The Gift That Keeps On Giving

While centrist Democrats such as Marshall Whitman think Howard Dean should feel free to keep up the heated rhetoric at fund-raising events, someone should probably hire him a fact checker:

He also said the president was partly responsible for a recent Supreme Court decision involving eminent domain.

“The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is ‘okay’ to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is,” Dean said, not mentioning that until he nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court this week, Bush had not appointed anyone to the high court.

Dean’s reference to the “right-wing” court was also erroneous. The four justices who dissented in the Kelo vs. New London case included the three most conservative members of the court – Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was the fourth dissenter.

The court’s liberal coalition of Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer combined with Justice Anthony Kennedy to form the majority opinion, allowing the city of New London, Conn., to use eminent domain to seize private properties for commercial development.

“We think that eminent domain does not belong in the private sector. It is for public use only,” Dean said.

The chief spokesman for the “reality-based” community* at his best. Is he this stupid? Did he just get ‘caught up in the moment?’ Or is he simply lying?

*Sorry- I can’t resist potshots at that idiotic moniker.






96 replies
  1. 1
    Andrei says:

    The chief spokesman for the “reality-based” community* at his best. *Sorry – I can’t resist potshots at that idiotic moniker.

    I suppose you either forgot or don’t care that the left didn’t come up with that term, correct? It was an advisor to Bush who came up with that term. Most on the left side of the aisle just seemed to let it stick, using it ironically because they found the notion a bit silly.

    But then again, with all your rants againsts over-reaching Christians in the GOP or evolution or Schiavo, I guess you’d prefer to not be part of the snarky moniker that was made up for the leftwing not by those in the leftwing but by the rightwing.

    Never ceases to amaze me how people on the right can take terminology invented by the rightwing political machinery, attach it to their opponents, then turn around and make fun of them for having the said labels attached to them.

  2. 2
    John Cole says:

    Yeah- because liberals and Democrats all over the political sphere have not adopted the ‘Proud Member of the Reality Based Community’ nickname to deride the WH advissor who initially made the statement.

    Do you want me to list them all for you? Or do you want to google it yourself.

  3. 3
    Pan is a non... says:

    The court doesn’t have a ‘Liberal Coallition’. It is composed of two conservative camps and a couple of judges appointed by Clinton with the recommendation of Senate Republicans. Judge Roberts himself has a strong record of siding with the corporate interests against the little guys, and it is the little guys with blighted low-value property who lose in Kelo.

  4. 4
    John Cole says:

    And, by the way- the Bush advisor was claiming he and Bush supporters were member of the ‘reality-based’ community. The left then derisively took the name to mock the administration.

    You just have things ass-backwards here. Points for anger, though.

    I am wrong.

  5. 5
    Stormy70 says:

    Howard Dean – Long may he serve as the DNC chair.

  6. 6
    ScottC says:

    Unfortunetly, Dean is using the same techniques to fire up the base that Republicans have been using for years: sprouting false rhethoric demonizing a small minority (the liberal elite, neo-cons) to scare the base into giving more money.

    Shame really.

  7. 7
    Kimmitt says:

    Anyone got a transcript or a link to a more reputable news source?

    Come to think of it, anyone got a transcript, period?

  8. 8
    Andrei says:

    “And, by the way- the Bush advisor was claiming he and Bush supporters were member of the ‘reality-based’ community. The left then derisively took the name to mock the administration.”

    What? Are you are on crack?

    Without a Doubt

    Man John… you got me on this one. I guess that bush aide really was referring to themselves when he said:

    In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn’t like about Bush’s former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House’s displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn’t fully comprehend – but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

    The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

    Wake the fuck up already. The GOP time and time again makes terms up and attaches them to all sorts of people and causes for their own political purposes. (“Swift Boat Vets for Truth”, “No Child Left Behind”, etc.). In this case, the left took the label because many couldn’t believe this Bush advisor ACTUALLY BELIEVES what he says.

    It was a good try at a snark, but you missed this time. And your followup is just laughable.

  9. 9
    Doug says:

    John, I disagree with your assertion that Bush’s aide was saying that he and Bush’s supporters were in the reality-based community. Bush’s aide was deriding the reality-based approach to governing.

    [Bush’s] aide said that guys like me [the New York Times writer, Ron Suskind] were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

  10. 10
    Doug says:

    Slipped by Andrei

  11. 11
    metalgrid says:

    Just two points:
    1. Pan is a non is pretty much correct. 7 of the 9 SCOTUS justices were appointed by Republican Presidents and only 2 by Democrat Presidents.

    2. The facts speak for themselves: http://www.latimes.com/news/na.....ck=tothtml

    WASHINGTON — Angry over a recent Supreme Court decision, the House on Thursday began a legislative drive to roll back the power of local governments to seize homes and other private property for economic development projects. By a vote of 231 to 189, the House approved an amendment forbidding the administration from spending money on local projects that seize private property for business development. “What all of us who wish to see this legislation enacted into law want to make sure happens is that the federal government’s money isn’t used to finance taking someone’s property from them to build a strip mall,” said Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.). House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California was among those who voted against the amendment, saying she opposed withholding federal dollars “for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed I am to that decision.” The vote was loosely along party lines: 192 Republicans and 39 Democrats voted to approve; 157 Democrats, 31 Republicans and one Independent were opposed.

  12. 12
    John Cole says:

    My bad- it was an aide who created it as you characterizd it. I was wrong on that.

    That aside- the fact that many on the left have adopted the moniker is still accurate:

    Fighting Democrat

    Matt Yglesias

    Eschaton

    You can google “Proud member of the Reality-Based Community” yourself. You get the point.

    While it may have been derisive in origin, it was adopted quickly by the left- if I remember correctly- as the counter to the ‘faith-based’ community.

    And, as such, I will continue to mock the ‘reality-based’ community.

  13. 13
    Mikey says:

    With respect to your three questions, the answer is (D) All of the Above.

  14. 14
    KC says:

    Yeah John, sorry, but I think that everyone’s got it right here except for you. The intent behind the reality based community anecdote was to show that Bush and his people create reality–make history–while others are left sitting and examining it “judiciously.” In other words, Bush and his people don’t need to see the facts, they’re making them, and leaving the fact checking to other folks. As for Dean, I’m sure he was getting heated and just spouting some nonsense. I’d like to see a real transcript before running with the story though. In all, I wish he’d calm down and shut up.

