Burnt Orange Report

No apologies necessary, Byron.

I agree with you 100 percent. The people are entitled to a good quality race and weaknesses ought to be brought up intelligently and developed.

There are some, for example, who have argued that Entergy or Enron (I can't recall, maybe it was both) made a deal with the state of Vermont while Dean was in office that was later disadvantageous.

It's an ugly issue, but it's one worth exploring, because it calls into question real issues of judgement.

Another issue worth explaining, that never got developed, is Dean's tax plan.

Even this group had a NAFTA ad. While I personally tend to agree more with Lieberman on NAFTA than I do with Gephardt, I think it's clear tha Dean (kinda sorta) flip-flopped on trade.

I still support Dean despite knowing the "facts" about these three controversies. But I think it would persuade some people not to. These are three issues that are legitimate if they're brought up respectfully. They are important issues of character and judgement. All candidates should be vetted for that.

The Osama ad is just nonsense, and does nobody any good - except, of course, for the Republicans.

As Clark said (best line of the campaign), "we're not attacking George Bush for attacking the terrorists; we're attacking him for NOT attacking the terrorists." This undermines that message, which has to be repeated over and over again.

These people, whoever they are, are "Objectively Pro-Bush."

Here's what I posted under the Dean for America thread ---

Here's my letter to info@progressivevalues.com

To whom it may concern:

I have read about the ad your group is planning to run against Howard Dean.

It is neither fair nor accurate. First because it implies that Bush is a competent leader, which he is not. Second because it implies that Dean does not know what he is doing, which is a falsehood. He has visited more foreign countries than Bush had when he ran for president. Moreover, the support that Dean has received from numerous military officers (NOT to mention Vice President Al Gore, who is one of our country's most experienced foreign policy experts!) clearly illustrates to the well-informed person how damnable this ad is.

It is unfortunate that other Democrats would stoop to manipulating people based on fear and ignorance.

You should be ashamed.

I repeat, ASHAMED!

As for me, my resolve to see Dean elected has increased ten-fold this evening.

Please reconsider,

Jim Dallas
Austin, TX

------

Finally, I'd note that the Dean for America people have put up "the bat" again for a response ad.

To contribute go here -- http://www.deanforamerica.com/blogcontribute

I'd also suggest putting in some money for the "Dean for Texas" bus trip to Iowa next month. Go bug Glen Maxey about it (I'll post on it tomorrow).

Here is the email I sent to these jokers:

Cowards,

If you had any balls you would not hide behind a wall of secrecy of this hokey sounding sham group you set up, and you would openly proclaim yourselves as the Kerry & Gephardt sympathizers that you are.

Not to worry, Howard Dean is ten times the man that you guys are, and when he is our nominee he will forgive you. Besides, considering that your guys will not make it past IA & NH, you will have plenty of time to reflect on what you have done and hopefully forgive yourselves.

By the way, your stunt is backfiring, as Dean supporters are energized more than ever by these sick ads.

A Loyal Democrat

The Osama ad is typically Republican. It smacks of Karl Rove and the RNC. It may even be a Watergate style "dirty trick" to have you think it originated with Kerry or some other Democrat.
The Republicans are now thinking of Dean as a wildcard rather than a sure loser. And wildcards can be unpredictable. With all those hundreds of millions of dollars in their war chest, it makes sense for the Republicans to invest a few bucks in smearing Dean at this point. If you throw enough mud, at least some of it will stick. And if they manage to create more discord among Democrats, all the better for the Bushies.

Last year the Republicans used similar ads to defeat Senator Max Cleland of Georgia.
Cleland, a triple amputee Vietnam veteran, was lumped together with Osama and Saddam because he voted against some minor amendment to the bill which created the Department of Homeland Security. Ironically, the administration initially opposed the creation of that department whereas Cleland supported it.

In any event, these are examples of how the Republicans will do or say anything to seize and hold on to power. They feel it is their natural right to rule. Therefore any tactic, however despicable, is morally justifiable to them.

Democrats should learn from the 1988 Dukakis campaign. When the Republicans unleashed ads accusing Gov. Dukakis of letting murderers go free, the Dukakis people first ignored the ads and then responded too timidly and belatedly to them. Voters interpreted this lame response as tacit admission of guilt by Dukakis.

