Third Party & Independents: Archives

I think Dean is on to something. It looks to me like he simply stirring up old stagnant waters so that everyone can again smell the stench of the 9-11 conspiracy. I for one think he is justified in doing so, because the big media is failing us in its’ service to report the interesting, the speculative, and the truth. There are numerous reports of our governments’ failure to act accordingly, but all we see in the big news, and from any news for that matter, is the goings-on of a world at war. Then of course, you also have the big three court cases (Jackson, Peterson, and Bryant), and I don’t personally know anyone who cares about any of them.

Now, when it comes to conspiracy theories like watergate, roswell, or Kennedy, we get absolutely NO inside stuff like we do in the case of Micheal Jackson, or when we get to hear all the lurid details of the Monica Lewinski affair. And let not your memories pale about that one - what is the very first thing the president tried to do when faced with the accusations? LIE. I don’t trust the government as far as I can throw it, and nobody I know does either.

What else goes on in the big news media? Politics as usual. As the election draws nearer, the smearers and dirt throwers come out of the wood work to slam each other worse than we can. But I like Dean’s approach .. if indeed, that’s what he’s doing.

Just read this: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/guilty_for_911_bush_rumsfeld_myers and make your own conclusion. Pretty hard to rebut this I think. Republicans scream bloody murder about that article … saying things like ‘How dare someone even suggest such a thing - that’s treason’. Sean Hannity comes to mind. It also is beyond me why Democrats don’t, or won’t, look for and expose things like this. Not that I trust Democrats mind you - I’m a Libertarian.

Dr. Dean’s quote was taken out of context and twisted unfairly. He mentioned the “interesting” theory only to highlight the fact that by suppressing information from the commission investigating 9/11, the Bush Administration creates an environment where such theories can thrive. He stated repeatedly that he did not give the theory any credence in that and successive interviews about the question.

Here is the full quote taken from the transcript of Dr. Dean’s Dec. 1 appearance on National Public Radio’s “The Diane Rehm Show” :

“DEAN: There is a report, which the president is suppressing evidence for, which is a thorough investigation of 9/11.

REHM: Why do you think he’s suppressing that report?

DEAN: I don’t know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory, I can’t — think it can’t be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now, who knows what the real situation is, but the trouble is by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and then eventually they get repeated as fact. So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the clear — the key information that needs to go to the Kean commission. ”

Whether or not the theory is true, is something that I’d like to know too. But to suggest that Howard Dean advanced that theory is spin at its best, as people are not focusing on the fact that Bush is obstructing the investigation into 9/11.

The Bush Administration unfortunately takes the same approach to it’s mistakes as a ten year old boy might. It denies them, it spins responsibility for them, it badmouths the accuser. And like that young boy’s efforts, the truth is often transparently clear, if only in the pattern of what the kid denies or tries to distract people from.

My advice? Take your criticism like a man, Mr. Bush. Admit them like the responsible adult we hope you are.

No twisting is required. What is upsetting to the Republicans (or at least to this Republican) is the insinuation by Mr. Dean that the theory could not be dismissed out of hand - “it can’t be proved” and “who knows what the real situation is” is hardly the same as “it is ridiculous” which is what Republicans would like to hear from a major candidate. Of course, those in this column have no trouble with the statement because they don’t dismiss the theory, either. David Remer sites the filing of a lawsuit as evidence that Dean was “not referring to rumor”. Will thinks Dean “is on to something.” Vincent Jones would like to know “[w]hether or not the theory is true.”

But a the filing of a lawsuit is not evidence. From the lawsuit, “Plaintiff reasonably believes Defendants knew or should have known the attacks on ‘911’ would be carried out and intentionally and deliberately failed to act and prevent these deadly attacks leading to the untimely death of her husband.” Yes, I find this outrageous and I would hold the accusation to a very high standard of proof before giving it any weight whatsoever. What proof is there so far? “Isn’t it odd how the President stayed at the school?” and “How come the jets at Langley took so long to scramble?” A bunch of innuendo.