  15. 15
    bbs says:

    ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

    From the Suskind piece again. This is the origin of the “reality-based” phrase. It has nothing to do with religion or the “faith-based” community. The phrase emerged after the publication of the above piece as a contrast to the bizarre solipsist view espoused by the Bush aide.

    Continue to mock the phrase if you will, but at least understand the origins behind it.

  16. 16
    jg says:

    While it may have been derisive in origin, it was adopted quickly by the left- if I remember correctly- as the counter to the ‘faith-based’ community

    It was picked up because it was hilarious to hear a white house staffer say something so stupid. And they’re pointing out that Bush lives in a fantasy world. Yes Iraq is going badly but thats yesterday, we’re moving forward and creating new realitites. Clowns.

  17. 17
    Geek, Esq. says:

    Yeah, that’s careless rhetoric from Dean.

    Still, he can’t match Ken “The Democrats Owe Karl Rove An Apology” Mehlman for outright dishonesty.

  18. 18
    Doug says:

    On the other hand, I think maybe Dean has learned something by the non-reality-based approach. You can pretty much just make stuff up, and the mainstream media will rarely call you on it. They’ll go for a more “balanced” approach.

    “Dean says moon is made of green cheese. Tainted green cheese manufactured by corrupt Republicans. Republicans disagree.”

  19. 19
    Mr Furious says:

    If that’s what Dean actually said, it’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen attributed to him. And I am a Dean fan.

    That fucking decision was an abomination, and deserved Dean’s scorn, but he can’t pin that on Bush. Not honestly anyway. And I’d rather he not try, there’s plenty of legit shit to nail Bush on, keep your credibilty intact for THOSE attacks, Howard.

  20. 20
    John Cole says:

    It has nothing to do with religion or the “faith-based” community.

    The subsequent adoption of the nickname by the Democrats most certainly was to counter the ‘faith-based’ right, among other things. I was wrong and didn’t remember the genesis of the phrase correctly, but I know how it is used now. To mock the administration.

  21. 21
    Bernard Yomtov says:

    While it may have been derisive in origin, it was adopted quickly by the left- if I remember correctly- as the counter to the ‘faith-based’ community.

    And, as such, I will continue to mock the ‘reality-based’ community.

    You really don’t understand, do you? Is it because you’re stupid, caught up in the moment, or just lying?

    A Bush official claimed that the White House was not interested in objective reality, and that this was a good approach to things. His description of Bush opponents as “reality-based” was intended as an insult. But it’s not an insult; it’s a compliment. Basing one’s thinking on reality is really a smart thing to do, and those who tout their membership in the reality-based community are expressing pride that that’s what they do.

    So why do you feel it appropriate to mock people who try to deal with reality? Do you tell your students it’s wise to ignore reality?

    The kindest explanation I can think of here is that you’ve somehow totally tangled this all up and can’t work your way out. Try.

  22. 22
    Al Maviva says:

    Maybe I’m missing something, but Howie’s statement looks pretty righteous to me. From here, he will be able to speak to the pro-life Democrats – both of them – and rail on the conservatives who drafted the Roe v. Wade decision. Then he can travel to California and rail on the immigration problem caused by all the Russians streaming across our Southern border. He can follow that up with a trip to New York to blame acid rain on the Canadians. See? Once you get rid of the pesky facts, your political rhetoric can really soar.

    Thinking about it seriously for just a second, how ill-informed is this guy? And how insanely ill-informed are the crowds rooting for him at fund raisers?

    Oh, and Pan, that’s really cute. The attorney who made her career as in-house counsel for NOW and ACLU, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is now a Republican shill? Please. And like Stevens’ and Souter’s Republican ties mean anything. If those ties are relevant, then I guess it’s relevant that Fred Phelps is a left wing democrat.

  23. 23
    John Cole says:

    You really don’t understand, do you? Is it because you’re stupid, caught up in the moment, or just lying?

    A Bush official claimed that the White House was not interested in objective reality, and that this was a good approach to things. His description of Bush opponents as “reality-based” was intended as an insult. But it’s not an insult; it’s a compliment. Basing one’s thinking on reality is really a smart thing to do, and those who tout their membership in the reality-based community are expressing pride that that’s what they do.

    Because the vast majority of the bloggers who have adopted the nickname “PROUD MEMBER OF THE REALITY-BASED COMMUNITY” are wrong just as often as the rest of us, and often what they describe as ‘reality’ is just as fictitious as what they attribute to their political oppostion. They aren’t peddling reality- they are peddling their OPINION. Just because someone claims to be a ‘Proud Member of the Reality-Based Community,’ it doesn’t mean they are peddling Capital T Truth.

    While ‘reality-based’ may have been initially an insult, it is now “PROUDLY” bandied about as an adopted nickname. I was wrong about the genesis, as I have stated- I am not wrong about how it is now used.

    So, now, back to Howard Dean. When he claims the right-wing wants to expand Kelo, when the polar opposite is true, is he no longer a member of the ‘Reality-Based Community?’

  24. 24
    BCT says:

    Seeing how Bush made his money through eminent domain I’d have to say Dean’s remark was spot on. Or have you forgotten that Bush and his business partners used eminent domain to take the land needed for the Texas Rangers stadium. The original owners sued and Bush’s interests won.

    That in itself is common enough, so naturally they took additional land to sell to commericial interests. In other words, kick out the neighbors to build a ballfield and kick out some more to build surrounding businesses.

    Now if you want to complain that Dean didn’t make the connection for you….

  25. 25
    Kimmitt says:

    From here, he will be able to speak to the pro-life Democrats – both of them –

    Including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the highest elected official in the Party.

  26. 26
    Kimmitt says:

    Heh, Minority Leader. Ah, if only.

  27. 27
    John Cole says:

    BCT- there is nothing accurate about the ‘right-wing court’ wanting to take your house. Any way you spin it.

  28. 28
    jg says:

    ‘Reality based’ community is in no way a shot at the ‘faith based’ community. Its simply the bloggers saying that unlike Bush, they are based in reality, not fantasy. Its not a shot at faith based. I can understand why you might think that but it simply isn’t true.