The Democrats will never win if they observe Marquis of Queensbury rules against crazed Republican ninjas.
If the Republicans try to demonstrate how great they are at national security, the Democrats must relentlessly remind voters that 9/11 happened because of a negligent and incompetent Republican administration.
At every opportunity, the Democrats must not be squeamish about cutting George W. Bush down to size. And that includes bringing up his dubious National Guard record* as well as his (and Cheney's) shady business dealings.

* we talked about his going AWOL here a few weeks ago...
https://burntorangereport.com/archives/000811.html

It's no GOP dirty trick...unless the GOP has managed to snag a former Kerry staffer, a big Gephardt donor, and a big-time Harkin staffer. And a Democratic ex-Congressman.

Sorry to say it, but what's known about this group is that it's run, at the very least, by Democratic staffers.

I was a lot less polite in my letter than Jimbo was: "For sinking to Karl Rove's level to attack a fellow Democrat, go to hell and take your despicable ad with you."

Don't they realize that this kind of stuff only causes Dean's supporters to donate even more? Anyone who thnks foreign policy is Bush's strength is a fool. His strength is in using fear to make us think he can protect us.

When you wrote, "Fine, but comparing Dean to Osama? Please," I was anxious to watch that clip. I did. Now, I'm not sure whether I saw the same video as you, but nowhere in there does it once make any overt *comparisons* between OBL and Dean.

There isn't even an implicit comparison. All the ad states is that Dean is not qualified to handle thugs like OBL.

Just so we're all on the same page, here's what the ad states. "We live in a very dangerous world. And there are those who wake up every morning determined to destroy western civilization. Americans want a President who can face the dangers ahead. But Howard Dean has no military or foreign policy experience. And Howard Dean just cannot compete with George Bush on foreign policy. It’s time for Democrats to think about that… and think about it now."

The merits of that statement might well be questionable. After all, Bush had no foreign policy experience when he ran. However, for you to assert that the ad compares Dean to OBL is a smear job itself. That's irresponsible and misleading punditry.

" And Howard Dean just cannot compete with George Bush on foreign policy."

You're right!
Howard Dean (or Wesley Clark for that matter) would probably not: 1) permit a screwball debate inside the Pentagon that has weakened our defenses; 2) dream up a wasteful war based on incorrect or fabricated evidence; 3) squander the international sympathy and good will which was directed at America after a horrendous terror attack; and 4) use bully boy tactics in international forums which alienate many of our closest allies.

I'm downright reassured that top Democrats are not in the same class as George W. Bush when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world.
The USA is weaker, less influential, and held in lower esteem by most people on this planet now than it was on January 19, 2001.

BTW in 2000, Gov. Bush mistook the French Canadian word for "fried potatoes" for the name of Jean Chrétien, then the prime minister of Canada, America's largest trading partner.
And Dubya was clueless as to who were the leaders of several other important countries at the time.

Yes, but it does focus on an image of OBL; it's in the context of the ad.

"Geez, we're gonna talk about Dean and have a picture of... OSAMA BIN LADEN?"

Actually Jim, they probably used the Osama picture in conjuction with this statement: "We live in a very dangerous world. And there are those who wake up every morning determined to destroy western civilization."

See now, the Bush lite Democrats have degenerated into Karl Rove wannabes in order to cannabalize their own party. How idiotic is that? Kind of like destroying a village in order to save it.

Fine, but comparing Dean to Osama? Please.

Uncalled for, but more apropos than comparing Bush to Hitler.

Meanwhile, Kucinich has made a far more despicable ad.

Kind of like destroying a village in order to save it.

Factoid: that supposedly quintessential quote from the quagmire of Vietnam is a myth:

Remember the phrase, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it"? It has become totemic. [Peter] Arnett was the originator of the phrase. The trouble is, as first B.G. Burkett and then I discovered after a little investigation, the report was wrong. It wasn't the United States that destroyed Ben Tre (a town, not a village), but the Vietcong. And the soldier Arnett was most likely quoting remembers saying, "It was a shame the town was destroyed," not the fatuity Arnett made famous.