Howard Dean's penchant for flippant and sometimes false statements

[bigtree]

This article made an impression on me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9661-2003Dec17.html

Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 18, 2003

BURLINGTON, Vt. -- Howard Dean's penchant for flippant and sometimes false statements is generating increased criticism from his Democratic presidential rivals and raising new questions about his ability to emerge as a nominee who can withstand intense, sustained scrutiny and defeat President Bush.

Dean, for instance, recently spoke of a "most interesting theory" that Saudi Arabia had "warned" Bush about the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Although Dean said he does not believe Bush was tipped off about the assaults that killed nearly 3,000, he has made no apologies for raising the rumor.

"How is what I did different from what Dick Cheney or George Bush . . . did during the time of the buildup of the invasion of Iraq?" the former Vermont governor said Tuesday night aboard his campaign plane. "There were all these theories that they mentioned. Many of them turned out not to be true. The difference is that I acknowledged that I did not believe the theory I was putting out."

Dean's remarks, his critics say, are in keeping with his history of making statements that are mean-spirited or misleading. He has distorted his past support for raising the retirement age for Social Security and slowing Medicare's growth. He has falsely said he was the only Democratic presidential candidate talking about race before white audiences. And he made allegations -- some during his years as governor -- that turned out to be untrue.


This is just a precursor to the general election coverage.
These perceptions have to be resolved by the Dean camp. Attacking the voters who read these accusations and choose to believe them is not a strategy that will win over. I suggest a calm, unvitriolic response for voters like me, who will have to defend Dean if he wins the nomination.

Answer these three for me in a non-confrontational way that will win an argument in the general election season. And take a shot at the other charges in the article.

#1-"most interesting theory"

#2-his past support for raising the retirement age for Social Security and slowing Medicare's growth.

#3-said he was the only Democratic presidential candidate talking about race before white audiences.

[JPace]

1. Or he could be extremely careful as Gore was.....

measuring every action, scripting every word,
watching every poll......and then losing the
campaign because he was sooooo boring. Even
Gore now says if he had it to do all over
again he would not hedge but go all out to
win. Dean may lose, but lets not have him
lose because he feared his every word would
be scrutinized. He will make mistakes but
they can be overcome if he can engage people
and give them hope for a better future. They
will forgive his small errors.....this Post
article is hoping to make Dean so careful he
will lose his ability to inspire through
natural and passionate communication.

[Ardee]

3. Boring is not rumor mongering

I agree that the tone and tenor of the Gore campaign stunk, especially after seeing the short lived but more fiery Gore persona earlier this year.

I would not ,however, have supported a Gore descent into innuendo and hyperbole and I do not care for it in my candidates either.

[JPace]

13. "innuendo and hyperbole"

innuendo and hyperbole is what the VERY
powerful right is going to use to win
over any dem candidate. They have more
money, more media outlets and less ethics.
I hope Dean is preparing for what is
going to be coming at him from the right,
we can be assured that it will be deadly!
Perhaps you would prefer that Dean use
arrows while the right uses shot guns.

[incapsulated]

2. WTF?

"I acknowledged that I did not believe the theory I was putting out."

What kind of an answer is that? It will only raise the question why you put out such a theory, only to backpeddle on it. It's one thing to speculate right after the event, it's quite another to float theories you say you don't even believe three years later. Sheesh.

[eileen from OH]

4. I'm not going to offer answers - sorry

and it really isn't much of a response to what you posted. Just taking the opportunity to list some stuff that I truly dislike about politics (though my dislike won't make it stop). It applies to me mostly for Dean, but is true across the board. I hate. . .

1) remarks taken out of context

2) remarks within an entire speech that are plucked out for examination, ignoring the larger message of the speech

3) off-the-cuff remarks given incredible importance

4) flubs, misspeaks, etc., turned into a "collection",suddenly becoming a "pattern" for a candidate, thus turning it into conventional wisdom (i.e., being "Gored")

5) #4 being done to one candidate, ignoring others. Does anyone think that Gephardt, Kerry, et al have NOT made flip remarks or inaccurate ones in the past? Sure they have, anyone in public life has said stuff they shouldn't have. They ain't perfect. Why no "collections" for them?

6) Related to above - when an honest-to-God change of opinion, is constantly referred to as a "flip-flop" instead of what it may truly be - a reflection of a previous stance in light of new information or developments.

7) Demands for apologies, or "admitting you were wrong" or the like. It's a rhetorical gotcha trick and is stoopid and childish, no matter who does it, including Dean.

8) past remarks being used while ignoring the time and context of when they were given. This is particularly true of Dean, and to a certain extent Clark, when they pull out stuff said/did as Gov, or military man, or whatever. When Dean was Gov, he had a the job of doing what was best for his STATE - not the whole country. And, yes, what he may have done/said to serve Vermont is different than what he'd advocate as Pres for the whole country - it damn well better be.

9) parsing every goddam word out of any candidates mouth. No wonder most of 'em talk in blah-blah-blah.

10) Bringing up ancient history remarks and demanding explanations for stuff they probably don't even remember saying/doing

Feel free to add your own. . .

eileen from OH

[bigtree]

5. I don't know if a non-response will win the day

It's one option though.

[papau]

6. Already answered on DU by me - please check my letter to Wash post that

I posted.

Almost all of it is partial truth lies - and the only 2 true items - the 600 acre environ thing and the speaking of race where dean was wrong and said he was sorry - is spun to indicate Dean lies.

A bunch of Bull.

Again Check DU postings for definitive rebuttal - with facts.

I am off to the grandkids or I'd do it myself.

Have a great day!

:-)

[bigtree]

7. thanks papau

:7

[HFishbine]

8. Another Feather in Dean's Cap as Far as I'm Concerned

I'm glad Dean brought up the "Bush Knew" theory. He rightly says he doesn't believe it -- I don't "believe" it either, there isn't enough evidence yet to conclude that it's true. But I too find it an interesting theory and one that should be proven or disproven. More and more Dean speaks for me. All the MIHOPers and LIHOPers here should be grateful to Dean for getting this out there.

[revcarol]

9. That bit about Social Security & Medicare is really a killer, IMHO.

Then denying he said it, then backtracking, "Well, maybe I said it but I didn't mean it and now that I'm running, I've changed my mind."

The latest one is NAFTA.He was "strongly" for NAFTA before Congress. Now under questioning,"Well, I wasn't strongly for NAFTA.I just sorta favored it because I thought it would be good for my state. Inh, what's the difference? I wasn't really STRONGLY for NAFTA."

Does he really think we don't notice?

[eileen from OH]

11. Oh, sweet Jeebus. . .

now we're parsing "strong". Time to start looking up definitions and applying them, and giving other examples, ad nauseum.

Why the heck can't we focus on what a candidate - ANY of the candidates - advocates NOW, instead of doing this kind of historical navel-lint-picking.

I don't give a fried fart over whether Dean was "strongly" in favor of NAFTA before, or just plain in favor of it before. What's important to me is his explanation of his evolution of thinking regarding it, his current position, and what he do with it if elected.

eileen from OH

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. Check the polls.

Is it killing him?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[ClintonTyree]

16. So you'd prefer.................

a candidate that doesn't have the ability to change his opinion in the face of supporting evidence, someone who sticks to every word they say and isn't man enough to say he was wrong, that his opinion has changed, someone like.......George Bush?

[frustrated_lefty]

10. This is at least the 3rd time this has been posted (n/t)

[Jim Sagle]

14. The WashPost ain't nuthin' but shit.

Its fake liberalism is a threadbare cover for RNC agitprop. Whatever it prints about politics, it would be wiser to believe the opposite.