  29. 29
    Anderson says:

    John, I think the “reality-based community” isn’t just Democrats. It’s those who are basing their decisions on reality, including many Republicans, and who are opposed to the “faith-based reality” position advocated by Bush’s aide. I mean, come on John, look at what the guy said, and tremble that he’s one of the people RUNNING AMERICA.

    True, the Dems have owned the phrase because they’ve used it, but that is not the Dems’ fault. It’s the fault of those Republicans who haven’t been willing to say “enough’s enough” w/r/t the follies of this administration.

    I definitely think you’re a reality-based Republican, & would cheerfully urge you to self-ID as such. The world needs more of ’em.

  30. 30
    Steve says:

    If the roles were reversed, Republicans would leap to the defense of Dean’s statement, pointing out that the Supreme Court does, in fact, lean to the right, and that it was, in fact, that right-wing court that issued the decision. And if someone pointed out that Bush has nothing to do with that, and that it was the liberal justices who signed onto the opinion, they would simply repeat what they said and ignore the objection.

    Since the roles are not reversed, I will concede that Dean was wrong. Smart politics, though, to distance yourself from that unpopular decision.

  31. 31
    Rick says:

    So “reality-based community” is embraced on the left, despite its provenance, as I cheerfully advance the “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.”

    Fair’s fair.

    Cordially…

    P.S. You guys indulging the hallucination that the SCOTUS is made up of conservative blocs are giving lie to the “reality-based” thing, anyway. Pick your fights a little more carefully.

  32. 32
    KC says:

    I wish the Left would take a look in the mirror sometimes when it comes to heated rhetoric or misalligned facts. Somerby offers an especially good example of why a mirror is good sometimes today.

  33. 33

    […] Dean made his comments on Friday. Media coverage of his gaffe (to be charitable): nada. (Hat tip, John Cole) Filed under: Media and JudgesTrackback URI: http://dalythoughts.com/wp-trackback.php?p=4061 […]

  34. 34
    M. Scott Eiland says:

    Howard Dean is on record as believing that the current Supreme Court is the most conservative one since the Court, which makes one wonder how–aside from the paralyzing historical ignorance such a statement contains (here’s a hint, Howie–read up on the Court in the mid-1930’s, and also look up a couple of cases called Plessy v. Ferguson and Lochner v. New York)–the Supreme Court supposedly became *more* conservative after two Clinton appointments. I think we can just put this latest howlingly obvious inaccuracy in the category of “Howard Dean knows less about the law and the Supreme Court than the membership of ‘Glue Sniffers United'” and get on with our lives. Or we can assume that he’s a pathological liar–or both. Any of those approaches works for me.

  35. 35
    Doug says:

    I agree that the conservative wing of the S.Ct. voted against the majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London. My question is why. Stare decisis cuts in favor of the decision — in the past, the Supreme Court has been very charitable about what it considered “public use”. The state’s rights and limited federal government positions also cut in favor of the majority opinion.

    The real beef, in my mind, should be with the Connecticut legislature. It passed the law allowing a development commission to acquire land by eminent domain and to transfer it to any person so long as the transfer was consistent with a redevelopment plan and the transfer was done for market price. That law appears to be at least 30 years old. The city officials of New London should also be criticized.

    The majority opinion just didn’t strike me as being all that remarkable in light of past decisions. And, for the most part, I don’t get the sense that most of the folks who were unhappy with the decision would have been any happier if the private property had been seized to turn into a city park or flooded for a state reservoir — both of which are more clearly “public uses”. In other words, most unhappiness I’ve seen had less to do with the ultimate transfer to a private purchaser and more to do with the fact that the government was allowed to exercise eminent domain in the first place.

  36. 36
    M. Scott Eiland says:

    Hmmm, that didn’t come out right for some reason–the first part of the first sentence should end “. . .the most conservative one since the Dred Scott Court,”

  37. 37
    Mr.Ortiz says:

    So “reality-based community” is embraced on the left, despite its provenance, as I cheerfully advance the “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.”

    You know, the donkey and elephant logos originated as insults from the opposing party, so maybe we’re witnessing the birth of two new parties: The Reality Party and the Conspiracy Party. Now there’s a debate I’d like to see!

  38. 38
    Rick says:

    I think we can just put this latest howlingly obvious inaccuracy in the category of “Howard Dean knows less about the law and the Supreme Court than the membership of ‘Glue Sniffers United’” and get on with our lives. Or we can assume that he’s a pathological liar—or both. Any of those approaches works for me.

    M. Scott,

    I don’t see why we can’t have the “Glue-Sniffing pig-ignorant” cake, and eat the pathological liar one as well.

    That Kool-Aid Powered Howard can multi-task, for sure.

    Cordially…

  39. 39
    neil says:

    The chief spokesman for the “reality-based” community* at his best. Is he this stupid? Did he just get ‘caught up in the moment?’ Or is he simply lying?

    The Wall Street Journal reported in January that the Bush administration was considering filing an amicus brief on behalf of the City of New London. Dean might have known that and you might not have.

    But even if he didn’t, I have to say I wish you could spare a little outrage for those Republicans who have won power by flagrantly misrepresenting their opponents’ views. There have been too many accusations of not caring about national security, wanting Saddam Hussein in power, hating religion and religious people, trying to make your children gay for me to get too worked up about Dean trying to pin the acts of government on Bush, whose party does firmly control all three branches.

    Finally, Dean has never used the phrase “reality-based community” that I know of, and it is sublimely unfair for you to apply this double standard that Democrats must never lie while Republicans can say whatever the hell they want, just because some liberal blogospherians are pissed off about the Bush administration’s disregard for empiricism.

    Excerpt from WSJ article
    Roberts on Kelo

  40. 40
    Rick says:

    The Reality Party and the Conspiracy Party. Now there’s a debate I’d like to see!

    Mr. Ortiz,

    An amusing thought, but the Democrats–at least, that self-selected fringe of the party that fights the web wars–is running hard for the Conspiracy title as well. Note, for example the casual, uncomprehending use of “neo-con” in so my comments.

    “[The left] will prevail in peace and freedom from fear and in true health through the purity and essence of our natural fluids.”

    Cordially…

  41. 41
    Jeff says:

    Get a fuckin grip, neil. One of the main reasons why there are so many liberals coming to this site is because several liberal bloggers have linked to John as a “good Republican” because he so frequently calls Republicans on their crap.

