Has Dean hurt Kerry?

[MJames41]

Howard Dean is back in the headlines again. He accused President Bush of politicizing the upgrade of a terror alert. This kind of accusation is just outrageous, and could be deadly. If an attack does happen, does he then say that President Bush allowed it to happen for the politics?

My question, do you think this will hurt John Kerrys campaign?

 

[jennyanydots]

first of all...

we're at orange -- high alert. in NY we are always at orange. the fearmongers keep us at orange 24/7/365. if a real threat were made no one would take it seriously because we're always at orange. why bother to make a color scale if we're always going to be at "orange"?

second...why announce a threat? why not just take care of the &%$@ problem? if you know someone's planning to blow up the Stock Exchange, keep him from doing so...alert the Stock Exchange and the NYPD. why alert the public at large?


becuse you want to curry fear.

Dean's got it right.

but Dean speaks for Dean, not for Kerry. so how would Dean's opinion negatively affect kerry?

 

[WillyJ]

Dean didn't accuse Bush of anything. . . he expressed skepticism and said it was, "impossible to know how much was real and how much was politics. . ."


I think it's a legitimate question and I don't think it will hurt Kerry at all. . . especially since Kerry's campaign issued a statement saying they agreed it was a dangerous development and pointed up the need to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. . .

 

[Kirk]

In the greater scheme of things - does it matter? Everyone seems to vote the economy- Don't they? Maybe that's why the financial sector threat. Do you think? I guess what I'm saying is I think people stopped listenning to Dean a long time ago. At least I did and I'm truely in the middle. I'll wait until the debates to make up my mind. And if either one fails to change my mind - I'm Voting for Nader!!!

 

[WillyJ]

I'm going to lock myself in my duct-taped and plastic room for 8 years and Barack Obama is ready to run for Prez. . .

 

[kbeverina]

I think more likely better for Kerry. Now that he has the nomination, the more to the center he appears, which he will compared to Dean, the better for him in a general election.

Hmmmm...

Could be a new concept in party politics. We have the vice-president/vice-president-in-running playing the party attack dogs to keep the prez/prez-in-running looking clean.

Maybe now we'll have the party wannabees acting as extremists to the far left or right to make the candidates look more moderate and to the center.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by jennyanydots

second...why announce a threat? why not just take care of the &%$@ problem? if you know someone's planning to blow up the Stock Exchange, keep him from doing so...alert the Stock Exchange and the NYPD. why alert the public at large?

And exactly how would this be done, when the threat is a truck bomb?

 

[kbeverina]

Aren't they re-routing truck traffic to a certain bridge and conducting searches and all that? It seems they'd have to alert the public if they're doing that.

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by WillyJ
Dean didn't accuse Bush of anything. . . he expressed skepticism and said it was, "impossible to know how much was real and how much was politics. . ."


I think it's a legitimate question and I don't think it will hurt Kerry at all. . . especially since Kerry's campaign issued a statement saying they agreed it was a dangerous development and pointed up the need to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. . .

First of all, welcome back Willy! 2nd, that is an accusation, that the President was using this to win votes.

I was one of the 3 (currently) who voted that it would have minimal damage, unless Kerry gets him in line. Like it or not, Kerry is now considered the leader of his party - if he can't keep Dean in line, he will be seen as being unable to lead.

And before everyone jumps on me about Dean's "freedom of speech", you might want to look at what I am saying. Personally, I don't care if Dean shoots his mouth off or not - I firmly believe that every time he does, he sends another few votes Bush's way. I just think that it places Senator Kerry in a very bad light, and that he will be touched by it. We are not talking about Dennis Kucinich, or Al Sharpton, we are talking about a man that for several months was the Democratic front runner, someone who has a leadership role in his party (for now, or at least he is perceived that way). If Senator Kerry can't get the people in his own party to come together, how can he claim to bring the country together?

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by WillyJ
I'm going to lock myself in my duct-taped and plastic room for 8 years and Barack Obama is ready to run for Prez. . .

He did speak very well, didn't he? I think he sealed his senatorial seat that day.

