Reply
Mon 5 Jan, 2004 02:15 am
"a gaff in Washington is when you tell the truth and the Washington establishment thinks you shouldn't have. " - Dean
Dean himself has admitted that he shoots from the hip. Those who've seen him speak, heard his statements know that he says exactly what he believes and doesn't try to win over voters by promising them what he can't deliver or stating what he doesn't believe in order to sugarcoat his campaign. This draws a lot of criticism from Republican and Democrat politicians alike and it also gives off a combative persona.
One statement he's made drawing a great deal of criticism from both sides is that he wishes to repeal bush's tax cuts in their entirity stating that there is no way we can afford all the neccesary spending increases in state and local funding to support our infrastructure and balance the budget without repealing the tax cuts. He claims that he's not the typical Washington politician who promises them everything and then backs down on his words later. And this notion that he's going to raise taxes makes him unpopular. Realistically, tax cuts upon middle income families are very popular and their repeal will not pass through both congress and the house. So this seems to be a matter a principle (Dean's desire to say what he supports) rather than a practical one (what Dean can realistically achieve as president). Do you like the fact that he is taking an unpopular side that will cost him voters in order to stand up for what he truly believes eventhough it seems as though no good can come off it?
My question is, how do you think this plays on the american people? Do you think that the general population really is sick of washington politicians, saying things they don't mean, promising things they can't deliver on, saying whatever is needed in order to win over voters? Do you think the reason so many people seem to respond so positively to Dean is because they like his honesty and upfrontness?
Do you think voters will look past Dean's policies that they disagree with, or assume that his opponents would do the same though they don't agree with it, simply because they know that he does believe in and thus will deliver on the promises made that they do agree with?
Or is this attitude turning off voters? Is it doing him more harm than good? Do americans prefer an honest candidate or one that promises them things the voters want though they don't intend to follow through on them.
Speaking openly (or at least appearing to) got the weasel in chief elected, so I don't see how it can hurt Dean.
but now we know that W was lying through his teeth all along. i somehow get the feeling that dean however isn't.
Dean is very close to nailing down my whole-hearted support.
I care very much that this election is about real issues. I don't want another Gore candidate. I don't think I would ever vote for Lieberman et al. -- I will probably go to a third party if this happens.
Dean represents my perspective on the issues that I find very important. I believe that with this issues - in opposition to Bush - Dean can win the elections by provided a stark, clear choice.
In my opinion, the worst thing for the country is to have a conservative democrat who will continue many of Bush's policies under a Democratic banner.
I would prefer four more years of Bush to this. At least then Bush would take credit for the disastrous policies that he has started.
I truly cannot see, considering the public speaking record of the current imbecile in the White House...how gaffs can possibly be an issue......
ebrown_p wrote:Dean is very close to nailing down my whole-hearted support.
I care very much that this election is about real issues. I don't want another Gore candidate. I don't think I would ever vote for Lieberman et al. -- I will probably go to a third party if this happens.
Dean represents my perspective on the issues that I find very important. I believe that with this issues - in opposition to Bush - Dean can win the elections by provided a stark, clear choice.
In my opinion, the worst thing for the country is to have a conservative democrat who will continue many of Bush's policies under a Democratic banner.
I would prefer four more years of Bush to this. At least then Bush would take credit for the disastrous policies that he has started.
well put, and I hope you're right.....
Beyond the rhetoric, I don't see how Dean is not a moderate or even conservative Democrat. He's for a total repeal of the Bush tax cut with no alternative, he's healthcare proposal is very moderate, his stance on what to do in Iraq is identical to all the other frontrunners (besides Lieberman), his foreign policy is no different, and he's for gay civil unions but against gay marriage just like the other Democratic frontrunners.
I agree that if Lieberman were to be the nominee, I would vote independent but Clark would just as easily get my vote as Dean would.
another issue, read this short article...
http://desmoinesregister.com/opinion/stories/c2125555/23176783.html
do you think dean should unseal his records based on this info. just how damaging do you think the records he's hiding really are.
Re: Dean's Gaffs: Good or Bad?
Centroles wrote: My question is, how do you think this plays on the american people? Do you think that the general population really is sick of washington politicians, saying things they don't mean, promising things they can't deliver on, saying whatever is needed in order to win over voters? Do you think the reason so many people seem to respond so positively to Dean is because they like his honesty and upfrontness?
I doubt it has any major effect one way or the other. The general population may be disgusted with Washington politicans but they are also just as disgusted with politicans in general. Pretty much every realizes that a politician is a politician and they all lie to get elected (Dean included).
People respond positively to Dean for the same reason they responded to Perrot, McCain, Nader, etc.. He's willing to upset the apple cart.