    Sorry that you got your little feathers ruffled by the fact that John pointed out that St Howard screwed the pooch on this one.

    Dean was just wrong on this one. Like the article says, the three most conservative justices all dissented.

  42. 42
    neil says:

    Bush didn’t appoint any of the three most conservative justices, nor does he control what they say, and just because you and a Townhall columnist have decided that they speak for him doesn’t mean it’s so.

    Bush has not spoken out against the Kelo decision, and he did not file an amicus brief on behalf of the petitioner. According to the WSJ, he almost filed one on behalf of the city. He’s had ample opportunity to distance himself from the decision and he hasn’t taken it, so I say fire at will.

    You guys who voted for Bush have implicitly approved of a form of politics where this sort of claim is ok. So it’s time to get a grip, sit back and take it.

  43. 43
    Jeff says:

    Has anyone found another source for Dean’s comments? I’ve been googling like mad and haven’t come up with anything

  44. 44
    Andrei says:

    Because the vast majority of the bloggers who have adopted the nickname “PROUD MEMBER OF THE REALITY-BASED COMMUNITY” are wrong just as often as the rest of us, and often what they describe as ‘reality’ is just as fictitious as what they attribute to their political oppostion.

    So tell us again, John… Where are those weapons of mass destruction?

    Let’s play a game: Go back and review all the things the left has been “wrong” about since Bush has been in office, then review the things the right has been wrong about in the same time period. Count up the cost in trms of money and lives over those incorrect decisions on both sides and let’s start keeping score.

    You can sit there and deride the left for taking on the monikor to spite the right even though they aren’t always correct, but give us a break already with the mock indignation about the equivalency of these policies and political approaches.

    Whose mistakes are costing Americans right now?

    The right is in charge of all major aspects of government, and their mistakes are the ones that count right now.

  45. 45
    Aziz says:

    John,

    you’re 100% correct. I take Dean to task at Dean Nation – this “reality” is indefensible.

    Looking back at my archives, I am forced to admit that I’ve been one of Dean’s biggest critics. There’s something wrong when the man you wanted to be President is the one you have to keep chastising publicly on the blog you setup to promote him. This may be why I never made it to Dean’s payroll ;)

  46. 46
    Brett says:

    Go back and review all the things the left has been “wrong” about since Bush has been in office, then review the things the right has been wrong about in the same time period.

    Oooh, oooh! Can I play this game, except with the Clinton administration? Because I have 82 innocent Texans immolated by their own government to start the bidding.

  47. 47
    neil says:

    Good catch, Brett. Thankfully, nobody can accuse President Bush of causing anyone to die through his mistakes.

  48. 48
    Kira Zalan says:

    A day after the Kelo decision was delivered, Freestar Media LLC submitted a proposal in the town of Weare, New Hampshire where majority opinion writer, Justice Souter, owns a farm house. They requested that the town board condemn the land and give it to them, as private developers, who promise to construct the Lost Liberty Hotel in its place. Their tax revenue would no doubt be higher than the reported $2,500 that Justice Souter paid in property taxes last year. It would create employment and attract tourism. The town has a website, and an economic development committee, which has identified its two main goals: 1) Encourage the formation of new businesses, and 2) Promote tourism. However, contrary to its stated goals and the legally sanctioned purpose of economic development, the town’s board turned down the proposal.

    So much for poetic justice. Justice Souter’s influence in his community shielded him from his own ruling. No other rational justification can be found.

    Thankfully, the legislative branch is now busy at work attempting to shield private property rights from the Supreme Court ruling. It seems that the two may have switched roles, with the House defending the Constitution, and the Supreme Court writing new laws.

    I thought I saw Alice the other day! Or maybe it was Justice Souter –skipping in Wonderland, immune to and above the laws he passes.

  49. 49
    Kimmitt says:

    I still can’t find any kind of independent corroboration of the quotations. As is generally the case, I’m not interested in discussing anything until I see a transcript. Maybe he said it. Maybe he didn’t. Maybe there is context which completely changes the meaning of the quote. Until we see a transcript, this is a complete waste of time.

  50. 50
    Bernard Yomtov says:

    the vast majority of the bloggers who have adopted the nickname “PROUD MEMBER OF THE REALITY-BASED COMMUNITY” are wrong just as often as the rest of us,

    So what? The point is that unlike the Bush Administration they think facts are important. Do they get them wrong sometimes? Sure. But the difference is that the Bush Administration, by its own admission doesn’t care about the facts.

    Mock all you want, but save just an occasional sneer for those who think reality just doesn’t matter.

    Proceeding, was Dean wrong about the Justices’ respective positions on this case? Clearly he was. Does the right want to expand Kelo? Clearly, many don’t. On the other hand, lots of liberals, including me, don’t want to either. Still, I do wonder about that brief Bush filed. Just maybe it suggests that some on the right do like the decision.

  51. 51
    Andrei says:

    Oooh, oooh! Can I play this game, except with the Clinton administration? Because I have 82 innocent Texans immolated by their own government to start the bidding.

    Let’s play.

    I’ll see those 82 lives taken during the Clinton era and raise you some $1.8 billion in tax money spent and 1,700+ American soldiers dying for their country to fight Bush’s pre-emptive war based on an assumed imminent threat from Iraq who actually did not have weapons of mass destruction and whom we decimated in less than 4 weeks fighting.

  52. 52
    Mike says:

    “Wake the fuck up already. The GOP time and time again makes terms up and attaches them to all sorts of people and causes for their own political purposes. (“Swift Boat Vets for Truth”, “No Child Left Behind”, etc.). In this case, the left took the label because many couldn’t believe this Bush advisor ACTUALLY BELIEVES what he says.”

    However, that doesn’t change the fact that Dean IS an idiot.
    Long may he serve.

  53. 53
    Andrei says:

    Whoops.. meant $180 billion. lol.

  54. 54
    Mike says:

    “Let’s play a game: Go back and review all the things the left has been “wrong” about since Bush has been in office, then review the things the right has been wrong about in the same time period. Count up the cost in trms of money and lives over those incorrect decisions on both sides and let’s start keeping score.”

    Well it’s gonna be hard to come up with much that the Left has been wrong about when:
    a) They are out of power and therefore don’t make policy
    b) 90% of all they ever say is “Bush Sucks” rather than presenting alternatives that people will actually embrace.
    c) Until Democrats get serious about completely ignoring and disavowing the Left-wing of their party, they’ll continue with “a”.

  55. 55
    Andrei says:

    However, that doesn’t change the fact that Dean IS an idiot. Long may he serve.

    Let’s play that game too: Do you think Bush is an idiot?

    Pop-question: How many times have you ever seen President Bush speak unscripted? He gave a good performance during the 2004 debates how childish, simple minded and pedantic he can be when he is forced to speak without reading a prompter or asked questions he was not given the answers to before a press conference.

    Jon Stewart does a great impersonation of Bush when the president has been forced to “be himself.” And it’s not flattering.

    In fact, name one time where you have President Bush speak unscripted in a fashion that gives you confidence about his mental faculties or ability to think critically about the kinds of issues he has to make decisions on. I dare you to find some video. I’ve yet to find any.

    Dean is excitable, for sure. Dean says some crazy things, a lot of the time things that are way out of reason or logic. Maybe Dean is an idiot, I haven’t paid much attention to know for sure or care. But to me honestly, who cares? Dean’s not running the White House is he?

  56. 56
    Andrei says:

    Well it’s gonna be hard to come up with much that the Left has been wrong about when: a) They are out of power and therefore don’t make policy…

    I love it when you make my point for me without even REALIZING it.

  57. 57
    neil says:

    Not so, Mike. The left does spend plenty of time talking, even if they have been deprived of the ability to make policy. And thus, if they were wrong about things like the Iraq war being a distraction from the war on terror, or the UN weapons inspectors doing a good job of keeping Iraq free of WMDs, or the danger of fomenting a civil war in Iraq, or the unwiseness of blowing our budget surplus on a massive tax cut, or the necessity of focusing on Osama bin Laden’s network in the summer of 2001, or.. well, you can just chew on those for a while, but the point is, if they were wrong about any of those things, you could definitely come up with those things if the Left had indeed been wrong about them.

    However, if you are unable to listen to anyone criticizing the shoddy governance of the president and instead just assume they’re saying nothing more than “Bush sucks”, then you will probably not realize that they’re not wrong. At least, not until you realize that Bush -does- suck.

  58. 58
    Bic says:

    Not sure how much validation this counts for but the Seattle for Dean website references this speech too but with a couple different quotes. Still no full transcript but judging from previous Deanisms you can pretty much take the most offensive view of his anti-republican comments and assume that’s how he meant it.

    It appears that this just may be a case of the MSM just getting so tired of reporting on Howard Dean’s nuttiness that they are just not that interested anymore. Or they may be ignoring him for his own good.

  59. 59
    Jeff says:

    In fact, name one time where you have President Bush speak unscripted in a fashion that gives you confidence about his mental faculties or ability to think critically about the kinds of issues he has to make decisions on. I dare you to find some video. I’ve yet to find any.

    I thought this interview was fairly impressive. Certainly one of the more eloquent interviews I’ve seen Bush engage in

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/g8/s.....49,00.html

  60. 60
    DougJ says:

    The thing is when the libs talk about “reality” they are often talking about left-wing pseduo-scientific myths such as evolution, global warming, the big bang, and the “importance” of “balancing the budget”.

  61. 61
    Andrei says:

    TONIGHT: And because, sir, America remains the biggest polluter.

    PRESIDENT BUSH: America is the largest investor in the technologies necessary to be able to say to people, ‘You can grow your economy so people’s standard of living can improve, and at the same time be good stewards of the environment’.

    TONIGHT: But pollution in this country has increased amazingly since 1992.

    PRESIDENT BUSH: That is a totally inaccurate statement.

    TONIGHT: It’s a UN figure.

    PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I just beg to differ with every figure you’ve got. The environment has – the quality of the environment has improved, in spite of the fact that we’ve grown our economy.

    TONIGHT: Mr President, if I can move on to the question of Iraq, when we last spoke before the Iraq war, I asked you about Saddam Hussein and you said this, and I quote: “He harbours and develops weapons of mass destruction, make no mistake about it.”

    Well, today, no WMD, the war has cost 1,700 American lives, many more Iraqi civilians killed, hundreds of billions of dollars in cost to your country. Can you understand why some people in your country are now beginning to wonder whether it was really worth it?

    PRESIDENT BUSH: Absolutely. I mean, when you turn on your TV set every day and see this incredible violence and the havoc that is wreaked as a result of these killers, I’m sure why people are getting discouraged. And that’s why I spoke to the nation last night and reminded people that this is a – Iraq is a part of this global war on terror. And the reason why foreign fighters are flocking into Iraq is because they want to drive us out of the region.

    See, these folks represent an ideology that is based upon hate and kind of a narrow vision of mankind – women don’t have rights. And I believe this is an ideological movement. And I know that they want to use suicide bombers and assassinations and attacks on the World Trade Centre, and the attacks in Madrid, to try to shake our will and to achieve an objective, which is to topple governments. And the best way to defeat an ideology is with a better ideology. And I believe democracy is a better ideology, to provide hope for people and – but yes, it’s tough. But we’ve done tough things before in America. And we’ve got a great ally in Great Britain. But it’s not only Great Britain. As Gerhard Schröder said in the Oval Office, a democratic Iraq is important not only to Germany, but to Europe, and he’s right.

    Foreign fighters are travelling into Iraq to make it a front line in the war on terror. And I would rather defeat them there than face them in our own country.

    You actually find stuff like that reasonable?

    I have nothing more to add.

  62. 62
    Andrei says:

    It’s official… DougJ is the BEST version of an Andy Kaufman freakshow impersonation I’ve seen in quite some time. Easily the best in the blogosphere to date. I applaud you DougJ! (The balancing the budget snark was primo! I’m loving it.)

    Once again, I ask that John Cole give DougJ his own thread. Lord knows the persona known as DougJ is far more deserving than the real life character known as Darrell.

  63. 63
    Another Jeff says:

    I thought you had nothing more to add.

  64. 64
    Jeff says:

    You actually find stuff like that reasonable?

    I have nothing more to add.

    You’ll have to elaborate why you don’t find unreasonable.

  65. 65
    Jeff says:

    err, meant “find it unreasonable”, without the “don’t”

  66. 66
    Yet another Jeff says:

    By the way, the “Jeff” that was originally debating with you wasn’t me. Should have used a different name to not confuse matters

  67. 67
    Kimmitt says:

    judging from previous Deanisms you can pretty much take the most offensive view of his anti-republican comments and assume that’s how he meant it.

    Meh meh meh, find me a transcript or quitcher bitchin.

  68. 68
    DougJ says:

    Count me as a pro-Dean Republican. Not just because he is furthering wrecking his party but because I genuinely like his over-the-top wacko style. God, how could you liberals put up with those weasels like the Clintons, Al Gore, and John Kerry for so long?

    It’s really the best of both worlds for us conservatives now: Dean is a poor leader for you guys plus I don’t feel like puking everytime I see him on t.v. the way I did with the last generation of Democratic leaders.

  69. 69
    Defense Guy says:

    Dean is the gift that keeps on giving. Long may he reign.

  70. 70
    Steve says:

    It sort of makes me wonder, that this story has been kicked around quite a while, in blogosphere time, and yet the only source we have is CNS.

  71. 71
    Mike says:

    “But to me honestly, who cares? Dean’s not running the White House is he?”

    No. He’s the best the Democrats could come up with to win the next election, that’s all he is.

    To be fair though, I think in the end Dean will prove to be pretty much irrelevant. Centric Dems (the ones that actually have a shot at winning) already appear to be distancing themselves from him somewhat. Hopefully he will continue to become more irrelevant as time goes on. Also, the CANDIDATE is far more important than the head of the party, as it true with the Republicans as well. Dean’s mostly just there for Republican entertainment value by now IMO.

  72. 72
    ARROW says:

    From the Suskind piece again. This is the origin of the “reality-based” phrase. It has nothing to do with religion or the “faith-based” community. The phrase emerged after the publication of the above piece as a contrast to the bizarre solipsist view espoused by the Bush aide.

    Great word, solipsist. Butwhat does it mean? I just thought the Bush aide was talking about the 800 pound gorilla based theory.

  73. 73
    Steve says:

    A solipsist is someone who believes that nothing other than himself is real, or can be proven to be real, anyway.

  74. 74
    Jess says:

    …the vast majority of the bloggers who have adopted the nickname “PROUD MEMBER OF THE REALITY-BASED COMMUNITY” are wrong just as often as the rest of us, and often what they describe as ‘reality’ is just as fictitious as what they attribute to their political oppostion. They aren’t peddling reality- they are peddling their OPINION. Just because someone claims to be a ‘Proud Member of the Reality-Based Community,’ it doesn’t mean they are peddling Capital T Truth…

    …So, now, back to Howard Dean. When he claims the right-wing wants to expand Kelo, when the polar opposite is true, is he no longer a member of the ‘Reality-Based Community?’

    John,

    I’m still chuckling over the fact that you put these two remarks in a single post. Let’s connect the dots here:

    FIRST you mock those who call themselves Proud Members of the RBC, but are not understanding that they are expressing their commitment to the honest attempt to base their world view on fact instead of wishful thinking, not that they believe they have the truth with a capital T. It’s about intellectual integrity and the rejection of relativism.

    THEN you question the factual basis of Dean’s remarks, thereby momentarily at least aligning yourself with that same RBC. A bit of a cognitive dissonance here, no?

    I would have pegged you, and most of your regulars, as members of the RBC, and would have expected you to be proud of that label. It has nothing to do with left or right; there are magical thinkers on both sides, and practical “Just the Facts” types on both sides. Which camp ARE you in?

  75. 75
    DougJ says:

    RBC…LOL

  76. 76
    Sojourner says:

    I wish the Left would take a look in the mirror sometimes when it comes to heated rhetoric or misalligned facts. Somerby offers an especially good example of why a mirror is good sometimes today.

    You want to know why folks on the Left are so heated? Try this:

    Let’s tally it all up: Creating a murderous civil war, badly weakening our military, creating anti-American hatred all over the world, vastly increasing the terrorist threat, getting thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands wounding, killing tens of thousand of Iraqis, torturing hundreds, perhaps thousands more, letting our true enemies retreat and regroup, and wasting hundreds of billions of dollars,–to say nothing of deliberately outing CIA agents for political payback and firing everyone who tried to tell the truth and starving homeland security–all for a war in which we were never threatened. Seriously, if I were Bin Laden, I’d just retire. Everything’s going swimmingly…

  77. 77
    RMcLeod says:

    To the poster who raised the question about whether this statement from Bush is viewed by his supporters as “actually reasonable”:

    “See, these folks represent an ideology that is based upon hate and kind of a narrow vision of mankind – women don’t have rights. And I believe this is an ideological movement. And I know that they want to use suicide bombers and assassinations and attacks on the World Trade Centre, and the attacks in Madrid, to try to shake our will and to achieve an objective, which is to topple governments. And the best way to defeat an ideology is with a better ideology. And I believe democracy is a better ideology, to provide hope for people and – but yes, it’s tough.”

    What, pray tell, is unreasonable about it, other than the fact that Bush isn’t a slick public speaker?

    1. “these folks represent an ideology that is based upon hate and kind of a narrow vision of mankind — women don’t have rights.” Is there anything false or unreasonable about this characterization of fanatic Muslims?

    2. “And I believe this is an ideological movement.” Islamofacism is an ideology. True statement.

    3. “And I know that they want to use suicide bombers and assassinations and attacks on the World Trade Centre, and the attacks in Madrid, to try to shake our will and to achieve an objective, which is to topple governments.” True.

    4. “And I believe democracy is a better ideology, to provide hope for people and – but yes, it’s tough.”

    True again, unless you think Communism, fascism, and the kleptocractic clans that run the Middle East are a better choice.

  78. 78
    RMcLeod says:

    Here’s more unreasonable, unscripted, Chimpy McHitler comments…Times of London…what a dumbass, eh?…

    THE TIMES: Mr President, last night you mentioned the link between Iraq and 9/11, but there’s evidence of Iraq becoming a haven for jihadists, there’s been a CIA report which says that Iraq is in danger of — are you at risk of creating kind of more of the problems that actually led directly to —?

    PRESIDENT BUSH: No. Quite the contrary. Where you win the war on terror is go to the battlefield and you take them off. And that’s what they’ve done. They’ve said, ‘Look, let’s go fight. This is the place.’ And that was my point. My point is that there is an ideology of hatred, an ideology that’s got a vision of a world where the extremists dictate the lives, dictate to millions of Muslims. They do want to topple governments in the Middle East. They do want us to withdraw. They’re interested in exporting violence. After all, look at what happened after September 11 (2001). One way for your readers to understand what their vision is is to think about what life was like under the Taleban in Afghanistan.

    So we made a decision to protect ourselves and remove Saddam Hussein. The jihadists made a decision to come into Iraq to fight us. For a reason. They know that if we’re successful in Iraq, like we were in Afghanistan, that it’ll be a serious blow to their ideology. General (John) Abizaid (Commander of US forces in the Middle East) told me something very early in this campaign I thought was very interesting. Very capable man. He’s a Arab-American who I find to be a man of great depth and understanding. When we win in Afghanistan and Iraq, it’s a beginning of the end. Talking about the war on terror. If we don’t win here, it’s the beginning of the beginning. And that’s how I view it.”

    Bush gets what so many on the left simply refuse to acknowledge: The Islamofascists want to establish the Caliphate. Everything they do makes sense when this is understood.

    As Daniel Pipes writes:

    “In nearly all cases, the jihadi terrorists have a patently self-evident ambition: to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Islamic law, the Shari’a. Or, again to cite the Daily Telegraph, their “real project is the extension of the Islamic territory across the globe, and the establishment of a worldwide ‘caliphate’ founded on Shari’a law.”

    “Terrorists openly declare this goal. The Islamists who assassinated Anwar el-Sadat in 1981 decorated their holding cages with banners proclaiming the “caliphate or death.” A biography of one of the most influential Islamist thinkers of recent times and an influence on Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam declares that his life “revolved around a single goal, namely the establishment of Allah’s Rule on earth” and restoring the caliphate.

    “Bin Laden himself spoke of ensuring that “the pious caliphate will start from Afghanistan.” His chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, also dreamed of re-establishing the caliphate, for then, he wrote, “history would make a new turn, God willing, in the opposite direction against the empire of the United States and the world’s Jewish government.” Another Al-Qaeda leader, Fazlur Rehman Khalil, publishes a magazine that has declared “Due to the blessings of jihad, America’s countdown has begun. It will declare defeat soon,” to be followed by the creation of a caliphate.”

    You don’t like Bush, OK. Just ask yourself a simple question: do you think Howard Dean, or Nancy Pelosi, or John Kerry get what the Islamofascists really, really want?

  79. 79
    Andrei says:

    You didn’t comment on the key sentence in the paragraph:

    And the best way to defeat an ideology is with a better ideology.

    Dismissing for a moment that attempting to “defeat an idealogy” is probably not something that once can actually do — in what way do you defeat idealogy? Is there some sort of contest going on here? Idealogy is not something you defeat in the waging war sense, it’s something that changes and evolves over long periods of time, from generation to generation — we should note the obvious as exemplified by the Bush administration’s own foreign policy: the best way they think to defeat these idealogues is by waging war and forcing a specific idealogy onto a part of the world that is radically different from us historically and culturally.

    So the critical part is about to happen. Sure, we removed Saddam Hussein and have now allowed the Iraqi people to choose their leaders via elections. But already, reports are coming in that Iran is now getting cozier with the Iraqi people, and guess what, the Iraqis seem to be ok with that. If the Bush administration is going to be honest about replacing one idealogy with another, and letting that part of the world practice democracy, it will have to let the Iraqi people do what they wish with regards to their own relationship with Iran. (That would be allowing the Iraqi people to practice the idealogy of democractic governance.)

    But something tells me that it would not be ok with a vast majority of the American public if Iraq became an extension of Iran. You tell me.

    Remember, Iran is one of the spokes in the Axis of Evil(tm). Would we let our brave soldiers fight and die in this war so Iran, one of the biggest threats of evil we face, could have more influence in Iraq? I would think not. In which case, if we are going to force a resolution we want, we are really practicing a stealth form of imperialism in Iraq attempting to force them to practice a specific form of idealogy as we define (his next sentence: “And I believe democracy is a better ideology, to provide hope for people…”), which would make Bush’s entire comment one big fat whopper of a crap sandwich.

    I could be wrong. Maybe this administration will let the Iraqi people have real democracy, even if it means that if the Iraqi people might want a stronger Iranian relationship. If so, then I take it all back and will gladly admit you all were right. I’m even willing to wager money on it.

    One more thing, last time I checked, Jesus Christ seemed to believe that the best way to change the world was not by force or violence, but by ideas and love. Wonder whatever happened to that option as a means to “defeat idealogy?”

  80. 80
    Paul says:

    “One more thing, last time I checked, Jesus Christ seemed to believe that the best way to change the world was not by force or violence, but by ideas and love. Wonder whatever happened to that option as a means to “defeat idealogy?”

    Are you just naive or just stupid? You think Love (with a capital L) stopped Stalin from massacring 60 million Russians during his rule? Are you somehow arguing that “love” would have stopped the Khmer Rouge from sending 2 million Cambodians to the Killing Fields? I’m sure if Britain had “loved” Nazi Germany more, Hitler would have seen the errors of his ways and rewritten his master solution to include the statement, “Loving the Jewish is the answer to Germany’s problems.”

    Maybe the solution to stopping the genocide in Darfur is to shower the country with “love bombs.” Yeah, the Live8 concert is really doing a lot to stop the killing now, what with the love of millions of people directed at the peoples of Africa for an entire weekend.

    Please don’t drag Jesus Christ into this argument. Your reasoning is insulting simply for its intellectual simplicity because it’s quite clear that “loving thy enemy” has moral limits (e.g. it would be ridiculous to argue that “love” should extend to Satan or compassion for murderous, evil philosophies like Nazism or fascism).

    The bottom line is whether you believe Islamofacism is a global threat that aims to establish a World Caliphate , or whether you believe Islamofacism is a myth invented by the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. “Love” has nothing to do with it.

  81. 81
    RW says:

    I loved it when the “reality based community” adopted the “fake but accurate” theme as their motto.

  82. 82
    Yet another Jeff says:

    Andrei,

    You said that you had never seen an unscripted interview with Bush where he seemed reasonable and articulate. I posted an article. So far you have only quoted two sections of that article that you found “unreasonable”. And then when called on it you only argued one particular line as being “unreasonable”. Can I thus infer then that you found most of that interview reasonable and articulate, besides that one line?

    If so, doesn’t that shoot your previous criticism of Bush out of the water? If you can only fine one line out of an entire interview that you find unintelligent and unreasonable, doesn’t that say your assessment of Bush’s mental abilities might be incorrect?

    Of course if you have other problems with the interview, you should express them because your case is being severely weakened right now

  83. 83
    Steve says:

    Isn’t Iraq in far, far greater danger of becoming an Islamic state now than it ever was before? I say this only because it seems like if we win, we get an Islamic state and if we lose, we get an Islamic state.

  84. 84
    Sojourner says:

    Isn’t Iraq in far, far greater danger of becoming an Islamic state now than it ever was before? I say this only because it seems like if we win, we get an Islamic state and if we lose, we get an Islamic state.

    Careful. You’re beginning to sound anti-American. Would you like a glass of kool-aid?

  85. 85
    mac Buckets says:

    One more thing, last time I checked, Jesus Christ seemed to believe that the best way to change the world was not by force or violence, but by ideas and love.Wonder whatever happened to that option as a means to “defeat idealogy?”

    We have here the first recorded incident in recent history of a lefty begging Christians to proselytize and spread their ideas. You know those liberals — always fighting for the Constitutional right to spread Christian values!

  86. 86
    Andrei says:

    “Are you just naive or just stupid?”

    I guess that means you’re suggesting Jesus Christ was stupid too, since all I did was point out his means for changing the entire way a large majority of human population thinks.

    “Your reasoning is insulting simply for its intellectual simplicity because it’s quite clear that “loving thy enemy” has moral limits”

    Not according to the Bible. It would appear you need to go back to Sunday school. What I was taught raised as a Catholic was that violence was not an acceptable means. Period.

    Does it mean I beleive that? No. I was making a comment to point out that Bush, a self-proclaimed born again type of the Christian faith, is using a means in direct opposition to what his faith preaches.

    Maybe you should buy yourself a clue.

  87. 87
    mac Buckets says:

    Getting back to the main point of the post, do we really need confirmation that The Screaming Little Ball of Hate will say whatever he can hope to get away with, regardless of truth, in order to slander Republicans? Does anyone out there, even Democrats, really base their version of reality on what is going on in HateBall’s little dome?

    If so, I haven’t seen such self-delusion since Milli Vanilli cut a follow-up record.

    So, “is he this stupid?” Well, he’s no Marc Racicot-level intellect, but Dean made it through med school and fooled the Democrats into giving him a job he can’t do…so I vote “not stupid.”

    So, “caught up in the moment?” There have been too many moments, and this was just a speech to a College Democrat group. It wasn’t the National Convention, or a desperate attempt to keep his campaign afloat (“Yeeeeaaaargh!”)

    So, “lying?” Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner! Young, impressionable, largely-ignorant kids probably put Dean in his Propaganda Comfort Zone. Add to this his well-chronicled disregard for the truth when it comes to spreading anti-GOP agitprop and the fact that his unique situation as Chair of the most desperate-for-a-victory political party in memory pretty much gives him license within his party to lie, and you get the black-is-white, up-is-down, Dean-is-a-great-DNC-Chair dissembling that occurred.

    So, Dean lies. Shocker. He’s allowed to do that — it’s his job, as a paid shill trying to separate Young Dems from their money in the name of The Cause. You should expect it. However, what we should also expect is that the media will call him on it.

  88. 88
    Andrei says:

    You said that you had never seen an unscripted interview with Bush where he seemed reasonable and articulate. I posted an article. So far you have only quoted two sections of that article that you found “unreasonable”.

    That because I have a job and no desire to spend an entire week dissecting that stuff for people who refuse to listen anyway. That interview was typical of a Bush interview where he stammers around finding ways to regurgitate scripted talking points, and in the end, doesn’t really say anything substantive about the question asked. Just a lot of nice sounding sound bites that make it appear as if he’s making some real point, when in fact he isn’t.

    Of course if you have other problems with the interview, you should express them because your case is being severely weakened right now.

    If I find time I will, as most of it is typical Bush talking points and talking around a subject. I generally assume most of the stuff Bush says is easily identifiable as transparent for the scripted talking points they are (since he says the same thing over and over and over whenever he is questiond about anything) but obviously since he was re-elected and people can read a transcript like that interview and not find fault with it, obviously that’s not the case.

    And at those times, I go grab a stiff drink and try to remind myself that there’s a reasonable chance Bush can’t do so much damage that can’t be recovered from.

  89. 89
    Andrei says:

    We have here the first recorded incident in recent history of a lefty begging Christians to proselytize and spread their ideas.

    While I would love to be attached to that fine moment in history, as I have noted here before and many times in the past, I’m a registered Independent and I have voted Libertarian in the last four elections, with the exception of voting Democractic for the president.

    So I’m not sure that qualifies me as being a “lefty.”

  90. 90
    Mr.Atos says:

    What we see happpening here with Howard Dean is not new nor unique with the Left. It goes on daily. And the insult of Dean’s lie is furthered in its offense by the failure of the mainstream media to challenge his grossly fallacious statements with fact. Nothing coming from the Left should therefore, be assumed to be genuine unless and until obscenities like this agitprop eminating from the cavity of the Democrat National Committee are challenge and corrected from within.

  91. 91
    Sojourner says:

    We have here the first recorded incident in recent history of a lefty begging Christians to proselytize and spread their ideas.

    No. We’d just like to see them practice what they preach.

  92. 92
  93. 93
  94. 94
    trembeling timberdoodle says:

    Yep its true when it comes to the liberal left-wing news meida they hide such things about mean dean from the american public

  95. 95
    Olsajer says:

    But you are say, that this idead is bad?,

  96. 96
    Valtrex. says:

    Valtrex.

    Valtrex. Valtrex and flu shot.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Valtrex. says:

    Valtrex.

    Valtrex. Valtrex and flu shot.

  2. […] Dean made his comments on Friday. Media coverage of his gaffe (to be charitable): nada. (Hat tip, John Cole) Filed under: Media and JudgesTrackback URI: http://dalythoughts.com/wp-trackback.php?p=4061 […]

Comments are closed.