Has Dean attacked his opponents in this campaign?

[quinnox]

Poll question: Has Dean attacked his opponents in this campaign?

I'm curious if people think Dean has attacked his opponents in this campaign season.

[vi5]

1. I don't see how anyone could argue he hasn't....

I mean if they want to trot out the "But Dean is telling the truth!" excuse that's fine. But it still falls under the banner of attacks and he was still the first to do it.

All's fair in love, war, and political primaries. But let's be honest about who threw the first stone.

[quinnox]

3. I don't either

but people can constantly surprise me.

[Monte Carlo]

2. Absolutely.

Dean made his campaign upon tarring other Democratic candidates as Bush-lite. He is not the campaign purist he's sometimes made out to be; he's a politician, like any other.

[Melodybe]

18. And I agreed with him every time too

Sorry but if Geppy, Kerry, Edwards, or Lieberman had any balls they would have spoke up for the Dems, back when it counted. They didn't so I think they rightfully get plenty of blame for letting the republicans take so much controll. They didn't start attacking Bu$h until Dean did.

Dean has challenged their opinions and their votes, as he fucking should have. Did he run ads with Lieberman and Bin Laddin? No, did he question their sanity or patriotism when they told the truth? NO! I think Dean has played politics just like everyone else and I don't think that he deserves a whole thread about "how he has attacked other Dems."

I am sick of this your candidate my candidate BS, we all are democrats and these types of threads are only helping Rove.

[Monte Carlo]

34. Gephard, Edwards, and Lieberman may have been silent, but Kerry...

... if I remember correctly, was publically verbally lashing Bush and the GOP after 9/11 when almost no one else would. Tom DeLay - I'd say one of the most dangerous men in America - himself took a shot at Kerry's patriotism, veteran Kerry would not acknowledge the maliciousness of a chickenhawk. He shut up then.

And I don't know if you've heard the news, but Kerry's campaign and Gephardt's campaign had nothing to do with those Dean-Osama BS commercials. Assumed facts are not in evidence.

And this is primary season. Republicans, Democrats, it's always personal. We Americans love to argue.

[Lisa0825]

4. I'd say yes, but not to the same extent, IMO

He didn't have waffle breakfasts mocking anybody, or put up websites purely devoted to harping on them, for example. I think he's taken more heat than he's dished out.

[jmaier]

5. for example

Dean calls Clark a Beltway puppet

"You've got a lot of establishment politicians now surrounding a general who was a Republican until 25 days ago," said Mr. Dean, who assumed Mr. Clark was once a Republican because he served in the military and voted for Ronald Reagan."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030929-123116-4882r.htm

While, of course, Clark had once voted for Reagan, he was a registered Independent and had voted Dem in the previous 3 presidential elections. Also, as of the date of this article, you'd be hard pressed to find "a lot" of establishment politicians who had endorsed Clark. In fact, there still aren't that many; while Dr. Dean has garnered support from many establishment politicians. Go figure.

[KittyWampus]

6. My Favorite- Dean Telling The Other Democratic Candidates

they need a "character transplant" in the same press release he tells them to stop attacking him.

What a freaking hypocrite... guess Dean thought he could take one last shot...

[quinnox]

7. So far, 91% says yes

Seems fairly decisive...

[Lisa0825]

9. Hey, I am a Dean supporter, and even I said yes, but

I think ALL candidates attack... it's the nature of the game.

[Padraig18]

10. I agree.

Dean has attacked, but so has everyone else, with the possible exception of CMB..

[quinnox]

11. Agreed

n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. Of course he has. n/t

[bahrbearian]

12. Yes, if Chimpy count's !

[denverbill]

13. Who are you supporting in 2004 anyway?

I looked through your posts, looking to see if you were all fired up for Clark or Kerry or Kucinich or somebody, but I can't find any posts at all promoting your candidate.

[quinnox]

15. Kerry is my first choice

But I also like a couple of candidates as well almost as much.

[jonnyblitz]

14. LOL. yes. I can't believe people are voting no!!

:crazy:

[Padraig18]

16. Check the other poll on the issue.

It has about the same % of folks deeply in denial. :P

[Renew Deal]

17. Is water wet?

:puffpiece:

[RogueTrooper]

19. I hope so

:evilgrin:

[KaraokeKarlton]

20. I don't view the "Bush Lite" comment as an attack

When he first used this he did NOT single out one person or tie the comment with any of his opponents. He wasn't even talking about just some of his opponents but all Democrats who kept voting for Bush.

Aside from that, all he has done is respond to the attacks against him. Defending yourself against lies by telling the truth isn't an attack.