Re: Dean's Gaffs: Good or Bad?
fishin' wrote:
People respond positively to Dean for the same reason they responded to Perrot, McCain, Nader, etc.. He's willing to upset the apple cart.
I would correct you as follows...
"Poeple respond positively to Dean for the same reason the responded to Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton etc..." He's willing to upset the apple cart."
Dean is well on his way to winning the Democratic nomination. Comparing him to obscure third party candidates of the past is an unfounded slight of the Dean candidacy.
Re: Dean's Gaffs: Good or Bad?
ebrown_p wrote: Dean is well on his way to winning the Democratic nomination. Comparing him to obscure third party candidates of the past is an unfounded slight of the Dean candidacy.
According to today's CNN/Gallup poll Dean and Clark are neck-and-neck (within the margin of error) amongst Democrats so declaring Dean the winner at this point is a bit premature.
I'd also wager that more people had heard of Perrot, McCain and Nader well before they ran for office than the number that had heard of Dean. Dean came out of nowhere and was about as obscure as they get.
Few heard of Clinton before he ran.
The CNN/Gallop poll was done with a fairly small pool of 418 registered Democrats and Democratic-leaners nation-wide. Dean is still WAY ahead of Clark in New Hampshire polls even though the trend is moving in favor of Clark. And Clark isn't even running in Iowa.
The best case scenerio for Clark:
Gephardt wins in Iowa, Clark finishes second behind Dean in New Hampshire and Clark's upward trend continues into the February primaries. Poor early finishes by Kerry and Lieberman would also help Clark while a better-than-expected finish by Kucinich would hurt Dean.
Most of deans so called gaffs have been pointed out by republican consertative politicians with an axe to grind. I dont hear them gripeing about Bushes gaffs. Of course when you refuse to talk unless your reading from a 4 by 5 inch card its hard to make a gaff. But Bush still manages to do it.
Clark may look good on paper, but have you seen the man talk. It seems as though he has no personal knowledge or understanding of domestic policy, just what his advisors spoon feed him. In that regard, he reminds me of Bush and that makes me uneasy.
He gets on to rants about the army regardless of what the question is. When Dean speaks, anyone can see that he knows what he's talking about. He has a brilliant understanding of and insight into domestic policy. I think this will be far more instrumental in him being able to beat Bush than Clark's credentials.
In a perfect world, Dean would have Clark's credentials. But in the current scenario, I would gladly take someone who knows how to mold this country into a better one.
rabel22 wrote:Most of deans so called gaffs have been pointed out by republican consertative politicians with an axe to grind. I dont hear them gripeing about Bushes gaffs. Of course when you refuse to talk unless your reading from a 4 by 5 inch card its hard to make a gaff. But Bush still manages to do it.
The Bush bashers are hardly in any position to talk about others with an axe to grind.
We certainly have an axe to grind. In fact we've got a few...
Daily American casualties, record deficits, threats to civil liberties, underfunded mandates for education, tax cuts for the wealthy, a controversial medicare plan that angers seniors, controversial environmental policies ...
Bush is very beatable because most of us have an axe to grind with him.
Dean has the message to beat him.
I dont understand your post. You are saying that turnabout isent fair play. The conseratives are continously attacking anyone who disagrees with them by useing out and out fabricationes and trying to make any disagreement tatamount to being unamerican. The very term Bush Basher is used by conseratives to try to undercut discussion they dont care to hear. Too bad. Ill continue to Bash Bush untill im convinced he is trying to help all americanes instead of his rich friends.
Dean's strong points:
-Wants to raise taxes on every single living American who actually pays taxes.
-Can't say that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 .. but can say that Bush may have known about it beforehand.
-Tells us how happy he would be to to use our military to defend our interests ... but only if the United Nations give him "permission."
-Has a campaign driven by a hoard of know-it-all, bulletproof young adults who know the ins and outs of the Internet, but who couldn't write a cogent paragraph on economic policy if their tongue piercings depended on it.
-Wants Osama bin Laden tried in an international court for attacking Americans on their own soil.
-Shares his amazement with the rest of us that people in the South actually practice their religion openly.
rabel22 wrote:I dont understand your post. You are saying that turnabout isent fair play.
Nope. I'm saying the exact opposite. If people piss and moan about Bush then they don't really have a leg to stand on when they complain about people taking shots at any other candidate.
I think the more serious gaffs of Dean is his changing his statement on different issues. It reminds me of what happened to Lieberman during the 2000 campaign when he changed his positions of important issues he thought would win more votes. I call it "wishy washy." Pretty soon, you don't know where they stand on the issues.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace