What did it say that was a lie? It just expressed a subjective opinion that some (not me) found offensive.
They didn’t solicit Hitler-Bush comparisons they solicited anti-Bush ads in general.
Well if you heard it on the radio it must be true. :rolleyes:
I don’t suppose you have an objective cite?
tu quoque, Shodan?
The Max Cleland ad was actually run by a Republican candidate for the Senate in an actual campaign. The Bush-Hitler ad has no affiliation with any candidate, any party or any campaign.
Even if Homebrew was a hypocrite it still wouldn’t make your generalizations in this thread any more valid.
Very simple, really… substantive, issue-based criticism of Dean. I’ve seen some, but frankly, most of the valid criticisms I’ve seen of Dean have come from the left, not the right (though much of the criticism from the left amounts to Dean not being liberal enough, which is amusing, considering what conservatives say about him). The right continues to bleat about Dean as an extremist, etc, but fails to come up with much in the way of substantive criticism.
I’d love to see someone point out why Dean is wrong about… well, apparently about everything. People say he’s wrong to criticize the war in Iraq. Why are his criticisms wrong? People say he’s wrong to say he would pursue the due process of law against Osama bin Laden. Why is that wrong? People say he’s wrong to pursue reversal of the Bush tax cuts. Why is that wrong?
Basically, I’d like to see discussion of the issues regarding Dean… not whether he’s “too liberal” or “not liberal enough” or “too extreme.” Rather than using meaningless labels, I’d like to see some actual thought go into criticism of Dean, and why he’s so much less appealing than (for example) Lieberman. Of course, I can see why Lieberman is appealing… to conservatives.
But no… I’m disappointed to find that most of the conservatives here, as elsewhere, are satisfied with using the most simplistic and least meaningful terms possible to “criticize” Dean. Now, they’ve tried to bring in the MoveOn.org “Bush-Hitler” ad issue into this discussion, when it has nothing whatsoever to do with Howard Dean or his campaign. Of course, Dean’s guilty even by the thinnest of associations to these simple-minded folk. All liberals are apparently guilty of sanctioning those ads because one made it.
Thanks, by the way, to Shodan for continuing to prove my point by bringing up that particular hijack.
That’s the level of dicussion I guess we can expect from conservatives in the coming year. Still more pandering to the very lowest common denominator. I’m disappointed, but hardly surprised.
On the day that Saddam Hussein was captured, Dean announced that America was “no safer.” We can certainly debate the truth of that statement; the general reaction from middle America at the capture was positive. Dean’s comment was ill-timed.
Dean told the Concord Monitor that he did not want to prejudge the guilt or innocence of bin Laden. In defending that point, he ended up making a legalistic distinction that was lost on many, especially as he conceded that there was no real doubt as to bin Laden’s role in the 9-11 attacks. Again, while his comment was perhaps technically defensible, it was something that opponents can use to good effect to suggest he’s wishy-washy. Not helping matters, Dean later said that a death sentence would be a just punishment for bin Laden, when he ultimately is found.
These illustrate what I mean when I say that I would love for Dean to be the Democratic candidate – he will give the Republican ad writers plenty to attack.
I gather you’re looking, Avalonian, for more substantive discussion of Dean’s actual stands on issues. While those are certainly debatable, I agree that Dean on issues isn’t paritcularly deadly. Dean on off-the-cuff comments is what makes Dean deadly, and why I’d love to see him end up running – his verbal gaffes will be an easy distraction from any attempts he’ll make to focus on issues.
I dismissed it because it has nothing to do with Dean, which is what we’re discussing here.
If you wish to discuss the “Bush-Hitler” ads, take it to the Pit thread where it’s being discussed at length. I repeat, it has nothing to do with Dean. Is that such a difficult concept? Or are you actually trying to associate the two, rather than just sneakily implying an association?
This is why a Bush/Dean debate will be something to clean out the TiVo for. I am drooling in anticipation. Two guys who scare the shit out of their handlers under the hot lights.
Perhaps it was ill-timed… but was it wrong? Are we indeed safer just because one man was captured? I don’t think so… these days, I hear most people don’t think so either.
I found Dean’s stance to be entirely consistent, and frankly, the most appealing. But again, was it actually wishy-washy, ir was it just portrayed that way? My feeling was that it was consistent with Dean’s views in general, and that he didn’t “waffle” for a moment on it. However, his opponents certainly leapt to portray the comments that way.
My point is, conservatives are criticizing a Howard Dean who does not exist, which is a mistake many liberals made in 2000 with GW. I’m not trying to advise them on how they should be criticising him, but I find the parallels absolutely fascinating.
You could say exactly the same thing about Bush, both during 2000 and now… and many have said exactly that. Bush “off-the-cuff” is often a dubious prospect at best… and yet he won in 2000, and enjoys high approval ratings at the moment.
Perhaps, with Bush and Dean both in the race, the only thing left to focus on is the issues.
Hubris may describe it best. This may just be an intuitive take, but I see the Pubbies as having lost contact with any sense of vulnerability. They have finally gotten to the Promised Land, all the effective reins of governance in hand. And so shall it be, forever and ever, amen,…
Or maybe not. The “maybe not” part is pretty clear to a lot of us, but maybe not to them. They seem perfectly willing to brazen out the whole question of the justification for war. probably because the think they can count on American’s natural reluctance to criticize someone who presents himself as a Wartime Leader.
When they started pushing for Dean, they didn’t think anybody could beat them. Probably still don’t. Which is good. Because they’re wrong.
Stoli, you’ve pointed out a very cheerful prospect, one which I hadn’t considered! That would be one hell of a debate. None of the handlers of either of these men will be able to unpucker thier assholes enough to shit for a week! If they need an enema, if it will have to be accomplished by hypodermic needle!
I can hardly wait! What is the earliest date such a thing might be scheduled?
Well, you seem to be saying that the Bush administration must seek to distract voters from any campaign that focusses on the issues. So, you admit that the Bush administration is weak on the issues. Progress at last!
You want substantive criticism of Dean? Fine. Here you go:
First, Dean says he wants to ‘Re-regulate’ business. Not just financial shenanigans like Enron, but he wants to implement whole reams of new regulations on businesses of all kinds. He particularly mentioned big media, telecom, utilities, the airlines, and ANY business that offers stock options. That is a LOT of businesses. Taken at his word, Dean wants government to interfere in business to an extent not seen since the early 1970’s. This would be extremely damaging to the economy. We need less regulation, not more.
Dean also wants to repeal the Bush tax cut. Not just on the rich, but the whole package. That would throw a big wrench into the current economic recovery.
Dean’s position on the war on terror is unfathomable. He says he’s not sure if Bin Laden is guilty. He opposed the war in Iraq. Just what in hell would Dean do? It’s not clear. Seeing as this is the most important issue in the election, you’d think he’d actually have, you know, a plan. If he does, he sure hasn’t articulated it well. Can anyone explain Dean’s comprehensive strategy for winning the war on terror?
