Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

It's obvious politicians that don't sugarcoat things can't win.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Sean Reynolds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 02:04 AM
Original message
It's obvious politicians that don't sugarcoat things can't win.
When Dean said we were no safer with Saddam captured, he was attacked for it. Even though I think most here would agree with him on it. When Dennis Kucinich speaks of opting out of NAFTA and the WTO, people bitch and moan - yet in reality we need to do something. It's obvious that the only politicians that win are those that sugarcoat their answers.

Yet, we let Bush get away with his right-wing rhetoric. We don't bitch when he asks the Iraqis to 'Bring it On'. Or when he openly uses the word quota to talk about race. We don't bitch when Bush says God oppointed him. Yet, we'll bitch and cry when Howard Dean even REMOTELY says Bush may have known about 9-11. We BITCH when Howard Dean talks about breaking up the media and the fact that maybe bin Laden should be tried like ANY other human on the face of the earth. Am I the only one that sees something wrong with this picture?

Dean was brought down because of his openness. Yet Bush thrives off his. When Dean says it, it's just another liberal gaffe. When Bush says it, it's just him being him - the average Joe we all love so much.

Yet the kicker? All the Democrats attacked Dean for his openness. They attacked him when he said we were no safer now that Saddam was cought. They attacked him when he said the media should be broke up. They attacked him when he said Bush may have known about 9-11. They attacked him when he had the gall to say that the United States should be even-handed with the I/P situtation.

In today's Democratic Party you can only get elected if you sugarcoat your message. They must water it down so much that in the end, it's the same old empty promises that you hear EVERY election season.

Look at the three candidates that actually have the balls to say what they think. Where are they in the polls? Dean, Kucinich and Sharpton don't adjust their messages to fit what's right. They say what they believe; sadly that seems to be their down fall.

It was all nice and fine when Dean was the frontrunner. But someone forgot to tell Dean he wasn't acting like the frontrunner. He got there by being himself, but everyone in politics knows that there is an unwritten law that says you must adjust your message to fit the electability factor. Dean didn't do that. He continued to speak his mind, not sugarcoat his message and in the end it hurt him. The media said he shot from the hip one too many times. Kerry said he was gaffe ridden and unelectable. After 3 months of continually harping at this message, the voters finally stepped away.

So now we know that to win the nomination, one must sugarcoat the message for they don't seem TOO out of touch. Even though they probably are - because in the end, most politicians are out of touch with society.

It makes me sick. It makes me just want to throw my hands up in the air and say SCREW IT ALL! But I'm a fighter. I'll support Dean until he drops out. And then I'll continue my support for his cause.

Dean, Kucinich and Sharpton - 3 guys that got the raw end of the stick because they didn't back down. Whether you like them or not. Whether you agree with them on the issues or not. No one can deny that they spoke their minds. They never once sugarcoated their message. In the end, that did them in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Semi_subversive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 02:06 AM
Response to Original message
1. God bless Howard Dean
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 02:06 AM
Response to Original message
2. When Dean makes a mistake....
it's usually because he tells the truth and others here consider it a mistake. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryYoungMan Donating Member (856 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 02:14 AM
Response to Original message
3. How can a Lieberman supporter make this argument?
I'm sorry but I don't understand. Even though he dropped out of the race, you are still siglining a candidate who did NOTHING but sugarcoat. And, he didn't even sugarcoat the Democratic message; he somehow managed to sugarcoat BUSH's message for him!

I'm not picking a fight; I'm just wondering where you're coming from with this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 02:25 AM
Response to Original message
4. Well I like Dean because he seemed to tell the truth but.....
Always a but.....trying to see why they would not vote for him is something I do not understand. I can believe that every Dem, Rep. and who cares does not think things are as bad as George Bush and Co has made them.As far as I can see we all have had it with the House of Bush, they are like the Hanover's which we also got rid of. Not for us at all.Bad news these guys. Now who wants to claim they voted for him? Does not say much when you read Free Republic and every thread you read they are yelling, we are yelling here and the rest are just turned off, then another 500 jobs go overseas. This is starting to sound just like Father Bush last year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 02:36 AM
Response to Original message
5. Dean is not a paragon of honesty who was sabotaged
He's suffering some for his virtues, but he's mostly suffering for his failings. His is an arrogance that sucks the breath right out of one's lungs when witnessed, and his sheer recklessness was enough to do him in by itself.

