Dean: labels, lying and showing his real "roots"
First let me predict the first few replies to this post from the various masters of distaction on here.
"Hey I don't like your thread title."
"I don't think it fair that you claim XXXX."
"Oh geez, look at the poster, newspaper, writer, etc... I think they are biased."
Now that we have those out of the way, perhaps we can actually discuss the subject at hand.
Dean conference call contents
I think it very sad that Dean uses the tactics he claims Democrats should be "above," claims he doesn't use, and of course show he is anything but a different type of politician.
In this call with Dean campaign associates we see labels and attacks being used in place of policy debates. We see polling data being used not to determine policy or even shape a positive message, but to shape an attack. The attack isn't even about ideas, but about what negative words you can stick on the other campaign.
Clark will come pretty close to Dean on funds with matching funds being accepted. Clark actually had voters create websites and use other grassroots type techniques to convince him to join the race. Meanwhile Dean keeps tossing out anger and is steering the race to labels like "Real Democrat", etc. Worse yet he is co-opting words with attacks insted of with actions, plans or programs.
They call this cynical manipulation taking back your country, or a revolution? It sounds like the worst aspects of politics to me.
Nick
"Hey I don't like your thread title."
"I don't think it fair that you claim XXXX."
"Oh geez, look at the poster, newspaper, writer, etc... I think they are biased."
Now that we have those out of the way, perhaps we can actually discuss the subject at hand.
Dean conference call contents
I think it very sad that Dean uses the tactics he claims Democrats should be "above," claims he doesn't use, and of course show he is anything but a different type of politician.
In this call with Dean campaign associates we see labels and attacks being used in place of policy debates. We see polling data being used not to determine policy or even shape a positive message, but to shape an attack. The attack isn't even about ideas, but about what negative words you can stick on the other campaign.
Clark will come pretty close to Dean on funds with matching funds being accepted. Clark actually had voters create websites and use other grassroots type techniques to convince him to join the race. Meanwhile Dean keeps tossing out anger and is steering the race to labels like "Real Democrat", etc. Worse yet he is co-opting words with attacks insted of with actions, plans or programs.
They call this cynical manipulation taking back your country, or a revolution? It sounds like the worst aspects of politics to me.
Nick
Comments
overheard a strategy phone call...
yeah and?
They had a point. Clark calls himself a Democrat now... but he's been a politcian all of about 6 months. He's bragged about voting for Bush last time around. I guess to up his centrist moderate clout.
What you fail to see is that their strategy is to talk about what Dean IS rather than what Clark or the others are not. There's nothing underhanded about that.
So show me where Dean has criticized Clark directly.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
overheard a strategy phone call...
yeah and?
Couldn't have said it better. Appreciate you got a little image behind the scenes of campaign stategy planning.
To "report" on an internal discussion about campaign strategizing is a slippery slope. Howard Fineman took it a step further and cut-and-pasted blogger comments into his Newsweek article illustrating "concerns" about Howard Dean. So Bloggers now have to watch what they write because it might get used against their candidate in the national press? It's sorta like, "Damn, the doctor didn't say anything stupid today...so let's pick on his bloggers and find some juicy criticism." This coming from the guy who hosts Faux News' "Fox News Watch".
Whatever Mr. Fineman, I thought you were a real journalist.
One of the great things about the blog as a tool is that Dean supporters can post suggestions and ideas about items that concern them. The Dean HQ has shown on several occasions that they are listening to their supporters and often incorporate their suggestions. This helps constitute a feeling that you're involved, indirectly or not. If journalists like Fineman start mining the blog for "dirt" then Dean's use of the Internet as a impressive tool that will live and die with his campaign. Future campaigns may not allow bloggers to post comments similar to Bush's website. And like the Bush site the communication will, once again, be one way.
Originally posted by trumptman
First let me predict the first few replies to this post from the various masters of distaction on here.
"Hey I don't like your thread title."
"I don't think it fair that you claim XXXX."
"Oh geez, look at the poster, newspaper, writer, etc... I think they are biased."
Now that we have those out of the way, perhaps we can actually discuss the subject at hand.
Dean conference call contents
I think it very sad that Dean uses the tactics he claims Democrats should be "above," claims he doesn't use, and of course show he is anything but a different type of politician.
In this call with Dean campaign associates we see labels and attacks being used in place of policy debates. We see polling data being used not to determine policy or even shape a positive message, but to shape an attack. The attack isn't even about ideas, but about what negative words you can stick on the other campaign.
Clark will come pretty close to Dean on funds with matching funds being accepted. Clark actually had voters create websites and use other grassroots type techniques to convince him to join the race. Meanwhile Dean keeps tossing out anger and is steering the race to labels like "Real Democrat", etc. Worse yet he is co-opting words with attacks insted of with actions, plans or programs.
They call this cynical manipulation taking back your country, or a revolution? It sounds like the worst aspects of politics to me.
Nick
All these posts to discredit Dean. I kind of wondered why?
Then it came to me. You're afraid of him aren't you?
Maybe you should consider saving it up for the occasional really scathing post instead of devaluing whatever indignation you've mustered with this steady drip drip drip of jumping on minor gaffes, making mountains out of mole-hills, and starting threads with names like "Dean vows Americans will toil as slaves in his secret salt mines".
Originally posted by jimmac
All these posts to discredit Dean. I kind of wondered why?
Then it came to me. You're afraid of him aren't you?
Nice try, but no.
I mean if I took the "right" stance on this, I would be supporting Dean since he is likely to marginalize the Democrats.
However like all people I have pet peeves I can't keep my mouth shut about, even when it would be in my better interest to do so.
One of my worst pet peeves is when someone claims a person, party, process, or procedure is above human nature. Dean claims this often.
So honestly if I wanted to be afraid of him, I probably wouldn't point out anything since naming him empowers him in some ways. But he is just such a hypocrit, I can't help myself.
Nick
Originally posted by addabox
If this is the worst you can come up with to cast doubt on Dean's character (well, this and the seemingly thousands of trivial caveats with scary thread titles you've posted), it starts to seem like maybe Dean is a pretty good guy.
Maybe you should consider saving it up for the occasional really scathing post instead of devaluing whatever indignation you've mustered with this steady drip drip drip of jumping on minor gaffes, making mountains out of mole-hills, and starting threads with names like "Dean vows Americans will toil as slaves in his secret salt mines".
You make a good point, and I will consider it. Your funny thread title at the end almost made me spit soup through my nose!
Nick
And I don't know what the real "roots" means.
and where did Dean lie?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
You can claim hypocrisy... but you didn't show any.
And I don't know what the real "roots" means.
and where did Dean lie?
The real "roots" means that his organization did not appear out of no where like he portrays. He started as a candidate and is building a very traditional modern campaign organizaion with a heavy emphasis on money and labels, instead of ideas. He tries to portray himself as rising from some grassroots movement when in reality Clark is the candidate that had a movement which found him and drafted him to lead.
As for the hypocracy, there have been numerous examples of it. Most of the examples have been called by fellow candidates. Dean supported both NAFTA and the WTO and now claims he would stand against the WTO on some issues and is also against NAFTA on some issues. He won't really clarify what or how. (Should we really get started on how defying the WTO isn't acting unilaterally, but not getting yet another resolution from the U.N is...)
With regard to attacking candidates, he started first with the war votes. Then when they started hitting back on the same issue (Osama ad) he was suddenly speaking about the Reagan 11th commandment of speaking no ill of others. He picked a fight and called the DLC names (Republican-lite) while complaining that the DNC chairman didn't call off attacks on Dean's campaign.(Ol' Terry McA)
Meanwhile it is obvious his campaign is running polls about which labels to attack and stick on Clark.
That is a pretty decent start assuming you don't just dimiss it.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Nice try, but no.
I mean if I took the "right" stance on this, I would be supporting Dean since he is likely to marginalize the Democrats.
However like all people I have pet peeves I can't keep my mouth shut about, even when it would be in my better interest to do so.
One of my worst pet peeves is when someone claims a person, party, process, or procedure is above human nature. Dean claims this often.
So honestly if I wanted to be afraid of him, I probably wouldn't point out anything since naming him empowers him in some ways. But he is just such a hypocrit, I can't help myself.
Nick
Sorry, but I think you're reaching on this one.
Originally posted by jimmac
Sorry, but I think you're reaching on this one.
Well obviously I should just defer to you since you would obviously know me better than me.
I think if you look at some other issues I am quite passionate about, like fair trade, and family courts you can see how the hypocracy gets my blood pressure up.
I asked me and me assured me that this was why I post about Dean.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Well obviously I should just defer to you since you would obviously know me better than me.
I think if you look at some other issues I am quite passionate about, like fair trade, and family courts you can see how the hypocracy gets my blood pressure up.
I asked me and me assured me that this was why I post about Dean.
Nick
So these aren't issues where everybody ( who's a U.S. citizen ) would find something wrong with them?
hypocrisy is a matter of course. it is a matter of being human. i really think you should just point it out and let the chips fall where they may. its not worth the stress/anger that is so apparent from your posts. perhaps if your blood pressure was reduced by a few torr you would be a happier person and less likely to get more stressed by the seeming ineptitude of everyone else.
I asked myself, and myself said this was good advice,
bbs
Dec. 15 press conference:
QUESTION: Mr. President, you said earlier this morning that in a trial that all of Saddam's atrocities need to be brought out. He was in power more than 30 years. It probably would make for a long rap sheet.
Bush: You're not supposed to pre-judge.
QUESTION: Yes. I'm just counting the years.
Bush: OK, good.
QUESTION: Do you believe that the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 should be included, as well as his assassination attempt against former President Bush?
Bush: That'll all be decided by the lawyers. And I will instruct this government to make sure the system includes the Iraqi citizens and make sure the process withstands international scrutiny.
But we'll let the lawyers handle all that. And, as you know, I'm not a lawyer. And I delegate. And I'm going to delegate this to the legal community which will be reviewing all of this matter.
Where is the media outrage over Bush's shocking contention that he shouldn't pre-judge anyone - not even The Evilest One himself?
Atrios Blogspot
Originally posted by Northgate
Politics is...politics. Your side is responsible for winning at all costs and it is your right as an American to do so. My side is responsible for keeping that from happening. And vice versa.
To "report" on an internal discussion about campaign strategizing is a slippery slope. ...
So the media should report with tied hands?
All candidates try to cast their competitors in a negative light whilst doing essentially the same actions on their own. Hypocrisy is life-blood of politics. Dean's doing nothing new. The only lie that's happening is the one that supporters of Dean are telling themselves when they believe that he is markedly different from any of the other candidates.
They're buying the package.
Caveat Emptor.
Originally posted by drewprops
I hadn't considered the fact that Wesley Clark is more of a grassroots candidate than Dean...but I guess he really might be. The support for Clark by the Clintons however knocks a bit of the "grassroots" out of him (an exchange he happily made). Dean's camp retains the title for "best organized", but it in a modern age it's as packaged as George W. Bush's last campaign. It ain't magic, and he's frustrated his handlers on several occasions (yup, they all have handlers - candidates must be handled).
All candidates try to cast their competitors in a negative light whilst doing essentially the same actions on their own. Hypocrisy is life-blood of politics. Dean's doing nothing new. The only lie that's happening is the one that supporters of Dean are telling themselves when they believe that he is markedly different from any of the other candidates.
They're buying the package.
Caveat Emptor.
Ding, ding, ding... get this man a prize.
Nick
Originally posted by chu_bakka
He's bragged about voting for Bush last time around.
Clark hasn't voted Republican since 1988, and I don't recall him ever bragging about it, either.