Incidentally, Donald Rumsfeld is named in this suit and is routinely grouped in with the co-conspirators in this theory. That makes him a very brave co-conspirator indeed, since he was sitting in his office at the Pentagon when it was struck. Isn’t it strange that he seemed to know which side of the Pentagon would be safe? Perhaps he was flying the plane by remote control.

What is so upsetting is how easily some people will believe the most horrific things about this administration. It may be fun for silly bloggers come up with a bunch of crackpot ideas (yes they are) about Bush and company being mass murderers, but it is very upsetting, and inappropriate, for the leading contender of a major party to foment such ideas without proof.

Vincent, I am not sure what you mean by Dean “advancing” the theory. He made reference to it to make a point about credibility while holding back information. And he did so in the public media during an election cycle. Now, either his mention of the theory was intentional and before a public audience in which case he did “advance” public awareness of the theory, or, it was unintentional, and that is a quality in a person running for office that could cause concern if it happens on more than one or two occasions.

I personally believe it was probably intentional, as he is no stranger to public speaking nor consequences of political speech, but, of course, I have no way of knowing.

I don’t think it was intentional. While it is true that he is no stranger to public speaking, he also no stranger to putting his foot in his mouth. He has done it over and over again in this campaign: When he said he was a “metrosexual”, then admitted he didn’t really know what it meant, his appeal to the Confederate vote, nearly every time he appeals to the black vote, saying that America is not safer with Saddam Hussein captured. One can argue with the substance of any of these, or defend them on the basis of “what he really meant was…”, but they are pretty clearly at least political gaffes.

The paradoxical thing is that it seems, if you read Blog for America, that more he steps in it, the more he appeals to his grassroots. So the less disciplined his speech, the more positive feedback he gets from his power base. It’s what they like about him. The more screw-ups he makes, the more evidence that he’s a “plain speaker”. I don’t think it plays in the general election, but in the meantime, it’s what is helping him in the primary.

Jason, I had not thought about it from that perspective. Having read your take, It seems you may have hit on a phenomena that supports competitors claims that if nominated, Dean will not be able to win against Bush.

Of course, Dean too, may make teleprompters his closest, best friend, during the election campaign (if of course, he is nominated). Still, he does seem to be providing the Bush camp with a fair amount of ammunition to use against him should he win the nomination.

Jason: You are right on about BlogforAmerica. I am intrigued by his candidacy, and love to read those blogs.

On the “Republicans for Dean” site I posted that the main attraction to him as a candidate is that he is angry. It doesn’t matter what he is angry about, and in fact he can change his position and, as long as he stays angry, they will support him.

His base is obviously very liberal, but they are all cheering his anticipated move to the middle once he gets out of Iowa and New Hamshire. O.k. by them, as long as he stays angry. The few actual Republicans on the Republicans for Dean state that they are supporting him because they are so mad at Bush. They even point to positions that Dr. Dean could take to the right of Bush to beat him.

Dr. Dean’s support seems based more on emotion and passion than logic. You read those guys and they will defend him no matter what he does, almost like the mother of a troubled teen. It makes for an interesting campaign, but I don’t think that anger will over come logic in the end. But who knows, CA did elect a cyborg as their Govenator…..

George, I think the JFK/Nixon televised debates pretty well established that Americans do not vote in the majority based on logic or factual information, but on appearances and gut feelings.

Jason,

The former Republican Governor Thomas Kean heading the 9/11 Commission and appointed by Bush has made public comments suggesting that the Bush Administration knew that the attacks were imminent and did not do enough to prevent them. He has even gone so far as to criticize the President in public.

I think Kean’s comments, the Bush team’s refusal to give the commission information that could difuse the “rumors”, and a general distrust of Bush & co stemming from the lies they told the American public and Congress to justify attacking Iraq makes people believe these theories. (Sorry for the long sentence)

I despise Bush. I really do. But I give him the benefit of the doubt and do not believe he had any foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. While I think he is a vile man, I find it hard to believe that he, or any person who has served in that office, would allow such a heinous act take place under their watch.

But I should say, I lived in NYC when it happened. I smelled the acrid smell in the air for weeks. I saw fliers of “missing people” plastered all over the city. I had to call friends who worked in or around the area to make sure they were alive and well. I had to console friends who lost friends and/or family or couldn’t find people. I say all this to say that 9/11 is real to me. Though it affected the nation, it affected New Yorkers much more severely. The fact that Bush refuses to bend over backward to find out what missteps were made in his administration or that of his predecessors strikes me as problematic.

Rather than try to attack Dean for using the “interesting theory” to highlight the Bush Administration’s refusal to cooperate with the commission, you should question why the Bush Administration is trying so hard to stonewall a body lead by a Republican that he appointed.

And David, Bush has made far more gaffes than Dean has or ever will. George W. Bush makes one question the quality of education at the elite he schools he attended. The fact that the good doctor mentioned debunking the “interesting theory” as a reason that Dubya should be giving information to the commission is something that we should want a presidential candidate to say.

George,

I agree that Dean’s supporters are extremely passionate. But to say that our support is not rooted in logic or reasons belittle’s their intelligence and the reported demographics of the good doctor’s early core following. Most of whom are highly educated, extremely well versed in politics and policy, and follow current events closely. Those people are not the type to base their decisions on emotion alone.

Besides, Dean appeals to his supporters intellect. His speeches are filled with details when Bush’s public addresses are replete with empty plattitudes, untruths, and unfulfilled promises.

To turn the tables a bit, I believe that Bush’s supporters are extremely passionate and driven by emotion. His evangelical supporters base their support for him on his personal religious convictions and little else. Conservatives support him despite the fact that his administration has created massive deficits, has yet to veto a spending bill, wavers on the gay civil marriage issue, runs ripshod over states rights, and expanded Medicare.

How can any self-respecting conservative support someone who is not their standard-bearer: emotion. Conservatives are so riled up by this so-called war on terror that they’ll ignore their principles. Is that logical?

Thanks for the replies Scott and Vincent. Scott, I agree that emotion is a strong factor in any race, and I believe that it was the main reason Arnold won in CA. We’ll just have to see if there are enough people who are angry at this administration for it to work for Dr. Dean.

Vincent, I am by no means trying to “belittle” supporters of Dr. Dean, and do not feel that emotion is the only reason people are supporting him. As a libertarianesque conservative from the South I took his invitation to check out his campaign (although I don’t have the confederate flag on my truck). Prior to the Reagan presidency people like me voted overwhelmingly Democratic in my state of South Carolina, and I certainly would consider a Democratic candidate if he/she appealed to my values and was in line with my positions.

After several visits to his site and the blogs, I just came to a few conclusions about Dr. Dean:

1 He might not be as liberal as painted by his rivals or the press, but his supporters on that site posting on those blogs are very liberal.

2 He can change his position on issues, take the wrong side of issues (by either side’s measure), and “pander” to Southern Whites and Blacks as long as he does it in opposition to GWB.

3. My own positions are not in line with a majority of Dr. Dean’s positions.

4. The main “glue” that holds his support together is an anger at GWB.

To me the only logical reason I would vote for Dr. Dean is if I were angry enough at the current administration that I could take an “anybody but him” mentality. I’m not there.

Vincent, I’m glad you have found a candidate to support in this election cycle and I’m sure that you have made your decision based upon the positions and principles of Dr. Dean. I’ve looked and found him not in line with my positions, but as always to each his own.

Howard Dean has some great political qualities, but, if he doesn’t get his messages and rhetoric integrated between his proposals for American now and his actions as Governor in the past, between his appeal to the liberal wing of the party now and the centrists of the party and Independents on the campaign trail, the RNC is going to make mince meat out of him in the press should he win the nomination.