As his trajectory defied all expectations, he flew like Icarus toward the sun, and met the same fate. Somehow, he just couldn't believe that he'd meet real resistance, and more than anything else, was unable to change tactics as his situation changed. It's all very well and good for a backwoods populist to blister the guys from the establishment as corrupt and wicked, but once one is the front runner, hammering on your down-at-heels opponents smacks of a bullying that borders on just plain meanness. When he lied about his opponents (Bush tax cut votes) and wouldn't retract it, wouldn't withdraw accusations (being the only one to speak of race in front of white audiences) when they were disproved and wouldn't apologize for smearing Kucinich when confronted with irrefutable evidence, he just seemed boorish, loutish and out of control.

He did himself in. When people snivel about "the scream" it's a ridiculous rewriting of history; he'd sunk himself before that, and his knee-jerk rekindling of the attack campaign in Iowa just served to seal his fate.

"All of the Democrats" didn't attack him for his openness; this is an oft-thought bit of self-aggrandizement and it needs to end or be proven. This obsession many have is astonishing; he came in with unbridled derision toward the others, and when he had problems of his own, he wouldn't cop to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sean Reynolds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 02:59 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. I don't agree
He's suffering some for his virtues, but he's mostly suffering for his failings. His is an arrogance that sucks the breath right out of one's lungs when witnessed, and his sheer recklessness was enough to do him in by itself.

Arrogance? How? He spoke the truth, or at least he spoke from the heart. Do you believe Dean should have just adjusted his message to fit the mainstream of the political world? I think not. Dean's only suffering came from the fact he didn't cater to the needs of the Democratic Party. Since March of 2003 the DLC had it out from him. Article after article they attacked him. While this may not be the DNC - the DLC is an ever growing council that was also supported by four of the major five candidates: Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt.

I fail to see why Dean is arrogant because he spoke his mind. Whether you agree with him, or not doesn't change the fact that the media jumped on him for his bluntness. Which is sad. And it just isn't Dean, it's two other candidates as well.

As his trajectory defied all expectations, he flew like Icarus toward the sun, and met the same fate. Somehow, he just couldn't believe that he'd meet real resistance, and more than anything else, was unable to change tactics as his situation changed.

He shouldn't have to change his message. This is what is wrong with the political system. Dean rose to the top of the Democratic nomination because people liked the fact he wasn't taking the Republican crap. They liked the fact that he didn't shape his speeches to conform what was typical political rhetoric. Yes, I agree with you that Dean IS to blame here. He is to blame because he didn't sell out when it counted. Dean could have curbed his attacks on Bush and his open style talking, but he didn't. I'm sure if Dean would have done that, the Democratic nomination probably would have been his.

It's all very well and good for a backwoods populist to blister the guys from the establishment as corrupt and wicked, but once one is the front runner, hammering on your down-at-heels opponents smacks of a bullying that borders on just plain meanness. When he lied about his opponents (Bush tax cut votes) and wouldn't retract it, wouldn't withdraw accusations (being the only one to speak of race in front of white audiences) when they were disproved and wouldn't apologize for smearing Kucinich when confronted with irrefutable evidence, he just seemed boorish, loutish and out of control.

You're wrong when you say Dean didn't retract his statement about being the only guy that spoke to white crowds. Shortly after that came out Dean in fact did go back on his word, saying he was sorry. Also, he didn't smear Kucinich, he never once attacked Kucinich. The only thing he's guilty of is leaving him out of the ad. I think you need to look up the word 'smearing' before you use it.

Fianlly, as for Dean hammering down on the people below him; he was only fighting back because they were attacking him. Remember when Lieberman said Dean's economic policy would cause a depression? Or when Kerry said Dean was going to turn his back on Israel? Or when Gephardt said Dean flip-flopped on SO many issues? You do know Dean could have countered Gephardt's attack with EVERY issue Gep's flip-flopped on. Remember, Gephardt was once pro-choice, pro-god, anti-gay and anti-environment at one point. Of course Dean didn't do that. Dean's attacks have been based on what he's running as. Someone from the outside that isn't going to be the same ol', same ol'.

He did himself in. When people snivel about "the scream" it's a ridiculous rewriting of history; he'd sunk himself before that, and his knee-jerk rekindling of the attack campaign in Iowa just served to seal his fate.

Yes he did himself in. He did himself in because he didn't back down. He should have realized that the only way you win the nomination is if you kiss the ass of every person in Washington. If you change your message to sound mainstream. If you talk the political talk and walk the political walk.

The last president to actually WIN based on being an outsider was Jimmy Carter. Reagan didn't run as an outsider. Nor did Bush, or even Clinton far that matter. Of course Dubya ran as a faux-outsider, but even he spoke the political talk in 2000.

"All of the Democrats" didn't attack him for his openness; this is an oft-thought bit of self-aggrandizement and it needs to end or be proven. This obsession many have is astonishing; he came in with unbridled derision toward the others, and when he had problems of his own, he wouldn't cop to them.

They didn't? Wasn't the whole base of Kerry's attacks pre-Iowa based on the fact Dean was too outspoken to win? Wasn't it Kerry that said Dean basically needs to shut his mouth? If these aren't attacks on openness, what is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. PoE is right. And I'll only address one tiny part of this.
After Dean was called on his "I'm the only one...", he rephrased it for a little while as "Bill Clinton and I are the only ones..."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. absolutely not; "sloppiness" and "recklessness" aren't "openness"
Edited on Sat Feb-14-04 04:34 AM by PurityOfEssence
That's something that continually recurs in these spats. Kerry said you can't be President if you make a half-dozen gaffes a week. He wasn't decrying forthrightness, he was decrying spazzy impetuousness. It had nothing to do with being outspoken, it had to do with being radically incorrect in pronouncements that had to be withdrawn.

Just because Dean was on the correct side of many issues doesn't mean that this is what hurt him. His actions were so outlandish and incorrect at times that one marveled at the sheer theatre of it all.

Yes, he did "smear" Kucinich, he used a repeated technique of a "group smear" by lumping all of "them" together and blaming them for the actions of some. When Kucinich confronted him at a debate with a commercial, and Dean couldn't even admit the obvious attempt to dismiss all of them on the IWR issue, it was nauseating. What's more revolting than anything is the feeling he seemed to have (possibly still has) that his inherent moral superiority exempted him from mere transitory correctness. The privilege he claimed was a recurring theme.

I don't think he did himself in because he was so noble that he couldn't back down, he did himself in because he believed in his own myth and just let rip. He was a rudderless raging id loose on the high seas of rhetorical buccaneering. At times, he was almost a Homer Simpson/Eric Cartman amalgam of spontaneous folly.

He was a smart-ass and just plain nasty. When the LaRouche disruptors were heckling, someone asked "where do you suppose he is?" Dean said "aah, probably in jail". A PRESIDENT IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE SOME FINESSE, CONTROL, DEFTNESS AND SOPHISTICATION. He was a scrappy provocateur, and when the momentum shifted to where he was being looked to for some statesmanship, he was still in some intellectual bar fight somewhere.

Yes, ARROGANCE. I mean that very specifically. He claimed to be representing the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party". That's how he burst onto the stage, and if you can't get this for the pomposity it is, then I don't know what more to say. Kerry is to the left of him, as are Gephardt, Edwards, Kucinich, Sharpton and Mosely-Braun. Whatever he meant by this claim, it was still a pronouncement that the rest of them were lying to us by calling themselves Democrats, when only he was truly moral. That's a extreme slap in the face of some very decent (except for Joe) people. This was a disgustingly fatuous claim--mean, shrill and combative--and it wasn't backed up by his past actions.

He strutted in, informed us that he was superior to us all, and when he was called to account on it, threw fit after fit to the dismay of many. Is Kerry a Republican? That's what Dean said, and he said it literally and repeatedly. This is unconscionable. Are you going to use his having been unfairly ganged-up upon as some justification for his deliberate use of hysteria like that? He said he would have voted against IWR, but does that give him a blank check for everything? Kerry's political actions are more in support of the weak and downtrodden than Dean's, and his record is very clear on the subject.

Street people in wild psychotic moments on street corners will often let loose with a rant that is correct in every way; if one is disgusted, it's not by the message, it's by the messenger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Very good argument POE
Damn good, in fact.

Besides, Dean was never the front runner. Even he'll tell ya that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sean Reynolds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Wrong again.
That's something that continually recurs in these spats. Kerry said you can't be President if you make a half-dozen gaffes a week. He wasn't decrying forthrightness, he was decrying spazzy impetuousness. It had nothing to do with being outspoken, it had to do with being radically incorrect in pronouncements that had to be withdrawn.

I guess we've got a different definition of what is and what isn't a gaffe. I DO NOT believe saying that we are no safer now that Saddam has been captured is a gaffe; Kerry does. I do not believe saying that there is a rumor out there stating Bush MAY have known about 9-11 is a gaffe; Kerry does. Yes Dean has had some gaffes in the past, I won't argue with you there. But a lot of things he's being hit for ARE THE TRUTH. And that is what is terribly sad.

Just because Dean was on the correct side of many issues doesn't mean that this is what hurt him. His actions were so outlandish and incorrect at times that one marveled at the sheer theatre of it all.

It doesn't? When you've John Kerry, Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman getting on TV and basically calling Dean reckless because he believes that going to war in Iraq was wrong. When you've got these three guys attacking him over an 'even-handed statmeent'. When you've got these three guys harping at the fact you brought up the theory that bin Laden should be innocent until proven guilty. IT takes a HUGE hit. But ya' know what? Every one of those things Dean said was right. Unless you do believe in the Iraq War. Believe in a one sided I/P policy, unless you don't believe in the rule of law.

Yes, he did "smear" Kucinich, he used a repeated technique of a "group smear" by lumping all of "them" together and blaming them for the actions of some. When Kucinich confronted him at a debate with a commercial, and Dean couldn't even admit the obvious attempt to dismiss all of them on the IWR issue, it was nauseating. What's more revolting than anything is the feeling he seemed to have (possibly still has) that his inherent moral superiority exempted him from mere transitory correctness. The privilege he claimed was a recurring theme.

How long have you been in politics? From the looks of it, probably never. Because when politicians talk up their strong points, they tend to want to leave out other candidates as well. I've heard Dean say in the debates that almost all up here on this stage, besides Kucinich and Sharpton, supported the Iraq War. But how many times have you heard Kucinich say it? You know, that isn't 'SMEAR". It's just like when a politician says HIS health care policy is the best. Is it true? Well no, but when Kerry or Gephardt said this - did you believe they were smearing the rest of the other candidates?

Finally, I guess you never watched that ad, did you? In it Dean said my oppenents continue to attack me about the war (or something like that). Last I checked he meant the oppenents that SUPPORTED the war. Unless you're telling me Kucinich supported the war, Dean wasn't talking about him.

I don't think he did himself in because he was so noble that he couldn't back down, he did himself in because he believed in his own myth and just let rip. He was a rudderless raging id loose on the high seas of rhetorical buccaneering. At times, he was almost a Homer Simpson/Eric Cartman amalgam of spontaneous folly.

Really? How? Please give me quotes that show this loose cannon Dean. This Dean that doesn't even know what he's saying. I'm guessing you haven't followed Dean throughout this whole bid? Because I've been a supporter since February of 2003 and what he says hasn't changed ONE damn bit. So don't give me that crap that he became more loose as he continued to rise in the polls. But again, I'd LOVE to see this Dean. I think you take the truth as a gaffe because you're too use to hearing watered down crap from typical politicians.

He was a smart-ass and just plain nasty. When the LaRouche disruptors were heckling, someone asked "where do you suppose he is?" Dean said "aah, probably in jail". A PRESIDENT IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE SOME FINESSE, CONTROL, DEFTNESS AND SOPHISTICATION. He was a scrappy provocateur, and when the momentum shifted to where he was being looked to for some statesmanship, he was still in some intellectual bar fight somewhere.

Oh, Dean jokes around about a corrupt cult leader - LaRouche - and that PROVES he's not presidential? Well what do we define as presidential? Finesse as is what, talking about how you smoked pot, but didn't inhale? Control as in fuckin' any woman in sight behind your wife's back; going on national TV and lying about it to the American public? Deftness like sitting there and saying "It depends on what the meaning of is, is? And Sophistication as knowing damn well that if you kept your pecker in your pants you'd probably of made it out of the WH a damn good president? EACH president has their 'human moments'. So Dean joked about LaRouche, how is that any worse than Kerry dropping the f-bomb in the RS article? Or Clinton getting oral sex in the Oval Office?

Yes, ARROGANCE. I mean that very specifically. He claimed to be representing the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party". That's how he burst onto the stage, and if you can't get this for the pomposity it is, then I don't know what more to say. Kerry is to the left of him, as are Gephardt, Edwards, Kucinich, Sharpton and Mosely-Braun. Whatever he meant by this claim, it was still a pronouncement that the rest of them were lying to us by calling themselves Democrats, when only he was truly moral. That's a extreme slap in the face of some very decent (except for Joe) people. This was a disgustingly fatuous claim--mean, shrill and combative--and it wasn't backed up by his past actions.

To be a Democrat doesn't MEAN you have to be a far-left nut. It means you've got to stand up for Democratic values. Were you even here on DU back when all these senators were supporting the PATRIOT ACT, Bush's TAX CUTS, the War in Iraq, NCLB? That pissed A LOT of them off - and it should have. Democrats CAVED after 9-11 and gave President Bush a lot of what he wanted. They didn't care because they saw an approval rating of 90% and an election on the horizon. It was SICK. Even as late as last year only a handful of Democrats were able to stand up to President Bush. When John Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt and Edwards were all whoring out their vote on the Iraq War. ONLY Dean and Kucinich were out there attacking it. THAT is what he means when he say's he is from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

If it's a liberal thing to do to support a bill that kills schools; wages war on nations; cuts taxes in times of economic trouble, and takes away our righs - I don't want to even BE a liberal.

He strutted in, informed us that he was superior to us all, and when he was called to account on it, threw fit after fit to the dismay of many. Is Kerry a Republican? That's what Dean said, and he said it literally and repeatedly. This is unconscionable. Are you going to use his having been unfairly ganged-up upon as some justification for his deliberate use of hysteria like that? He said he would have voted against IWR, but does that give him a blank check for everything? Kerry's political actions are more in support of the weak and downtrodden than Dean's, and his record is very clear on the subject.

Show me one damn quote that shows Dean as being BETTER than us all. Kerry might not be a Republican, but for the past three years he sure has acted like a Lincoln of Jeffords.

But you know what? Mr. Kerry isn't so great either in being 'nice'. He's attacked Dean too. He's called Dean unstable. He's called Dean unelectable. He's called Dean too out of the mainstream. He's called Dean a lot of other shit too. So you know what, where were you when THEY were all attacking Howard Dean? When Lieberman said his economic policy would cause a depression. When Kerry said that Dean lacked ANY knowledge on foreign issues. Oddly enough, everyone said that since Dean was the frontrunner it was bound to happen. Well now Kerry's the frontrunner, and all I can say is, it's bound to happen.

Street people in wild psychotic moments on street corners will often let loose with a rant that is correct in every way; if one is disgusted, it's not by the message, it's by the messenger.

Thats the problem right there. You don't get it. Dean doesn't rant, he just speaks what he believes to be true. You've just made my point, he doesn't sugarcoat his message and thus, he loses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Dean and Clark both lied: the Senators didn't support the tax cuts
This has been beaten into the ground around here. Edwards and Kerry DID NOT VOTE FOR THE BUSH TAX CUTS. They were very active against them, and even tried to mount an attempt to come up with a compromise bill on the last one when they were unable to muster the votes to defeat Junior's greedfest.

Please retract this. What's the matter with people who keep saying this? Edwards' votes were especially commendable when you note where he's representing.

I don't have time right now to go through every point, but this is endlessly maddening. Howard Dean and his supporters are not the inventors of virtue. The deliberate dismissal of inconvenient facts is anti-social at best.

Are you going to continue to perpetuate the absolute lie about the tax cut votes? As for "No Child...", it was a messy thing, and at the time didn't look half so bad, especially not if it had been actually funded. Railing about this sort of thing is hindsight sniping, and many people see that.

If you're going to allege something about the President's foreknowledge about a national disaster, you'd better have a better answer than being wishy-washy about it. The "well, some people have said that..." approach is the very soul of smearing, and it makes him look ridiculous. Either stand by it, or retract it, but don't try to have it both ways.

Yes, I haven't answered every one of your points, but it's not that I acquiesce on them. I'm working.

Supported the Bush Tax Cuts. That's ugly, duplicitous and cowardly on Howard Dean's part, it's the same on Wesley Clark's, but it's probably just ignorance on yours. This is the privilege aspect of Dean and many of his supporters of which I speak: facts, schmacts. I'm good, they're bad, and that's that. Who cares that I supported NAFTA, energy deregulation, cozy industry tax breaks and a host of other non-liberal things? I'm good. They're bad.

This one goes to eleven.

