Are we still talking plainly about why the tax cuts? 9/11 manipulation?

[madfloridian]

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPPrint/LAC/20040206/COSALU06/TPColumnists/

SNIP...."Mr. Dean said the Bush "tax cuts are designed to destroy . . . our public services through starvation and privatization," making tax cuts sound less like a debatable policy than a devious plot -- which Reaganites have said they were.

He noted "a fundamental difference between the defence of our nation and the doctrine of pre-emptive war." That goes to the scary heart of U.S. foreign policy. But most U.S. leaders and pundits act as if ordinary people could not understand the distinction. He was similarly blunt on globalization's evil outcomes and the Bush use of "quota" as racist code. He kept moving past the normal rhetoric -- Our leaders are grievously mistaken -- to imply: Our leaders are deliberate liars, betraying the general good for their own aims.

It suggested deep corruption at the heart of mainstream politics. Of course, such criticisms are widespread -- but not among leading candidates for president. They're supposed to sound oppositional, not deranged -- in mainstream terms....."

MORE:
SNIP...."For example: Howard Dean said the Bush government "capitalized on domestic fears of terrorism for political gain." Wow. That suggests it manipulated 9/11 for the sake of its own agenda. Millions of Americans may believe this (consider the huge sales of Michael Moore's books) and Bush officials such as Paul Wolfowitz did yearn publicly for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbour." But the charge is still taboo in mainstream discourse. It makes almost all that was said and done since 9/11, including po-faced media coverage of the noble ideals behind the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, sleazily suspect......" END SNIP

I know this was posted before. I just don't think we should forget why they are wanting to do away with Social Security and Medicare and other social programs. And we should not forget how we went to Iraq and bombed the hell out of it under false pretenses.

[sangha]

1. I guess you don't care about the children

who are being hurt by NCLB because you want the candidates to take time away from talking about those to talk about your pet issues.

Why do you hate children?

[madfloridian]

2. Whaaat?

I hated the children I taught for 33 years of my life. LOL

You are right, though, NCLB has been discussed by him as well. I believe he called the "No behind left" bill.

Ok. I admit that Medicare, Social Security, and Iraq are my pet issues. And the NCLB is right behind them.

:hi:

[sangha]

3. Missing the point

Bush* has given us dozens of important issues to hit him with. Medicare, health insurance, NCLB, the deficit, SS, environment, Iraq, War on Terror, 9/11, Plame, veterans benefits, AWOL, Chickenhawk, and more. Unfortunately, the candidates time is finite and they have a choice between focusing on a few of the most important (and the most harmful to Bush*) issues and hammering Bush* constantly on them, or dividing their time up amongst dozens of issues, which each any one individual with only a small amount of time devoted to it.

If you want the candidates to spend more time on a few particular issues, then why don't you tell us which of the above issues (or any other issue the candidates have been addressing) the candidate should drop in order to focus on the issues you are concerned about?

[madfloridian]

5. Ok, I just did .

How many soldiers died today in the illegal and unjust war in Iraq?

In Florida many disabled are not getting their benefits anymore through Medicaid. People on Medicare who have insurance in addition from a former employer could be dropped under the plan.

Friends who get medicine from Canada, won't be able to do so under the plan.

Have Kerry and Edwards said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? This war is the thing that will drain our country emotionally and economically.

I just want to be sure they keep talking.

Sorry if you think I am bothering the candidates. They are after all running for president.

[sangha]

9. Confused

You say you named the issues the candidates should drop, but I am having a problem seeint it. Are you suggesting that the candidates stop talking about the daily death count from Iraq? AFAIK, that specific item is not getting much attention from the candidates.

Kerry has been talking about health care, Medicaid, and the obstacle Bush* has been putting in the way of importing drugs from Canada on a near daily basis.

Both Kerry and Edwards have said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I don't know about JE, but Kerry brings it up on a regular basis when talks about how Iraq distracted from the campaign against Al Queda.

Both have also talked about the drain the Iraq war is on the economy, the military, and the War on Terrorism


I just want to be sure they keep talking.

I suggest you go to LBN. Daily, threads are started by Kerry and Edwards supporters bringing attention to their attacks on Bush*. If you were to look through the 1st few pages of LBN on a daily basis, I think you would see for yourself that the candidates are talking about these issues on a regular basis.

