From the drooling ninnies at the NY Times:
Let’s hope that this week will mark both the beginning and the end of the use of Osama bin Laden as a prop in political campaign commercials. The current TV ad starring the most infamous face in terrorism is part of a “stop Howard Dean” movement from his fellow Democrats. Perhaps the true originators
john young
1. I don’t see why the NYTimes editorial board would think any TV ads would be legitimate; wouldn’t it be better if all information flowed through the Times?
2. I decided there was nothing to be learned, other than how to write smarmy, in reading newspapers’ in-house editorial pages. Even lowly letters to the editor have fresher information.
3. You didn’t key into the flagrant erudition of referring to “Grand Guignol” further down in the same editorial. What the heck is Grand Guignol? Who that knows Grand Guignol needs their opinions pre-digested by NYTimes editorials?
4. Cheers!
cameron
I really hope, for the democrats sake, that Dean does not get the nomination.(not for the reasons instantly going thru every righties head right now)
If Dean does get the nomination, the dems have shot off their head to spite their foot. They should not be saying (paraphrasing) “Dean can not beat Bush. Dean is worse than Bush.”, They should be saying “I (insert canidate) am better than Dean”. They should be selling themselves on why they are the best choice, not on why the other guy doesn’t stand a chance if picked(mostly Dean).
Personally, I do think Dean is the best chance for the dems. I only really see 2 other canidates giving him a run for his money, Gephardt and Kerry, and they, to me, are the democratic equivilant of Bob Dole. And we all know how Bob Dole did.
I can just see, if/when Dean gets the nomination, the Bush team running ads with the quotes you are now seeing from the other dem canidates(not to mention the Kopple debate hand raising fiasco, which was handled so wrong by everyone on that panel, except Dean). They will have done Bush’s work for him.
Stupid, stupid democrats.
AnswertheQuestion
Can someone link me to the NYT editorial condemning the NAACP ad accusing GWB of being responsible for the dragging death of James Byrd?
Andrew Lazarus
Well, at the risk of repeating myself, to my mind the problems with the ad were (1) its anonymity, although that didn’t last long and (2) I don’t think scorched-earth tactics are smart PRIMARY tactics, and especially foolish from underdogs. I can understand go-for-broke in a general election, but these ads seem more to threaten “If I can’t get it, it will be worthless to Dean” than anything else.
If this ad had been run by a pro-Bush group whose background was well-known, I wouldn’t have much to say about it, except that I didn’t agree at all. Instead, it’s Exhibit A in how politically maladroit “old labor” has become, which is really too bad.
Kimmitt
“the idea of Howard Dean letting our policy be run by Kofi Annan ad his ilk scares the shit out of me.”
It would scare the shit out of me, too, if I lived in Bizarro World.
GFW
“the idea of Howard Dean letting our policy be run by Kofi Annan ad his ilk scares the shit out of me.”
If that’s your understanding of Dean’s foreign policy positions, you’re not a very educated voter.
John Cole
Please- I have read Dean’s website numerous times, read his sepeeches, and I know who his advisors are- I know what the hell I am talking about.
This seething arrogance and alarming condescension that courses through ther veins of the Democratic party is going to be a large part of your next defeat.
Dana
This seething arrogance and alarming condescension that courses through ther veins of the Democratic party is going to be a large part of your next defeat.
Preach it brother! Dean has already made it clear that he would have supported the war in Iraq, if only the UN had gone along with it. The Kofi Annan (though I would toss in Chirac and Schroder) conclusion isn’t a far leap.
scott h.
No, not if the UN had “gone along with it”. He said recently that he would have supported the war if “the United Nations [had] given us permission”. The Kofi Annan conclusion isn’t a leap, it’s not even a hop.
Kimmitt
Cite. Now.
scott h.
You’re quite right, I should’ve included a link. He made the remark in the Q&A at his Monday speech. You can go here and click on the audio link for the Q&A. He makes the comment in the answer to the second question. (Maybe 2 mins. into the audio, tops.)
scott h.
