Dean Gets It! Hooray from "Daily Howler" with a rip to Dana Milbank's

[KoKo]

WaPo article, too! A great read.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEAN GETS IT! Hurrah! Hooray! A million kudos! Howard Dean says that Democrats have to start telling the truth!!!
MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2005

TOUGH V. DISHONEST: Do Democrats and liberals need to learn to play tough? As a general matter, we would say yes. But one important conceptual strain lingers in Dana Milbank’s important Post story—the conflation of toughness and dishonesty. “Playing tough” doesn’t mean “being dishonest.” In our view, the best way for libs to play tough would be to try something they’ve often recoiled from. The best way for libs to play tough would be for them to tell the truth—to tell the truth about the gong-show character of our modern American politics. If Dems and liberals decide to play tough, they will start to tell the truth about the crackpot discourse of the past fifteen years, the discourse that has transformed modern politics. In the past dozen years, that discourse has typically come from Republican and pseudo-conservative sources, and has been lovingly channeled by the mainstream press—as, for example, in the War Against Gore which put George Bush in the White House.

But Democrats and liberal elites have made a different decision. With few exceptions, they have decided to keep quiet about recent history, leaving voters unprepared when the latest wave of dissembling hits. For example, when the Swift Boat ads began in 2004, how many voters said to themselves: “Omigod, there they go again? There they go again, with the same kind of bullsh*t they peddled for twenty straight months against Gore?” We’d guess that very few mainstream voters were inclined to such thoughts, because Democrats and liberal elites had made no effort to describe the earlier mainstream press wars against Clinton and Gore. For the most part, Democrats and liberal elites have maintained silence on these matters. Hence, when new waves of attacks begin—when the Swift Boat stories started, for example—voters simply aren’t equipped with the requisite skepticism. They’ve heard “liberal bias” all their born days. They’ve never heard anyone tell the truth.

And no one played a larger role in all of this than the hapless Bob Shrum, the man who seems to lament the fact that Dems won’t lie like Republicans. To judge from the quotes in the Milbank piece, Shrum thinks “playing tough” means “being dishonest.” But how sad! Maybe if Shrum had ever tried telling the truth, Dems and libs wouldn’t have to lie to win their political battles. If Dems and libs would try telling the truth, they might find that they can abandon sad dreams about slick, skillful lying.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081505.shtml

[On the Road]

1. My Thoughts Exactly

I can't believe that DUers would support the NARAL ad on Roberts knowing that it was misleading. There are plenty of reason to oppose Roberts -- this doesn't help. Just tell the truth.

[Hidden Stillness]

9. The NARAL Ad Was Factual--You Aren't

I posted this before, (on the "NARAL wimp-out" thread), and I will post it again here, as this anti-NARAL lie is being repeated here. Deleting the reference to the poster on the other thread, the post is otherwise the same. Try reading it this time. The NARAL ad was not a lie, it was a fact.

I am completely baffled by your claim that the bombing (and there was not one bombing connected with Michael Bray, there were many), occured "after" John Roberts' involvement in the case. That is, as we say, "a lie." The bombings of which Bray was convicted happened during 1984 and 1985, (Planned Parenthood.org has a great Extremist Biography on the horrifying Bray), and the case was defended and argued by Roberts, who co-authored the brief, (NARAL Pro-Choice America has a great 5-page PDF on this case, with notes), eventually before the Supreme Court (and Bush and Cheney's friends), from 1989 to 1991 and the decision which went against the threatened and harrassed clinic workers. Bray was convicted of two counts 1985, sentenced to 10 years, it was appealed, the conviction overturned 1986, and Roberts argued it before the Supreme Court from 1989 to 1992 (NARAL PDF, dates).

There is a huge and strange organized attack on NARAL and all women's groups, coming from all angles, and even Google itself, that "objective source." If you search the name "Michael Bray," the FIRST FOUR listings are 1) the Army of God, complete with "A Time to Kill," Bray's book; 2) Gargaro.com, an anti-abortion extremist site; 3) ChristianGallery.com, an anti-abortion extremist site, (and calling themselves "Christian" is what I call blasphemy); 4) About Us--RWD, an anti-abortion extremist site. WHY?? Planned Parenthood.org, a legitimate organization, is listed 5th!

