Half-Truthout

[bigtree]

Truthout runs this story.
Paul Krugman: Flags Versus Dollars
http://truthout.org/docs_03/110803F.shtml

Krugman has one view of the controversy. He's entitled to his view. I disagree with him.

Where's the balance of views on Truthout? They run one self-serving story only.

There is another view of the controversy. Truthout knows this well.

Half-truth is no truth.

[BurtWorm]

1. What other half?

[bigtree]

2. Don't be so coy

Some saw the Dean comment as pandering. I did. Seven other candidates did also.

[BurtWorm]

3. What about the issues Krugman talks about?

The issue of writing off the south, even though the south is a substantial chunk of votes? Why do white southern men consistently vote against their economic interest? Why aren't the Democrats making it clearer to them that they NEED the Democratic party more than they need the Republicans?

[bigtree]

4. The other argument has been well presented on this board

If you want my opinion, do a search.

[BurtWorm]

5. Why bother starting a thread if you aren't going to work at it?

[bigtree]

6. Burt, you want me to reargue the issue

Haven't you gotten enough views to accept that there are more than the one presented by Truthout. That's the post. Why don't you respond to my complaint?

[BurtWorm]

9. Because your complaint is that Krugman's and evidently Will Pitt's

as well as mine and Dean's and Sydney Blumenthal's view is pandering. You disagree with this position. Fine. But do you really expect Will Pitt or any person with a point of view to give equal time to a position that *they* don't agree with? And do you have to slander not just that one point of view but the whole Web site as "half-truth?"

[bigtree]

11. Look

We're not talking about presenting a republican or a conservative view. Seven candidates have a different view than the one presented by Truthout. What justifies leaving their views out?

I have a right to criticize any mag or rag that presents a skewed or unbalanced argument. Slander? Where's the rest of the story?

Didn't Dean do a mea culpa? Doesn't that give credence to their complaint?


"You may charge me with murder--or want of sense
(We are all of us weak at times):
But the slightest approach to a false pretense
Was never among my crimes!"
Lewis Carroll- The Hunting of the Snark

[BurtWorm]

14. Dean did not mea culpa to pandering. He said he spoke poorly.

And I'll give you that he did. The pandering question is just not as interesting or important as the deeper question of what the Democratic Party is going to do about those Southerners voting election after election against their own economic interest and how to wake them up to stop being used by Republicans. (Talk about pandering!) It's in both their interests--the Southerners and the party's--to unite and end the Republican fucking of the country.

[bigtree]

16. Seven candidates wrong

Dean right?

That's one opinion.

[BurtWorm]

17. You're missing the whole point of the controversy!

What do you think this is about? Dean's words or the substance of Dean's point?

PS: If it's about Dean's words, then it's over. So why did you take issue with Krugman's article which was about the substance of Dean's point? Do you think Democrats should ignore the South? That's the question. Do you think the other candidates think the Dems can afford to ignore the South?

[bigtree]

24. I have a definite bias in this

I took issue with the words and I wondered at who Dean was appealing to. You say southerners. I say he was appealing to rebel flag wavers. I don't think they are worth the party's time. I think they are a sorry minority. The majority of southerners are surely not confederate flag wavers.

That said, there are views out there other than my own construction. I don't have any desire to redebate this. My views are well represented and replied to in previous threads. I've had a lot to say.

I am making an appeal for balance on this issue at Truthout. That's the post. It's hard to say that there is no opposing view.

More reasonable to say that Truthout didn't see a need to present one. I disagree with that.

[BurtWorm]

50. It's preposterous to say that Dean is after the rebel flag wavers qua rfw!

He is after--and the Democratic party should be after--everybody everywhere. Dean is merely saying he is not going to write anybody off, not even the ones the Republicans think are in their pocket. It's hard not to see reaction to this idea as rooted in class prejudice. Do you really think it's wise for the Democratics to give up on any bloc of voters who can be persuaded by Democratic politics and policies? Dean's point has always been--and Krugman states it very well--that this "solidly Republican" bloc of voters is getting nothing real for voting Republican. What they DO get (what ALL suckers who vote Republican against their economic interests get) is their anti-social selfishness stroked.