Kimmitt
Yes, if the United Nations had come to us and asked us to intervene in Iraq, we would have gone in. How is this relevant? If the United Nations came to us now and asked us to intervene in the Sudan, wouldn’t we take that request seriously? It has nothing to do with requiring UN imprimatur for defending the US and everything to do with honoring the requirements of world citizenship.
Ah, forget it. The quote was clear, and you chose to pull it out of context and distort it. What’s the point of even having the conversation with someone who is so intent on winning that his opponent’s actual positions aren’t relevant?
Dean
Kimmitt:
No.
Put it this way:
If the UN came to us now, and asked us to intervene on the West Bank, would we take that request seriously?
Which begs the question: Who is the UN to “give permission”? From where does it derive its authority?
And, something that liberal defenders of Dean rarely answer: WHAT was the basis for intervention in Kosovo, since the UN did NOT give permission there?
Kimmitt
“If the UN came to us now, and asked us to intervene on the West Bank, would we take that request seriously?”
Of course we would, especially since we would have had veto power over the request in the first place.
“WHAT was the basis for intervention in Kosovo, since the UN did NOT give permission there?”
Neither I nor Dean stated that UN “permission” was a requirement for action, only that if the UN were to make a request, he would likely respond, especially if its request dovetailed with our policy goals in a general sense.
scott h.
Usually when you pull something out of context, it changes the meaning significantly. I haven’t done that. I’d say his comment was a gaffe, maybe even a slip of the tongue if I want to be generous, but it certainly was not out of context, no more than Trent Lott’s statement was taken out of context.
As to the argument that we should respond to UN requests, sure, we should take those seriously. But it isn’t a terribly good argument against “letting our policy be run by Kofi Annan and his ilk”, is it?
Kimmitt
You changed the comment from:
“If the UN had asked us to invade Iraq, I’d have invaded Iraq as President,”
to:
“We must ask the UN if we want to do anything internationally.”
The first is pretty clear — if there is a worldwide consensus that the US should do something, and we’re part of that consensus, then we should go do it. The second is absurdity; the UN did not sanction the US involvement in Afghanistan, and Gov. Dean supported it at the time and still supports it.
scott h.
I don’t think I explained myself too well, and I’m sorry.
Dean made a gaffe, he phrased it poorly, and I’m making snarky comments about it. He made a “Deanism” instead of a “Bushism”. He really shouldn’t have used the word “permission”. That’s a total red flag to the “scares the shit out of me” crowd. Hell, it seems you had a waaaayyy more visceral reaction to it than I did. I really didn’t think it was a big deal, and didn’t expect such a big reaction. I certainly didn’t read it as some sort of proclamation of official Dean policy, or him saying that UN permission is required for everything. Of course, that’s an absurdity. But I was a little irritated to hear him say that, like the UN orders the US around. And as far as “Dean letting our policy be run by Kofi” goes, it’s not reassuring at all. Moments before he made the “permission” comment he described Iraq as a UN problem that the UN should’ve dealt with. Then the “permission” comment reinforces it (either way: Hey, let’s just wait for the UN to come to us and tell us what to do.)
scott h.
I didn’t change the comment, Dean made a mistake. I’m sure he meant to say “had asked us”, but he didn’t, he said “given us permission”, which has a completely different meaning. He screwed up, and I don’t think there’s anything fundamentally dishonest about mocking him for it. (Petty, juvenile, probably. But not dishonest.)
Hipocrite
Shorter scott h. on scott h.
“I’m petty and juvenile, and so is John Cole.”
Jeremy Denk
The suggestion that Dean would allow American foreign policy to be “run by Kofi Annan” is completely idiotic, and completely out of touch with Dean’s stated ideas. Did anyone here bother to listen to Dean speak about foreign policy for any length of time?
I have no patience with this kind of right-wing reduction (Dean might consider the UN’s opinion, therefore he is the slave of the UN) which eliminates useful discussion, and makes the political world just a big “us-them.” Emphasis on “us.” The use of Osama Bin Laden’s face in scare ads is truly despicable; all Americans are equally afraid of Osama, yet only the most cynical are willing to exploit this fear for personal, political gain.