 

[GaryAdams]

He did speak very well, didn't he? I think he sealed his senatorial seat that day

come on, you wouldnt change your vote if DA COACH changed his mind and ran? lol

 

[shortbun]

Dean's not Kerry. We all know Dean is an independent thinker.
That said-I'm kinda agreein with Dean. I'm tired of the fear
mongering of the Bush admin. I think of GWB,Dick Cheney, Jim
Baker, GHWB and their gang...could they be that devious? They
could. Would they? It's positively fool proof, hmmm. Nah, I'm
just being paranoid.

I'm diggin Barak as well, WillyJ! Is he not positively the best!?

 

[peachgirl]

I won't have any effect at all, imo. Besides, I don't think Dean's charges are all that outrageous. Bush is running a campaign based on trying to make people afraid not to vote for him.

That what Dean says will hurt Kerry is just wishful thinking...

 

[Mamu]

While I believe terror threats are here to stay for a very long time. When hatred for Americans is taught on a daily basis, we have a whole generation ahead of us who will be willing to sacriface themselves and be reward in an afterlife for a cause against what they've been taught is the right and only way.

As for Howard Dean I don't think he helps or hurts anyone but Howard Dean. He should learn to think before he speaks.

Whether the threat is somethink new or been in the making for years. If we've learned anything from the 9/11 attacks is there is a large network of terrorist who live, sleep and eat with only one thing on their mind, and thats to distroy our country and it's way of life.

Republican or Democrat we all want to feel safe and if elevating the level helps to save lives thats what we need to do. No one likes their privacy and way of life infringed on, I sure don't, but if it saves just one life, elevate the level. I may complain and question it a lot, inside I know it has to be this way.

All politicans should be discussing how we can make tomorrow better.

 

[richiebaseball]

Yes I believe it could have been political. Actually I think the chances that this administration is using the terror alert for possible political gains is probably about the same as the chances that the Democratic party is floating this idea just to see if something might stick and possibly get a few voters on their side. And if Howard Dean says it, well, everyone knows old Howard is a loose cannon. If it backfires we can always say, "Hey, wasn't us. We can't control what Howard says. He's kinda nutty ya know."
Also looks like Senators Kerry and Edwards are taking the high road. Kinda slick, huh? Speaking of the high road, ya gotta love those 529's.

Just one man's opinion.

Richard

 

[Jynohn]

Originally posted by jennyanydots
first of all...


why announce a threat? why not just take care of the &%$@ problem? if you know someone's planning to blow up the Stock Exchange, keep him from doing so...alert the Stock Exchange and the NYPD. why alert the public at large?


becuse you want to curry fear.

And if they didn't announce a threat and an attack occurred, once it leaked out that there was prior knowledge of an imminent threat, how do you think people would react? They would blame Bush for not warning people ahead of time. So either he's accused of fear mongering, or he's accused of endangering lives. Guess it's a matter of d@@@ned if he does, d@@@ned if he doesn't...

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Jynohn
And if they didn't announce a threat and an attack occurred, once it leaked out that there was prior knowledge of an imminent threat, how do you think people would react? They would blame Bush for not warning people ahead of time. So either he's accused of fear mongering, or he's accused of endangering lives. Guess it's a matter of d@@@ned if he does, d@@@ned if he doesn't...

Actually, let me step in here and defend the Bush administration...

(I'll pause while half the political posters here pick themselves up off the floor )

In this particular case, I absolutely believe they are doing the right thing. If they got specific information (not a big if, in my opinion), then they absolutely have the responsibility to tell the public, and they did just that in this case. They did the RIGHT thing here, as people deserve to know when they may be in imminent danger.

It's the "non-specific" warnings I think are the wrong way to go. Trotting out Tom Ridge to do his "I don't know where, and I don't know when...but they're coming to get us" routine just serves absolutely no purpose. A simple reminder (at, say, a televised press conference, if the president could be bothered) to be vigilant and that the possibility of a terror attack is ever-present would serve the same purpose. Then, should a more likely threat be discovered, Ridge wouldn't come off so Chick Little-ish.

 

[Lanshark]

Actually, let me step in here and defend the Bush administration...

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Lanshark

Yeah, i figured that'd be the reaction a lot of people would have

I know I come off as a rabid Bush hater, but I'm really not...It's just that there is SOOOO little this president believes in that I agree with. I honestly don't think you could pick a worse president if you tried, short of going the Pat Buchanon / David Duke route