Dude, I would hardly characterize the mere pointing out of an error of logic on your part to be defensiveness; while I may lean more Democratic than Republican, I have no particular allegiance to Howard Dean as an individual, nor do I feel compelled to accept everything he says as an accurate expression of my political stance.
Your premise apparently is that Mr. Dean is somehow roughly equivalent to a Communist revolutionary associated with mass murder. The factual support that you have presented for this notion is somewhat lacking, to say the least. Since you seem to have come up with this notion on only the flimsiest of evidence, I doubt anything further I might say would sway you in this regard.
I made a certain statement. Some people said that they can’t see where I’m coming from and then accused me of evasiveness for not explaining myself. So I explained myself, handsome brave upstanding fellow as I am. Therefore the title. It’s for the Deaniacs, you see.
You can do whatever. You simply call my views silly, it’s fine. You want to go and tear my views to shreds, I will read everything you have to say diligently and try to learn a lesson. So it’s up to you.
Sure! A candle also bears a small resemblance to the sun.
The problem is that no one appears to know what you’re talking about when you assign these qualities to Dean. I admit to not knowing much about the man – I listen to right wing radio, though, and they love to trot out some random quotes of him at various events and talk about how angry and vile he is (as their spittle hits the mic, of course). And they love his scream – that’s usually on the soundboard, for quick access.
New Iskander has dropped the ball here. Hell, who am I kidding, he doesn’t realize that the ball exists, he’s over in a corner skipping an imaginary rope. But I’ll pick it up.
I’ve got an exact problem with Dean’s message/politics/attitude. His organization is called Democracy for America, but other than being for “America” it’s not for anything. I’ve looked over that site, and I’ve listened to Dean be interviewed, and no matter how softball the questions come at him, he never gives specific proposals.
That’s rubbish. I like Dean and I want to support him, but I’m not going to support him if all he does is point out Bush’s flaws. I know Bush’s flaws, and so do the majority of Americans. What I want to know is, what does he support?
Specific proposals. Dean, as near as I can tell, lacks these. I want them.
Typical, as in, you behaved in your typical fashion and completing misunderstood what someone said? Perhaps. Given that my post reserved its most serious criticism for Dean (if only because I take him seriously), your martyr-act is ridiculous.
I understand what you are saying. I simply find it extremely ironic that I ask to be educated about Dean and nobody wants to do it.
I didn’t come here to be criticized for my shortcomings. I came to learn about Dean. Mysterious stranger slipped me a note, saying, “Be at the graveyard behind the old Abbey just before the Sun, if you have honour”, so I came. I see a crowd of idle spectators, jeering at me, but where is a worthy opponent?
This is a Great Debate? The OP gives his perception of Dean as “an angry, divisive and extremely inflammatory political figure,” says he was called on it in the Pit, proceeds to compare him to Lenin (based on, apparently, nothing but his own perceptions of the two), sets up a “true believer” alternative, than asserts, out of the clear blue or the depths of his own colorectal extremities, that “whether it’s the former or the latter, my comparison remains appropriate.” And then wants to be educated about Mr. Dean.
Forgive me, but you are quite as able to load and use Google as any of the rest of us.
Educate yourself about Mr. Dean. Take into account that he is heading the out-of-power political party, and as such is supposed to be strongly critical of perceived missteps by the party in power; that’s his job.
When come back, bring plausible proposition for debate.
Actually, I’d say it’s half of his job: the other half is to provide an alternative vision of what could be going on. He’s doing the criticism part of his job fine, but I’m unimpressed with the vision thing.
Nonsense. The Chairman of the DNC (or the RNC) isn’t supposed to be a shadow president, coming up with alternative policies and the like. He’s supposed to be a partisan cheerleader and bombthrower who raises boatloads of cash for his side. That’s all, nothing more, end of story.
Do you honestly think that Ken Melman, Lee Atwater, Terry McAuliffe, Ron Brown, Haley Barbour, or any other party chairman in the last twenty years, spent more than ten seconds thinking about policies? In what bizarro universe is someone who helps people run political campaigns supposed to figure out how to get out of Iraq, fix the budget, or save Social Security?
I don’t consider Lenin a decent man, but yes, of course that’s possible.
Howard Dean is one man, Iskander. He’s not even an elected official - he’s a former governor of a small state and a failed candidate for President - so I am not at all concerned about how his remark will affect Tom Delay’s Constitutional presumption of innocence. He’s neither the first nor the last person to make those comments about Delay or Republicans. To suggest that Dean wields 1/100th the malice or power that Lenin did in the Soviet Union is just laughable.
Look at it objectively - which one will get more exposure, something inflammatory against the other party or a five point plan on how to make things better?