Howard Dean: "Stop trying to scare people in order to win elections"

[Human Torch]

How to Best Fight Terror and Keep Americans Safe
Saturday, August 12, 2006
By Bill O'Reilly

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208063,00.html

Indeed, the right wing editorial page at The Wall Street Journal said this, "The London terror plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications. Which leads us to wonder if Scotland Yard would have succeeded if the ACLU or The New York Times had first learned the details of such surveillance programs." That sarcastic reference is, of course, about The Times exposing an entirely legal financial terror monitoring program the Bush administration had in place. That controversial decision by The Times has badly damaged the paper in the court of public opinion. Because of things like that, the left is with a decision. Either change its policies on terror or go on the attack against the Bush administration. Guess what DNC Chair Howard Dean has decided to do?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOWARD DEAN, DNC CHAIRMAN: The president, his team out there, Karl Rove and all those folks, they're trying to scare people again. They're trying -- you know, you hear what they said about Ned Lamont's primary win? Oh, well, that's a good thing for Al Qaeda. That's what Dick Cheney said. I'll tell you what the best recruiting tool for Al Qaeda has been, and you know who that is. If you want a real change in this country, we have to stop trying to scare people in order to win elections.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Now there is no question that Iraq remains the weakest part of the Bush anti-terror strategy, leaving Americans with the same old question, which party will protect us best against the Islamic fascists?

[dolstein]

1. Uh, Howard . . .

The Republicans aren't going to stop because you ask them to. They're only going to stop when this tactic doesn't work. And this tactic is going to work as long as the American public are skittish about trusting Democrats with their own security. Having you out front and center is unlikely to provide much reassurance to these people. Far better to have Wes Clark or Jim Webb become the face of the Democratic Party on national security issues.

[ScreamingMeemie]

3. Uhhh, Howard...

Thanks for saying what so many can't, won't or are too frightened to say.

[eridani]

5. Right. Trust the people who allowed 9/11 to happen

--with our security. Same reason they allowed NOLA to drown--they just can't be bothered to pay attention.

[KansDem]

66. Not to mention a President whose family are business partners...

...with the Saudis, who issued 15 passports to 19 of the 9/11 attackers...

Not to mention an administration who wanted to turn over control of several of our ports to the UAE, who issued two passports to 15 of the 9/11 attackers...

As you said, "they just can't be bothered to pay attention."

[madfloridian]

6. That is just baloney. He has a right to speak out when he wants.

Boy, some folks here are very upset lately.

Go Howard, speak out loud and clear.

It does NOT take a military person to speak out on propaganda.

[davidwparker]

22. No, but it may take one to have soccer moms to vote for someone other

than the false-bravo found in the Republican party. I think that's all the poster was saying.

[madfloridian]

23. I was a soccer mom, and all that stuff..

even with grandkid...and I love to hear Howard Dean speak. I think he has the ability to figure out things like that...and I don't think we have to have military speaking for us.

I think it hurts our cause to have people saying he does not have credibility. I think it is done on purpose to make the ones in the military appear to be stronger, when it is a totally false premise.

[davidwparker]

25. They are no longer military when they retire. And, I'm a Dean fan so

I have no problem with him. Another reason for having someone with a military background is to get the military back in order after this group has wrecked it. I feel we have to nominate those who are real democrats with a background that will counter the attacks that the repubs make. Weak on defense (I disagree) is one weak point, so find a true dem with a military background. Kerry had one, but he chose to ignore attacks.

[madfloridian]

36. "real democrats"? with a "background"? Now I really disagree.

Ok, now I really disagree. Kerry is a very "real" Demorat. He was one for far far far longer than Wesley Clark.

Howard Dean was a "real" governor of a "real" state for 11 years.

Now that is just getting really insulting to Democrats.

[davidwparker]

46. Real Dem/Real Dem -> Inquiring minds want to know.

Wesley Clark has indicated that he has been a Democrat. When he was in the military, he was necessarily a-political. His position are that of a Democrat.

The Howard Dean comment about a real governor of a real state ... I don't get your objection to that based off of what I've written in this thread, so I'll just consider that you've misread something.

I don't see where there is anything insulting unless your a Kerry supporter and do not like that I left him off the list. I could update it to clarify:

Real Democrat with backbone / Real Democrat with backbone 2008 (my list)

Kerry has done nothing after running an extremely poor campaign and then walking away while Blacks were disenfranchised again to ever get on my list. The last Black voter was standing in line until 1-2am to vote. Kerry was abandoning ship 6 hours later. What a slap in the face.

[karynnj]

54. Kerry did not run an extremely poor campaign

He won all three debates - and a very biased media even conceded that.

He broke records on the size of his rallies - some were on CSPAN and he was great. If the MSM had played excerpts of the rallies in their coverage as they did in all prior elections - his message would have gotten through. I have seen Kerry speak and he is a powerful, charismatic leader.

As to the consession - the numbers weren't there and still aren't. As to the disenfrancisement, Kerry has spoke about voter suppression and has been a co-sponsor on legislation. YOU CAN"T COUNT VOTES NOT CAST. The RFKjr analysis included these "not cast votes". His analysis does prove that without suppression Kerry would have won. But, even this analysis wouldn't have been enough to change the electors even if it were available in Dec 2004.

As to fighting the SBVT - he did. The media chose to continue to give the liars time - though they knew the official record backed Kerry, the Nixon tapes confirmed they investigated him and he was squeaky clean and a war hero and John Warner, the Vietnam era Secretary of the Navy in 2004 confirmed that he looked into Kerry's medals and he earned them. Compare this to firing 5 well respected reporters over the TANG story where many parts had multiple sources and where the problem was that some documents could not be authenticated BUT THEIR CONTENT WAS VERIFIRED by both a superior and the secretary of the man alleged to write it.

Can you verify your grade in college Calculus? If your boss said someone claimed he went to school with you and said he knows you flunked the tests called him and he wanted you to prove THAT YOUR TRANSCRIPT was accurate, how would you do it? Kerry pointed to the official record (transcript) and his team got many people involved in the action to give their accounts - that backed Kerry. He proved many people claiming things weren't there, their own records disagreed and that they had previously said other things. How many lies did he need to point out?

[JNelson6563]

58. It's a shame they abandoned

so much of America during their brilliant and flawless campaign. Oy!

[karynnj]

59. In a normal election, you might have been correct

With the media handled as it was, the strategy made sense. The electoral college is how you win. There were many Blue or red states that will dependably vote their color in all but a landslide election. He concentrated on the states that could change and maximized his chances.?
Kerry had to assume he had the solid blue states and win enough weak blue and swing states to win. If the election was well run - the job of the states and the DNC - Kerry would be President as he would have won Ohio.

Kerry made multiple appearances every day in the General Election time - which swing state appearances would you have canceled to allow a campaign through the South? The choice of where to go wasn't caprious.

[JNelson6563]

60. Bullshit

Utter bullshit. You don't run for President of 50 states and try to win only 17.

And yeah, if the DNC and the Kerry campaign hadn't gone at it with the losing DLC strategy, it coulda been better. Much was left to Bush/Cheney and they worked it, hard.

Until we can see our own faults we won't correct them. Sorry to see your devotion blinding you.

Julie

[karynnj]

65. No, my background as a mathematician has more to do with it

Also, the number of states is a pretty bogus metric - winning California is far more important than Wyoming. The little states have too much weight as it is. (The House is roughly proportional, 2 + the House significantly represents the unpopulated states.

You didn't answer my question - how would you have changed the locations of Kerry's (his families, the Edwards, etc) appearances. The fact is that the states could be divided into three groups:
-Solid Democrat
-Solid Republican
and swing states

This is NOT a new thing the DLC came up with - read and of the "Making of the President" books. Starting with this, any campaign would look to see how to get the number of electors needed to win. Kerry did this and as everyone said it would - whoever won 2 of (Fl, PA, and Ohio) would have won.

I think you are speaking of the 50 state approach. That doesn't mean the Presidential candidate will spend a proportional amount of time in each. What it does mean is that Dean (and Kerry for that matter) realizes that the local party and grassroots need to be revived in all 50 states. That is one thing Kerry's PAC is working on and why he gave so much money to the DNC when Dean took over.) The local parties disintegrated in the 90s as little was done for them and because the % of people in Labor unions declined. If the Ohio party would have functioned even adequately, Kerry would be President.

