Analyze the stuttering stumbling at the end of the quote:
I detect dissimulation.
ADDED: I've been reading old blog posts -- reminiscing?? -- and I happened to run across what I think is my first post about Howard Dean. Writing the morning after his famous scream, I was entirely sympathetic to him.
२४ ऑक्टोबर, २००६
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५९ टिप्पण्या:
Were have they been hiding this guy? He’s the leader of the Democratic Party, and in a midterm he should be (traditionally has been) the leading voice for his party. But they got him locked away somewhere as an ugly far left step-cousin.
The Barack O’Bama hoopla (I believe) is more then just random hype for 08, or a book selling venture. It’s a calculated effort to highlight the Democrats most moderate/attractive Clintonesque images before the Midterms.
It's obvious. I've seen Mehlman on talk shows and he's very good. poised and articulate. We've seen Dean. Dean may be an idiot about some things, but in this he's smart enough to know he'd come off a distant second, hence the reticence for a contest.
Mehlman has been an excellent party leader. Competent, but not trying to steal the show from his candidates. The Dean act has been primarily about Dean. Same with Bill's best buddy, Terry McAuliffe. Both their ego's get in the way of doing their jobs.
Gladiatorial? Dean's stumbling over that word suggests he's "dissembling"? I detect bullshit.
Mehlman is a total sleaze, and Howard probably doesn't want to be seen as his counterpart.
Why won't you make TV appearances with RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman?
Because I'd rather answer softball questions from friendly media than actually debate and, you know, answer objections and stuff. This way I can talk about "policy" without actually explaining or defending it. You just go on pretending to "interview" me and I'll pretend to "answer" your "questions." None of us wants another Matthews/Clinton thing, do we?
Yeah Dean is always getting coddled by the media, with questions like "Why are you ducking Ken Mehlman?"
Golly, Doyle, you're right! That is hard-hitting!
The debate segments on TV are painful to watch, he's struggling to find a dignified way to say its a bunch of crap. Mark your calenders, I agree with Dr Dean.
"The spectacle of the debate overwhelms the desire (?) to get the message out."
In other words, if I have to defend our policies I can't get out the messge we want people to hear.
My job is to speak. Your job is to listen. Having to answer questions and debate would only get in the way.
Yep -- tough questions, Doyle. He was grilled. I bet he's still recovering.
I for one would like to see Mehlman and Dean in gladiatorial combat, it'd be even better than celebrity boxing.
I agree Dean has a valid point (that talk show politics often degenerate into infotainment), where I disagree with him is the implication politicians pontificating side by side is somehow worse than their doing it individually. Besides, he is the guy the DNC has chosen to be out in front, not hiding from debate.
I'd be more amenable to Dean's criticism of the "infotainment" media (ugh, put that term in the annoying-and-overused file with "information superhighway") if he wasn't consistently spouting ridiculous and inflammatory soundbites crafted precisely for it.
If there's one thing Howard Dean can't do, is try to act like he's "above" any sort of controversial discourse. He's the first one to get down in the mud.
It's going to be so funny when the Dems kick the GOPs ass this year at the polls and all those "That Unhinged Howard Dean Is Going To Destroy The Democratic Party" clowns will have to eat a healthy helping of STFU.
Dean would appear with Mehlman post haste if he thought that he would be perceived winning the contest
Not if avoiding the contest entirely were the best of the three options.
The Republicans are the underdog now. Why give them direct access if you don't have to?
if he wasn't consistently spouting ridiculous and inflammatory soundbites
Like "The Iraq War was a mistake", back in 2003? Inflammatory and prescient.
"I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, hide the salami, or whatever it's called."
"You know, the Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same. ... It's pretty much a white Christian party."
"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks."
"I'm a metrosexual."
"We've gotten rid of (Saddam Hussein), and I suppose that's a good thing."
"This president is not interested in being a good president. He's interested in some complicated psychological situation that he has with his father."
"You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or wherever and get home and still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote? Well Republicans, I guess can do that. Because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives."
"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for..."
"I think a library trustee is pretty important" during "an administration that likes book burning more than reading books."
"The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far—which is nothing more than a theory, it can’t be proved—is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is?"
"You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."
"Dealing with race is about educating white folks..."
Like "The Iraq War was a mistake", back in 2003? Inflammatory and prescient.
like:
1. I hate Republicans and everything they stand for.
2. I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.
3. This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good. (talking about the Dems and the GOP)
4. "I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, hide the salami, or whatever it's called."
5. "You know, the Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same. ... It's pretty much a white Christian party.''
6. "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong."
7. "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."
8. I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found. I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."
and my fav: "I don’t know. There are many theories about (9/11). The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far—which is nothing more than a theory, it can’t be proved—is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is?
There's already a Gladiatorial Page in the back of the Happy Newspaper. What I call "fishwrap"!
The pastor beat me, but our selection was pretty close.
With Hillary and Obama as his only shields of perception at this time, I sure the hell wouldn't engage either. He knows too that polls are just polls at this time. Screaming and the Bush mantra is all he can offer at present - not enough to bring up against a smooth talker. His word fumbling? That wasn't too bad - Bush has done far worse.
Hmmm, dissimulation, probably. Guilty conscience, not so sure. I think he was stumbling for a reason, but I think he was stumbling because his brain was shouting "ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING? NO WAY!" Not saying that was a difficult undertaking. In gladitorial contests, someone gets their butt kicked. And present day Democratic party adherents are not know for having a plan or ideas other than criticizing the neocons.
Trey
I think, Doyle, he means inflammatory along the lines of, "I hate republicans and everything they stand for."
The guy stumbled over some words, he's a fast talker and wild thinker; a perfect recipe for stumbling and stutter-er-ttering. I just tend to assume they're all always dissimulating when on the tube.
Thanks, Drill and Jeff.
The hotel staff one always stand out as especially repugnant, does it not? Especially when criticizing others for racism in the same breath!
I'll agree with Dean that many talk show formats are just shouting contests, but Meet the Press for example isn't. It has been often the forum for debates between party chairmen. Just not now.
I basically agree with Mark (and Doyle's first paragraph). Dean stumbled over the pronunciation of the word "gladiatorial" and didn't quite recover his composure before finishing the soundbite. I don't particularly like Dean, but I see no reason to suspend Hanlon's Razor.
Blue Texan said...
"It's going to be so funny when the Dems kick the GOPs ass this year at the polls and all those 'That Unhinged Howard Dean Is Going To Destroy The Democratic Party' clowns will have to eat a healthy helping of STFU."
Even assuming that James Stephenson is wrong, and that you're right that the election will turn the south wing of the capital into an abattoir, it is a stretch to credit that result to Howard Dean's management. If it happens, it will have far more to do with the reasons identified here than any positive moves by Dean, and indeed, the Democrats have done everything possible to blow what should have been an overwhelming victory.
(For what it's worth, though, I think James is wrong - while I don't dispute his reasoning, I'm battening down the hatches in preparation of losing thirty seats.)
Blue Texan said...
"It's going to be so funny when the Dems kick the GOPs ass this year at the polls and all those 'That Unhinged Howard Dean Is Going To Destroy The Democratic Party' clowns will have to eat a healthy helping of STFU."
Even assuming that James Stephenson is wrong, and that you're right that the election will turn the south wing of the capital into an abattoir, it is a stretch to credit that result to Howard Dean's management. If it happens, it will have far more to do with the reasons identified here than any positive moves by Dean, and indeed, the Democrats have done everything possible to blow what should have been an overwhelming victory.
(For what it's worth, though, I think James is wrong - while I don't dispute his reasoning, I'm battening down the hatches in preparation of losing thirty seats.)
The 50 state strategy is responsible for there being legitimate Democratic campaigns in districts that were recently seen as lost causes. One of them was Mark Foley’s district, and more get added to the list each week. It also allows for the possibility of not just winning, but running up the score, where the “upside” to the Emanuel/Schumer strategy would be mostly larger margins in fewer districts.
How have the Democrats “done everything possible to blow [it]” anyway? An overwhelming victory has become more likely in the past few weeks, not less. The Senate may stay Republican, but kiss the House goodbye.
Looks like Pastor Jeff and Drill Sgt are working from the same talking points, literally.
If the combat is truly gladiatorial, I'll bet Dean would like to think he's the retiarius -- the man with the net -- not just the gladius!
But I'll bet he's not.
Thumbs down for this gladiator.
Sad we don't have actual gladiatorial combat...There are a number of politicians I would like to see eaten by a lion. Now that would be info-tainment!
Regarding Dean's desire to control the message, here is a good example. When he appears on Hannity and Colmes, Dean never allows Hannity to ask a question or even appear in the interview- the segment is always just Dean & Colmes.
Dr. Dean- what a wanker!
"Infotainment? Why not Entermation?"
Harry Shearer
a) He has raised a lot of money for his party, I don’t have the numbers but the DNC/RNC fundraising gap has closed. He’s also spent a lot of money, and not given much to the DSCC or DCCC, which are both controversial but he does raise money.
b) Howard Dean is one of the few national Democrats who is unafraid of presenting the party as a distinct alternative to Republicans, not Republican-lite (which only Clinton had the charisma to sell). The problem with John Kerry was that he didn’t present a clear enough choice to the average American. He tried to play by the Republican rules, pushing his military service and standing by his vote for the AUMF. In doing so, he sounded phony and unprincipled, which is worse than saying mean things about Republicans (oh the humanity!).
I'd avoid gladia-gladia-gladia, I'd avoid gladia- I wouldn't want to fight either if every time I picked up a sword I stabbing myself in the foot. Dean's proven he doesn't do well unscripted.
But what's with the repeated metaphor, anyway? Sounded like a talking point he was supposed to use, and had to pound into the ground. Come to think of it, maybe he doesn't do well scripted either.
D-d-d-d-d-dat's all folks!
LOL Zeb. I was just addressing Mark W's concerns about Dean's fundraising ability and viability as a spokesman for the party. I'm not trying to draft him for '08 or anything. I just thinks he gets a raw deal for no good reason. Take this post for example.
Raw deal?
Man, if Bush said anything this mangled, it'd be on continuous repeat at the YouTube JonStewart SNL CNN laugh fest.
What he meant to say was that he askeered of bein' on the teevees with anyone more literate than he. Did he actually graduate from med school? Where'd he go? Some off-shore skool in a former motel, or is this a certificate he got for sending in so many box tops?
OTOH, the mediocre deserve representation, too.
"Howard Dean is one of the few national Democrats who is unafraid of presenting the party as a distinct alternative to Republicans"
That's for sure. Like "This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."
(Now how did pastor jeff and the drill sgt. forget that one? No matter, glad to fill in.)
Doyle said...
"[Dean has raised a lot of money for his party, I don’t have the numbers but the DNC/RNC fundraising gap has closed.
You might want to get the numbers to hand before asserting that. Even assuming that you're correct -- and that well-know conservative propaganda outlet the Washington Post says you're wrong -- you haven't established a prima facie case that Dean has succeeded because that closing of the gap could easily be explained by forces other than Dean at work within the Democratic Part, or even forces entirely external to the DNC, such as a drop in RNC fundraising, which would narrow the gap even if the DNC didn't change its fundraising a whit. At a very minimum, I'd think you'd need a graph showing DNC and RNC fundraising 1996-2006 to support your theory.
Doyle,
Unfortunately, that article undercuts your point.
First, as I noted previously, if the gap has closed, that could be explained equally by a rise in DNC fundraising or by a fall in RNC fundraising. The WaPo story you link to admits the latter: "Of the three Republican committees, only the House committee collected more this year than in 2002" (which concedes by omission that the RNC and NRSC raised less this year than in '02) and "[t]he Republican total is about 10 percent lower than four years ago."
Second, the best support that article offers you is that "[o]ver the past 21 months, the Republican committees raised a total of $408.4 million, while the Democratic committees raised $313.3 million ... the Democratic total is 27 percent higher [than four years ago]." But that stands only for the proposition that DNC fundraising is up; it isn't freestanding support for the proposition that Howard Dean is responsible for the rise, and it barely even supports the premise that fundraising is "up" in relative terms (vs. absolute terms: are revenues genuinely "up" now, or were they "down" four years ago?).
And even the support that the WaPo gives you is far from unambiguous: according to the recent article you posted, "At the end of September ... [t]he [RNC] had $26 million available, three times the amount the [DNC] had." Yet, a year ago, "the [RNC] raised $81.5 million ... [and] [t]he [DNC], by contrast, showed $42 million raised." So a year ago, the RNC was raising funds three to one, and now it's raising them two to one.
His job, as I see it, is to a) raise money for his party -- an endeavor at which he's underperformed, to put it gently; and b) present his party as the logical and sensible choice for the average American. This has been hard for him to do, as he seems to share the majority of Good White Liberals' basic distaste for the American people.
No, his job is to 1) raise money, which he's objectively done better than his predecessor and his predecessor's predecessor and 2) win elections.
And if you think the GOP is speaking "logically and sensibly" to the "average American", you might want to check the polls.
Badger said...
Simon
That article is a year old.
Current WaPo article Democrats Approach Nov. 7 With a Surge in Fundraising.
Nice try though ;)
LOL Badger, I actually read your link and found the material below that proves Simon's point, regardless of what the title was. The biggest thing I might deduce was that though Dem fund raising was increasing, donors were NOT giving to the DNC.
The Republican National Committee, however, continued to outpace the Democratic National Committee. In September, the RNC raised $13.1 million and reported total receipts of $14.3 million, while the DNC said it collected $5.6 million.
The GOP committees maintained an overall advantage of about $10 million in funds available to be spent. At the end of September, the Democratic committees had $67.3 million on hand; the Republican committees had $77.4 million.
Badger,
According to the article you linked, the RNC raised $13.1 million and the DNC raised $5.6 million; furthermore, the RNC's available funds are three times that of the Democrats. So much for Dean's fundraising skill.