And remember, the media has little interest in helping the Dems spread their message and their criticisms of Bush*. If you want to hear them, you are going to have to look for them because the media will not make them easyily available

[madfloridian]

11. I agree with you on some of that.

I also know that some of the issues are not being addressed firmly. Bush lied to us. He lied in the SOTU message. Our soldiers are dying.

You are right that the media does not let the message out. I agree with that. That is one way Dean performed a service. They did quote him in glee that they were hurting him, but the message got out.

He spoke in concise sound bytes, and people did notice. Hopefully under our new plans with bloggers and grassroots groups, we will be able to bypass the mainstream media in many ways. Hopefully.

But then I don't have much of that left anymore....hope, that is.

[sangha]

15. Are you referring to Iraq lies?

If so, Kerry has been talking about this on a near daily basis. He just recently brought up the point that the National Intelligence Estimate that Bush* is hiding behind (ie. Bush* is saying that he was only saying what was in the NIE) wasn't writtne until sometime AFTER Bush* starting lying about Iraq's WMD's.

You are right about one thing. Dean is excellent at giving speeches and making himself heard. I only wish that he would concentrate those skills against Bush* instead of using some of it against the Dems. Dean would be much more likely to be able to influence the party (IMO) if he would help them get elected, and THEN insist on change.

[madfloridian]

16. The Dems were NOT saying them until Dean appeared.

That is my point. He always stepped right out on issues, and did not worry if he took the fall...which he did....but only temporarily.
He is not done, he will be back in other ways.

[sangha]

20. I don't think that's true.

Long before Dean spoke out against the war, some of the other Dems had also. And Dean did not always step right out on issues. On Iraq, he was originally for giving Saddam a 60 day deadline to comply followed by a unilateral invasion.

As I point out in another post, Dean also backed away from the LIHOP charge.

And I know that Dean will be back.. The question for me is what will he achieve?

[madfloridian]

23. I give up.

I know when to quit.

Dean never made a LIHOP charge. No,he did not.

I am backing off now. I guess we would say you win by default, because I don't want to argue anymore.

[sangha]

27. Dean mentioned the LIHOP charge

and then he backed away. And it's not a question of winning. You have posted more than once implying that various Dems aren't talking about certain specific issues when they have been speaking about those issues. In the last thread you started about this (that I saw) you spoke of the deficit and so I posted links showing that Kerry has been speaking about that issue.

Also, you make claims about how Dean did this and that first when the truth is you're just not aware of what the other Dems have said and done.

[madfloridian]

8. I disagree with this remark.

QUOTE:"Unfortunately, the candidates time is finite and they have a choice between focusing on a few of the most important (and the most harmful to Bush*) issues}""

It does not take long to say what the tax cuts are really about, and it does not take long to say that are soldiers are dying in an unjust war.

It took just one paragraph for Dean to say it. They must say these things.

[sangha]

10. No, it doesn't take long to make a statement

However, it takes a lot of time and effort to make sure that message gets heard by a large portion of the American electorate. I don't think madfloridian wants a one-time statement. IMO, it sounded like a call for the candidates to do this on a regular basis, but I could be wrong about what madfloridian is seeking.

[madfloridian]

12. Yes,

You are often quite wrong about madfloridian.

A one-time statement is not sufficient when your country is ready to wage war around the world.

[sangha]

17. Yes, a one time statement is not enough

It takes a long time for an issue and it's arguments to break into the consciousness of millions. IMO, it's best for the candidates to focus on just a few (under a dozen) of the most harmful to Bush* and hammer away on them. Them once they have entered the campaign discourse, the candidates can move onto other Bush* crimes while only breifly referring back to the issue the public is already aware of.

It's a corollary to "Stay on message"

[madfloridian]

18. There is only a short time to speak on empire building.

It is already going on bigtime, and unless our candidates approve.....well, they need to say so loudly and clearly...now.

[sangha]

22. I'm sorry, but I don't think "empire building" is an issue to focus on

Militarism and imperialism, unfortunately, is extremely complex and woven into our political discourse, institutions, and ideology. In the environment we find ourselves today, it seems unlikely that anyone can make an effective case against them in the few short months before the elections.

The idea behind imperialism is that our military should be used to not only defend our nation from attack (self defense on our own shores), and not just use our military to stamp out threats (in other countries) to our national security (self-defense in other nations), but to also use our military to FURTHER our national INTERESTS (and not just our national SECURITY).

