with major elements of it. Calling the DLC "Republican-lite" does exactly what to unite the party?
Dean feuding with major elements of the Democratic party? Hello? It's obvious you are only following the campaign through your own prism. The Democratic establishment decided to attack Dean because they're shaking in their boots, pissing on themselves that he might not beat Bush. Well, no fvcking shit.
Bottom line is if Lieberman were the front-runner we'd be all talking about how the old-school Democrats haven't learned a thing, are usiing the same old talking points from 2000, mired in stubborness, isn't differentiated from BushCorp enough, etc. But, since Dean is the front-runner we're arguing the exact opposite.
It isn't about whether Dean is a pessimist. It is about whether criticism constitutes a plan about how you can run the country better. The Republican AND DEMOCRATIC claims have been that Dean is light on substance heavy on anger.
Well, we'll see how long into the campaign before that keyword is used in your rhetoric. It didn't take long for "grassroots" to get co-opted. Oh, and OF COURSE there's going to be democrats who are bitching and complaining about Dean. If and when Dean gets the nomination, Terry McAuliffe is out on his ass. Good riddance!
Old article? I didn't know that Joe Conasan on 12/15/03 was somehow ancient or that it made the criticisms about Dean's actions any less valid. Dean claims conspiracy while sealing his records. He claims credibility on military and foreign affairs via being a ski bum.
So, the judge who ruled on sealiing the records was yet another Dean liberal conspiracy? Bush's credibility on military and foreign affairs weren't in question when Bush was running for president in 2000?
Give me a fvcking break Tumpt!
No I'm citing a historical fact to show that a ideological fight on one side can hand a weak candidate on the other side a victory. Clinton won his first election with 43% of the vote and the second with 49%. I would in no way consider him a strong candidate because he has never shown any coattails. His party lost seats at the federal and state level while he was their leader.
Yeah, I remember the same ideological fight between Bush and McCain, and Bush and Bauer, and Bush and Keyes, and Bush and .... well, you get the point.
Again, all this talk about Clinton. Clinton is old news. History. We live a very different world and a very different political climate today. Clinton's political legacy no longer applies to today's Democratic candidates (evidenced by Lieberman's, Kerry's and Gephardt's abysmal polls).
It's time for the Democratic party to search its soul and find a new voice. That new voice is Howard Dean. If you don't agree -- well, I don't give a shit!
Originally posted by Northgate
Let me put it in big bold letters since you seem to completely ignore the point:
IF REBUILDING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MEANS POTENTIALLY SACRIFICING THE ELECTION--SO BE IT! I'M SICK AND TIRED OF REPUBLICANS TELLING US HOW TO RUN OUR BUSINESS!
If Dean doesn't win this election then that will be something liberals with have to live with. But, if in the process, we shake up the Democratic establishment, re-learn how to run a modern campaign, learn how to better tap into progressive liberal values--then that's a great thing!
Side note: You have a real penchant for personal attacks. I might try to pre-empt certain arguments by making my case, but I never challenged your intelligence, your "reading comprehension skills" or what not. So, thanks for making my point.
I'm not ignoring the point. I'm telling you plainly that you rebuild a party around ideas. Even if you don't have a perfect agreement of ideas, you find a way to get enough people to support what you are going to do by getting them to buy into what action you can take now. Dean isn't creating a new center to hang the party around. He is using his anger like a shotgun and just blasting away at whatever comes into his view. The Democratic core enjoyed this at first since they pretty much would enjoy seeing Bush shot with regard to verbal rhetoric. However it is clear that he can't limit this anger and the attacks to Bush. Within his own party he is slamming and demonizing those who disagree with him on issues where the gap is much smaller.
As for personal attacks, you are laughable. Your entire post is Trumpt will... and then some negative characterization. If you don't consider that personal then you need help. You turn up the heat, I gladly match.
The real problem for the Democrats is that they have been using such contradictary language and beliefs for so long, their base is starting to come apart. The unions are supposed to blend with the NAFTA supporting DLC. The unions are supposed to support the unlimited immigration that makes unionization and raising wages almost impossible. You have those same immigrants, mostly hispanic and Catholic being asked to support homosexual marriage. Then we go onto Jews with concerns about the UN/Europe who spend lots of energy bad mouthing Israel for dealing with the Palestinians. You have the anti-war multilateralists who have to deal with the interests of those Jewish folks. Then we could go into the church based black civil rights movement and the portion of the party that wants religion out at any cost.
It is too hard to hold together. Dean is driving the wedges and blowing it apart almost on purpose. He is the one dividing and conquering. As for Republicans telling you how to run your business. I think of it more as mentioning that your own house is built out of glass while you are busy tossing rocks.
Nick
Originally posted by Northgate
Nice personal attack. Again.
Hey if you spend a few hundred words postulating on Trumpt will... you get told to try decaf.
I never made a claim of gains. If you've been reading any of my posts on these boards lately I've been complaining that Democrats are getting their asses kicked backward and forwards and we're going to continue to get our asses kicked unless these sissy Democrats GROW SOME BALLS and move away from this fake center you Republicans keep harshing on.
I understand that. I was responding to your claims that Republicans don't have any "centrism" while repeatedly making gains and that somehow Democrats do. I didn't care to debate gains, but rather your oddball belief that Democrats really are the majority but there is no voice for them. Percentage-wise they are no better off than Republicans.
Another personal attack. Nice.
Look when you spend the majority of a post assigning actions to people that you THINK they will take, but haven't yet, and then argue against them, I hate to break it to you, but you are arguing with yourself. When I call that arguing in the mirror, it isn't a personal attack, it is reality. You spent your entire rant assigning actions to people on this board and then arguing against the actions you assigned to them. If you can't understand how that is both a personal attack to me and also arguing against yourself, well that us your problem.
Dean feuding with major elements of the Democratic party? Hello? It's obvious you are only following the campaign through your own prism. The Democratic establishment decided to attack Dean because they're shaking in their boots, pissing on themselves that he might not beat Bush. Well, no fvcking shit.
Bottom line is if Lieberman were the front-runner we'd be all talking about how the old-school Democrats haven't learned a thing, are usiing the same old talking points from 2000, mired in stubborness, isn't differentiated from BushCorp enough, etc. But, since Dean is the front-runner we're arguing the exact opposite.
Well apparently my own prism has grown to include Democratic Underground, The LA Times, etc. since I only listed at least half a dozen links to support my view from Democratic sources.
If Lieberman were the front-runner they would probably be talking about how his and Gore's platform won the majority of the votes last time and they would make sure to win the electoral college this time. Only someone as blind as you would call the platform that won the majority of the votes in the last election a losing proposition.
Well, we'll see how long into the campaign before that keyword is used in your rhetoric. It didn't take long for "grassroots" to get co-opted. Oh, and OF COURSE there's going to be democrats who are bitching and complaining about Dean. If and when Dean gets the nomination, Terry McAuliffe is out on his ass. Good riddance!
Only the Dean campaign would be pretentious enough to think they own certain words in the first place. I guess my finding of Bush using grassroots in 2000 wasn't enough to convince you how much bullshit sloganism you have bought into.
So, the judge who ruled on sealiing the records was yet another Dean liberal conspiracy? Bush's credibility on military and foreign affairs weren't in question when Bush was running for president in 2000?
Actually if it were Bush running, they would make fun and play endlessly the Dean error where he mentions the Soviet Union several times while discussing foreign affairs. The media would of course tease that Bush is dumb and didn't know the Soviet Union was gone. Dean of course gets a pass.
Dean said...?Iran is a more complex problem because the problem is not as clearly verifiable as it is in North Korea. Also, we have less - fewer levers. The key, I believe, to Iran is pressure through the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is supplying much of the equipment that Iran, I believe, most likely is using to set itself along the path of developing nuclear weapons. We need to use that leverage with the Soviet Union and it may require us buying the equipment the Soviet Union was ultimately going to sell to Iran to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons."
I could imagine every Sunday pundit teasing that Bush couldn't handle foreign affairs because he didn't know the Soviet Union has been gone for over a decade, but of course where were the Dean comments??
The Dean records affair has been well detailed and the person having issues with it, Joe Conasan is hardly a member of the Republican echo chamber. Open is open, and Dean isn't open.
Yeah, I remember the same ideological fight between Bush and McCain, and Bush and Bauer, and Bush and Keyes, and Bush and .... well, you get the point.