Kerry (unofficially) became the standard bearer in April 2004 - starting then, he could not have fixed the election process and rebuilt the parties. These are issues that are (to some degree) being addressed now. Kerry in 2004 was trying to win over voters - in spite of the Republicans using the government (terror warnings) against him, using government money to covertly have "independent" reporters praise Bush's plans, a media that covered him VERY poorly and a smear campaign that the media played with even after it was proven that there were many lies.

I have no idea where you are coming from or who you support - but there is NO way that your comment was reasonable or sensible - the numbers are the numbers - had Ohio or Florida worked, Kerry would be President. With decent campaign coverage, he would likely have been viable in some other states and some swing states would have been more firmly in his corner - giving him time to visit states like VA and MO that could have been swung. (Although that would be a case of going after a landslide.)

Just tell me how you would have allocated resources - and which states it would have added.

[davidwparker]

61. Reality is perception.

I will agree that Kerry won the debates, he really did deserve the metals, he did a great thing protesting the Viet-nam war -- he earned whatever view he had of it when he left. He's done very good things and I voted for him.

But,

after he was nominated, you didn't hear much from him. Part of that was medical. When he was attacked on his record, he did not defend it. He chose to take the high road with a bunch of rats. The problems that caused was the perception of Kerry, not the reality. Contrast that with our nominee Jim Webb. When Allen's campaign started the swiftboating (1) he immediately shot back with his "guys in glass dude ranches shouldn't cast stones." I don't hear Webb being attacked that way today.

Kerry had a great record and * was a deserter (AWOL over 30 days). Kerry volunteered; * deserted the "champagne division." Nothing was made of this by Kerry. Kerry (officially) lost to the worst president in our history. You can believe what you wish. I believe with all of the negatives of this administration, it shouldn't have been close enough to steal.

Kerry needed to take a wait and see stance on whether to concede. Then join the Greens and Libertarians in the lawsuit. That would have kept it in the press and under scrutiny. His absence was deafening. I don't even buy this behind the scenes efforts. He should have been front and center.

Kerry had a lot going for him and blew it. Please don't confuse large crowds and largest amount of money raised for Kerry love. It was more Bush-hatred. Kerry was painted as weak and then whimpered away. That was the perception.

Perception is reality.

[madfloridian]

62. Look what you started by saying Kerry and Dean were not "real" dems.

That is what started this. You said that Clark was the only one who could speak on national security.

That is what I called you on, and you have not yet answered to that.

You are shifting the blame to Kerry instead of admitting he is just as qualified as Clark. And so is Howard Dean.

[davidwparker]

64. Not a problem here. I believe that I've answered you on Dean.

Check post #23 and #36 for Dean comments. Also, check my tag line.

I said Clark was the only one who could speak on nation security? I think you are confused again. Which post was that?

Finally, I'm not shifting blame to Kerry. Kerry gets all the blame for loosing to such a moron without any help from me. The proof of that will be when he runs again and gets no attention.

Been there. Done that.

[karynnj]

67. Maybe if your darling, Webb. would have defended Kerry

rather than lying about his protests it would have been better.

Kerry did fight back - there is a long thread in the resource forum. Webb incidentially had Kerry and his people backing him - he might not even have won the primary without Kerry's endorsement.

The MEDIA didn't cover Kerry's campaign. You didn't see it - because you, like most of the country, didn't go to CSPAN to see it. I remember campaigns since 1960 - and there was LESS coverage of Kerry than any other major party contender.

Look at the conventions - network TV covered THREE hours in total. Contrast this with NINE in 2000 and more in 1992. Kerry's three hours were his excellent acceptance speech, Edwards' speech and a short Hillary intro to Bill and Bill Clinton.

Look at the puff ball biographies. In every election, before the convention, each network always did a biography that built up even a mediocre politician. (They even did W in 2000!) PBS Front line had a Bush/Kerry biography with their parallel lifes. MSNBC had a Kerry piece Just on protesting the war (positive, but also the only controversial piece of the man's life) and CNN had a "fair and balanced" type piece.

