Dean sure has a way of exploiting sick people - TNR report card

[Bombtrack]

http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=1007

INSIDER POLITICS
by Adam B. Kushner

Candidate: Howard Dean
Category: Intellectual Honesty
Grade: F

<snip>

But he sure has a way of exploiting them. The most recent example ( http://www.primarymonitor.com/news/stories2003/112403_healthdems_2003.shtml ) is a man Dean has cited, who apparently died when he couldn't afford to buy the medicine his doctor had prescribed for him. One catch: according to the Iowan who told Dean the story, it happened to his father in 1993, during the Clinton administration. Not that it was Clinton's fault--that was before the collapse of Hillary's health care task force--but it certainly isn't Bush's (at least not this Bush). At any rate, this isn't the first time Dean has knowingly exploited a suffering-patient story for political gain, despite a few inconvenient facts. Dean told a furious NARAL Pro-Choice America audience:


"" As many of you know, I'm a doctor. I'm an internist, and I take care of all ages, pretty much five to 105. And one time I was sitting in my office--and it was not unusual for young kids to come and talk to me because I knew the whole family--and one time a young lady came into my office who was twelve years old and she thought she might be pregnant. And we did the tests and did the exam and she was pregnant. She didn't know what to do. And after I had talked to her for a while I came to the conclusion that the likely father of her child was her own father ... You explain that to the American people who think that parental notification is a good idea ... I will veto parental notification! ""

Later, when pressed, Dean told Jake Tapper of Salon that he knew several years ago that his "conclusion" was wrong: "All I'm going to tell you is that her father was not the father of her child, it was more complicated than that. But it was adjudicated and someone was severely punished." So why would he omit that? Certainly his justification for opposing parental notification is stronger if he has personal experiences to inform his politics. But he twisted convenient stories to give his ideas a human face, one that audiences can't refuse. For a candidate who's not a Washington insider, Dean's learning the tactics pretty quickly.

[MercutioATC]

1. Yawn...

Gee, more TNR "report cards"...well, I WAS running low on TP..

[Bombtrack]

2. I you going to wipe your ass with your computer moniter?

or a Deanie could adress the content of the article and admit for once that Dean did somthing wrong

[Rose Siding]

4. He didn't do anything wrong

The story is an indictment on the health care system. It wasn't sold as anything other than that. It is shocking that it happens in our country- now or many years ago. Has the RX plan improved since the time the man died? NO. So the situation must continue to be condemned.

Should every anecdote told by every candidate be dated? Must all possible sides of every issue discussed be covered every time the issue is mentioned? It's ridiculous. Dean speaks conversationally, as if to another adult. Get used to it.

[Scott Lee]

3. In a rush to smear Dean, you smeared yourself....

First, let's look at this comment from a Dean speech:

"one time I was sitting in my office--and it was not unusual for young kids to come and talk to me because I knew the whole family--and one time a young lady came into my office who was twelve years old and she thought she might be pregnant. And we did the tests and did the exam and she was pregnant. She didn't know what to do. And after I had talked to her for a while I came to the conclusion that the likely father of her child was her own father ... You explain that to the American people who think that parental notification is a good idea ... I will veto parental notification! "

Now let's look at this attempt to make Dean's statement out to be a lie:

"Later, when pressed, Dean told Jake Tapper of Salon that he knew several years ago that his "conclusion" was wrong: "All I'm going to tell you is that her father was not the father of her child, it was more complicated than that. But it was adjudicated and someone was severely punished."

Do you see the problem? Mr. Kushner attempts to purposely confuse an ambiguity in timeline to create a Dean "lie". When did Howard Dean, in the first passage from his speech, say that he "knew" while meeting with this girl that her father was not the father of her child? In fact, Gov. Dean says he knew "several years ago" that the girls father was not the culprit. Isn't it possible that he came to this conclusion AFTER the meeting with the girl in his office?

Isn't it possible, in fact probable, that Gov. Dean changed his conclusion based on later information? Why yes. Yes it is!

Dean Haters: Try not to spin or manufacture "lies" for Howard Dean. It makes you look stupid and gets the good Doctor more, not less, support. And I know you don't want that.

[WRPendleton]

5. Kushner's point

I think Kushner's point was that it was intellectually dishonest to recite that anecdote as a reason for being against parental notification without providing the relevant fact that the father of the girl was not in fact the father of the child. Someone in the audience would have no reason to believe that Dean would bring up this anecdote if that were the case. Why do you suppose Dean left that out and only clarified after he was directly questioned by Tapper? I might agree with Dean's premise, but when one uses emotional anecdotes to bolster an opinion, it seems fair to expect that the entire situation will be explained. Couldn't Dean have simply stated that he's against such a notification because there could be situations where children may be impregnated by their own parents instead of misrepresenting (by omitting facts)a situation? If you argue that anecdotes are more powerful than abstractions, then that only seems to make the case stronger that Dean's knowledge of the situation should be be more forthright.

[mzmolly]

6. Yea and John Edwards gets an F on foreign policy....

SHAME ON JOHN
by Joshua Kurlantzick

Candidate: John Edwards
Category: Foreign Policy
Grade: F

On Tuesday, The New York Times reported, John Edwards announced he would oppose the bill that would provide for the reconstruction of Iraq. Though Edwards claimed that he was doing so in order to "stand up to him"--George Bush--and force the reconstruction to be carried out in a more orderly manner, he offered no major alternatives to the president's plan.

Edwards supported the war, which, at the time, he apparently viewed as a wise and just cause. Even if he has developed concerns--as many at TNR have--about the way the war was sold to the public, that is no excuse for not supporting the reconstruction of the country, even if the president's plan isn't perfect. And if Edwards believes that the White House's reconstruction plan is disorganized, too slanted to certain American corporations, or otherwise objectionable, he should specifically cite his problems with the plan and come up with alternatives.

Instead, Edwards appears to be giving in to polls showing that many primary voters want to be tossed the red meat of antiwar sentiment, putting him in the same league with old school conservatives who simply oppose all foreign aid. Shame.

http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=858

[newyawker99]

7. I am locking this thread.

It is flamebait.


NYer99
DU Moderator