Dean: 1-14-04 The Internet built up Howard Dean -- now it will destroy him

[dmcowen674]

01/14/2004: The Wrong Men for the Internet

At the present moment, the Democratic Party seems to be headed over a
cliff at ninety miles an hour. With Bush already sitting on extremely
high poll numbers and the domestic and foreign situations breaking his
way, the Democrats have two of their worst candidates in recent memory
in the frontrunner positions.Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. They are
particularly bad in the Internet Age.

What, you say, Howard Dean is bad on the Internet? He was and is the
master of online fundraising and the first to recognize the power of
blogs. Yes, indeed! But that.s only part of the story. And it.s not
the more important part. The Internet is the greatest memory device we
have ever had. It stores virtually everything for instant access -- it.s
very difficult to hide what you have said. Bloggers and others will
dig it out and force the media to publicize it.

This is exceptionally dangerous for Dean who has defined himself and
staked his nomination on being the Most Antiwar Candidate, when, among
other things, quite a short time ago he was not. Today we see via
Instapundit that Dean wrote a letter to Clinton advocating Milosevic
be forcibly removed for humanitarian reasons, something he appears to
have rejected for Saddam, even though the Iraqi leader was vastly more
awful. Dean even advocated, in the case of Milosevic, going it alone
without the United Nations.

Normal political hypocrisy? Well, sure. But it is worse. Because this
is Mr. Tell-It-Like It-Is and he isn.t. And he can.t. There.s too much
information already on record. The Internet will be his great
undoing. This is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Wait until
summer. The same is true for Clark. In a sea of a million
fact-checkers, his idiot vacillations seem all the more ridiculous. If
he gets nominated, it is going to be a donnybrook.

....
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)

 

[mfs378]

It is true that the internet allows the instant exchange of information, and that candidates certainly have a tough time with misstatements, etc. However, that just pares the number of supporters down to the core 'believers' who put that 'fact' nonsense aside. Witness the Bush support here on this forum.

remember 'no nation building'?
remember 'we know where the wmd are'?

Some people just manage to take it in stride, and stick by Bush despite the lives that it is costing.

With that as a case-in-point, I'd say that Dean is unlikely to lose the core of his base anytime soon.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: mfs378
It is true that the internet allows the instant exchange of information, and that candidates certainly have a tough time with misstatements, etc. However, that just pares the number of supporters down to the core 'believers' who put that 'fact' nonsense aside. Witness the Bush support here on this forum.

remember 'no nation building'?
remember 'we know where the wmd are'?

Some people just manage to take it in stride, and stick by Bush despite the lives that it is costing.

With that as a case-in-point, I'd say that Dean is unlikely to lose the core of his base anytime soon.

i think that the whole 'no nation building' idea kinda changed with the occurance of 9-11.

before 9-11, what nation was Bush attacking? what nation was he trying to rebuild?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

With Bush already sitting on extremely
high poll numbers and the domestic and foreign situations breaking his
way, the Democrats have two of their worst candidates in recent memory
in the frontrunner positions.Howard Dean and Wesley Clark.

Hahahahah! I would have to agree on that

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: mfs378
It is true that the internet allows the instant exchange of information, and that candidates certainly have a tough time with misstatements, etc. However, that just pares the number of supporters down to the core 'believers' who put that 'fact' nonsense aside. Witness the Bush support here on this forum.

remember 'no nation building'?
remember 'we know where the wmd are'?

Some people just manage to take it in stride, and stick by Bush despite the lives that it is costing.

With that as a case-in-point, I'd say that Dean is unlikely to lose the core of his base anytime soon.

i think that the whole 'no nation building' idea kinda changed with the occurance of 9-11.

before 9-11, what nation was Bush attacking? what nation was he trying to rebuild?

You just proved his point. You immediately came up with an excuse.

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: mfs378
It is true that the internet allows the instant exchange of information, and that candidates certainly have a tough time with misstatements, etc. However, that just pares the number of supporters down to the core 'believers' who put that 'fact' nonsense aside. Witness the Bush support here on this forum.

remember 'no nation building'?
remember 'we know where the wmd are'?

Some people just manage to take it in stride, and stick by Bush despite the lives that it is costing.

With that as a case-in-point, I'd say that Dean is unlikely to lose the core of his base anytime soon.

i think that the whole 'no nation building' idea kinda changed with the occurance of 9-11.

before 9-11, what nation was Bush attacking? what nation was he trying to rebuild?

Well, given evidence coming from O'Niel and other rumblings, I would say that nation-building was on the agenda well before 9-11. Additionally, saying that 9-11 changed things for Iraq presumes that Iraq had anything at all to do with that attack. Guess what, it didn't.

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: mfs378
It is true that the internet allows the instant exchange of information, and that candidates certainly have a tough time with misstatements, etc. However, that just pares the number of supporters down to the core 'believers' who put that 'fact' nonsense aside. Witness the Bush support here on this forum.

remember 'no nation building'?
remember 'we know where the wmd are'?

Some people just manage to take it in stride, and stick by Bush despite the lives that it is costing.

With that as a case-in-point, I'd say that Dean is unlikely to lose the core of his base anytime soon.

i think that the whole 'no nation building' idea kinda changed with the occurance of 9-11.

before 9-11, what nation was Bush attacking? what nation was he trying to rebuild?

You just proved his point. You immediately came up with an excuse.

An even better response than mine.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: mfs378
It is true that the internet allows the instant exchange of information, and that candidates certainly have a tough time with misstatements, etc. However, that just pares the number of supporters down to the core 'believers' who put that 'fact' nonsense aside. Witness the Bush support here on this forum.

remember 'no nation building'?
remember 'we know where the wmd are'?

Some people just manage to take it in stride, and stick by Bush despite the lives that it is costing.

With that as a case-in-point, I'd say that Dean is unlikely to lose the core of his base anytime soon.

i think that the whole 'no nation building' idea kinda changed with the occurance of 9-11.

before 9-11, what nation was Bush attacking? what nation was he trying to rebuild?

When you consider recent news, it would seem "Nation building" was seriously considered long before 9/11.

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The same is true for Clark. In a sea of a million
fact-checkers, his idiot vacillations seem all the more ridiculous.

Sorry to split up my response, but I missed some of your original post.

What vacillations are you referring to?

 

[glenn1]

Personally, a bit of inconsistency and "evolution" of thinking over time doesn't bother me. Like they say, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. However, the reason behind the change is important.

So, right or wrong, I think many Americans can see a logic in Bush's change of heart on 'no nation-building" due to 9/11. Dean's change of heart on unilateral use of American power from supporting it WRT Milosevich and opposing it when it comes to Saddam is a bit puzzling. It doesn't have to be, but at this time I don't think he's given any insight into what i'm sure is a compelling logic behind the change of heart (I might be being charitable, but i give him the benefit of the doubt that he has a logical reason). It's up to him to decide whether to do let us know what his logic was, so we can draw our own conclusion on whether we agree, but i think it's in his best interests to do so.

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Personally, a bit of inconsistency and "evolution" of thinking over time doesn't bother me. Like they say, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. However, the reason behind the change is important.

So, right or wrong, I think many Americans can see a logic in Bush's change of heart on 'no nation-building" due to 9/11. Dean's change of heart on unilateral use of American power from supporting it WRT Milosevich and opposing it when it comes to Saddam is a bit puzzling. It doesn't have to be, but at this time I don't think he's given any insight into what i'm sure is a compelling logic behind the change of heart (I might be being charitable, but i give him the benefit of the doubt that he has a logical reason). It's up to him to decide whether to do let us know what his logic was, so we can draw our own conclusion on whether we agree, but i think it's in his best interests to do so.

You know, I would be fascinated to hear the 'compelling logic' that was behind the invasion of Iraq. Since you seem to suscribe to the overwhelming case that this logic represents, perhaps you would be willing to enlighten me?

 

[glenn1]

You know, I would be fascinated to hear the 'compelling logic' that was behind the invasion of Iraq. Since you seem to suscribe to the overwhelming case that this logic represents, perhaps you would be willing to enlighten me?

If you had read my post, you'd realize i was speaking about political candidates explaining the reasons for making changes in their policy stances. My example of Bush changing his mind on the merits of nation-building qualifies, since at one point he opposed it and now supports it. You're asking about an issue where Bush hasn't changed his mind. He came into office supporting regime change in Iraq, continuing the former administration's policy and the expressed will of Congress in the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: mfs378
It is true that the internet allows the instant exchange of information, and that candidates certainly have a tough time with misstatements, etc. However, that just pares the number of supporters down to the core 'believers' who put that 'fact' nonsense aside. Witness the Bush support here on this forum.

remember 'no nation building'?
remember 'we know where the wmd are'?

Some people just manage to take it in stride, and stick by Bush despite the lives that it is costing.

With that as a case-in-point, I'd say that Dean is unlikely to lose the core of his base anytime soon.

i think that the whole 'no nation building' idea kinda changed with the occurance of 9-11.

before 9-11, what nation was Bush attacking? what nation was he trying to rebuild?

Well, given evidence coming from O'Niel and other rumblings, I would say that nation-building was on the agenda well before 9-11. Additionally, saying that 9-11 changed things for Iraq presumes that Iraq had anything at all to do with that attack. Guess what, it didn't.

Yes but as O'neill also says, plans for ousting Saddam were carry overs from the Clinton Admin.

 

[mfs378]

If you had read my post, you'd realize i was speaking about political candidates explaining the reasons for making changes in their policy stances. My example of Bush changing his mind on the merits of nation-building qualifies, since at one point he opposed it and now supports it. You're asking about an issue where Bush hasn't changed his mind. He came into office supporting regime change in Iraq, continuing the former administration's policy and the expressed will of Congress in the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act.

I did read your post.

Have you read the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act? It seems you haven't so I will provide a link: read it

Here's a quote for you:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

The will of the congress was not to use military force. The congress voted on peaceful regime change. Will you argue that the will of the congress was fulfilled in the course of the violent invasion of Iraq, which used over 100,000 American military personel?

The invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation qualifies in my book as 'nation building'. You can't possibly argue that whe Bush said no nation building, we were to assume that an Iraq invasion was still on the table. This represents a clear shift in policy.

Yes but as O'neill also says, plans for ousting Saddam were carry overs from the Clinton Admin.

I'm sure the Clinton administration had all sorts of contingency plans, just like I am sure that the Bush administration does. But there is a difference between undergoing an exercise (which is what the analysis and planning at the pentagon is) and actually carrying it out. Also, with all the rumbling that came from within the military regarding Rumsfeld's plan for the war, I am hard pressed to accept that the plan was the same as the one produced by the Clinton administration.

Your statement is totally irrelevant.

 

[glenn1]

The will of the congress was not to use military force. The congress voted on peaceful regime change. Will you argue that the will of the congress was fulfilled in the course of the violent invasion of Iraq, which used over 100,000 American military personel?

Jeez, are you REALLY that dense? Congress changed their minds as well, after 9/11 they voted on an authorization granting war powers to Bush for crying out loud. You're a Clark supporter, haven't you read your own favorite candidate's statements bashing Kerry, Lieberman, et al for supporting the resolution?

The invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation qualifies in my book as 'nation building'. You can't possibly argue that whe Bush said no nation building, we were to assume that an Iraq invasion was still on the table. This represents a clear shift in policy.

READ MY POST. I said twice that his stance on nation building WAS a change in policy, that's the one i mentioned in fact. Bush's earlier support of regime change in Iraq didn't involve invading, that came after 9/11. You can support regime change without proposing invasion. For example, I think it's fair to say that Bush supports regime change in North Korea also, and we haven't invaded Pyongyang. Going from passively supporting regime change to actively working to accomplish it isn't a change in policy direction, it's simply an amplification of the previous policy. The change in his stance on nation-building allowed the stepping up of the regime change policy in turn. Are you always this willfully negligent in your reading and comprehension?

Here, let me give you a freebie to illustrate what a policy change is. Bush campaigned as being a supporter of free trade, but once in office, imposed steel tariffs. That's a change in policy which still hasn't been explained, nor a logical reason given for his change of heart. Do you get it now?

 

[mfs378]

What was it that I said?

I would be fascinated to hear the 'compelling logic' that was behind the invasion of Iraq.

Now, you said:

He came into office supporting regime change in Iraq, continuing the former administration's policy and the expressed will of Congress in the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act.

The 1998 Iraq Liberation Act says:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

The invasion of Iraq constitutes a violation of the 1998 Iraq Liberation act, and as such represents a shift from the 'former administration's policy' (your words).

Going from passively supporting regime change to actively working to accomplish it isn't a change in policy direction, it's simply an amplification of the previous policy.

Play word games if you want, but if that is all your argument reduces down to, then you should make that clear instead of insulting me.

 

[chess9]

Yet another rabid shock jock forgets to take his anti-psychotic medications.

Ho-hum. These right wingers are so dull and uncreative....

-Robert