Now, Chuck Schumer's DSCC and Emanuel's DCCC have recently doing better than their Republican counterparts (no thanks to Dean). They're still somewhat behind the Republicans overall, though.
Wow, and they say Bush can't talk.
I'm sorry, Doyle - I misattributed badger's post to you. Long day and too little coffee...
"It's going to be so funny when the Dems kick the GOPs ass this year at the polls and all those "That Unhinged Howard Dean Is Going To Destroy The Democratic Party" clowns will have to eat a healthy helping of STFU."
STFU? Are you trying to stifle dissent?
If the Democrats gain either House this midterm it will be, in the long tradition of American politics, not because of what they are and what they stand for, but because they aren't the other guys. A modern Democratic victory is never anything more than a referendum against the incompetence of the GOP. After a few weeks of moonbat gloating it will be fun to watch what happens when they realize: "Shit! We're running the show now. What the hell do we do?" It will be fun to have them to blame for everything. Nancy Pelosi might need another face stretching in order to keep smiling.
Ann, why don't you put up a video of Ken Mehlman also?
I know you are not a democrat anymore because of Clinton but what are you?
You certainly love your republicans and love to belittle democrats.
But if you put Mehlman on your site make sure you make some nasty comment about him.
Oh no but you aren't capable of doing that. You would alienate your fan base and this whole site would think their girlfriend was bailing on them.
Come on take a chance girl, a nasty comment about Mehlman...do it, you can do it.
Badger said:
"And if Kerry doesn't start ponying up some cash soon, as far as I'm concerned he can stop lecturing anybody about this election."
Yeah, how about some of that "step-money"?
"I know you are not a democrat anymore because of Clinton but what are you?"
Check what you know. How do you figure that I voted for Gore in 2000? I even voted for Feingold in 2004.
boingoboingo: I know what you're trying to do, but Google doesn't count links in blog comments. I'd delete your post if it did, but I'll leave it up as testimony to your lameness.
Boston70: You don't seem to notice that I made fun of Bush's speaking twice today.... so you're the one with skewed perceptions.
Has Mehlman misspoken recently? The fact is he's an excellent speaker, which is why I think Dean doesn't want to sit across the table from him. Does anyone know when the two last debated? How have matchups gone in the past?
It was not my contention that Dean is a super-hero, end-all fund raiser, but the numbers are quite good for an opposition party has consistently been lagging behind.
This is a second-term midterm election, which is traditionally very bad for the President's party. On top of that both the President and his party have atrocious approval ratings, there is widespread dissatisfaction with Republican policies, and the Republicans are afflicted by one scandal after another. And people would *still* much rather give money to Republicans than Democrats.
So I'm sorry, Badger, but those fundraising numbers are *horrible*. A competent Democratic leadership would be cleaning the Republicans' clocks in fundraising by now.
Make no mistake, the Republicans are going to lose. But it will be despite the incompetence of the Democratic Party's leadership. Hell, if it wasn't for the incompetence of the Democratic Party leadership they'd already have taken both the Presidency and at least one house of Congress two years ago.
Actually we hear this daily:
1. Dems don't have an agenda.
2. Dems are out to destroy America with their agenda
Care to reconcile this for us?
Could you give an example of a person who holds both of those beliefs?
What I most commonly hear said (and what I personally believe) is that the Democrats have no agenda *beyond* being anti-Bush and anti-Republican, and that that is what is bad for America. They'll end up winning office with no plan and no mandate for action.
Ann, you were entirely sympathetic to him for having humililated himself in front of a national audience.
You were not, as you seem to be implying here, sympathetic to the point of not believing that he humililated himself, or that the scream had become overly famous.
The terms "camera oblivion" and "meltdown of historic proportion" just aren't entirely sympathetic.
In other news, I was wondering if that was spam. Excellent spam, though. I didn't know who Randy Kuhl was but now I know he has a drinking problem and threatened his wife with a shotgun. That's defining your opponent if I've ever seen it!
RNC: Howard Dean is an inarticulate whack job. Yeeeaaarrrgghh.
DNC: Oh yeah, well Mehlman might be queer.
Point, set, match--RNC.
Badger said...
"If you had to pick one, for right now, would it be: Ann Althouse (R-WI) [or] Ann Althouse (D-WI)[?]"
I know which I pick. ;)
Conservatives look for converts,
Finding very few. Notable exception: Joe Lieberman.
Liberals look for heretics,
See above.
Anne looks for the exit.
I for one am not standing in her way.
I'm going to delete bingoboingo's comment, even though it is laughably ineffectual, because some people don't realize it is (or that I know what it is, despite my earlier comment).
Mehlman's a proven liar
Pff. Show me a politician who isn't.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा