Tactics and Substance in the 2004 Elections GoogleNews: Howard Dean

November 2, 2003

by J

Party Flirtation

If Howard Dean has finally been the Democrat to make me consider becoming a member of the party and much more actively involved, John Kerry's the Democrat who's making sure I don't do that.
Senator John Kerry blasted away at Howard Dean on Friday, accusing him of currying favor with the National Rifle Association and opposing an assault-weapons ban that Mr. Kerry and other supporters of gun control fought for in the 1990's.

Then Mr. Kerry took his 12-gauge shotgun and blew two pheasants out of the sky in two shots.
From conversations on BFA, it seems that there have been multiple definitions of "assault-weapons" and the ban Dean opposed may have included commonly-used kinds of shotguns in Vermont. But setting that aside, Kerry's utter cynicism in condemning Dean (that's all he seems to be able to talk about these days -- Dean's the McGovern-Dukakis-Gingrich-Jackson-NRA-KKK wing of the party, depending on the time of day to these guys) for being too pro-gun while at the same time attempting to appeal to gun-owners by shooting pheasants is almost as gut-twisting as some of the headfakes that Dubya and his ilk attempt.
Posted by J at November 2, 2003 06:33 AM

J have you been watching the Debates? It seems too me that Dean is the one attacking, and quite frankely coming off as a bit of an asshole doing it, Kerry. Kerry has been defensive and at times negative but largely in response to Dean's attacks on his lack of "courage" as a politician, as well as many other "short-comings" Dean has decided that Kerry has. I think many of your comments are wholly one-sided. Policy-wise Kerry and Dean are not too dissimilar, personality-wise, night and day. Dean needs to realize that attacking fellow democrate candidates is not going to win him support if he does win the primaries. Dean needs to focus more on politics and less on personal attacks. And the comparison to GWB is unwarrented and mildly offensive.

Posted by: fair and balanced at November 13, 2003 12:51 AM

On second thought, the comparison is extremely offensive.

Posted by: fair and balanced at November 13, 2003 12:53 AM

We disagree.

And that's ok. As long as we all vote for the Democratic nominee against Bush in November next year.

Posted by: J at November 13, 2003 05:28 AM

Recommended Reading:

The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir
The Politics of Truth... A Diplomat's Memoir

Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush
Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush

Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke
Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror

LIES by Al Franken
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right

The Great Unraveling
The Great Unraveling

The Great Big Book of Tomorrow
The Great Big Book of Tomorrow

Clinton Wars
The Clinton Wars

Blinded by the Right
Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative

Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Future of Combat

Subject to Debate: Sense and Dissents on Women, Politics, and Culture

Living History

The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton

John Adams

Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation

Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace

In Association with Amazon.com