AP: "Dean Seeks Halt to Attack Politics"...on Dr. Dean, that is...

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17750-2003Dec20.html

Dean Seeks Halt to Attack Politics


By MIKE GLOVER
The Associated Press
Saturday, December 20, 2003; 5:18 PM

MAQUOKETA, Iowa - Howard Dean appealed to fellow Democratic presidential candidates Saturday to stop the bitter attack politics that have come to dominate the race for the party's nomination. The race needs "a little character transplant," he said.

"It's not necessary to tear down the other opponents," said Dean, whose front-running campaign has come increasingly under fire from Democratic rivals.

In his latest swing through Iowa, where the nominating process starts with caucuses next month, Dean pushed hard at his claim to being an outsider running against Washington-based candidates with no record of accomplishment.

<>"This campaign needs a little character transplant," Dean said. "You shouldn't believe what other people say."

----------------------

This from Dr. Dean, who came out of the box name calling and criticizing his fellow Democrats--"those guys", "cockroaches", Washington Democrats". He has had to apologize numerous times for his reckless and untrue assertions against his opponents. Dean's plea for civility is laughable--especially coming at the eleventh hour when the media are finally beginning to examine the frontrunner's record and his opponents are returning fire.

[neuvocat]

1. That's because

he got his ass in a real sling by saying the democratic party is trying to control the damage it is inflicting on working families.

You just don't insult the party whose nomination you are running for.

[Scott Lee]

3. The current Dem party leadership needs to be insulted

and frankly, thats the easy punishment. I personally would like to see many of them go the way of Terry M. (which is buh-bye in February.)

[neuvocat]

7. I didn't say "leadership"

I said "party", which happens to include a lot more than just a few heads over at the DNC/DLC.

[Scott Lee]

28. Word games don't work with me, Senor.

You said :


"he got his ass in a real sling by saying the democratic party is trying to control the damage it is inflicting on working families."

Now, the question, praytell, is how does the rank and file democrat "control the damage" they are "inflicting on working families"? My guess is that they don't have that much power. It sounds like a party LEADERSHIP problem to me.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scott Lee]

66. Tell us how the rank and file dem is "hurting families" again?

Oh, that's right...they can't. They don't have that kind of power. Only party LEADERSHIP does.

Teeheee.

[BootinUp]

8. Feb 2005, that is n/t

[deminflorida]

4. And looking at his record in Vermont maybe voters should put

the same question to Dean as he did to Clark, Just when did you become a democrat Doctor Dean?

[liberalnurse]

50. Oh my .......

I've seen the light now......I'm voting Clark for sure. You saved the party. So insighful. How can I thank you?

[Capn Sunshine]

10. Yeah, imagine if he had voted for Reagan

what an insult THAT would be

[deminflorida]

23. Not all of us were always Democrats, buddy.....

After George Bush the First a lot of us came over to the party...what you want our asses out now??? Is that it?

[neuvocat]

25. Questioning someone's loyalty, are you?

Why not just say that Clark is unpatriotic while you're at it? I mean, either way you say it, both statements are remarkably similar.

[Scott Lee]

2. Please prove that Dean was referring to the other candidates

with the offending phrases ("cockroaches" etc.).

[neuvocat]

5. He called members of Congress cockroaches

and if you really think about that, that also includes Kucinich and Kerry.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000763.html

[wyldwolf]

6. Someone is about to tell you what Dean actually meant...

... some of that famous Dean supporter Mrs. Cleo-like ability.

[neuvocat]

9. Yeah really.

[Capn Sunshine]

11. I don't need Miss Cleo to tell me about cockroaches

I know exactly what he meant.
You might be careful in YOUR kitchen however

[wyldwolf]

13. No one said or implied you did need Mrs. Cleo...

...see? Reactionary.

[neuvocat]

16. Record timing.

Dean says congress is like cockroaches and then one of his supporters implies my kitchen must be infested with them.

