The Dean Disappointment

[ringmastery]

Edited to add an opinion:

If you read the opinion piece, it's a hatchet job on Dean, but it's balanced in his criticism against him. It's nothing you haven't heard the other democrats say against Dean.

His temperament, waffling, and tendency not to think before he says something will do him in in the end, not as much his policies.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110004522

He is not a happy warrior but an angry one. In the past I have thought of him as an angry little teapot, but that is perhaps too merry an image. His eyes are cold marbles, in repose his face falls into lines of mere calculation, and he holds himself with a kind of no-neck pugnacity that is fine in a wrestling coach or a tax lawyer but not in a president. We like our presidents sunny, easygoing and optimistic. They have access to the nuclear launch code, and we don't want them losing their tempers easily. Mr. Dean's supporters no doubt see him as optimistic, but optimists aren't angry.

Mr. Dean's problem in the future will not be so much credibly pivoting right on major issues as attempting to pivot into something like the normal range in terms of temperament, personality and the interpretation of things he's already said when he's popping off--and he pops off a lot. Some of the things he has said or suggested--Osama bin Laden shouldn't be presumed guilty, for instance--are the rhetorical equivalent of Michael Dukakis in the tank. He looked silly. He looked unserious. Mr. Dean is going to look that way, too.
I hope something surprising happens in Iowa, and New Hampshire, and in the South. I hope it becomes a real fight on the Democratic side, and I hope that fight yields up someone who is serious, substantive, and thoughtful. But that's not what I see coming. What I see coming is a Dean nomination followed by a rancorous campaign followed by a Dean defeat.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

1. Peggy Noonan!

Bleah.

[cthrumatrix]

54. I've seen enough of her propaganda on Tweety -- she's a plant

[rumguy]

2. Noonan can suck on an egg...ha! who cares what she thinks?

Anyway you can't post conservative link without putting down you opinion, better do that, or it'll get locked.

[Clark Campaigner]

6. It's a huge mistake to discount the likes of Peggy Noonan

So she's a conservative... so what?
By the looks of the recent elections, so are the voters!

But then again, maybe there is a reason donkeys wear blinders...
:eyes:

[FubarFly]

10. No it's not.

Her opinions will ALWAYS be negative against Democrats. FOREVER.

Only partisans dig partisan red meat, (and worried Democrats apparantly)

[adadem]

66. Yes it is

HD is not selling himself as a moderate, which can attract voters rather than turn them off. He's prancing around like a rooster in a cockfight and turning off many...including Democrats.
He's become the "love him or hate him" candidate. That's not the way to attract swing voters nor angry voters from the other side.

[beaconess]

127. Isn't it interesting

that many of those who vigorously defended Gov. Dean's insistence on reaching out to Confederate flag waving bigots are now so worked up over the mere thought that anyone in DU could possibly be interested in learning what an influential right wing nut is telling the world about their candidate?

[shance]

129. No it's the way anti-Deans are attempting to define him.

Take a look at the angry, vendictive threads and articles that are posted here at DU about Governor Dean and other candidates as well.

In truth, Dean doesnt hold a candle to the anger many of the 'back seater candidates who have probably never run for anything, but they have become quite skilled at condemnation and character assasination.

People probably dont realize how much they scare other good Democrats away from even considering running for any kind of office because it has become such a shark feeding frenzy.

If you want to support the Republicans, then continue to repeatedly attack other Demcrats. Thatll keep them in power.

Im not saying some honest concern is not warranted at times in order to consider the best choice for a candidate. But when the agenda of destruction takes over honest concern, as happens here at DU so often, then thats what you get.....destruction and ultimately cynicism which erodes faith, not only in our candidates but our Democracy.

Howard Dean was angry at how George Bush was running the country. He did something about it and decided to run for president of the United States. I would call that a pretty bold and gutsy move. How many of us are ready to take on that challenge? Keep in mind, when he started, the polls showing Deans overall Democratic support was at 1%. He is now the front runner. I would say that was putting some action where his mouth is. For those of you Dems who are ruthlessly attacking one or more of the candidates, what are you doing to implement positive change?

[Capn Sunshine]

130. WHAT IS WITH ALL THE RIGHT WING CRAP BEING POSTED HERE LATELY

This used to be an oasis where we could escape the constant onslaught of corporate groupthink.

Suddenly a bunch of people think we need to review right wing claptrap daily, and listen to Rush limbaugh, because these same sources may have something negative to say about Howard Dean.

Look, I know where Free republic is if I want THAT as content on a website.

You guys are pretty damn blatant. Watch the dramatic drop off in these posts coincident with the convention in NYC.....

[bearfartinthewoods]

136. and today, clark started down the same path

[ClintonTyree]

11. So.............

you're saying that the Democratic Party should veer more to the right to placate Ms. Noonan et al?

[Clark Campaigner]

15. Yes and no

We need a "course correction" back towards the center that we occupied during the 90s.
That would be towards the right from where we are heading now.

And it's not to "placate" Ms. Noonan. It's to win a few elections once again.

[aquart]

19. This is NOT the 90s.

And the voters are angrier than the candidates, I assure you.

[Clark Campaigner]

28. In the 90s the voters were angry too

but they were angry with the Democrats, and they threw them out of power in both houses of Congress and never looked back.

It seems to me like you are arguing that it's not the 90s - that it is in fact the 1970s.
:eyes:

[ClintonTyree]

21. At what cost?

To abandon Democratic principles "to win a few elections once again"?If the Democrats go any further to the right there WON'T be a dime's worth of difference between the two parties.