Kerry's rallies were better and better through till November. His numbers were going up and there was excitement - if TV showed this the momentum would have been there.

Also as to the ABB nonsense - that is always the case. There were plenty of people who were very excited about Kerry - in spite of basically having seen only the convention and the 3 debates. I was against Bush before he was in office, so was I ABB? I took the time to read Kerry's books, look into his background and see who the impressive guy from 1971 had become and he was the candidate I wanted more than any in my life to win.

If you seriously think any of the people he EASILY beat in the primaries would have won given how things were covered, I suggest that you need to explain how this person would get coverage.

Kerry is a better man than your Reagan administration military man any day of the week.

[davidwparker]

47. one more thing ... the Kerry being a Dem longer than Clark bit sounds

like something Clark just commented on. During the 2004 Campaign, Joe Soreloserman was always doubting that Clark was a Dem. I guess Clark had the last word when he pointed out Joe Lieberman no longer is.

[madfloridian]

49. You implied Dean and Kerry not real Dems, not qualified to speak

on national security. Here are your words.

"I feel we have to nominate those who are real democrats with a background that will counter the attacks that the repubs make. Weak on defense (I disagree) is one weak point, so find a true dem with a military background."

They are both highly qualified, and this insistence that only a retired general can keep us safe is like overkill.

[davidwparker]

51. Oh, is that it. I meant going forward, not about 2004. In 2004, I was a

Dean supporter until his campaign was pushed over the cliff by media and fellow Democrats.

I'm thinking about 2008. The reason being is that the Republicans will continue to use defense as the weapon against us. If we get someone with a military background who beliefs in traditional Democratic issues, then the base gets a better candidate and the defense weapon that the Republicans use is taken away from them.

I think Clark is that person. Has anybody with his pedigree been on the cover of The Advocate? Any other Democrat?

Link -> http://www.advocate.com/toc_w_ektid907.asp

[madfloridian]

39. In fact you need to explain your "real" Democrats statement.

I am sure you did not really mean to imply that Kerry and Dean were not "real" Democrats.

[karynnj]

53. I agree - and am also a suburban mom

America has always had civilian leadership and it has worked well for a few centuries. The president does not need to have a military background. Unlike Bush, it would be nice if he a style of governing that made it normal for him to get and genuinely consider advice from the experts when needed.

The decision to go to war is a foreign policy decision, not a military decision. The military should be consulted on the feasibility, the likely cost in terms of lifes and money, and realistic views of how the war could play out.

Dean was a successful Governor for 12 years. In 2004, the good side to this was that he could point to things he did as an executive, his leadership skills could be seen and how he managed his staff and sought advice could be seen. The negative side is that he had no foreign policy expertise, other than what an intelligent person has following the news. This was really a mixed blessing - he did not have to vote on the IWR. I don't think it was experience or intelligence that eliminated Dean, but that he didn't have the personality that could deal with the toxic criticism that politics has now. From the very brief time he was exposed to it, I question whether Clark does either.

Kerry managed to keep his cool - and he did fight back. What has to be acknowledged is that the playing field was not even.

[OzarkDem]

45. Dean is sending the right message

Rapid response and calling the GOP on exploiting terror has to be done.

[madfloridian]

8. And I disagree with you on the face of national security.

I tried to question this statement, but never got an answer.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/29/112724/212

So I am not sure what advice is being given to our Senate Dems on the QT while something else is being said in public.

I am terrified we won't leave Iraq ever, I think that is the plan of the Dems as well, and it makes me sick inside.

[acmejack]

9. Thank you.

Militarism is NOT the answer! The National security face of our party does not need to be Generals and warhawks!

[madfloridian]

11. You are right, and thank you.

:hi:

[Mojorabbit]

13. I read your link

and it depresses me as well.

[madfloridian]

14. It needs to be explained.

And it won't be. And that is sad.

[dolstein]

15. Who would you prefer? Cindy Sheehan?

NT

[madfloridian]

17. What kind of question is that?

My only choices are a general or a former Reagan navy secretary or Cindy Sheehan, whom I very much admire but who makes no claim to being a poltician?

I have many other options. I think one thing is being said publicly to and by our Democrats, and another privately. And since it involves war and dying soldiers and civilians in a war we have already lost....then I want the truth.

[Child_Of_Isis]

12. Does it work?

I think if the American public is as fearful as some believe, they wouldn't stand in line for 2 hours to board a plane.

No one I know is afraid. They all scoff at the whole thing.

I think maybe the only one's this crap works on, is the ever fearful republican base.

[davidwparker]

21. As a Dean supporter, I whole-heartedly agree with that. Not only is

Clark from the military, he's also an Oxford grad ... same as Clinton. To not have Clark as #1 or #2 in 2008 is foolish. The Dems have a lot of talent in the party, too bad the grassroots gets undermined by the consultancy.

[madfloridian]

30. I disagree with that.

.

[madfloridian]

32. And what's more, I think it is rather insulting to say that....

any of our Democrats should not be able to talk about any subject. It does not take into consideration that all of them had advisors and have studied up.

It does not take into consideration that honesty and integrity and trust are equally as important when a Democrat speaks for us.

It would be insulting to Clark if I said he should not speak on the economy, as I am sure he has studied up that issue in preparation for his run.

I don't like when someeone thinks only military can speak about national security, or when someone says a leader should not speak out. There has been too much of that.

[Beetwasher]

40. He's Not Talking To Republicans, That Message is for VOTERS

And they need to hear it. They need to hear from EVERY Dem that Repubs are fear mongering scumbags. But you already knew that.

Poor you, your sleazy, piece of shit Lieberman got his comeuppance. Feeling a little crotchety, huh? :rofl:

[OzarkDem]

44. He's calling them out

and he's doing the right thing.

[Virginian]

48. Thanks for mentioning Jim Webb, but even he is being painted

as soft on terrorism by his opponent, George Allen.

He has said he is 100% for fighting terrorism and we need to bring the troops out of Iraq so that they can.

Of course he is spun to be soft on terrorism and doesn't support our troops and all the other memes the GOP uses against the Dems.

Webb wrote a public letter telling Allen that he didn't appreciate Allen's misrepresentation of (lying about) Webb's position on terrorism and Webb knows Allen knows where he stands because they had long discussions about it in 2002 before Iraq started.

[karynnj]

55. John Kerry would actually be better on terrorism than either

The method used by the British (tracking money/communications and using law enforcement, intelligence and international cooperation) that worked is what Kerry proposed in 2004 - and was ridiculed for. George Will on Stephanopolis' show pointed this out and read a Kerry debate answer from the primaries. In addition to Kerry's very real credendials, the fact that he was the 2004 alternative is significant.

Kerry investigated terrorism in the late 80s and the 90s. His book written in the 90s is still miles ahead of what others are saying. He was instrumental in closing BCCI which would have been the network used to transmit money - OBL had millions there.

By saying Clark or Webb, you fall in to the Republican trap of equating National Security to the Military. National Security includes the military - but it also includes things like port security - which Lautenberg and Kerry have spoken about since the mid 90s and terrorism.

It would be great to have both Kerry and Clark as spokesman.

[JNelson6563]

57. He's calling it like it is, blasting the propaganda

your pal Joe and his like minded friends have been using.

Not surprised to see you take issue with it. :boring:

[ScreamingMeemie]

2. ...and I think the majority of intelligent people are done being scared

in the least. Watching him (Mr. Bush) bounce up to the mike the morning after the airplane ruckus really did it for me. If our local elections are any indicator (the true Dem -one Dem was a Republican until he registered as Dem to run- won in a landslide last week), I think they've had their run. I'm not ready to hold my breath just yet, but I'm feeling better about the whole thing. Now, if we can all just hang on until then. :hi:

[madfloridian]

4. Here is more on that. He did a good job speaking out.

Surprised you are quoting Bill O'Reilly on this. I say good for Dean and good for Newsom.

http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_223214415.html

"And Dean used the occassion to hit recent Republican comments about terrorism.

Dean said, "The president and his team out there -- Karl Rove and all his folks -- they're tring to scare people again. You hear what they said about Ned Lamont's win: 'Oh, well, that's a good thing for al Qeada.' That's what Dick Cheney said. I'll tell you what the best recruiting tool for al Qaeda has been, and you know who that is."

And kudos to Gavin Newsom, who mentions terrorism and politics in the same sentence:

"Newsom said, "Before the last presidential election, there wasn't a week that went by when I didn't get a security briefing. Since the last presidential eleciton, I can't recall one specific incident where I've had a security briefing. Did the world change that dramatically after the last election? Or is there a tremendous amount of politics being played as it relates to terror threats when it's convenient?"

Here is my post on this:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/202

More is included in this part.

[otohara]

7. Best Recruitng Tool

excellent quote from Dean - thanks for posting

[Child_Of_Isis]

10. stop trying to scare people in order to win elections.

Now this is something the American people can sink their teeth into.

Short and sweet.

[dolstein]

16. Yeah, and "peace, love, dope" was a winning message in '72

NT

[madfloridian]

18. You really are angry.

You need to take a deep breath and calm down.

[mitchtv]

33. joe lost whaaaaaaaaaa!

he's on the attack in loads of threads.
Life is tough

[janx]

19. I fail to recognize the correlation . . . ?

What on earth are you talking about?

[madfloridian]

20. I don't think he is sure.

Hi janx, haven't seen you around in a while.

[janx]

24. Hi, MF!

Haven't been around much...things are busy and getting busier! :hi: I'm to leave for Alaska on Tuesday and was hoping to make it with just one carry-on duffle bag...silly me. :grr:

[madfloridian]

26. Oops. about that carry-on you planned on....things changed.

That is really going to inconvenience people. I hate flying anyway, and this gives a good excuse not to.

I posted this headline from our newspaper...they had the same article twice. BUT they used a real headline one time, and this propaganda headline another time...saying the security measures "comforted" passengers.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/201

[janx]

28. Comforted?!

I'd be willing to leave a few things at home if it meant I could forego checking in the duffle bag, but where I'm going, there aren't too many stores...!

I have to change planes three times--the last to a little puddle-jumper. With the increase in checked-in luggage, will mine get lost? :grr:

[madfloridian]

29. I thought that would get your attention.

That was one of the most manipulative headlines I have ever seen.

I do not envy anyone having to fly right now. I have a friend who has been traveling overseas, heading for home...and her emails are just showing so much upset at long it might take. She is dehydrated from the intense heat, and having trouble figuring if she can take water, get water, what the regulations are.

[janx]

31. FEAR FEAR FEAR

Will it never end?

[bettyellen]

37. ??? wtf was that? how does one quote have to do with another at all?

you need to chill and reread the hatred- toward dems you are spouting here.
and think on it. maybe this ain;t the right place for you.

[karynnj]

56. That was NOT McGovern's platform

[Cha]

63. Fucking lieberman lost

with his big bad scare tactics in Connecticut. They just didn't listen to that whiney little bastid..go figure.

[LWolf]

27. Say it again.

And again.

:thumbsup:

[madfloridian]

34. Good job on MTP, Howard Dean.

Good clear straight talk.

[spooky3]

35. agreed--it's on here now and he's doing exactly as he should.

[Cassandra]

38. He said they were whining.

That made me smile.

[rosesaylavee]

41. Howard Dean ROCKS

I loved him on Press the Meat this morning...

And let's hear it for David Gregory replacing Timmie permanently!

:kick:

[jbfam4]

42. David Gregory replacing Timmie permanently

this would get my vote too....Excellent job, Gregory.

[gully]

43. "which party will protect us best against the Islamic fascists?" The

Party that did so in the 1990's. The Party that was not in office on 9/11, that's the Party that will best "protect us."

[windbreeze]

50. Thanx Howard...about damn time someone said it like it is...!! n/t

[inthebrain]

52. Republicans are Nationalists

It's really that simple. I have never seen a political party run on Nationalism and not fuck up whatever country they are in. Whether it be left wing or right wing.

Franco

Stalin

Hitler

Mussoulini

and the American right wing.

We don't have to be nationalistic to beat them. Just point out all the failures of Nationalists here and abroad. They always have an agenda that runs agains the will of the people.