Republican attacks, media attacks, complete with the strange lie that the "bombing" was "after," which THEY were not, (there have been anti-abortion bombings and murders going back to the '70s, regardless), attacks by the now-dick-waving corporate-extremist "D"LC, and the typical cave by Democrats--with a few notable exceptions, such as Howard Dean--on women's rights, and you realize why again, people do not even consider these "D"LC approval rating-watchers to be real Democrats. It wasn't NARAL's fault they were pressured and stood alone; it was the fault of all these strange people who will join Republicans and attack us Democrats every single time.

[robcon]

13. It's so strange reading your post.

I wonder if your disinformation might even be intentional - your analysis is so wrong and wrong-headed.

[KoKo]

16. Actually one of our liberal Bloggers of good reputation said NARAL ad

was factual. I've been looking for the link all afternoon. The Blogger made a very good case for why Roberts could have been attacked and this blogger used quotes from Roberts to verify their thoughts justifying that NARAL should have kept the ad.

I thought it was wrong that they withdrew it because it looked like Dems caving once again. :shrug:

[Hidden Stillness]

19. What Are You Talking About?

Phrases like "your disinformation," although groovy framing, tough and so on, are strange and not helpful. What are you talking about? Are you calling me "a spy"? Weird... The attacks against the NARAL ad have relied on a false claim that "the bombing"--wrongly claiming there was only one--was "after" Roberts's involvement in the case. This is not true, no matter how you claim it is. My entire post gave a verified explanation, from two sources which I named, as to the sequence of events of this case. So "strange," so "wrong"--yet with no reference to anything. "You wonder" at what? What are you accusing me of, when my entire post was a defense of the NARAL ad against this current, spurious claim that it was a lie based on dates of events, which it clearly was not.

[madfloridian]

25. The ad was just fine.

It was no more misleading than anything they have done. Roberts in part enabled the things that came later to put it rather bluntly.

I hate to say this, but the right wing of our own party, I do believe, wanted this ad off the air. Our own Democrats bought it down, and we should be ashamed of giving in so easily.

It was not wrong technically, it was just in your face, and the Republican lite wing of the party wanted it gone.

Why? Because they are pressuring the DNC to give it up on women's rights. We are the negotiating tool they are putting on the table.
Oberstar, Roemer, Pelosi, Democrats for Life who works with the group to which Susan Roberts belong, Feminists for Life, want to get rid of all but 5% of abortions. They will decide.

They are going to take away the choice of women, and that ad did not suit them.

I was glad Howard Dean called it what it was, a distraction for Bush for not giving out Roberts' records.

Later, I will find my post about the reasons, but the right wing of the Democrats joined with the Republicans and got it taken down. It was a loss for our party. We don't know how to fight yet.

And don't give me the fighting fair crap....we don't need to be so nice....we need to fight.

[GOPFighter]

2. I agree

Dems can be tough without having to lie. If I wanted to vote for liars I'd vote for Republicans! Shrum is an asshole and Dems should shun him.

[beam me up scottie]

3. More from Kevin Drum:

Nearly 40% of Americans call themselves conservatives, and that means that Republicans need to attract only a small number of center-right voters to win elections. They can run nasty campaigns designed to increase turnout among their base without worrying very much that they're losing so many moderate voters that it will turn the election.

Democrats don't have that luxury. Only 20% of the electorate call themselves liberals, which means that most Democratic campaigns - especially national ones - have to be aimed predominately at center and center-left voters who are turned off by the kind of fire and brimstone that works so well with the base. Thus, the kind of advertising that's a net positive for Republicans is usually a net negative for Democrats. That may be "unfair" in some kind of cosmic sense, but it's the way things are.

Third, the NARAL ad and the Swift Boat ads mostly demonstrate that conservatives are just better at this stuff than we are. The Swift Boat folks were able to manufacture uncertainty by focusing on an event that was genuinely hard to gather facts about. It was something that happened over 30 years ago, they methodically gathered up eyewitnesses willing to fabricate stories about it, and it took weeks for the media to do the research to figure out they were lying. By then it didn't matter.

The NARAL ad, conversely, focused on an event in which the facts were well established and every news organization in the country was able to figure out within hours that the charges against Roberts were dubious at best. Sure, partisans could have stuck with NARAL, but the court of public opinion matters, and the NARAL ad was so easy to fact check that there was never any chance of winning in that court. That's dumb politics.