So, if you think referring to all Democrats who voted for Bush's agenda as "Bush-Lite" is a personal attack on any individual person, then you would vote yes. If you think that isn't an individual attack you would vote no.

Overall Dean has not run a negative campaign. He has focused on what's wrong with Bush and what needs to be done to fix it and bringing people into the process. Again, defending oneself against attacks is not an attack.

[Monte Carlo]

36. That's mighty convenient.

All St. Dean has done is respond to the attacks against him? How noble. I didn't know he was so pure.

Dean hasn't been part of the Washington mess, so he hasn't got a Washington record yet. I hope you stay so devoted to him if and when he becomes President, and finds himself at the dead straight center of Washington politics, and has to make a few compromised stances.

[Northwind]

21. Hell yes, he has

And a good job of it, too.

I bet all the other candidates wish their attacks could be so effective.

[BootinUp]

22. Silly question?

come'on folks lets have a little honesty...it doesn't hurt too much.

[Padraig18]

23. I voted 'yes', and I support Dean.

He has, and so has everyone, with the possible exception of CMB.

[jonnyblitz]

24. how can one say no with a straight face whether you support

him or not!! Who says its a BAD thing?!?!

[Padraig18]

26. Exactly!

It's a race with 9 entrants, and only one can win the prize. Anyone who says their candiudate hasn't attacked another candidate is DEEPLY in denial. :shrug:

[Bread and Circus]

25. Yes, and without regard to rule of honor

[FrenchieCat]

27. Attacked Clark and still attacking Clark...

"Was a Republican until 25 days ago"....
"Was a Republican until 25 days ago"....
"Was a Republican until 25 days ago"....
"Was a Republican until 25 days ago"....
"Was a Republican until 25 days ago"....

General Clark keeps changing his position on the war.....
General Clark keeps changing his position on the war.....
General Clark keeps changing his position on the war.....
General Clark keeps changing his position on the war.....
General Clark keeps changing his position on the war.....
General Clark keeps changing his position on the war.....

I'm the only anti war candidate....
I'm the only anti war candidate....
I'm the only anti war candidate....
I'm the only anti war candidate....

THIS HAS PISSED CLARK OFF AT NO END!

Pic

[bitchkitty]

35. Question -

"THIS HAS PISSED CLARK OFF AT NO END!"

How do you know this? Are you a friend of his? Privy to his private thoughts and emotions?

[FrenchieCat]

28. Attacked Clark and still attacking Clark...

"Was a Republican until 25 days ago"....
"Was a Republican until 25 days ago"....
"Was a Republican until 25 days ago"....
"Was a Republican until 25 days ago"....
"Was a Republican until 25 days ago"....

General Clark keeps changing his position on the war.....
General Clark keeps changing his position on the war.....
General Clark keeps changing his position on the war.....
General Clark keeps changing his position on the war.....
General Clark keeps changing his position on the war.....
General Clark keeps changing his position on the war.....

I'm the only anti war candidate....
I'm the only anti war candidate....
I'm the only anti war candidate....
I'm the only anti war candidate....

THIS HAS PISSED CLARK OFF AT NO END!

Pic

[PurityOfEssence]

29. "The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party"

From the very beginning, this is what he said he represented; thus insinuating that the others didn't. In the face of eight other registered Democrats, many with long and distinguished careers fighting for pluralism, workers' rights, the environment, economic justice, cute cuddly fucking kitties and a host of other decent things, this is a broadside by any definition.

Since then, he's deliberately misrepresented the actions of the others on the tax votes (they all voted against both major bills), talking about race in front of white audiences and many other issues.

He has a transparently sly habit of inferring the guilt of the others without saying so, and I'll illustrate with a recent incident. At the ABC debate, toward the end of the show, he was asked a question and he then said that he just did something that Bush Sr. used to do: he looked at his watch. He then said that there were only 12 minutes left in the debate and that no one had even touched on the economy, having spent the whole time on foreign policy. He went on to state that it was wrong not to be talking about domestic economic issues, as if it was the fault of the others. The others--just like him--had been following the format of the debate and answering questions from the moderators. Somehow, Dean tried--rather successfully, too--to make it look like his greasy opponents were avoiding what was obviously the most pressing issue to the country. This is deeply unprincipled, and standard operating procedure for this guy. (Koppel--who was a horse's ass during all this, by the way--pointed out to Dean that he was wrong: most of the beginning of the debate wasn't about foreign policy.)

Dean has a habit of lumping all the ills of the world into a big glob and tagging all of his opponents with the responsibility. Why didn't anyone else hammer him for not bringing up the domestic issues? Well, it's probably because it's a ridiculous insinuation: they were following the format of the debate.