My, my.

[TLM]

15. No what Dean says is they scatter like cockroaches...

do try to argue what Dean said, and not what you wish he'd said.

[neuvocat]

18. Including Kerry and Kucinich

which is what the first post said.

[Scott Lee]

32. Um, please prove that Dean called any candidate a "cockroach"

"Dean responded that if he won the presidency, lawmakers in Congress were "going to be scurrying for shelter, just like a giant flashlight on a bunch of cockroaches."

Does NOT prove that Dean called any of the current candidates "cockroaches".

Now, would you like to try again?

[neuvocat]

38. How about you read the article first?

Dean said it didn't matter if it were republicans or democrats.

But I guess that doesn't matter to you, does it? Well if you want to believe whatever your little heart tells you then go right ahead. I won't try to stop you.

[Scott Lee]

68. Please prove that Dean cited any of the other candidates as "cockroaches"

Thanks. This is the third time I've asked, let's see if you can answer this time.

[thinkahead]

12. Once again Dean is right

It's been getting particularly ugly lately. But I expect nothing less now from those who are so desperate they will say anything to smear Dean, because they are afraid of their own party's power to take back the Presidency.

You can complain about Dean's criticisms all you want (and ignore the fact that he has apologized for some - something I've failed to see from any other campaign). But you all know as well as I that most of Dean's criticisms have been valid. That is why they have stung so hard, and spawned the vitriol he has received in return.

Only Dean has connecting with the base - who realizes that in order to beat Bush we need to take the fight to them - our party needs to wake up - which is what his criticisms have been all about.

Now all we have is the other candidates in a circular firing squad against the guy with the most energy, fundraising, and grassroots support.

[bearfartinthewoods]

22. also the guy who was first to go into attack mode

when it benifited him.

and the guy who was the first to ever run an attack ad in the Iowa caucases,

[thinkahead]

26. Yes I remember it clearly

when he went in front of the DNC and called them out for not standing up to Bush, and the audience went wild.

But hey, some call it attacks, others call it a wake-up call.

Keep hitting the snooze button all you want.

And Re: the South, maybe it's time we did elect a Northern Democrat, FDR, JFK weren't so bad, were they? I'm not saying I don't love Clinton, but come on, stop being so damned afraid of winning.

[neuvocat]

33. So do I

because his campaign workers were doing their best to reduce the damage control afterwards.

Maybe you weren't awake after that little speech of Dean's.

[thinkahead]

45. damage control?

they were trying to figure out how to accomodate all of the people who wanted to sign up after his "little" speech.

I've been awake for a long time now, thank you, my eyes are firmly focused on getting George W. Bush out of the White House.

[caledesi]

31. TA - Well said. nt

[TLM]

14. "Those guys" Oh my god...

will the FCC be charging Dean for using such profanity?

[flpoljunkie]

36. I find this usage offensive; the other candidates do not speak this way...

of each other.

[BootinUp]

17. Governor Dean

has about as much integrity as Bush. You can flame me if you want, but I am sick of his childish games....

[zulchzulu]

20. I'm finding there is no difference between them

Dean is just as offensive to me as Bush is. Both are entirely intellectually dishonest on so many fronts.

[ibegurpard]

47. Your perspective is frighteningly skewed to me.

n/t

[Cha]

61. kerry is the one who voted to give

bush the power to invade Iraq and kill thousands of innocents. And you're equating Dean with bush? your logic escapes me.

[zulchzulu]

19. What a load of bovine excrement

From the man who bases his entire campaign on attacking others, now Dean comes out at the chosen savior telling the World we must find peace in our hearts and stop attacking him.

Man, Dean is just....just...ah...nevermind.

[windansea]

21. Dean said. "You shouldn't believe what other people say."

Is this a joke??

[hey2370]

24. Guess that didn't work

The bile against Dean keeps flowing. You Kerry and Clark supporters sure do like to keep the mods busy, don't ya?

