We Must Take Unilateral Action

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That's just it. We don't exist in a realm of theory and every candidate isn't the same. The media isn't going to wate thier time giving extensive coverage to the Sharpton or the Libertarian campaign precisely because of that fact. If Dean can not stand the glare that is inevitable from being the front runner, then he should never have thrown his hat in the ring because it will only get worse when the GOP comes calling if he wins the nomination of the Dems.

Please, anyone under the sort of scrutiny he has been laced under would have problems, and even under all the scrutiny he has been placed under the worst things that come out about his past and his experiences in government are statements that the press then takes and blows up beyond their worth.

The problem is not even the scrutiny, but that the press takes something-twists it to fit the soundbite, then moves on without time for a rebutal. Lets take the quote in question- as I already said, the wuote as is not contradictory to his policy statements- Dean has never stated he would under no circumstances act unilateraly- so how is this a "flip-flop", which is what the press paints it as ? Dean has not gone anywhere as far as Bush, who went from a president who swore off nation-building to the biggest advocate of it as far as Iraq has gone. So it's not just putting a floodlight on this guy, but a skewed floodlight, designed to be unflattering.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
When he does respond, he's painted by some as "whining" about being attacked. Which is it?

The whining, in my mind, comes from the insurgent candidate making self serving appeals to the Party leadership to stop attacks upon him. I really wouldn't care if he responded in kind to attacks on his campaign.

and even under all the scrutiny he has been placed under the worst things that come out about his past and his experiences in government

That might have something to do with the seal he has placed upon his records as governor.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That might have something to do with the seal he has placed upon his records as governor.

Anything shocking would have been out already-ie, Dean having done something corrupt or illegal: stuff like that does not get hidden, even with sealed records. Nice red herring though.

[DinoDoc]

Expect it to appear again.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

Anything shocking would have been out already-ie, Dean having done something corrupt or illegal: stuff like that does not get hidden, even with sealed records. Nice red herring though.

Unless the republicans are holding all the **** back for release just before the election.

[Ned]

There does seem to be a lot of scum floating to the surface in the final days of before Iowa. This is what we recently saw in Kalifornia with Schwarzenegger and in the 2000 election with Bush and the drunk driving allegation. The real dirt is reserved for the final days so that the candidate has no time to effectively rebut it.

The question is, who is slinging the mud?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Now, if I were to go back over all your posts on every subject over the past 3 years or so and quote all the times you backpedalled or contradicted things you've said lately, would that mean: A) you're a rampant backpedaller with honesty problems, or B) I was going to unreasonable ends to dredge up fodder to make broad accusations about your integrity?

The answer is B, and if you weren't swayed by the media winds that blew you in any direction, you'd see that Dean is being subjected to a rather intense degree of scrutiny, moreso than the other candidates, precisely because he is the frontrunner.

Boris. Mr. Fun isn't running for president, Dean is. If he can't stand the heat of running for president then he sure doesnt need to actually be president.

For some reason some of you, and im not talking to you Boris, think that if a person attacks Dean then he must somehow be helping Bush. I doubt highly that Mr. Fun has any intentions of helping Bush at all. At least he is willing to see Dean for what he is. Some of you are so damned eager to oppose Bush that you will support anyone that voices opposition. My stand is this. If Dean wins the nomination then I will vote for Bush with no hesitation. If someone else gets it then I would be open to voting democrat.

[MrFun]

I hate President Bush's policies and the decisions of his administration -- I'm a Democrat.

But just because I do not goosestep behind the others who are slobbering over Dean with no questions ask, I'm supposed to be villified by Che, Boris, and others as being spineless -- simply because I favor other Democratic candidates over Dean.



Thanks for your input, Sprayber.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Boris. Mr. Fun isn't running for president, Dean is. If he can't stand the heat of running for president then he sure doesnt need to actually be president.

Which misses the point. Dean is running for president, but so are Bush, Clark, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, etc. Have any of them been subject to the same level of scrutiny? No.

And what do you mean can't stand the heat? Dean has kept himself very cool under fire for most of the campaign so far. Only recently has he started to make more aggressive responses, and people jump up and down screaming "Oooh! He's whining about being attacked!" Please.

Dean isn't yet my candidate of choice--I'm open to several in the Democratic field. And I've not hesitated to be critical when I've felt it's due. But looking at it honestly, I think he's become a target of dirty politics from his opponents and the DNC leadership, which does rankle me.