In the current environment, it's going to be extremely hard (if not impossible) to convince the public that we need to use our military only when we are attacked, either at home or overseas. IMO, a large majority WANT the US to use it's military aggresively. An argument can be made that we shouldn't expend effort on military actions that don't make us safer, but IMO a candidate who says our military policies are imperialistic is a candidate that will lose.

[madfloridian]

24. So you are saying we have a right to invade other nations?

Never mind.

[sangha]

26. So you don't care about the children?

That's what your question is like. Just because I don't think it's a good issue to campaign on (and I'd note that imperialism is a bigger issue than just the right to invade other nations) doesn't mean I think we have a right to invade other nations that aren't threatening us.

As I said before, there are lots of issues. If you suggest that concentrating on one, at the expense of others, I won't accuse you of not caring about the others if you will return the courtesy

[scarletwoman]

4. Great article!

I was never on the Dean bandwagon, but I definitely cheered on the sidelines when he spoke loudly and forcibly "outside the frame".

The writer has done a great service by defining the "in the frame" and "outside the frame" paradigm so clearly.

Dean was actively sabotaged, Kucinich is basically ignored -- but in both cases, it's the punishment for daring to speak "outside the frame".

sw

[madfloridian]

6. You got it. Thanks.

Speaking outside the frame is forbidden and is punishable by banishment and being ignored.

[scarletwoman]

13. I see the same paradigm at work on DU, unfortunately.

"Delusional", "insane", "kooky", "unrealistic", "far-left fringe" -- and that ultimate converstaion stopper: "conspiracy theorist".

These labels and more are applied here by DUers to other DUers all the time. It isn't just the media, a huge segment of our culture is devoted to keeping "inside the frame".

sw

[madfloridian]

14. They are the same tactics used by the GOP to humiliate our candidates.

We are now using them against each other, and it is very sad.

I have always been a very moderate, almost conservative, Democrat. Now I am not. I am much more "outside" the box or the frame than I ever was in my life.

You are right, it is a favorite tactic here, and it is sad.

[TeacherCreature]

7. kick

I makes me wonder how anyone can support Kerry or Edwards after hearing someone willing to tell the truth. I don't think Dean suggested that bush allowed 9-11 to happen, but that they took advantage of it afterwards. That doesn't seem too radical to me.

[sangha]

19. Not everyone believes that Dean spoke the truth

or that he was an unbending opponent of all things Bush*. To take one example, the one you mention yourself, Dean backed away from the idea that Bush* allowed 9/11 to happen saying something like "it was a rumor that some people on the Internet believe. I don't believe it myself"

I contrast that with how Kerry hasn't backed away from his AWOL charge. He has stuck with it, and he has even added the Chickenhawk issue to the mix. He brought up Chickenhawks to counter the criticism directed at Max Cleland, another war hero that supports Kerry.

[madfloridian]

21. You are totally presenting that issue in the wrong way.

Dean knew perfectly well what he was doing. It immediately got national attention, and it is still lurking in the minds of folks. He grinned and shrugged when he said it was a rumor.
He did not back off, he just reiterated what he said. He got it out in the public.

Kerry does a good job on the AWOL issue. Is he talking about the more than 500 dead soldiers every day? Is he talking about the fact that we are still not safe with Saddam gone because Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11?

Remember how Dean said we were no safer here with Saddam gone? Do you remember who made fun of him for that? I do. Do you remember we went on orange alert the next week, planes being escorted, etc.?

[sangha]

25. Dean did get some national attention for the issue

but as we discussed, it takes more than a day or two of stories to make it into a lasting issue. And he most certainly did back off of it IMO. Saying that he didn't actually believe and that it was an Internet rumor did nothing for the rumors credibility.

Kerry speaks regularly about the costs of Iraq, including the human toll. Yesterday or the day before he mentioned how Bush* hasn't attended any funerals and Kerry regularly makes the point that the Iraq invasion was a distraction (at best) from our campaign against terrorism and puts us in greater danger.

Remember how Dean said we were no safer here with Saddam gone?

Yes, and I thought it was an ill-advised statement that hurt the campaign to turn poeple against the Iraq occupation. Capturing Saddam is not an issue IMO. The problems caused by invading Iraq is the issue. Talking about capturing Saddam takes attention away from dangers caused by invading Iraq.

[madfloridian]

28. Disagree.

You said: "Capturing Saddam is not an issue IMO. The problems caused by invading Iraq is the issue. Talking about capturing Saddam takes attention away from dangers caused by invading Iraq...."

That is what Dean said. He was saying that it was being used for propaganda purposes. In so doing, he was able to point out that Saddam had not caused 9/11. He said we were no safer, and we were not for sure.

We will not agree, as we seem to be on opposite ends of the war and invasion thing. That is what our country is about now, and I find it shameful. I do not think nation-building, empire-building, pre-emptive invasion.....or whatever you call it....is right.

It does not seem to bother you, thus we can not agree.

[sangha]

34. Dean blew that one

He should have stuck to criticizing the Iraq invasion because it increased the dangers to us. By saying that we're no safer with Saddam captured, he took attention away from his message (the invasion made us less safe) and focused on his remark about Saddam.


That is what Dean said. He was saying that it was being used for propaganda purposes. In so doing, he was able to point out that Saddam had not caused 9/11. He said we were no safer, and we were not for sure.

Yes, I know what Dean said, and I know what Dean meant. But here's a little secret - Dean doesn't get to decide how the media is going to cover the story. He can only influence it, and you do that by staying on messsage! The line about Saddam was off-message. The message was about Iraq, not Saddam.

We will not agree, as we seem to be on opposite ends of the war and invasion thing

No, were not on the opposite ends of the war and invasion thing. We're on opposite ends of the Dean thing. You think he is the one and only, and I know that he has neither said nor done anything new.

[madfloridian]

36. Not true about the one and only.

That is an insulting thing for you to say. Our president lied to the country about Saddam and Iraq and WMD.

It is not ok. It should never be ok. A president should not lie, and the opposing party should not enable him. No, Dean got "off message" and told the truth. I am glad he did.

He has not said "new" things, many already knew these things. He just said these things in public, these things that have been known on forums for ages. Someone needed to say them.

I am stunned at the implication that anyone can influence the media by staying on message as you say. That staying on message is really copping out and dropping the message altogether.

[Tesha]

29. Kicking up the truth! (NT)

[paulk]

30. Is it necessary to talk about these things?

I understand the point you're trying to make, but I don't think we need (or want) to go to this level in the general election. For most voters it's enough that the tax cuts went to the rich, and they didn't get one. The Iraq mess is on tv every day - we don't need to talk about imperialism to tune people in to what's going on over there. The 9/11 conspiracy stuff - even Dean realized that was to hot a button to push.

[madfloridian]

31. You think it is ok to let it go because it is more comfortable for some?

I don't think so myself. The president lied in the SOTU message, and he also encouraged the nation to think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

So you don't want to talk about these things?

The Iraq mess is not on TV nearly as much as it should be. I don't see them talking about the dead and wounded very often, and I just see brief clips now and then.

I gather you are saying that since most people are more comfortable not confronting the lies the president told....that we as good little Democrats should go along?

And On Edit:
They are keeping us in fear, constantly talking about the terrorists, pumping up the the people to think that catching Saddam solved so much. They are not planning on letting up either. Don't you think they should be held accountable?

Or...are you saying that we need to just let it go?

[paulk]

33. the point I'm trying to make

is that most voters out there aren't as politically motivated as people here on DU. They react to how things effect their lives on a personal level - they keep hearing from Bush that the economy is getting better, and that his tax cuts are the reason. They look around and not only don't see an improving economy, they didn't even get a tax cut.

The majority of Americans no longer believe that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, and a big reason is because the Democratic candidates HAVE talked about it. Bush's credibility has been compromised in a big way. The candidates need to walk a fine line pointing out Bush's failures on Iraq - we don't want to look as though we're rooting for bad things to happen.

People are aware that Bush is a liar - his poll ratings have been going down ever since David Kay's report on WMD. Bush is in serious trouble - why else the gay marriage amendment?

Bush will be held accountable this November.

[madfloridian]

35. We will tiptoe quietly so as not to disturb.

We don't want to overdo the truth about the war, do we?

Last year this board was irate and bitter over the rush to war.

Now it is getting to be shhhhhhh let's not make waves.

People really are believing Bush on the economy. The media is helping them along on that. Our candidates must keep on.

And the majority of Americans may give lip service about the connection to Iraq/9/11, but they still really do not care. I just feel that it is the Democrats' job to make them care that the president both lied about WMD and misled them on the 9/11/Iraq.

I find it hard to believe that we should play it safe.

[madfloridian]

32. I just really got what you said about the tax cuts.

I totally disagree with you that voters don't need to know why the tax cuts are so drastic. It is going to wreak havoc on our country, and people should know exactly what they are up to.