Yeah, sure these particular Clark and Kerry supporters are capable of civility. If Skinner said they could only use two word posts they would post some version of "screw Dean!", periodically every two minutes of every day. How do you stop posters from posting vicious attacks and aspersions when that's what they seem to really love to do?

[wyldwolf]

29. Take a look at this thread...

See any indication the mods have taken any actions here?

[hey2370]

46. Must...type..slower...

New rule started today. Cannot use derogatory nicknames for candidates or their supporters.

This was supposed to have some effect on the level of incivility that has reached epidemic proportions in this forum.

It doesn't seem to have slowed the attacks much at all nor even moderated the intensity much. Thus, you and others are making more work for the mods, as their current plan is obviously not going to fix the problem.

[wyldwolf]

69. I've yet to see the mods hard at work as you are implying..

... seems the new rules are working because I've seen a reduction in deleted posts.

SHOW us how anyrthing is "making more work for the mods."

I guess your concern is that anything even remotely negative about Dean is still allowed.

[DFLforever]

27. He's talking about Gephardt here

Gep's the one who took the main hit on those disastrous campaign ads.

He's also the key Washington insider in the Iowa race, though Kerry is still in the mix.

Dean is referencing a conversation among Iowans about the recent downward turn in the tone of that race. This doctor is a good one because he knows how to listen.






edit: removed phrase

[Padraig18]

30. Isn't your subject line misleading?

The last part is not what Dr. Dean said...

[flpoljunkie]

34. You will notice that the aforementioned part is not in quotes...

eom

[Padraig18]

35. I see--- reportage and editorializing in the same line.

New type of journalism? :)

[wyldwolf]

37. Actually Padraig18, the only forum with a rule against that...

... is LBN.

It is a common and accepted practice in GD.

Example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=11114

Article headline is in quotes. Thread starter then editorializes...

[ibegurpard]

40. On the contrary

The subject line, while not needing to be the exact subject line from the news article being spotlighted as in LBN, DOES need to match the content of the post. Whether this one does or not is not up to me to decide but I thought perhaps before you think to lecture the rest of us on the rules you might want to brush up on them yourself.

[Padraig18]

44. See, that's what bothered me, too.

The rule about the subject line and content of the post matching up; see Dr. Dean didn't say the words contained in the last part of the subject line.

Seems sorta... well, 'odd'. :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

51. the subject line does match the content of the post.

The thread starter gave title of the article to be quoted, then added an editorial comment.

Within the post, the author quoted the article then advanced his editorial comment.

[wyldwolf]

48. On the contrary back at you...

I said:

the only forum with a rule against that... (reportage and editorializing in the same line)... is LBN. (line referring to the thread title.)

You obviously, by your reply, disagree.

However, the posted rules for LBN reads, in part, When posting articles, please use the published title of the article as the title of the discussion thread.

GD has no such rule.

In this case, the subject line does match the content of the post. The thread starter gave title of the article to be quoted, then added an editorial comment.

Within the post, the author quoted the article then advanced his editorial comment.

perhaps before you think to lecture the rest of us on the rules you might want to brush up on them yourself.

1. I wasn't lecturing "the rest of us."
2. I wasn't lecturing period.
3. I wasn't talking to YOU.
4. Obviously YOU need to brush up on the rules.

[Padraig18]

52. Isn't that splitting the hair pretty finely?

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

56. Only if it's a bone of contention...

Which it isn't.

Suddenly it is a bad thing because someone doesn't like the way it was applied to Howard Dean.

It wasn't a problem to anyone here :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=11114

...when the author gave the article title then made a positive editorialized comment about Howard Dean - all in the subject line.

[Padraig18]

58. They're hardly comparable

The one you link to comments about the article itself. This one is an editorialization on Dean.

[wyldwolf]

63. They're very comparable...

There is no rule that designates what you can and can't editorialize on in a post's subject line.