Interestingly, a few weeks ago I started a thread about Dennis Kucinich's early campaigns in Cincinnati, in which he decided to become a champion of the Westside ethnics who hated Carl Stokes and the African-American Eastsiders who formed his power base. Kucinich, as far as I know, never behaved or spoke like a racist, but his supporters certainly did, attacking Kucinich's opponents as "nigger lovers" and spreading leaflets attacking them for supporting a national holiday for MLK. Kucinich's tack in effect asked the question, don't these people need their interests looked after too? Is it better if a racist represents them or if a progressive does? If you can get racists to support a progressive without appealing to their racism, is there any harm in that?

[blm]

30. Dean's point was defending his NRA stand when he made the comment.

Everything he said about being clumsy in a remark that he made while seeking to discuss race relations is a LIE.

His interview when he made that remark was all about his NRA support and race relations is not even mentioned. So, Krugman and others bought that lie.

The RNC however, will use Dean's real words and his real reason, and his on camera lies in ads that will play for months.

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/22649906.html
Kerry criticizes Dean's gun views
By THOMAS BEAUMONT
Register Staff Writer
11/01/2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, said Dean's opposition to an assault weapons ban in 1992, recorded in a National Rifle Association endorsement questionnaire, contradicts his position as a presidential candidate supporting a federal assault weapons ban.

Kerry supported the 1994 bill that outlawed the sale and ownership of assault weapons, which Dean says he now supports.

"Howard Dean, during the time we were trying to pass it, was appealing to the NRA for their support," Kerry said, while visiting a rural Story County farm."We don't need to be a party that says we need to be the candidacy of the NRA. We stand up against that."

Dean has said 2000 Democratic nominee Al Gore lost the election because he failed to win Southern states, where disaffected Democrats who favor gun owners' rights were reluctant to support him.

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," Dean said Friday in a telephone interview from New Hampshire. "We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats."

Dean said he answered the questionnaire while running for re-election as governor of Vermont. He has said he was never asked to sign a gun control bill during his Vermont tenure.
>>>>>>>

[JackRiddler]

34. Are you ever going to stop

cutting and pasting this article into every thread on Dean?

The article is putting the flag comment in the NRA context (and so what, that is one of the contexts), and you're the one interpreting it as the *only* context.

[blm]

41. Because the lie that Dean was talking about race is still made.

So it should be answered with the FACT that Dean was talking about guns when he referenced the flag in that interview.

[HFishbine]

39. BLM, your RNC warning

is laughable. Are you really cautioning us that, come next fall, the RNC is going to start running ads warning voters that Dean is against gun control or that he want's to reach out to southern rebels? Don't you think that might erode their core a little?

[blm]

42. No...they'll play his explanations and point out the lie.

It will be edited to emphasize ONLY the lies, and the issue will be that Dean is a liar who tries to cover up his gaffes. That is what they do. They happen to excel at it, and will have a few hundred million dollars to drive it home.

[Jim Sagle]

29. They were wrong. So are you.

[Bucky]

38. Truthout is not inaccurately named, you're just missing the pun

Truth out, as in "it's outta here!"

Within a day of Clark entering the race they did a real hatchet job on him, taking his quotes as a news analyst out of context to make it appear that he supported Bush's knee-jerk "preemptive" war policy, when in fact all Clark had done is (1) applaud the professional performance of US troops and (2) express satisfaction that a thuggish dictator had been toppled.

This gave rise to the faulty presumption that Clark "flip-flipped" on the war issue. Now Truthout's editors have flip-flopped themselves; they're quoting the hell out of Clark to damn the war, as if he's the biggest expert in the world.

It's not that they take sides, but that Truthout takes sides as a matter of convenience.

[Syrinx]

7. What's wrong with Truthout presenting their point of view?

There are plenty of other competing viewpoints out there.

[bigtree]

8. I guess I expected more from a page called Truthout

Half-truth in this case. Wouldn't you agree?

