Reply #15: Wrong again. [View All]

[Sean Reynolds]

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It had nothing to do with being outspoken, it had to do with being radically incorrect in pronouncements that had to be withdrawn.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.