Thus, the situations are identical. Article title followed by editorial comment. Only notable difference is someone doesn't like one editorial comment but the other is acceptable.

[Padraig18]

65. I disagree.

They're not the same at all, but we'll have to agree to disagree, it seems.

[ibegurpard]

55. Please refer to this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=937547

specifically this part: "2. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message."

Again, I'm not making a judgement as to whether or not this thread violates this rule but please don't try to misinform people. Oh, and if you don't want my input then I suggest you stick to private messages. Last I checked, there was no restriction as to who can and cannot respond to public threads.

[wyldwolf]

60. I did previously, and this post does not violate the rule..

There was two parts to the subject line - the article title and the poster's editorial comment.

Within the post, the author quoted the article then advanced his editorial comment.

Thus, the title accurately reflected the actual content of the message.

[ibegurpard]

62. My issue as I said REPEATEDLY

is your contention that there IS NO SUCH RULE FOR GD! I have said TWICE now that it is NOT my contention as to whether this post violates that rule but that your claim that there IS NO SUCH rule is false. Have I made myself clear?

[wyldwolf]

67. There IS NO SUCH RULE FOR GD!

Starting at post #35, Padraig18 voiced concern over "reportage and editorializing in the same (subject)line."

In post #37, I correctly stated that only LBN has a rule against that.

The rule you are referring to for GD requires that the title accurately reflect the content.

As I have repeatedly said, the title DOES accurately reflect the post's content.

Now, I don't give a rat's ass if you think you're being clear or not.

If this was a rule violation, don't you think the mods would have stepped in by now?

[Padraig18]

43. Oh, I know it's common.

It's just that I'm not sure it's good practice. Wouldn't the editorializing be better off in the body of the post?

[wyldwolf]

53. I don't think it matters...

..but I don't make the rules.


"General" discussion denotes a certain freestyle of discussion.

[Padraig18]

59. Yeah, but that pesky rule about...

... subject line and initial post agreeing still applies, or do I misunderstand the rules?

[wyldwolf]

70. You understand the rule fine, but this wasn't a violation...

There was two parts to the subject line - the article title and the poster's editorial comment.

Within the post, the author quoted the article then advanced his editorial comment.

Thus, the title accurately reflected the actual content of the message.

[Scott Lee]

39. Facts - the boogeyman of the Dean opponents.

I would implore Dean supporters here to stop asking for specifics, facts and sources of their opponents as it is a heartless thing to do.

[ibegurpard]

42. Wahhhhh!

As Will Pitt has said...it's the primary. Grow a thicker skin people.

[Myra]

49. Well, if Dean's opponents can only criticize him for the obvious truth

That we're no safer after Saddam's capture, then they do need
to do better. Pretty lame.

[Zomby Woof]

54. the apples don't fall far from his tree

nt

[Donna Zen]

57. Looking more closely at the article:

1) Dean calls for more civility

2) Dean's current message: "Dean pushed hard at his claim to being an outsider running against Washington-based candidates with no record of accomplishment."

NO record of accomplishment???? Is that a fair look at Kerry? Kucinich? Gephardt? Edwards?

All of these people HAVE done some good things for us. Oh_pardon me, Dr. I-didn't-have-to-vote-on-IWR Dean, they deserve our endless wrath for a vote which completely negates all other votes they've ever made. Seriously, how can a person call for a cease-fire while continuing to take pot shots?

[Cha]

64. Because Dean is stating facts and

the laggards are Lyin' as usual. Big Difference.

[flpoljunkie]

71. Kick for Sunday DUers who may have missed Dean's plea.

:kick:

[zulchzulu]

72. OK, Dean attacks others as he tells them to stop attacking him...riiiiight

In the article:

Dean:
"There are five or six people running for president right now who have a chance at winning," Dean said. "I'm the only person who has done anything about trying to get health care."

This is at the same time he wants people to stop attacking each other...

Is he insane?