[BurtWorm]

10. If that's so, then you're speaking a half-truth as well, aren't you?

[bigtree]

12. My views on this issue are well represented by the responses

of the other candidates, and in my responses on the endless Dean flag threads as well. No more to say. Not here not now.

Seriously, do a search.

Dean apologized. I accepted.

What about the issue of Truthout presenting one side of the story?

[BurtWorm]

15. That's not a serious issue! Should you and I express each other's

points of view every time we post?! Then why the hell should Truthout?

[Syrinx]

13. it's truthout's view of the truth

Doesn't Will Pitt run that site? Write him and ask if he'll put your view up there.

[bigtree]

19. I did.

I wanted to give DU a chance to express their view. Most here, myself included have a great deal of respect for the hard work of Truthout and its crew. They screwed up this time, though. Thought I'd vent a little.

[mhr]

18. bigtree, You Are Hiding Behind The Skirts Of Others

If you have an opinion, SPIT IT OUT!

I'd say you are the one pandering at this point.

[bigtree]

22. I think people had enough of my writings on the flag issue

I did a search. The posts are there. The debate provided views opposing Krugman's. Why aren't they represented along with Krugman's?

The opposing views are out there. You don't have to look far. My views can be found in the flag threads.

My opinion is that Truthout has settled for one side of the flag debate. I think at least one other candidate's view should be represented there. What is the taboo in the other candidate's criticisms. Put them together and let the readers choose for themselves.

Of course, Truthout has every right to do as they please. God bless them.

I'm not a bad fellow. I know I'll have to kick in behind our Democratic nominee. Better?

[BurtWorm]

23. I added something to post #17.

I am interested in your answers to those questions, if you're interested in sharing them.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

20. Interesting that you choose not to present your point of view,...

...whatever that may be, by poking holes in the opinions of others.

If you have a problem, spit it out...otherwise quit wasting people's time.

[bigtree]

25. There were views opposed to Krugman's expressed at the Debate

by seven candidates. These were not represented at all on the page. I think this is a glaring oversight. Why aren't any of these other views represented along with Krugman's? A fair question. Your answer?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

27. What are your views? Why are you personally irritated?....

You started this thread...ante up or throw in your cards.

[Catholic Sensation]

21. Okay, here's the thing I think some people are missing

The piece by Krugman in question appeared in more than just Truth Out. It appeared everywhere he's in syndication. The way I see how Truth Out's editorial and other article sections work is they simply have the site display the latest op-ed piece by the op-ed writers they list on their site. Since Truth Out doesn't decide what these people write, simply publish what they do, it's stupid to demand them to show a piece differing from Krugman's when their control over what is published is nill. The only way to get an opposing view point about this would be for Mr. Pitt to either write an opposing editorial to this, or for him to find one on his own time and then publish it. Since it seems he's not as desperately reactionary as the anti-dean crowd is about this issue, he's not going to write one. Looking for a view presented that what dean said is "horrible" or "bad" or whatever is dumb because it takes a lot of time.

[Adjoran]

26. Krugman is partly right, at least

This party MUST reach out to the south in some way.

The last time we elected a Democratic President who was NOT from the south was in 1960.

The last time we elected a Democratic President who didn't at least have a southerner on the ticket was 1948, when we ran two border-state candidates (Truman from Missouri and Barkley of Kentucky).

Democrats have fielded a candidate for President in every election since 1796. No Democrat has EVER won the White House without carrying at least two southern states.

As it now appears, the possible southern states we could win are Virginia, Florida, Louisiana, and Arkansas. There is an outside chance to win North Carolina, but if we win that it will probably be a landslide nationwide.

We absolutely have to reach out to voters in those states, including rural whites. This whole confederate flag controversy does not help in that effort.

Dean was wrong to mention it. He should have stuck to his original line about "gunracks in their pickup trucks." But for the other candidates to make such a huge issue of it only complicates the task of the eventual nominee, no matter who it is.

The only two Democrats who won since JFK (Carter and Clinton) were able to appeal to this rural southern "bubba vote." If our 2004 strategy is to write off the south, I would recommend against ordering the good champagne for election night.

[drfemoe]

28. Sounds like you are sore because

liberals are speaking up for Dean .. there has been plenty of coverage about the 'other side' from most major media sources. And I think Edwards should apologize for referring to Dean as "someone like you". What is more condescending than that?

Just in case you think Krugman via truthout is a lone nut on this one, see what the angry liberal has to say >>
http://www.theangryliberal.com/11-06-03.htm

How the hell did I get stuck with the Democratic Party?

In case you're wondering, I'm a bit miffed at the Democrats who attacked presidential candidate Howard Dean for mentioning recently that he wanted to appeal to Southern white voters who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flags in the windows. Naturally, such an outrageous comment started a chain reaction of faint-hearted Democrats soiling themselves. After all, the last thing any Democratic candidate should want is votes. Any decent Democrat would rather see George W. Bush win next November than see Bush's Democratic opponent receive a single vote from somebody we don't like, right? I know! Let's all put together a list of groups of people that we want to vote against the Democratic candidate next November and then we can send them fliers encouraging them not to support us in the election! We'll send out reminders to Southern white males on election eve, reminding them that we think they're a bunch of ignorant racists! With a little work, we can fashion the Democratic Party into the Chicago Cubs of politics!
snip ...

Democrats should offer the following bargain to every working person who disagrees with us on racial and religious issues: We will continue to disagree with you on these divisive issues, and be damn proud to do so. But in exchange for your support, we're going to make your lives better. We're going to see to it that your employer pays you a fair wage and runs a safe and fair workplace. We're going to see that your children get a decent education and healthcare. We're going to see that the air you breathe and the water you drink is clean and safe. We're going to see that America will be a better place for your children than it was for you. And we're going to do the same for the people you hate for having dark skin or worshipping a different god or loving a member of the same sex. And when you compare that to the republican offer to allow you to play with guns and hate minorities in exchange for an ever-decreasing quality of life, you will not have an easier choice to make. You see, we Democrats are counting on your ability to put aside your beliefs in order to secure your future. Republicans, on the other hand, are counting on you to put aside your future in order to secure your beliefs. The choice is yours.

continued @ above link

The future of our country is serious business. We need to focus on MAJOR issues. If you think the other 7 candidates were 'right' about Dean, you will probably be in a small crowd. That's not the atmosphere or feedback I've been seeing about this twister in a teapot. I didn't see anything I thought was justified or that would enhance people's view of the democratic party. I refuse to be distracted by time wasting opportunistic media shows.

I haven't read all the threads on the 'flag' and don't intend to. If you think one of Dean's critics had a valid point on this oh so critical issue, then vote for them. Just don't expect everyone else to see it the same way you do. Or want it rehashed and debated in every forum ad infinitum ..

[bigtree]

31. Too bad about the imbalance on this issue at Truthout. Oh well.

I read your post with interest. You made Krugman's point alright.

"If you think the other 7 candidates were 'right' about Dean, you will probably be in a small crowd."

Good company though.

- Martin Luther King Jr., excerpt from his April 16, 1963 letter from Birmingham City Jail:

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's greatest stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advised the Negro to wait until a 'more convenient season.' Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will."

[William Seger]

32. "Gotcha"

I thought this was an important point in Krugman's article, because it bears on other issues as well:

"But his rivals for the Democratic nomination should be ashamed of their reaction. They know what he was trying to say — and it wasn't that his party should go soft on racism. By playing gotcha, by seizing on the chance to take the front-runner down a peg, they damaged the cause they claim to serve — and missed a chance to confront the real issue he raised."

If you don't think the Democrats need votes from Conferderate flag wavers, fine, just say so, and I might even agree with you. I haven't decided on a candidate myself, and frankly, I'm leaning away from Dean for several reasons.

But this "gotcha" stuff -- intentionally manufacturing a "wedge issue" where none really exists in order to favor your prefered candidate -- is extemely short-sighted. Whether you or I like it or not, Dean may be our candidate in 2004. Why hand ammo to Rove on a silver platter?