[Clark Campaigner]

25. So you mean Bill Clinton didn't hold "Democratic principles"?

Because it seems that is what you are saying.
And I would go as far as to say that Clark has campaigned further to the left than Bill Clinton ever did.

[ClintonTyree]

32. Clinton.................

and his supporters were VERY centrist, sometimes bordering on the right. IMO the party is leaning too far to the right, and I think that's dangerous. If a solid third party candidate, a true Democrat, entered the race (No, not Nader) the Democratic party won't win another election until until the next century. We're abandoning our base. Look how many minorities are now backing Republicans. That isn't an abberation, they're dismayed with Democrats, the party that once looked out for their interests.
What you propose is a Democratic party that shares the corporate interests of the Republicans. I see a giant rift in the party, and it isn't going to be pretty come election time. If you want to support Republican ideology, just vote for a Republican. There MUST be a difference betwen the two parties otherwise we're DINO's and the country continues to head in a more conservative direction that it is now.

[Clark Campaigner]

33. "Corporate interests".......

When I think about corporations, I think of bringing products to market that the people want to buy.
And that is what political parties must do if they want to survive, just as any corporation.

The people don't want fringe left politics. That's great for a niche market, but not for a national one.

The people have consistently displayed a desire for centrist candidates, so that is what we should be selling.

[bearfartinthewoods]

132. and you consider clzrk's abortion position centrist?

[Crunchy Frog]

35. What do you think

about the fact that Clarks platform is probably to the left of Dean's? If you find out that Clark is too far to the left will you abandon him?

By the way, your posts do not make my candidate look good, and I really don't appreciate it.

[Clark Campaigner]

38. I think that

as long as Wes Clark doesn't make the sorts of embarrassing gaffes and untenable statements that Dean has made, I will continue to support him.

You have to realize that politics is about perception as much as it is about policy. If Clark can continue appearing centrist while leaning left, then that's an added bonus.

[HFishbine]

59. Blech

Government behaving like a corporation, playing to perceptions, pandering to the right... No wonder Clark is not my guy.

[Clark Campaigner]

61. If the government was run like a corporation

then we wouldn't have all these deficits.

[9119495]

64. Corporations have losses and deficits all the time so

I know you really don't know what you're talking about--you just blindly follow Clark. Corporations borrow money all the time. If their "product" they bring "to the market" is so key, they ask the government to bail them out when they get into trouble. If government behaved like a corporation...our social programs would be completly gone. That includes public education and social security. Corporations are in the PROFIT business. If they don't make one, they can't exist for long without help. Government is NOT about profit--the government can never be like a corporation unless it is IN business.

[Clark Campaigner]

69. A lot of money in government is wasted

Core social programs would be considered "loss leaders" in the business world, because they attract a lot of customers even though they aren't profitable.

But all of the pork spending is just hometown vanity projects for the politicians, and in the business world they'd never make it out of the boardroom.

[9119495]

78. And corporations waste too.

Every company I have ever worked for has been LESS efficient than government. People loaf, product is not moved as well as it could be, meetings detract from work time. I could go on. You should be careful not to buy into the myth that corporations really do know best and that government is wasteful.

Yes, there are pork projects, but due to the nature of budget bills and how our congress works, no president can really changed that...and we should be kind of glad about that as we need a strong congress to check the power of the executive branch.

[Clark Campaigner]

86. I take it you've never worked for the government then...

I have, and not only is it all you've described above and more, but most of the employees are incompetent, too.
But their jobs are secure. In the corporate world, if you underperform, you get canned.

And then there is the matter of qualifications...
The business world requires some...
most government jobs just require a 5th grade level test.

[9119495]

99. I do work for the government and corporations often employ morons

and I know some "uneducated" people who work their asses off. Address the issue: Where is the proof that government is inherently MORE wastefull and LESS trustworthy than corporations?

[Clark Campaigner]

101. I don't know of any corporation that would buy $20 pencils

or a $750 toilet seat.

[9119495]

102. Nice examples senato Grassley but

I can't think of a government program that hides its money in offshore accounts or outsources government jobs to workers in Mexico earning $.35 an hour. Besides, my health insurance company may as well be paying $20 for pencils since (1) they have the money--considering their 20% profit margin, and (2) I am not receiving the benefits of thier increased profits through lower premiums.

[Clark Campaigner]

105. But you have a choice

to stay with your insurance company, find a different one, or forgo coverage altogether.
That is the beauty of the free market - if your service sucks or is over-priced, you can go elsewhere. And if enough people do the same, the company will go out of business. So they have to stay competitive to survive.
One of the considerations in the free market is ethics.
Companies are boycotted by conscientious consumers all the time when they disagree with their practices. And the boycotts work if there is enough popular support for them.

Government on ther other hand is a monopoly. And we don't like monopolies. We have no recourse for corruption with monopolies. Boycotts don't work on government or monopolies. They know we need them more than they need us, they are more powerful than we are, and we will come crawling to them on their terms.

The more services we turn over to government, the less control we have over our own lives and our own choices.

[9119495]

122. My insurance already is the cheapest I can find

after an exhaustive search. Every country that has a gov'.t health care system runs it with less waste/profit than US companies. Government takes over those things which for the public good are best not left to the marketplace or would not be profitable in the marketplace. Public schools for example, or the army. Infrastructure such as highways are included in this as well. Imagine paying a private company a toll everytime you got to an intersection.

85. think Enron

they were a corporation, right?

Regarding Clark and Clinton. I do think Clark has been running a little to the left of Clinton. People also forget their history. I do think Clinton was a good president in many respects, but when he first appeared on the scene and what got him elected was his moving the Democratic party to the right. I remember being very uneasy about him initially. Now he is being held up as some ideal, but it must be remembered that he was no saint (politically or personally). At the time of his election, the idea of moving the Democratic party to the right may well have been a necessity to get elected.
These are different times though. Moving to the right in the Democratic party is a sure way to get Bush reelected I believe.

disclosure -- my first choice is Dean, my second choice would have been Kerry if he was running a more inspiring campaign, since he is not, my current second choice is Clark.

[Clark Campaigner]

90. I don't think Enron is indicative of most businesses

There are a lot more companies out there besides just Enron, though you'd never know that from the anti-capitalist set.

And anyways, why do you think the government isn't currently being run like Enron?
The fact is that Enron was terribly run from a business standpoint.

95. simply making a comment about

the dangers of making blanket statements such as "the government should be run like a corporation." Your critique of my "think Enron" comment proves my point in reverse, you see? Both statements fall into the same trap.

[JVS]

120. Hmm Military, Tax cuts for Families not singles, govern like corporations

Where have I seen this kind of thinking before?

[9119495]

63. Hey Clark Campaigner

How the hell is a Gays in the military, civil-unions-loving, pro-gun control, progressive taxer, anti-war Clark going to be viewed by Noonan? These are the things we like about Clark and you're saying he shouldn't do them. You happen to like an anti-Dean article from Noonan because it supports your views on Dean. It will be fun to hear you say "well she's Peggy Noonan so she must be right" when she does a hatchet job on Clark.

[Clark Campaigner]

67. I don't think you read me right

Please look at what I'm saying rather than responding out of pure emotion.
I'm saying I don't think it is wise for any of us to brush off someone as seasoned and influential as Peggy Noonan.
Because what she is saying is being heard and taken seriously by millions of people.

I see a disappointing trend here to just laugh off anyone in media who isn't squarely on the left. That is just inviting a sucker-punch later.

People like Noonan didn't get where she is by being stupid or ignored.

I didn't say you had to be her cheerleader, but please, for our sake, at least take the other side seriously - their message will be out in full force come election time, so we'd better be insulated against it by then!

[9119495]

76. Its not emotion that prompted my reply.

Noonan is squarely on the right and is not listened to by most. hint: she appears on Hardball.

Do you think the right really cares what Carville says? If he wrote a hatchet job on Bush, do you think Republicans would say "it is Carville, but we have to listen to him because....?" I can't even figure out why they would think about him.

The point is that when someone is SOOO biased, they forfeit the right to give "insightful political analysis to all." I don't buy a thing Limbaugh says because he has proven he can't be trusted---just like Noonan.

[Clark Campaigner]

77. The right cares what Carville says if they know what's good for them

Afterall, it was Carville who coined "It's the Economy, Stupid".

Perhaps they just laughed off Carville as many here laugh off Noonan, and that might just be why they lost in '92.

Something to think about...

[9119495]

79. So what about Limbaugh? Should we follow his direction when

we pick a presidential nominee? I really don't see a difference between Noonan and Limbaugh.

[Clark Campaigner]

82. Democrats laughed off Limbaugh, too

until Republicans swept Congress in '94 - widely credited to his influence.

And they still laugh, until they begin noticing his little snide comments and nicknames seeping into the mainstream media and the public conciousness.

Now it seems more like a nervous laghter to me. If he really was of so little consequence would we really spend so much time cursing him?

At some point most of us learn as children that you can't hide by covering your eyes.

Once again, I'm not saying we should all just say "oh they're so right!"
But I am saying that we'd better take them and their influence seriously. A lot of these people shape the public debate.

[beaconess]

96. Bingo!

[9119495]

97. No, Limbaugh is a serious and dangerous force but,

if he wrote a bunch of shit about any of our candidates, not only would I not post it on DU as a "think piece," I'd avoid following his urging not to vote for him. Its not about whether they have influence in their party, it about whether they have the right to drive our process with bullshit analysis.

[Clark Campaigner]

100. That's fine

I didn't say you should be taking political advice from either Noonan or Limbaugh.
But you should still be aware of what they say, and take them seriously, because what they are saying today will be standard issue ammunition against our candidates tomorrow.

So if you don't think your guy can weather these attacks when they're made in the GE, then perhaps it might be wise to shop around some more.

[9119495]

103. Hey! we agree.

Who'd a thunk it?

[Armstead]

108. Peggy doesn;t loike Dean? Oh dear, let's all hide.

Peggy Noonan will find something nasty to say about any Democrat, including Clark.

[Cheswick2.0]

13. nope

sorry, most of the voters voted for AL Gore in 2000. Nothing conservative about that.

PS... Peg is one of the more ridiculous of ridiculous right wing pundits.

[Clark Campaigner]

22. 48.38% does not meet the definition of "most"

Not to mention, 500,000 votes out of over 105 million cast is not a very comfortable margin.
Plus there were millions of absentee votes that were never counted, too, so we can't even be sure of the margin in the first place.

[aquart]

14. Ah. So your position is we must become conservatives to get votes?

Otherwise we'll lose because the voters are conservative?

Is that your position?

Is that Clark's position?

[Clark Campaigner]

24. I think most of us supporting Clark

are well aware that we need a strong centrist to win. There is nothing wrong with being practical.

[ClintonTyree]

27. Sad.................

so we'll abandon our principles to win a few more elections. Yeah, that's sound reasoning. A third party will become even more viable then, thus neutering the Democrats even further. Think about what you're saying.

[FubarFly]

29. What's up with the revolving Clark ads?

Spam photos are annoying as hell. Especially at that size. I don't currently have anyone on my ignore list, but that's about to change real fast.

:grr:

[Crunchy Frog]

39. I'm finding myself

in agreement with you on that FubarFly.

[Crunchy Frog]

37. I support Clark

because I consider him to be very progressive, while maintaining an appearance of centrism. I consider that to be a perfect combination, both for getting elected, and for being president.

You may be surprised to find that most Clark supporters on this board are pretty liberal.

And by the way, Peggy Noonan is a right wing shill of the worst kind, practically a fascist as far as I'm concerned.

[Clark Campaigner]

40. I'm talking about what will WIN an election

And it seems like we are actually in total agreement, based on your above statement.
A major component for Clark's support is indeed that he appears more centrist than the other candidates, primarily because of his resume, and that means an election victory for us.

We are in this to win, aren't we?

[bearfartinthewoods]

50. at least you say you "consider" him to be very progressive

at least you didn't say he is. you think he is but we have no way of really knowing whether he is what you think he is or what he portrays himself to be...a centrist.

that's sort of like saying it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck but i consider it to be a turkey pretending to be a duck.

it's still not to late to support a man who has a verifiable history of liberalism.

[Crunchy Frog]

56. Sorry,

I'm going to support the guy that I think can beat Bush. I want Bush out of the white house and I'm willing to take a calculated risk that I may be misjudging Clark's progressivism. I simply don't believe that he could possibly be as bad as Bush.

If I'm wrong, then I'll apologize to you from an adjacent cell in Guantanamo Bay.:)

[bitchkitty]

48. Well, you just gave yourself away.

[PAMod]

51. If Clark is the nominee, she will gouge his eyes out too.

I suppose you will then understand where she is coming from.

[Clark Campaigner]

52. She probably will

So I would rather know what she (and all of her readers) will be saying sooner rather than later... I'd rather be prepared for it.

Knowledge is power.
There is a whole other side to the American conciousness, and they vote, too. And I'd like to know what they are going to be thinking when they do.

That is my point. I'm not going to stick my head in the sand just because the messenger isn't "on my side".
Is that really all that unreasonable?

[9119495]

65. Did you mean deeper in the sand?

[CWebster]

81. Whoa

Then maybe you should be addressing those of a like mind? Why are you here? I really find this objectionable.

[Clark Campaigner]

92. No, I should be addressing the people

on the fringe who want to take my party right off a cliff.
Which is exactly why I'm here.

[Zomby Woof]

133. it's my party too

You can always take a hike to the GOP side, Zell Miller-style, if you don't want to be a Democrat anymore. Hang around the middle of the road long enough and you'll get run over by a mack truck.

By the way, the ONLY Americans who take Noonan seriously are the far-right morons running the TV news networks who see fit to put her empty face on the screen. Them, and Reagan groupies too stupid to tie their own shoes. She is the GOP's fringe spokesperson, and do you think she is taking their "party where it should go"? She is way off the deep end, and this is coming from someone not exactly supportive of Dean.

(Note to Dean supporters: Not even I would go so far as to use one of her pieces of shit to attack Dean. I may be harsh, brutal, and unrelenting in my opposition to him, but I am not stupid or unfair.)

[Chomskyite]

134. Read When Character Was King

. . . and yuo'll have all the reason you need to discount this woman's blather. She writes very good prose, very smooth-sounding, but has no principles.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

3. LIMFRC.

"...it's a hatchet job on Dean, but it's balanced in his criticism against him."

A well-balanced hatchet job.

[ClintonTyree]

4. Yes.............

lets us consult even MORE conservative pundits on who our candidate should be, that's sound logic. :eyes: And sooooo early in the morning too!

[Cheswick2.0]

5. a well balance hatchet job, by one of the stupidest woman on the planet

thanks for sharing. :eyes:

[bearfartinthewoods]

44. calling noonan stupid is...well stupid

she embraces a flawed ideology but she isn't stupid

[necso]

7. Wow!

This is the first (reasonably) honest expression of opinion about Dean by a right wing shill that I think I have seen. The opening paragraph is complete BS of course. And then again I am not exactly scouring their websites.

Are the repuglicans so confident that Dean is going to be nominated that they are letting down the smokescreen?

Has she gone off her meds? Has she gone off the reservation? Did her publicist recommend a little controversy? Has she found a conscience? Whats up?

Amazing that she would write this now. Even more amazing is that there is actually a little something to it.

She is definitely off her meds.

[FubarFly]

8. It's either a hatchet job or a balanced criticism.

How can it be both?

Points:

Dean's "temperment" problem is a myth

His "waffling" is nothing out of the ordinary in the poltical realm.

And apparantly they've come up a solution to his "gaffe" problem:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=81179

(Nothing like answering one Dean bashing thread with another)

--

Dean's character "problems" are a media creation. It's Al Gore all over again. But it won't work this time. Watch and see.

[Andromeda]

9. Former Reagan speech writer, Peggy Noonan...

or as I call her, Peggy Nooner---is not a credible source. She is another right-wing hack who is a favorite of Chris Matthews and is a member of the Hardball gang.

During the Clinton impeachment you could always count on Nooner to get in the mud with all the other Republican shills: Howard (the Duck) Fineman, Mike Barnicle, John Fund and others, dissembling and spinning about Bill Clinton's "lies", and getting sweaty talking about the size of Clinton's member.

edited for punctuation.

[incapsulated]

12. It's actually

pretty lucid, for Noonan.

If people can link to and cut-and-paste from looney websites claiming Clark is a psycho war criminal and part of a worldwide plot of some kind, I don't give a fuck for "rules" anymore...

[aquart]

17. Really?

Is that Clark's position?

[FubarFly]

18. Bah, both instances are wrong.

And you know it.

[incapsulated]

20. Excuse me?

Perhaps you haven't visited our local conspiracy thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=73251&mesg_id=73251

[FubarFly]

23. I haven't participated,

and I don't approve.

Tearing down Democrats at this stage is helping nobody. (Except Republicans that is.)

[Crunchy Frog]

41. I understand how you feel

but two wrongs don't make a right. Our candidate is doing very well right now, and I hate to see us doing anything to make him look bad on this board.

(I realize that this board has little to do with the real world, but I still don't want us making him look bad.):)

[mouse7]

16. Gee, I thought right wingers all wanted Dean to win.

Isn't Howard Dean supposed to be a big right wing conspiracy to make it easy for Dumbya to win?

That's what half the threads in this forum say.

Guess this proves the right wing doesn't want Dean nominated. Noonan is one of the neo-con's top operatives.

[aquart]

26. Whenever I find myself waffling about Dean

Something like this happens.

No way I take Peggy Noonan's word for anything. Not the time, not the weather, nothing. She is a paid liar.

And to have her garbage served up on a plate by someone claiming to support Dean's closest rival for the Democratic slot, well, garbage doesn't belong on a plate.

[mouse7]

30. Not sure if Nooner is intentional liar or "Beltway Bimbo Barbie"

CSPAN had her on one of those 3 hour author focuses and I watched it just to figure out what made her tick.

The first thing that was obvious was she was a serious space cadet. A real embodiment of blonde jokes. Peggy Nooner is now the face I see when someone tells me a blonde joke.

As she really is that dense, she might be one of the bimbos that actually believes all the right-wing crap is true.

I still can't tell.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

31. Consummate evil actress.

[JNelson6563]

34. To those who insist DU is unchanged

I would like to remind you that back in the day when DU was FOR all Democrats sources like Noonan were looked upon with universal scorn.

Thngs have changed. Dramatically. And not for the better.

Julie

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JNelson6563]

43. Noonan is ignorantly blissful

:-) So I guess ignorance IS bliss.

:toast:

[Polemonium]

42. Yes they have

And more and more posters I've admired while lurking for a year and a halg are dissappearing. Hope folks come back, or at least fill me in on where they have gone off to.

[bearfartinthewoods]

46. the names have changed......

[Melinda]

98. Absolutely right, Julie - its like some bizarro parallel universe!

Breaks my heart when anyone on THIS site considers Noonan the right-wing shill an objective credible source on any of our candidates or our party and our values.

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

:eyes:

[stickdog]

45. Just more proof that Dean is Bush's worst nightmare. (nt)

[in_cog_ni_to]

47. Peggy Noonan.

She is one of the RW, WH asskissing, talking head pundits who is a Dean defender. SHE is ONE of the pundits who made me change my support from Dean to Clark. Every time I saw her, she was DEFENDING Dean. A RWer is defending Dean? Something wasn't right. It left a bad taste in my mouth. I happen to think she's wrong in this article because Dean ISN'T going to be the nominee. She will get her wish
--------------->I hope that fight yields up someone who is serious, substantive, and thoughtful. CLARK!

Go Wes!

[Hep]

55. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

So her defense of Dean made you switch. Odd enough. Yet her criticism of him now doesn't help his case. Suspect.

[in_cog_ni_to]

116. dupe

[in_cog_ni_to]

117. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight!

Her defense of him was ONE of the reasons I switched. AND Tony Blankley's defense of him, Frank Luntz's defense of him, Bob Novak saying NICE things about him....YES, RW hacks were ONE of the reasons I switched...his constant flip-flops and "YOU HAVE THE POWER!"....started to grate on my nerves too. Not suspect. Her criticism of him now would NEVER help his case or change my mind. I can't stand the man now.

[Hep]

121. The sad part is

you let the right wing manipulate you. Chalk one up for their side.

I'll also note that it's odd that you seem to have a problem with a campaign run by the people. My having the power seems distasteful to you. Very interesting.

That you can't stand Dean is obviously no mystery. It's how far into the sewer that people here are willing to go in disliking him that makes my eyebrow go up.

[Kahuna]

49. Peggy Noonan? C'mon now....

Please don't risk your credibility by presenting Noonan droppings. I don't like Dean, but I won't waste one minute of my time reading anything she has to say.

[Hep]

53. Wow, a balanced hatchet job?

How rare?

Peggy Noonan really has a gift.

[farmbo]

57. Oh Puleese...Peggy Noonan? And you're buying?

She is a mouthpiece for the GOP...and all she does is regurgitate Gillespie's RNC talkingpoints.

No serious person on this board should place ANY credence in this shrill propagandist and you deface DU by even posting it.

Period.

[beaconess]

68. Yes, let's pretend that anyone whose political views differ from ours

just can't possibly ever know what they're talking about.

Let's delude ourselves into thinking that if we close our eyes, cover our ears, and repeat over and over, real loud "I'm not listening to you! I'm not listening to you!" that everyone outside of DU will begin thinking just like us or, at the very least, won't express an opinion or vote in the upcoming election.

Yeah, boy. If we just reject and ignore anyone who doesn't think like us, we'll be sure winners in November!

[Hep]

70. Holy shit!

I hop The Daily Howler picks this one up. Amazing how utter disdain for a candidate leads people to defend those whose goal is to defeat us.

[beaconess]

87. How does learning as much as possible about what people are

saying constitute a "defense" of our opponents?

[Hep]

89. Oh God!

It's an editorial! For the love of god if you treat every editorial like it's fact, you NEED HELP. People need to face facts. If they're defending the very people who SCREWED us in 2000, what hope do we have in 2004? Bunch of gullible, easily manipulated bootom feeders are those who choose to use RW arguments to vilify ANY D candidate.

Read the Daily Howler every once in a while. Learn to catch this stuff BEFORE you buy into it.

[beaconess]

94. Speaking of needing help . . .

Perhaps you should read my posts a little more carefully.

I have no trouble understanding the difference between opinion and fact. I also understand that, even when I don't agree with someone, their perspectives can be invaluable in helping to inform our own strategy. Some people are sophisticated enough to know that understanding a different perspective is not the same as buying into it, that only by considering a broad range of views can we fully formulate our own strategy.

You can bet that Karl Rove, et al are not sitting over in the White House with their hands over their ears pretending that Democrats don't exist or that they don't need to know our views because we are not on their side.

Learning everything about your enemy isn't the same as defending them. It's the smart thing to do. On the other hand, willful ignorance is just plain stupid.

[Hep]

104. Willful ignorance? The attention spans of americans ARE ridiculously low

Noonan crucified Gore in 2000. She participated in the worst manipulation of democracy that our country has ever seen. She's back to her old tricks, and some people haven't learned a damn thing.

Great. There goes all hope for a D victory in 2004.

[beaconess]

110. And the way to combat this kind of attitude

is to pretend she doesn't exist.

Nothing like dumbing down to the lowest common denominator to assure electoral success.

Good luck.

[Hep]

112. The way to combat it

is definitely not to DEFEND HER. For christs sake!

And I know she exists, but we don't need her schlock here. We certainly don't need to post her clowning in opposition to any D candidate after what she did in 2000. And YOU're still here trying to hoist up her credibility.

[beaconess]

115. I simply don't agree

Urging that we take into account a a different point of view does not equate with a defense of that point of view and its purveyor. Unlike you, I don't believe that we serve ourselves well by limiting our political discussion and consideration to those who think just the way we do. However, advocating ignorance of any view that doesn't comport with ours does far more harm to our cause than recognizing that someone has a point of view that needs to be taken into account.

[Hep]

124. Urging us to take into account Peggy Noonan's view of Dean IS defending.

ESPECIALLY after what she did in 2000. How many time are you willing to be fooled? When will you hold people like Noonan responsible for their actions in 2000? Why would you let them do it again? Nowhere have I ever suggested that we shun all diverse points of view, but you need to learn that a line must be drawn or you are going to be taken in by the very same people who helped Bush steal the election in 2000. Peggy Noonan was all too happy to participate, and she did it by writing THE EXACT SAME STUFF she's now writing about Dean.

What has to happen before D's of all people recognize this?

[beaconess]

125. So, let's see . . .

On the one hand, you hold Noonan responsible for helping George Bush become president in 2000 and therefore obviously think that she holds some sway out in the real world yet, on the other hand, believe that we should pretend that she doesn't exist.

Oh, yeah, that's a key to success for the Democrats. If we close our eyes really, really tight, the baddies will all disappear.

It's too bad that you haven't figured out why it's important for us to know our enemies, understand their tactics, where they're coming from and how they go about influencing people.

You can ignore people like Peggy Noonan all you want - but I'll bet you a dime to a donut that the Dean campaign is carefully studying everything she and everyone of her ilk are saying and using it to craft a message that will resonate with the non-true-believers.

[Hep]

131. Just tell me

Where I said we should claim she doesn't exist? You've made that claim twice and have yet to show anything for it. My point is that we should sure as hell not be using her as backup for our arguments against D candidates. That's the point. She writes opinion pieces. Her opinion has NO credibility if you were on the planet in 2000.

I'll keep explaining this to you as long as you would like.

Knowing our enemies is fine. Read her pieces whenever you want. Learn everything you can about her. But don't quote her as if her opinion is valid support of your argument.

So PLEASE stop basing your argument on a misperception of what I'm talking about. Nowhere have I said ignore her.

[CWebster]

83. There is a purpose to this particular forum

and that is to discuss the DEMOCRATIC perspective. No matter how closely New Democrats parse and posture as to make that line barely visible, it is not a completely arbitrary one. There are differences and Peggy Noonan is a Republican. She does not speak for us.

[beaconess]

88. I see -

Because Peggy Noonan "doesn't speak for us," we couldn't possibly gain any insight by studying her perspective? Unless someone speaks for us, it doesn't help us in any way to inform ourselves about what they are saying?

Let's just operate in a vacuum, deluding ourselves into thinking that our view is the only perspective that will be considered by the people we need to win over in order to take back the White House. Let's not educate ourselves about what people in the real world are thinking, saying and hearing.

Nothing like willful blindness to any view that doesn't comport with our own to serve as the basis of a winning electoral strategy.

[farmbo]

135. No...you don't see. That's the problem

There is a forum for your kind of posting...its called Free Republic.

They LOVE Peggy over there.

[molly]

58. This is very interesting and telling

"Because Mr. Dean is operating as an insurgent, his supporters hold him to different standards.

Is he inconsistent? No, he's nimble.

Is he dishonest in his statements? No, he's just tying those establishment types in knots.

Mr. Dean's supporters seem to like him not in spite of his drawbacks, but because of them."

[Hep]

60. Yes, it is both interesting AND telling

how some people will take the side of the very media A-holes we've been screwed by for the past 10 years.

Very interesting and very telling how low some people will go just because they don't like a candidate.

So what's the score now? Helen Thomas, out, Peggy Noonan, in. What is the world coming to?

[Walt Starr]

62. PEGGY NOONAN!!!

I read the by line and went NO FURTHER!

How dare you bring words written by that right wing scree onto this site?

[adadem]

71. It sounds as if

only left winger's opinions are welcome at DU. Maybe we can learn something from what she has written. Maybe Noonan has become one of those "angry at Bush" Republicans who wants to vote for someone else -I have lot's of them in my very conservative Republican neighborhood. They will not vote for someone else, however, if they feel that the challenger to Bush will put the country in danger...safety wise or economically. They would rather vote for Bush...even though they are angry with him...than make things worse than they are.

We are foolish not to take the words of the other side into account.

[Hep]

72. Seems like?

Read the rules!

"This is a message board for Democrats and other progressives."

When Peggy Noonan gets more respect than Molly Ivins or Helen Thomas, some seriously messed up shit is happeningon this board. Just so you know.

[adadem]

84. Democrats come

in all shapes and colors...conservative Democrats, moderate Democrats, liberal Democrats and far-left Democrats...just like on the other side. Not allowing moderate and conservative thought, whether Democratic or Republican leads to closed minds. Your remark leads one to believe that DU is only for far-left Democrats.

[Hep]

93. DU is only for Democrats

I didn't make the rules.

And let me remind you of who you are defending for the sole purpose of maintaining your SENSELESS disdain for Dean, me, and every other Dean supporter. A reagan speechwriter. Some other quotes that apparently you are willing to entertain:

"look, working guys, enlisted men, cops, firemen, they relate to Bush as a guy, as a regular, normal, masculine, American man who is doing his best and trying to be a decent guy...I think they see Hillary as an elitist, mmmm, snooty school monitor in high school.
"

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120403.shtml

Here is where she essentially blames the muslim guys in shoneys for having the cops called on them a few years back. You must love this one:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh092302.shtml

Here she is calling Gore a liar:

"As for Mr. Gore, he is obviously bright, with a tough and disciplined mind not unlike Mrs. Clinton's. But he too this week gave us more reason to doubt what is inside him. I suspect people are starting no longer to be amused but actually concerned by Mr. Gore's tendency to lie in speeches and interviews. In the past five days he unspooled a heartfelt story of how his mother-in-law and dog both take the same arthritis medicine, but the pooch's meds are cheaper and this is a scandal. It certainly might be if it were true, but apparently not a word of it is."

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h092200_1.shtml

More from Noonan on Gore:

" shares the views of most of the leaders and funders of his party: Mr. Gore is damaged goods, a bad campaigner who wasted the precious patrimony of peace and prosperity, a charm-free zone who took a weird turn in his acceptance speech two years ago this week, abandoning centrist sophistication and embracing Huey Long populism. In the debates with George W. Bush, Mr. Gore seemed like a cross between Frankenstein and Carrot Top."

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081502.shtml

This is the Noonan you want us to pay attention to. Screw her. She has NO credibility, and anyone who gives it to her freely just because she has something bad to say about Dean has forgotten her record. Anyone who says she's wroth listening to hasn't read my sig, because it applies to THEM.

[Walt Starr]

107. There was a time when somebody would post an evil scree of Noonans

and the entire membership would deride that person.

[Hep]

109. As I've said before

The Dark Side is strong. We're losing people left and right.

[Walt Starr]

111. Yes, we are losing people

The dark side is taking over it would seem.

:evilgrin:

[molly]

73. You are correct

the article was very insightful and honest.

[Hep]

74. Yeah

if you oppose dean I can see how you would swoon for it. It's the fact that Noonan is apparently more respected among Dean opponents than Molly Ivins or Helen Thomas.

It's your soul. Do what you want with it.

[Walt Starr]

106. The hag ridden screes of Peggy Noonan are never welcome here

at least, they were never welcome on the DU I started posting on in very early 2001.

[zulchzulu]

75. Reagan's speechwriter has an opinion on Dean? Wow.

Who would have thought she didn't like Dean. :eyes:

[CWebster]

80. Reagan's speechwriter

Just who we need to advise us.


Isn't there a rule against posting screeds from right-wing hacks on this so-called "progressive" site?

[floridaguy]

91. So many bad articles and comments can't be a conspiracy . . can it?

Almost all, or at least many, reporters are now either neocons in disguise, Clinton lovers, or somehow have it out for Howard Dean. Certainly Carville and Begala are champions of the conservatives, right?

Face it, since it now seems that most everyone except the early Dean supporters are starting to question everything about Howard Dean, shouldn't you at least take a harder look?

Unless of course venting the anger at the GOP and Bush is your only cause, and winning the general election isn't as important.

Democrats must be united to beat Bush. It won't be easy. Can you say $200 million. That's a lot of lies we will have to deal with.

Clark can unite the party. Howard Dean has shown he is better at dividing it.

[Walt Starr]

113. Clark will destroy the Party

Watch if he gets the nomination. This will be more than a prediction, it will be prophetic.

[Lestat de Lioncourt]

114. I have never once seen Dean angry.

What are these people talking about? Among all the debates I've seen thus far, Dean hasn't been angry.

If he ever were angry, I don't blame him. He's got his fellow Democrats saying nothing but negative things about him.

They need to lay off the man.

[SeattleRob]

118. This is getting silly...

Citing Peggy Noonan? Come on... Maybe someone has a fair and balanced by Hannity or Dick "Toe Sucker" Morris.

[bain_sidhe]

119. Ha! Republican flip-flop, eh?

I'm one of those who thinks they really did think Dean would be easy to beat, and were pumping him up... Looks like they're rethinking that strategy, and now they're trying to talk him down.

I'm for Clark, but I can't say I wouldn't feel a certain glee if they got the nominee they were desperately praying for six months ago... and he walloped *. Of course, that doesn't change my worry that Dean might NOT wallop Bush, but still, I've got that whole "be careful what you wish for" thing going on in the back of my mind...

[Kolesar]

123. Wall Street Journal--The Anti-Clinton Rag--Fuck Them--end of message

[dsc]

126. Peggy Noonan is a lying liar

and here are some lies she told.

But it is hard to like Howard Dean. He seems as big a trimmer as Bill Clinton, and as bold and talented in that area as Mr. Clinton. He says America is no safer for the capture of Saddam Hussein, and then he says he didn't say it. He floats a rumor that the Saudis tipped off President Bush before 9/11, and then he says he never believed it. When he is caught and has to elaborate, explain or disavow, he dissembles with Clintonian bravado. This is not a good sign.

end of quote

answer to bold

Here is Dean at the January 4th debate in Iowa.

Note Senator Lieberman said that we were safer now that Saddam has been caught; I beg to differ. Since Saddam Hussein has been caught -- who's a dreadful person. I'm delighted to see him behind bars, and I hope he gets what he deserves.

But the fact is, since Saddam Hussein has been caught, we've lost 23 additional troops; we now have, for the first time, American fighter jets escorting commercial airliners through American airspace.

What we should have done is spent some of the $160 billion that we have in Iraq and all the effort when we went to go after Saddam, who was never an imminent threat to the United States, what we should have done is followed up and tried to get Osama bin Laden and spent that money and all those lives trying to protect America from terrorism, which is the true enemy of the United States

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54363-2004Jan4.html

Now this is pretty standard for what Dean has said. This is not a denial that he said it. There is a liar revealed by her paragraph but it sure isn't Dean. Noonen out and out lied to your face and you brought her here to do it to us.

answer to italics

Quote

WALLACE: Governor, there is this continuing question, even in your own party, about whether you're fit, whether you're up to being commander in chief. And I want to ask you about a radio interview that you did earlier this week. You were asked about the president suppressing information about what he knew pre-9/11, and here's what you said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: The most interesting theory that I have heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory, I can't think -- it can't be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

end of quote

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105081,00.html

Here Ms. Noonen is technically accurate but any lucid listener would have understood him point. Especially since he went on to say in that some interview that the above was an example of kind of theories take hold when the truth about 9/11 is kept hidden.

It bears noting that the above discredited paragraph contains here only citations of Dean lying. There is a liar afoot but it ain't Dean.






She also traffics in stereotypes

There is a disjunction between Dean's ethnic background and his personal style. His background is eastern WASP--Park Avenue, the Hamptons, boarding school, Yale. But he doesn't seem like a WASP. I know it's not nice to deal in stereotypes, but there seems very little Thurston Howell III, or George Bush the elder for that matter, in Mr. Dean. He seems unpolished, doesn't hide his aggression, is proudly pugnacious. He doesn't look or act the part of the WASP. This may be partly because of his generation. Boomer WASPs didn't really learn How It's Done the way their forebears did. (Boomers of every ethnicity are less ethnic than their forebears.) George W. Bush is a little like this too--less polished, more awkward, than one might expect. At any rate there is some political meaning to this. It will be harder for Republicans to tag Mr. Dean as Son of the Maidstone Club than it was for Democrats to tag Bush One as Heir to Greenwich Country Day. He just doesn't act the part.

On the other hand, Mr. Dean's angry look and angry demeanor will not serve him well as he tries to carry the women's vote

end of quote

What can one say to the above other than wow. It should be noted that the most recent poll shows Dean vastly ahead of Clark with women. So much for that theory.

Ms. Noonen is a lying crack pot. Any fool knows that. She is a plague upon our discourse and has no business on this website.

[kayleybeth]

128. So RW mouthpiece Peggy Noonan hates one our candidates

there's a shocker.

[Rowdyboy]

137. Thought I'd stumbled onto Free Republic when I saw the byline...

WTF are we doing wasting time on what Peggy Noonan thinks. I don't want her support nor care what she thinks.