Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Galt and CAD,
The fact that neither of you are willing to discuss the very substance of this issue is very telling. Come on. There are young impressionable people here and you have an image to uphold.
If you see something I don't, I'm willing to concede - as I've already done today in your mad cow thread.
So tell me again, CAD, why is it that you believe that the obvious descrepancies in money, attendees, and disclosures should all be considered irrelevant in this case?
I told you. dean keeps trying to blast Bush for things yet has done similar(same) things himself. dean had "secret" meetings with people on policy - so did Cheney. dean blasts Cheney for "secret" meetings and calls for "open government". He must have forgotten that he himself had "secret" meetings on policy. Like I said - you can try to lessen the degree of hypocracy if you wish by saying Cheney was "worstester"
but it doesn't change the fact that dean would blast dean if dean were Cheney. Got it?
CkG
You're probably right about that last part. But try to follow my logic.
1. You say Dean is a hypocrite for accusing Cheny/Bush admin for doing something he did before.
2. I'm saying he didn't quite do the same thing because the evidence shows in the very link you provided, that there are BIG differences between what he did and what Cheney did:
a. Dean volunteerily disclosed the names of all who were involved. Cheny's reps disclosed *some* names but invoked executive priveleges to keep the names of other participants secret.
b. According to CNN, Dean received a whopping 19,000 in contributions as a result of those energy meetings. Millions were contributed to the Bush campaign from energy companies. One of those aforementioned participants was Kenneth Lay, CEO of Enron.
Comparing these two are laughable. Isn't it, Cad?
Right - and so dean's position really isn't "true" is it? Didn't think so.
Now yes, if you try to link campaign cash with "favors" - then you might have a case - but again, that is speculative opinion and partisan rhetoric at best and doesn't change the hypocracy of having "secret meetings".
Also, yes dean(or the committe) gave up the names after there was a stink made about it and Cheney still hasn't disclosed them all - but like I said - that is only a "degree" question. So when dean isn't "clean" but Cheney is "worstester" - it means dean isn't still hypocritical about "secret meetings"?
The point was about hypocracy - not about campaign money, or names - it was about doing something(no matter what degree you think he did or didn't do it the same) that he has tried to make a big issue over(secret meetings).
CkG
Exactly, its a "degree" question. But you're saying I'm a hypocrite for disapproving the actions of a convicted murderer when I've squashed bugs before...
Come on, Cad. Even you can put two and two together about why Cheney's meetings with Enron's prez were held in secrecy - especially when millions in contributions are involved.
Just so happens that in this case you'd prefer not to, so you can keep on ignoring the facts and burying your head in the mud. Even Galt knows when he's lost the point and quits.
No - you are not understanding the simplicity of this. dean had "secret meetings" yet here he sits yapping about "open" government and condemning Cheney for doing the same thing(secret meetings). dean doesn't get a free pass for what he did as govenor just because what Cheney did was "worstester" than what he did. It is still hypocracy and dean will get called on it - as his rivals are doing. If dean was really for "open" gov't then he wouldn't have held the "secret" meetings - no? Yet he blasts Cheney for having "secret meetings".
Yes - he can complain about Cheney not naming all who attended - and I would agree that it would be a fair accusation and question - but that isn't what he has been doing.
Yes you/dean/whoever can try to yammer on and on about campaign contributions, but it doesn't change the fact that dean held "secret meetings" just as he blasts other for doing.
Gephardt seems to agree with me-
"It is another example of why Howard would have a hard time going up against George Bush. I mean here he is complaining about secrecy in their administration with the Cheney task force and then it turns out he was doing the same thing in Vermont,"
Oh, and JG may not be with us currently but if memory holds - JG is a daytime poster - usually morning in my time zone.
We shall see though.
CkG