[drfemoe]

36. It's impossible to determine what you want

.. without reading all the flag flap posts.. which I will not spend time doing. I don't know why you are posting this quote .. unless you are trying to link Dean to the "white moderate" King spoke of. If that is your intent, I would have to totally disagree. Futhermore, if that is your intent, I would say you haven't researched this, may not be looking for the real 'truth' but just an excuse to complain about 'white' people (or the white person, Dean), and have missed the whole point of the debate that Dean's remark sparked.

Dean is not a racist nor 'more devoted to order' than to justice for ALL. If that is your counter-point to Krugman, I think you are just totally mistaken. The only way I can see you can even come to that faulty conclusion would be to misinterpret not only the flag remark, but everything else Gov. Dean has said, written, and accomplished.

See, you ostensibly started this thread about the supposed injustice of "truthout". But it seems instead that your real intent is to imply racial slurs toward Gov. Dean.

The healing of our country, which includes all races and classes, is my dream. I believe Gov. Dean has the same dream. Silence is not going to get the healing done. There are others who want to keep picking at old wounds and inflicting new ones, to be sure. What do you want?

Gov. Dean:
... "In 1998 President Clinton committed our nation to eliminating racial and ethnic health disparities by the year 2010 beginning with these six key areas: infant mortality, cancer screening and management, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, and childhood and adult immunizations. Yet, even though these goals are clearly attainable, President Bush lacks the will or even the interest to meet them. I will." ...

[HFishbine]

40. BigTree

Please take another look.

MLK, Jr. decried those who would put off the tough issues until a "more convenient season." Who is trying to bridge the divide NOW and who are saying NOT NOW?

[WilliamPitt]

33. Actually

we run Krugman whenever he shows up. For truthout, the name 'Krugman' translates into 'RUN THIS STORY.' If you have a beef with the content, take it up with the author.

[drfemoe]

37. Krugman speaks truth

and his writings belong there. (we thank you)

[bigtree]

44. WilliamPitt, your views are represented by Neo Progressive's post;

one of the more reasonable responses to my complaint.

I like Krugman. He's a good Democratic soldier. I think he came down pretty hard on one side, though.

So the page is left representing one side of the issue. Important to me. Not important to others.

Hey Will. I know you are busy. Thanks for responding. Thanks for all of your hard work.

[WilliamPitt]

45. One article out of ten on one day

carried a view you don't approve of. That does not merit the slam represented by your headline of this thread.

[bigtree]

46. Thread headlines are puffed up all the time here to get attention

Sorry I called your baby ugly.

The content of my complaint is hardly unfair. It happened to concern an effort (Truthout) that many, including myself, respect.

Hard to argue though that I should stifle my concern for balance on your organization's page on this issue, on this board, among friends. I think you are leaving out the views of our party's core constituency on this issue. You got my objection full-on. You won't get much of that here. Take it as you will.

Good luck to you.

Ron

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. Questions for you, bigtree:

Why is the Krugman piece self-serving (for either Krugman or Truthout)?

And has Truthout ever claimed to present a balanced view of Democratic Party members? Isn't it just a website of generally liberal articles?

[JackRiddler]

35. So basically...

you're angry because you're not being published on Truthout.

Sorry.

Whatever the name, Truthout as a site largely of opinion writng has no more obligation to out "all truth" than the Times has to say everything about the times.

Give it up, already. You can put up your own site and see if you can't build it up to as many hits as TO. Meanwhile, nuff said.

[bigtree]

43. It's sad that I can't make my point without you attacking my motives.

I don't believe I have submitted anything substantial to Truthout. Don't know if I will. It's a big world. I appreciate that you are in it. thanks for responding.

[mzmolly]

48. So should they post articles from Ann Coulter to 'balance' things out?

:shrug:

[Scott Lee]

49. Krugman was right for once

Hey, color me shocked.

Oh, I'm sorry.....perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "color". I am in no way endorsing the confederate flag. Please do not accuse me of "flip-flopping" on the issue, too.