[MrFun]

And it rankles me that I have to be compelled to goosestep behind others in supporting a candidate based on popularity, and not competency.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
But just because I do not goosestep behind the others who are slobbering over Dean with no questions ask, I'm supposed to be villified by Che, Boris, and others as being spineless -- simply because I favor other Democratic candidates over Dean.

Ah yes. Your "support" of other candidates must be a principled stand based on critical thinking, but anyone here who supports Dean must be "goosestepping" without asking questions. And you've the nerve to complain?

Since I'm not "goosestepping" behind any candidates at the moment, I can at least aver that I don't think your spineless because you don't support Dean--it's because you've just managed to demonstrate it pretty much every political/historical/intellectual discussion so far. Is that better?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Ah yes. Your "support" of other candidates must be a principled stand based on critical thinking, but anyone here who supports Dean must be "goosestepping" without asking questions. And you've the nerve to complain?

Since I'm not "goosestepping" behind any candidates at the moment, I can at least aver that I don't think your spineless because you don't support Dean--it's because you've just managed to demonstrate it pretty much every political/historical/intellectual discussion so far. Is that better?

So you're still seriously mistakened about me.

damn, you're hopeless

[Sprayber]

I'm all for the media digging into the past records of Bush, Kerry or anyone else that runs for president. But it's the nature of the press to set their sights on the lead contender. No one is going to be interested in an in depth look into the candidate that is running 4th. So the supporters of Dean shouldnt be too suprised that their boy will get more attention. I only wish they would dig on Clark a lot more cause I still havn't a clue as to what he is about.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
But just because I do not goosestep behind the others who are slobbering over Dean with no questions ask, I'm supposed to be villified by Che, Boris, and others as being spineless -- simply because I favor other Democratic candidates over Dean.

Actually, we portray you as spineless because you regurgitate without thinking the RBC talking-points you've been fed through the media (RNC --> FOX --> CNN --> You). You show extremely little ability to critically analyze the crap you're being spoonfed, and gleefully report back here to Poly any dirt.

You are the poster child for making media criticism a mandatory class in high school.

It's funny because none of your criticism has to do with substance, but only with form. Dean's too angry to win, Dean makes too many gaffs to win, etc. I'd repect you if you said things like: I don't like Dean's position on guns, the death penalty, and corn subsidies.

I dared you to come up with a transcript before proving one of your allegations against Dean, which you never did, but you kept on going on about how Dean had supposedly made this major criticism of Bush because he hadn't caught Hussein (by major I mean where he devotes substatial criticism and not simply mentions it in the context of a larger critique of Bush's handling of Iraq). When you actually learn to think for yourself, and not simply spout what the GOP wants you to believe, I think the rest of us will cut you a lot more slack.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sprayber
I'm all for the media digging into the past records of Bush, Kerry or anyone else that runs for president. But it's the nature of the press to set their sights on the lead contender. No one is going to be interested in an in depth look into the candidate that is running 4th. So the supporters of Dean shouldnt be too suprised that their boy will get more attention. I only wish they would dig on Clark a lot more cause I still havn't a clue as to what he is about.

I think Dean supports are rankled by two things: the excessive critique of their candidate as compared to other Democrats or Bush, and the nature of that critique, largely concentrating on form (and much of that made up.) For example, one of the commonly reported chracteristics of Dean is that he's a loose cannon, get's angry easily, etc. yet no one has shown one instance of Dean loosing his cool (he was allegedly to have slammed his fist on a desk though). So where's the angry out-of-control Dean?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Actually, we portray you as spineless because you regurgitate without thinking the RBC talking-points you've been fed through the media (RNC --> FOX --> CNN --> You). You show extremely little ability to critically analyze the crap you're being spoonfed, and gleefully report back here to Poly any dirt.

You are the poster child for making media criticism a mandatory class in high school.

It's funny because none of your criticism has to do with substance, but only with form. Dean's too angry to win, Dean makes too many gaffs to win, etc. I'd repect you if you said things like: I don't like Dean's position on guns, the death penalty, and corn subsidies.

I dared you to come up with a transcript before proving one of your allegations against Dean, which you never did, but you kept on going on about how Dean had supposedly made this major criticism of Bush because he hadn't caught Hussein (by major I mean where he devotes substatial criticism and not simply mentions it in the context of a larger critique of Bush's handling of Iraq). When you actually learn to think for yourself, and not simply spout what the GOP wants you to believe, I think the rest of us will cut you a lot more slack.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I think Dean supports are rankled by two things: the excessive critique of their candidate as compared to other Democrats or Bush, and the nature of that critique, largely concentrating on form (and much of that made up.) For example, one of the commonly reported chracteristics of Dean is that he's a loose cannon, get's angry easily, etc. yet no one has shown one instance of Dean loosing his cool (he was allegedly to have slammed his fist on a desk though). So where's the angry out-of-control Dean?

Damn che, he is the leading contender at the moment. Don't you think that just maybe that has something to do with it? If someone else was in the lead they would be *****ing that the media ignored him. He is in politics for gods sake and running for president. If they can't stand a attention to their candidate then perhaps something is wrong with him.

[MrFun]

Sprayber look out!!!!!!!!!!


You're mindlessly believing all the sh*t the media throws at you!!!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the media had been this tough on Busgh in '99

They did... you just (convieniently) forgot. Every week during the campaign, the media went nuts on another Bush gaffe.

The whining, in my mind, comes from the insurgent candidate making self serving appeals to the Party leadership to stop attacks upon him. I really wouldn't care if he responded in kind to attacks on his campaign.

Bingo. When you are the frontrunner in a contested primary, you are going to get barbed. It happens in EVERY ONE. To assume Dean is being unfairly treated because this has never happened before is totally stupid. For one, Clinton in '91-92 had much more heat on him than Dean does now. The people below you in the polls will try to find every barb in your closet and the media spotlight is on him.

Dean is a 'whiner' because he WHINED! He told the DNC to tell the other candidates to stop attacking him! Waaah! Waaah!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Damn che, he is the leading contender at the moment.

Yes, but the criticism of him started well before he was front runner. (Although a case could be made that he became the front-runner because of it.) Furthermore, unless all candidates are treated equally, it would be giving a false impression that there's nothing wrong with the other candidates, just Dean.

Imran, the Bush gaffes were different. They would go after Bush when he said something stupid, sure, but they didn't go after him on outright lies or where he changed his position from before. He really got treated with kid gloves.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Dean is a 'whiner' because he WHINED! He told the DNC to tell the other candidates to stop attacking him! Waaah! Waaah!

Which is a blatant exaggeration right out of Ann Coulter. Dean was quoted from a campaign stop by the NYT as saying that McAuliffe should step in and say something about all the negative campaigning--for everyone. Dean then later spoke to McAuliffe to smooth things over since people were portraying it as attacking him. He never complained to McAuliffe in that manner.

[MrFun]

It's no use Imran -- Boris and Che have no spines.

[chequita guevara]

[Boris Godunov]

See, in MrFun's world, standing up for your opinions and defending them with rational argument means you have no spine. But caving in the second someone challenges you without bothering to defend your positions is the height of backbone, I suppose.

[MrFun]

How about us three create a thread just so that you two can continue to bash me, and I can bash you guys back??

[MrFun]

Seems like Albert Speer has poisoned some other Apolytoners into a spirit of bashing.

[Boris Godunov]

Apparently its you, though. Remember this the next time you indulge in an ad hominem against someone who hasn't even yet participated in the thread, as you did against che here.

[MrFun]

Che has been bashing me along the same lines -- just not with the same words as you.

Che and you are taking up after Albert Speer.

[chequita guevara]

There is rather a bit of difference. Speer made a personal attack against my relatioship with my wife in a rather dispicable fashion. I rather think he's lucky I simply decided to put him on my ignore list rather than complaining to the mods. I ain't crossed that line with you.

In other words, I think there's still hope for you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

ey would go after Bush when he said something stupid, sure, but they didn't go after him on outright lies or where he changed his position from before.

Jeez, you should start reading mainstream media and not just Commie propaganda sources . The media went after Bush for things such as the death penalty in Texas, his 'mocking' of a Death Row inmate, his enviro record in Texas, etc., etc.

Which is a blatant exaggeration right out of Ann Coulter. Dean was quoted from a campaign stop by the NYT as saying that McAuliffe should step in and say something about all the negative campaigning--for everyone.

Which is the same thing. He was whining that McAuliffe wasn't doing anything. Obviously he made the comment because he was on the recieving end of most the negativity, being the front runner.

--

Oh, and I have to agree with the Funboy here... che has been a total ***** to Mr Fun, just because he believes something different and actually happens to be a moderate Dem.