So that's that. But there's one more thing. All this aside, I think that playing by a higher set of standards than Republicans is in the best interests of the Democratic party in any case. Liberalism simply doesn't flourish in the climate of fear and rage that works so well for conservatives, and I think that in the long run we do ourselves a disservice when we help create a climate like that.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_08/006901.php

[KoKo]

5. But Sommersby does think Drum is not correct on a few points as he

states in the article.

[beam me up scottie]

8. Yes, you're right,

of course.

I just wanted to highlight his explanation why using repub tactics won't work for dems.

[KoKo]

11. It's possible that this is opening the debate

in a reasonable way between the "Activists and the Dem Leadership."

In a non-confrontational way...trying to create a dialog? :shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

14. I hope so.

I'm tired of being called anti-choice and having my liberalism questioned because I didn't like the ad.

And progressives of all stripes need to get their acts together soon, or it will be another 4-8 years of fundie rule.

[KoKo]

4. He says Liberal Elites would rather eat worms before discussing Press

Corps role in all this. Because to tell the truth would mean we might "sound" like we are attacking and the Dems/Liberals don't want to do that. Notice how whenever we DO tell the truth, we are forced to apologize. Sommersby chides Kevin Drum for not addressing it in his article. :shrug:


---------------------------------------------------------------------
But there’s a third framework to consider here, one we mentioned above. The failure to prepare for the Swift Boat attacks goes all the way back to the War Against Gore which started in March 1999—indeed, all the way back to the liberal elite’s refusal to discuss Fools for Scandal, Gene Lyons’ 1996 book about the press corps’ hoaxed-up Whitewater “scandal.” To this day, Democrats and liberal elites have elected not to discuss that history. Result? Voters hear complaints about “liberal bias” every day—and never hear about the real press conduct that transformed our political history. This theme is absent from Kevin’s post—as the theme is always absent from the work of your liberal elites. Over and over, your liberal heroes have kept voters clueless—and susceptible to the next wave of attacks. As Dean said, these attacks have worked “because we haven't stood up and said, ‘This is absolutely not true and therefore, you ought to be embarrassed to be saying so.’” Liberal elites have avoided this history like the plague, and Drum is avoiding it still.

Dems and libs have to tell the truth about the forces that transformed our politics. But your liberal elites would eat live worms before they’d discuss the press corps’ recent history. For what it’s worth, John Harris’ new book, The Survivor, provides an excellent framework for discussing the press corps’ conduct toward President Clinton (and later toward the Gore campaign). We’ll discuss that theme all next week. As Howard Dean says, we need to stand up, every day, and discuss what has actually happened to our politics. We need to try a brand-new approach. It’s going to hurt. It will take some time. But we need to try telling the truth.

[Uncle Joe]

6. Excellent post.

:kick:

[eleny]

7. Dean, Hackett and Sheehan - "Tough and Honest"

n/t

[tommcintyre]

10. First, Dean will have to "tell the truth" about the stolen election

No "widespread fraud"??? (Dean's statement regarding the June DNC Ohio 2004 election report)

C'mon Howard! Speak for me and the other 89% of DUer's that said: "yes, the 2004 Prez election was stolen" in a recent poll here.

[KoKo]

12. It's ALL our DEM's excepting the "Black Caucus" in the House who don't

want to talk about "election fraud" in our last three elections. What the hell are they covering up?

Is it that they are worried the Repugs will go back into all the elections of past Dems and dig up dirt? Is that what it is? If so...it seems to me that's "past history" and if we don't STAND UP NOW...what the hell is left to protect? Does anyone care anymore if Daly in Chicago got "his boys" to support Jack Kennedy?

Is there ANY evidence that Bill Clinton had "Touch Screen/DRE's" that tabulated his Election Wrong?

What the hell is the problem with our Democrats that we have to fight them to get voting Reform...and it's only the Black Caucus who supports us and a few who get it?

Something's wrong, FOLKS, out there in our Democratic Party. We gave them a PASS TOO LONG with Daschle after the 2000 Supreme Court "Selection." It's been SooooooooooooLooooooooooong that many of us are going back in history wondering WHY THEY WON'T STAND UP?

WHY??? What is so horrible that our Dems have spend their careers losing...losing...losing national and key State Elections that they need to work to "cover up" night and day, day and night. :shrug:

[Daphne08]

20. "Something's wrong, FOLKS, out there

in our Democratic Party."

Too many have sold out.

I heard Paul Hackett say that he was not a professional politician.

I say we already have too many professional politicians.

We need some real people who will not "bow down" to corporate interests!

[tommcintyre]

21. "What the hell are they covering up?" Some possible answers:

That IS the real question, isn't it? And, why?

Well... here's the best possibilities I've come across so far:

1- They also cheated (even electronically) in the 2004 election, and are afraid a REAL investigation will expose them as much as the repubs (if so, they obviously weren't nearly as effective at it ;) ). (In June, it was indicated by USCV people that this may be the case - although significantly less than the repubs.)

2- They are afraid that if the Dem base becomes fully aware that the election was stolen (and is likely to be stolen again, and again), they will become discouraged and not turn out. IMO, this is very bad logic all-around. The future elections will certainly continue to be stolen if nothing is done; and enough of the Dem base already know (and more are certain to find out), to most likely impact turn-out negatively. Kerry tried this approach last election, and we saw how well THAT worked out (see link for more info).
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/story/0,10801,94751,00.html

3- They are so under siege by the "new-GOP's" flagrant disregard for the "rule of law", that they are just trying to survive on a day-to-day basis. (This ominous tone was taken in a recent Matt Tabbi article - see link below. It refers to to the lack of recent action on this issue, even by the Black Caucus. This could help to explain why even Conyers passed on commenting on the DNC Ohio report in June.)
http://www.nypress.com/18/31/news&columns/taibbi.cfm

In reality, the Dem inaction is probably due to all three of the reasons listed above (and possibly more).

I singled out Dean especially for my "scorn" since he supposedly "gets it" and "speaks for us". We know, HE knows the election was stolen (after-all, he even hacked a machine on TV prior to the election). So why is he so silent now (and even proclaimed "no widespread fraud" in Ohio)?

Besides the reasons listed above, I believe he was effectively "muzzled" when they awarded him the DNC chair. Not only did he have to agree to not run in 2008; but, as the party chairman, he committed to fostering party unity, even if it meant he had to "keep his mouth shut" on potentially divisive/damaging issues (such as election fraud).

Edit: title clarified.

[bearfan454]

24. I have spent countless hours wondering that exact thing myself.

Have they ALL been bought off ?

[Guaranteed]

18. OK, just send him the proof. He'll spread it around. nt

[tommcintyre]

22. I'm afraid it's more complex than that

Please see post #21 above. This information will be part of a more extensive article.

Regarding election fraud/reform, I have more information that indicates we can not expect any help from our elected representatives from either party - at least until after the 2006 election. And by then, it will most likely be too late to adequately impact the 2008 election. (I have found three different sources that indicates Congress has "no will" to enact any more significant election reform prior to this - the current bills notwithstanding).

So, if it is to be, it is up to us to "make" it happen though the pressure and the power of the grassroots.

[bearfan454]

23. That has already been done

by a DUer. He did nothing. She put together over 50 pages of absolute proof and personally handed it to Dean. Here we are.

[Cocoa]

15. excellent, both Dean and the Howler

Dean said it all, perfectly, in the excerpt, and the Howler got it. (except unlike the Howler, I knew EXACTLY what Dean meant in the last part).

HARRIS: What are the activists in your party expecting from senators on the Roberts nomination? As I said, as long as I've been listening to you speak, your message has been consistent: The party's got to start fighting, stop getting along to go along, show some backbone.

DEAN: I think what activists are expecting is for them to be tough but fair. I mean, the hallmark of the Republicans is, Say anything. If you keep saying it people will believe it even if it's not true.

HARRIS: Does that work for them?

DEAN: I think it has worked for them because we haven't stood up and said, “This is absolutely not true and therefore, you ought to be embarrassed to be saying so.” And we need to say that every single day. So we want to be tough but we want to be fair. I think the damage the Republicans have done to this country not just in the largest deficits in the history and this bumbling stuff that they've done in Iraq. The real damage they've done is they've undermined people's belief that democracy can work and the way to fight this is to be tough but fair.

:toast:

[Pryderi]

17. Great quote from democratic strategist:

Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, who like Shrum favors hardball politics, protested that "we Democrats bring a well-thumbed copy of Marquess of Queensberry Rules while the other side unsheaths their bloody knives, with a predictable outcome." Lehane said the NARAL ad "was great, and exactly the type of offensive that breaks through in the modern age."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/12/AR2005081201596.html