Again, all this talk about Clinton. Clinton is old news. History. We live a very different world and a very different political climate today. Clinton's political legacy no longer applies to today's Democratic candidates (evidenced by Lieberman's, Kerry's and Gephardt's abysmal polls).
It's time for the Democratic party to search its soul and find a new voice. That new voice is Howard Dean. If you don't agree -- well, I don't give a shit!
Except you forget that ideological fights aren't the same as calling names (DLC are Republican-lite) calling liars (I didn't give Clark the VP nomination) or outright demonizing parts of the part (Those secretive other Democratic interest groups are running ads against me)
Dean doesn't represent the Democratic party searching for it's soul. He represents the worst of the party. Slogans over substance. Anger over a real plan. Criticism with no real answer or plan to replace that which you are criticizing. Dean is a mercenary pretending to be a revolutionary.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Dean loves Jesus
... Thoughts, opinions?
Let's see. Just a little while ago Dean was complaining about how tired he was of "coming to the South and fighting elections on guns, God and gays." I guess he only meant the guns and gays part.
The more I see of this guy the less impressed I am. I didn't like Clinton very much but at least I could appreciate his ability as a politician. Dean will win the nomination but he'll go down in flames in the general election.
Originally posted by trumptman
... No I'm citing a historical fact to show that a ideological fight on one side can hand a weak candidate on the other side a victory. Clinton won his first election with 43% of the vote and the second with 49%. I would in no way consider him a strong candidate because he has never shown any coattails. His party lost seats at the federal and state level while he was their leader.
True, but winning the presidency despite all his personal baggage still pries loose from me a kind of begrudging admiration.
Dean says Osama's guilt is best determined by a Jury
Basically, Dean said that he wouldn't want to pre-judge Osama's guilt if he were the President. Later, he amended this first statement:
"I share the outrage of all Americans. Osama bin Laden has admitted that he is responsible for killing 3,000 Americans as well as scores of men, women and children around the world. This is the exactly the kind of case that the death penalty is meant for.
"When we capture Osama bin Laden, he will be brought to justice and treated in the same manner that President Bush is recommending for Saddam Hussein."
So, there you go...I'm calling this a medium-to-large political gaffe because it establishes a perception that Dean might actually be "soft on terror". The meaty middle portion of the Democratic party has no doubt that Osama Bin Laden is directing terrorist attacks on America. Some of the party might sense this wiggle by Dean as a little offensive.
Revising his original statement is what raises eyebrows. No doubt his managers were pulling their hair when he made Statement #1 without expanding his thoughts.
All politicians put their feet in their mouths at some point...this shows that Dean is a politician, not the second coming of anyone particularly special. This shows that Dean has yet to develop the chops to discuss International policies...he too needs handlers.
The race continues.
This is going to be a landslide.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
True, but winning the presidency despite all his personal baggage still pries loose from me a kind of begrudging admiration.
Oh I've expressed admiration for Clinton's political skills myself many times. The man had a 12 point plan for national flossing for goodness sakes and targeted tax cuts to promote it.
Clinton was an amazing speaker, even if you didn't believe a word coming out of his mouth.
Nick
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Let's see. Just a little while ago Dean was complaining about how tired he was of "coming to the South and fighting elections on guns, God and gays." I guess he only meant the guns and gays part.
The more I see of this guy the less impressed I am. I didn't like Clinton very much but at least I could appreciate his ability as a politician. Dean will win the nomination but he'll go down in flames in the general election.
And better yet, he won't be discussing God up North where culturally it is a private matter. Just down South where it is okay to discuss. (Read: Help, I'm behind in the polls there and I'm going to get killed)
I think he only meant the Republican God, guns, and gays.
Nick
Politics is always fascinating, how interesting to see how quickly things can change on candidates, it's like going to the rodeo. Sometimes they're thrown clear of a contest and have to pick themselves up like a rodeo rider and look around saying "what just happened?". Gephardt and Kerry have been looking for the rodeo clown to distract the Bull (Dean) from running over them. I'm not about to name which candidate might be the clown....
dean is a buffoon, and it's only going to get worse. can you imaging what a few hundred million dollars of directed soundbytes will do to this guy?
he'll be a quivering mess before all's said and done.
hell, if i thought i could get away with it, and i were in the Bush camp i'd be running ads for Dean.