"Niceness" is a HUGE issue in american politics, much more than it should be. We routinely elect the more amiable over the more decent.

Once again, I hear this from many different people.

[mbali]

31. Great post!

You hit the nail on the head.

[PurityOfEssence]

33. Thanks. It's important to look at the long view...

When a candidate steps up and immediately fires extreme volleys at all of "them", he/she should be mindful of who in the electorate identifies with "them"; those people also feel personally affronted.

Unfortunately, one of the prime motivators of the human beast is pride and self-image; once one perceives oneself to have been insulted, it's often a very hard road back. The winner of the primary also needs to win the general election, so it's important to have some finesse along the way.

[Monte Carlo]

32. Most amiable over the most decent... well said.

We like big friendly faces in this country, we don't like harsh ones. Everyone is convinced that GWB's a regular Joe; they don't care what you say about him. Niceness is a big issue in politics. Clinton was nicer than Bush, Bush over Dukakis, Reagan over Carter and Mondale, etc., etc. Anger doesn't sell well.

[PurityOfEssence]

40. Yes, and it's also the "we're good" message that traditionally works

Dole is a mean old cuss, and much as he's funny and pretty smart, he's awkward, seems stingy and is ultra-straight. Poppy was an out-of-touch rich guy while Clinton was a gregarious man of the people. Dukakis was a nerd, and that's death in this playground. Mondale couldn't even get his eyes all the way opened and he promised to raise your taxes. Carter (in '80) told you to eat your peas and turn down the thermostat, whereas that big lug Ronnie told you that you were good and it was a bright, bright morning.

Clinton played the "we're good" just as well as Reagan did, and Carter came in ('76) as the picture of homespun honesty. America is good. YOU are good. It works. It's TV. It's crap.

[ibegurpard]

37. You do realize that it could be just as easily inferred

That Dean was taking a jab at Koppel and the whole debate set-up for focusing on fluff??

[PurityOfEssence]

38. beg to differ

No, I completely disagree. Perhaps the vagueness of it left him that "out", but it was absolutely directed at the other candidates. It was nothing short of haughty and he knew full well that it was unassailable. It was unassailable because it was just mild enough that to call him on it would be to be overly sensitive, and he could instantly retreat to the message. Some would consider it a clever rhetorical device, but I consider it transparent and slippery, sort of a WD-40 kind of hosing.

His very point was that here we've wasted virtually all of our time together quibbling over unimportant stuff and no one's raised this all import and and saintly concern. I literally yelled "aaaah" at the screen when it happened; he was once again portraying himself as the only sensible and honorable man. Again and again he does this, in big ways and small; it's vulgar and unprincipled. It's also completely incorrect.

[ibegurpard]

39. "but it was absolutely directed at the other candidates"

I'm sorry but you have absolutely no way of being able to make this definitive claim. You are interpreting behavior. Several other candidates that night took swipes at Koppel and the debates and I have a difficult time believing that your pre-disposition against Dean is not keeping you from believing that he was doing the same thing.

[PurityOfEssence]

41. My bias is definitely rather extreme on the subject, but look at a tape

It was very obvious to me. Even sincerly filtering it with that in mind, it was quite apparent. I've given the guy his due when he's been on the money (as with his CNN retraction of the flag flap, which was considerably more than he needed to say, and very commendable) but this kind of backhanding is de rigeur for him, and it was not in any way excusable as being just a shot at Koppel. At best, it could be seen--again, adjusting for jaundiced eye--as dismissive of Koppel, the other moderator and all of the other candidates being lumped into a category of numbskulls and shirkers.

Perhaps some others should weigh in on this.

When you saw it, was their the slightest shadow of doubt? Were you absolutely sure that he was acting as the spokesman for all of the candidates and directly accusing Koppel? If you weren't sure, what does this say about the potential for trouble he can cause himself with that mouth? Do you seriously feel that this was only directed a Koppel with absolutely no taint meant for the others? If you're firmly convinced that this was his intention, do you concede that his diction was quite misleading? If so, is this not a HUGE problem? John Kerry said something that really stuck in my head: "you can't be President if you make a half dozen gaffes a week". If elected, wouldn't he be spending untold hours scurrying around to tidy up the damage done by his seemingly uncontrollable mouth? It's as if his mouth controls him sometimes, and when cornered or emboldened, it's frequently red-lining into the whopperzone.

It's hard to compensate for one's prejudices, and I submit that you may be a little behind the wave on that in this case too. It sounds like covering for a bit of a dig, but perhaps it's truly your take. Regardless, watch it again if you can.

[lurk_no_more]

30. Is a bear Catholic?

Does the pope sh.........never mind!



Food for thought from...“JAFO”