The problem wasn't the message, it was the messenger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 04:33 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. Yes, Dean existed in a vacuum. There were no low blow, Bush enabling
attacks from the media, Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry or the Club for Growth.

To suggest otherwise is to rewrite history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. And where do I suggest that?
He threw all the rules of comportment out the window, so he has no right to expect nastiness in return.

Your post smacks of the same privilege claimed by Dean: any opposition is evil collaboration with the monarchists. Of course, Dean can say anything he wants about a fellow candidate and that's not helping Bush. The very premise is that Dean is superior and doesn't have to comport to the same behavior as mere mortals.

I guarantee you that had a nicer candidate, like a Mosely-Braun or Kucinich, had become front-runner, they never would have been attacked as vehemently; Dean upped the ante, sandbagged and intimidated. In the end, he couldn't stay in the game.

I don't say that he didn't take some serious hits. He brought this upon himself, and it's the biggest karmic backlash I've seen since the fall of Gingrich. (No, I'm not comparing the two; Newt's a certified skunk, whereas Dean's on the ethical side of the debate, albeit a firebrand and a bit unscrupulous.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. What nonsense. Dean had the media, the pundits, the DLC, the DNC and
almost every other person with any power, clout or public soapbox railing against him -- typically without a shred of merit. Every word Dean had ever said for the last 10 years was pored over and anything that could be taken out of context to use against him was. OVer and over and over. And none of it added up to anything under critical analysis -- much like the bullshit "he wasn't a nice enough front-runner" meme that you're trying to fly with.

Republicans both attacked him mercilessly and played the reverse psychology game against him. He was "angry." He was "unelectable." He was "not ready for primetime." He was "too inexperienced to handle Osama." He was "way too liberal." He was "Newt Gingrich."

Meanwhile, Dean's stong anti-Bush message and fiery stump style was appropriated by Kerry, Gephardt and even Lieberman.

Yes, Dean fell for trap after trap, but emphasizing this is like blaming Iraq's recent casualties on Hussein's inept military strategy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 03:12 AM
Response to Original message
8. Well said...
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnOneillsMemory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 03:50 AM
Response to Original message
9. This article says the opposite. Reagan and Dean share 'clarity' strengths.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9733

From an essay mostly about Reagan and W called 'Mourning in America' by Clinton speechwriter David Kusnet:

>snip<

"Reagan's political career was all about answering the question: "How does a man who believe in principles that are out of touch with the prevailing public ethos get elected?" Reagan did it by speaking simply and standing his ground until a majority of voters came around to him.

Ironically, in this respect, Reagan's real legacy may be that his original political party, the Democrats, are becoming bolder and more outspoken. Howard Dean wasn't a great communicator when he conceded defeat in the Iowa caucuses, but he built a mass movement behind his candidacy by speaking his mind and standing his ground, just as Reagan did in his pilgrimage from the wilderness to the White House.

His surprisingly successful campaign has convinced his opponents, particularly John Kerry and John Edwards, to present themselves as conviction politicians, not the timid trimmers that establishment Democrats have appeared to be for the past three years. In a campaign where the Democrats challenge Bush's premises and policies, the free-wheeling, far-reaching debate will remind all AmericansReagan's friends and foes alikewhy the Great Communicator appealed to so many for so long."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lexingtonian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 04:49 AM
Response to Original message
12. There is a distinction
between speaking truthfully about something and speaking the truth about something. The latter tends to come with a complete understanding of the context/situation, the first tends not to.

Dean says things that are perfectly truthful- from one fairly narrow and unimaginative, reductive, perspective/analysis. He seems not really to understand that most people have a need for answers that describe the state and progress of an implicit story line and imply/respect/explain the significance of the whole- rather than argue a technical solution to a decontextualized problem.

It's pretty clear that Dean doesn't quite grasp the political history and story line and implicit explanation to many of the things he tries to champion. He does the best he can, no doubt, but over time I think his audience feels the plot line to his plans/proposals/conceptions getting disjointed from the actual flow of events. In an objective and abstraction-based way he was perfectly correct about Saddam Hussein- and he got jumped on for not respecting the demands of the narrative his audience needed him to explain in full.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. I wholehartedly disagree with you, Lexingtonian.
Edited on Sat Feb-14-04 04:51 PM by w4rma
You have written an essay with a whole lot of flowery rhetoric, but you can't seem to cite specific, in context, examples to base your rhetoric on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 21st 2024, 05:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC