Doocy again falsely suggested Dean called McCain "blatantly opportunistic" for citing his war record
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Echoing his false claim the previous day that DNC chairman Howard Dean accused Sen. John McCain of "blatant opportunism" for referencing his military service as part of his presidential campaign, co-host Steve Doocy asserted on Fox & Friends that "Howard Dean looked at the biography tour and called John McCain blatantly opportunistic, which is extraordinary about a guy who spent five years in the Hanoi Hilton." In fact, Dean did not say that McCain's reference to his military record was "blatantly opportunistic."
During the April 1 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy asserted, "[Democratic National Committee chairman] Howard Dean looked at the biography tour and called [Sen.] John McCain blatantly opportunistic, which is extraordinary about a guy who spent five years in the Hanoi Hilton." Doocy's remark echoed his false claim during the March 31 edition of Fox & Friends that Dean accused McCain of "blatant opportunism" for referencing his military service as part of his presidential campaign. Additionally, after New York Times columnist and Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, who appeared as a guest on the April 1 program, asserted, "whatever you can say about McCain, the one thing he hasn't been is blatantly opportunistic," co-host Gretchen Carlson added, "On military service." In fact, Dean did not say that McCain's reference to his military record was "blatantly opportunistic."
In a March 28 statement, Dean said:
The American people have been waiting for a president who understands the challenges they face, not another out of touch Bush Republican who promises four more years of the same failed leadership. John McCain can try to reintroduce himself to the country, but he can't change the fact that he cast aside his principles to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush for the last seven years. While we honor McCain's military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn't understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.
On March 29, Republican National Committee chairman Robert Duncan issued a statement that falsely accused Dean of "stating that Senator McCain is a 'blatant opportunist' for discussing his record of military service with the American people." Doocy has now echoed this false assertion on two consecutive editions of Fox & Friends.
Further, while discussing McCain's "biographical tour," Kristol stated, "The people with the more impressive war records, the people who had served the country longest don't necessarily win." He then added, "George H.W. Bush, shot down as a kid in the Pacific in World War II, loses to Bill Clinton, who never served. Bob Dole, wounded in World War II, loses to Bill Clinton, who never served. John Kerry served in Vietnam, loses to George W. Bush, who didn't see combat." Carlson responded to Kristol by falsely asserting, "That's interesting, because the war on terror did not exist with the other presidents that you're mentioning, so I think that may be a difference." But contrary to Carlson's rationale for why McCain's war record might enhance his electoral chances more than other recent presidential candidates with military experience who were defeated, how to handle the so-called "war on terror" was a major point of contention between Bush and Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign.
From the April 1 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): I want to talk to you about the column you wrote, because you took the time to type it out with carbon paper so everyone had copies -- for The New York Times. You say John McCain -- wrong time for the biographical tour, right time for a tax reform policy, right time for an economic policy.
KRISTOL: OK to do the biographical tour -- it's an incredibly admirable biography -- but look at the last four elections. The people with the more impressive war records, the people who had served the country longest, don't necessarily win. George H.W. Bush, shot down as a kid in the Pacific in World War II, loses to Bill Clinton, who never served. Bob Dole --
DOOCY: Right.
KRISTOL: -- wounded in World War II, loses to Bill Clinton, who never served. John Kerry, served in Vietnam, loses to George W. Bush, who didn't see combat. The American people could say --
DOOCY: Sure.
KRISTOL: -- could say, "We admire John McCain's service 30 years ago, but" --
CARLSON: The only difference, though --
KRISTOL: -- "what's his -- what are his financial reform proposals? Does he understand what we have to do in the world?" And so I just think McCain has to pivot -- and I think he will -- but he has to pivot to a forward-looking, policy-heavy campaign.
CARLSON: That's interesting, because the war on terror did not exist with the other presidents that you're mentioning, so I think that may be a difference.
KRISTOL: I agree. Foreign policy's more important, but even so, people could say McCain was a great, you know, hero and has been in the POW camp, but, nonetheless, is he right about Iraq? Is he right about Iran? Jim Stockdale, you know, the admiral who died recently --
KILMEADE: Sure.
KRISTOL: I mean, he was -- he was McCain's commander in the camp at Hanoi.
DOOCY: That's right.
KRISTOL: He was truly a remarkable man. I've talked to McCain about this. I think there are very few Americans he admires more than Admiral Stockdale. And also a deep thinker who --
[crosstalk]
KILMEADE: -- who ran with Perot, Ross Perot.
KRISTOL: He ran with Perot. I was Quayle's chief of staff. Dan Quayle debated Stockdale and Gore in '92, and Stockdale --
[crosstalk]
KRISTOL: Thank you. Stockdale seemed a little out of it, and sort of -- he didn't do very well. And it really brought home to me that you can be a really fantastic human being, but people could say he's not up to the job now. Now that's not going to happen with John McCain, but I do think it's very important that the McCain people not kid themselves that this election is going to be about who was more heroic 30 years ago.
DOOCY: Let me ask you about one thing. Howard Dean looked at the biography tour and called John McCain blatantly opportunistic, which is extraordinary about a guy who spent five years in the Hanoi Hilton. Do you think that's appropriate criticism, or Howard Dean just out of his mind on that?
KRISTOL: Well, what's extraordinary about it is, what do the American people want? They would love to be able to get out of Iraq. You know, obviously the polls show that.
DOOCY: Sure.
KRISTOL: McCain tells them the hard truth: We're not going to be able to leave any time soon. We have to continue sacrificing; it's in our interest. That's not opportunism. That's leadership.
And there, I think, McCain should make the case, that on Iraq, on Iran, on the current issues we face in the war on terror -- his policies are the right ones, and Obama's are the easy way. But Dean -- Dean is amazing to call -- I mean, whatever you can say about McCain, the one thing he hasn't been is blatantly opportunistic.
DOOCY: There you go.
CARLSON: On military service.
Dean mentions McCain's military service and in the same sentence calls him a blatant opportunist......and now the defenders rush to parse his way out of it.
Whether he meant it that way or not is most definitely up for discussion, and not misinformation to do so.
Sometimes you and I actually agree, Tommy, and then there are times like this. :)
This is a great example of the remarkable thing the right does with ANYTHING miltary- if you have any criticism of someone who has had any military background, somehow you are demeaning his service.
If Obama's people allegedly hide behind his color, and Clinton's people hide behind the fact that she is a woman, the right is deflecting any legitimate citicism of McCain behind his war record. It's absurd.
McCain IS a blatant opportunist, and no, I am not referring to anything like his miltary record. And obviously neither was Dean.
You know as well as I do that it doesn't matter what they say, they will misconstrue the distort. That's what propagandist's do.
On the up-side, you just soundly admitted that they are distorting Dean's comments.
*Misconstrue and distort*
No you said "But don't blame the media if your words and their meanings are so easily misconstrued or misinterpreted"
Though maybe you didn't mean it that way. I can understand that, it's just the way I interpreted it.
Unless that person is John Kerry
Tommy,
You sound like a 5-year-old going "na, na, na, na, na......" You know this is just more Fox crap.
Sometimes Fox News even surprises me with their lies and filth. This is about as low as they can go.
As Usual,
conservatives rush to hide either "under the table," or "behind the flag."
When did cowardice become synonymous with conservatism?
"I can't imagine what else Dean might have meant."
Really? This line gives NO help?
"he can't change the fact that he cast aside his principles to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush for the last seven years."
That doesn't give the impression that he's referring to anything BUT his military service?
Yeah Water,
Instead of trying to give viewers news which might actually be relevant to their lives...
Fox spends its time pasting and cutting the words of Democrats so they can smear them.
Corporate media smut.
While we honor McCain's military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist
Watershed,
As Tommy pointed out it could be argued that it was exactly what he [Dean] meant. MMFA & you are of one opinion. Others of us see it differently.
Jeter2,
This type of lame argumentation is a perfect example of the degeneration of the American media. (And the dumbing down of the American people.)
I guess it creates the perfect "opportunity" for you and Timmy.
Watershed,
The cut was a mistake, sorry I'm at work & posting when I should be, ah working ;-)
Then you tell me if McCain talking about his military servive isn't what Dean felt was him being a blatant opportunist, then what did Dean mean? Lining up with Bush isn't going to be of help, in fact it's a turn off to most folks, so what did Dean mean?
"he cast aside his principles to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush for the last seven years"
It's obvious that Dean meant THAT was why he feels McCain is an opportunist.
I don't agree with Dean - standing shoulder to shoulder with Bush isn't opportunistic, it's suicidal. :D
I don't agree with Dean - standing shoulder to shoulder with Bush isn't opportunistic, it's suicidal.
But Fawlty that's exactly my point. Bush is a liability for McCain. For Dean to suggest that McCain is a blatant opportunist for standing shoulder to shoulder with Bush on some issues doesn't make any sense.
For Dean to suggest that McCain is using his military record sounds more plausible.
At the very least I think this is debatable & not "false" as MMFA is suggesting.
But Fawlty that's exactly my point. Bush is a liability for McCain. For Dean to suggest that McCain is a blatant opportunist for standing shoulder to shoulder with Bush on some issues doesn't make any sense.
He stood shoulder to shoulder with Bush to win the nomination. He's a blatant opportunist.
Do you have any data that states Bush helped McCain win the nomination? If anything McCain won because of Independents & the lack of any solid competition.
Also some Dems crossed party lines to vote for McCain to make sure he & not Romney would be the nominee. Sort of like what Limbaugh is attempting to get Republicans to do in keeping the Dem primary going.
Do you have any data that states Bush helped McCain win the nomination? If anything McCain won because of Independents & the lack of any solid competition.
He won by pandering to the nutcase right.
Another words Loonz you have no data, you're just blathering on about some unsubstantiated opinion from the nutcase left.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Good night.
But when Tommy falls back on asserting what Dean was thinking when he said something, that's "holding his own". No unsubstantiated opinions being spouted there, that's some solid, verifiable research.
Well Watershed that is certainly an interesting theory ;-)
Not sure I agree, but I think this particular subject is open to interpretation.
Exactly Jeter, Dean says "While we honor McCain's military service", and then on with the rest of his statement. The "while" indicates there is a caveat, a disclaimer of sorts.
Dean should apologize.
You write a lot of sensible things, but you're really stretching it here. It takes several leaps of logic to make it seem as if Dean is slamming McCain for his military service. Or is that the claim here? I forget, what exactly IS it that the claim is that Dean is saying?
"The "while" indicates there is a caveat, a disclaimer of sorts."
No, not really. "While A is true, B is also true". The latter part of that statement doesn't qualify the former. "We see that your SAT scores are a combined 1050. While your GPA was outstanding, we regret to say that you do not meet our standards." Obviously the standards mentioned don't have anything to do with the GPA there. The mention of McCain's standing by Bush provides an obvious explanation for how this concept applies here.
Your SAT sentences are related, they make sense. Dean's insertion of McCain's military service has no relevance in his sentence structure or to the meaning of what he is saying, except to slam him for being a blatant opportunist.
Sorry, your analogy is different.
"Still makes no sense, why bring his military service up at all"
Because there was nothing else to compliment him on, maybe?
No, it isn't different. The SAT scores disqualify what would otherwise be a perfectly viable candidate, just as being a blatant opportunist disqualifies McCain.
Whether you accept the analogy or not, the sentence structure I provided showed that "while" does not qualify what follows it in any way. It simply establishes that two separate things are true and have been considered.
It would be like saying;
"While we honor your service as a child advocate, the fact is we don't have a position in our company for a financial analyst who is lousy at his job and offers our company nothing of value"
Huh? Dean's insertion of McCain's war record has as much to do with the economy as this child advocates propensity for being a good financial analyst.
Not to Tommy, I'm afraid.
He's going to read into it what he reads into it.
That's unfortunate, because it's not the truth.
well since I'm not a rank and file Democrat, I guess he didn't fool me then did he?
No, Tommy, I believe your animosity for Howard Dean has clouded your judgment on this issue.
"Believe whatever you want, but for you to scold me on partisanship when you are surrounded by one after another here is laughable - but because you agree with them you can't see it, that is too bad."
I'm not "scolding" you on anything. It's quite obvious that you can not stand Howard Dean. You have just said so in at least three different posts today.
You're making blanket assertions that only serve for you to dismiss my criticisms of your posts. You said that the economy had nothing to do with McCain's biography tour, I provided a link to McCain's biography tour about his economy plan, and you subsequently dismissed that.
Brabantino gives you an apt analogy on why Dean's statement is not criticizing McCain's military service, but instead dismissing said service to criticize him about other things, using logically sound sentence structure, but for some reason it doesn't make sense to you.
I realize that I'm not going to convince you, but you could at least admit that you're wrong about a few things every once in a while.
I am pretty sure you can't stand George Bush, does that mean every opinion you have regarding anything he is involved with is clouded and should be dismissed as just partisan Bush-hatred? Of course not.
No, I don't care for Dean, and have little use for him, but because of his calculated and nasty comments in the past, that is certainly reason to be suspect of his motives politically.......so I may not give him the same benefit of the doubt, but that is because of him, not me.
No, I don't care for Dean, and have little use for him, but because of his calculated and nasty comments in the past, that is certainly reason to be suspect of his motives politically.......so I may not give him the same benefit of the doubt, but that is because of him, not me. "
Last thing then I have to go.
I can't stand George Bush, you are correct. I couldn't stand him in 2000, and I can't stand him now. In all truth, I voted for McCain in 2000 in the primary, then voted for Gore in the national.
I didn't mean to dismiss your criticism of Dean as partisan-hatred, I know you are not partisan, just like I am. Let's call it a day and agree to disagree, shall we?
And when your analysis falls on its face, go back to the amazing mind-reading trick. It doesn't really matter what they actually said or if it can be shown to be reasonable, you can always pass judgment because you know what they were plotting in their heads as they spoke.
Ah, no. I've criticized both Clintons for their behavior during this campaign, and I liked Bill's administration by and large. That's not being blind by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is defending Laura Ingraham from charges of racism, or giving Boehner the benefit of the doubt on his "small price" comment. When there's a perfectly good explanation, then I don't assume the worst motives. When there isn't a good explanation, then I criticize them. It makes no difference who they are.
Nice try deflecting from your mind-reading efforts, though.
The one is who is more apt to fall flat on one's face is the blinded ideologue who rarely questions his own like minded brethren
And you really can't see yourself in that statement, Tommy? That's describes you precisely.
Why not? He talks about how McCain "cast aside his principles". That is opportunism, plain as day. The latter part of the subsequent sentence lines up perfectly with that. And as has been pointed out, the context is his military service because it has to do with the Biography tour. It makes complete sense in response to that - we respect his service, but he shouldn't be President for these other reasons.
I'm honestly not sure how he could be more clear that "opportunistic" refers to his alliance with Bush as opposed to mentioning military service. What do you suggest?
Read Dean's quote again and leave out the part about his military sentence, there is no need for it to be there.
If he had said ".......cast his principles aside and to stand shoulder to shoulder with President Bush for the last seven years. The fact is Americans want real leaders.........."
That makes sense, Dean's inserting the part about McCain's military service adds nothing to that, sorry.
Are you new to politics? You've never seen someone praise an aspect of an opponent while criticizing them for something else?
I agree Dean is capable of making inflammatory remarks. But I have to see some basis for making that conclusion in this case, and I'm not seeing any so far.
It's easy to think he [Dean] was suggesting McCain was being "blatantly opportunistic" by referring to his military record. I can't imagine what else Dean might have meant. - Jeter2
When I first read Dean's remarks I immediately assumed "blatant opportunist" was directly tied to McCain casting aside his principles. It wouldn't have occurred to me to link it to McCain's service. That link made no logical sense.
Tommy, if it's an "illogical link" then how is that logical to you?
I know, perhaps you were just referencing Bill's post, I get it.
The sentence structure he uses though suggests that he was not talking about his Military service.
"While we honor McCain's military service," comma. In other words, we acknowledge his service and honor it, yet,
"the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn't understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years." McCain has pandered to the right wing base for at least the last 6 years, despite his earlier positions on SEVERAL issues. Including: Immigration, Tax Cuts, religious fundamentalists (I know there are more.)
Again, his sentence structure ultimately suggests that he was putting McCain's military service aside, and commenting on something else. If you understand proper grammar and sentence structure, you can clearly see that.
Also, this is Steve Doocy saying this for crying out loud. STEVE DOOCY.
Then why did Dean bring up his military service in any context? At all? What relevance does that to do with the economy, or McCain being a blatant opportunist? It doesn't, so for Dean to mention it at all can easily be interpreted the way many of us see it.
And it's Howard Dean for crying out loud, HOWARD DEAN!
"Then why did Dean bring up his military service in any context? At all? What relevance does that to do with the economy, or McCain being a blatant opportunist? It doesn't, so for Dean to mention it at all can easily be interpreted the way many of us see it."
Did you look at the link that says "biography tour"? The same one Dean looked at? If he had NOT said "While we honor McCain's military service" it would have been even easier to misinterpret that he was talking about his military service because almost the entire thing is about his military service.
So, his biography tour has nothing to do with the economy or anything else.....for Dean to mention his military service at all makes no sense in the context of what he was saying, if I was to accept your argument. Therefore the only one that makes sense is Dean calling him a blatant opportunist because of it.
Dean is one of the most disrespectful hacks on earth, this would not be out of his character at all.
Oh my, Tommy, did you really go to that site? Here's what I found after three clicks:
Economic Stimulus Plan John McCain has bold solutions to stimulate the American economy.Read More
Read More
Read More
Read More
Read More
Read More
Read More
Read More
Read More
Read More
Read More
Read More
Read More
Read More
Read More
Can't read that, here's the link
As I said, so what? McCain's military service has no relevance to the economy or any other issue. So for Dean to bring it up at all, and in the exact same sentence call him a blatant opportunist, clearly raises skepticism as to his motives and what he meant.
Also, if it were anyone but Howard Dean, a vitriolic and nasty partisan, I would give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps. With Dean, nothing is out of bounds or under the belt where he is concerned.
Just keep moving the goalposts Tommy:
You said "So, his biography tour has nothing to do with the economy or anything else.....for Dean to mention his military service at all makes no sense in the context of what he was saying,"
I provided the link to the biography tour specifically mentioning McCain's stance on the economy, as well as his tax cuts, and his stance on lobbyists and well...his entire political platform which, included with his military service, makes up the total package of McCain's biography tour.
Then you said:
"As I said, so what? McCain's military service has no relevance to the economy or any other issue. So for Dean to bring it up at all, and in the exact same sentence call him a blatant opportunist, clearly raises skepticism as to his motives and what he meant."
Exactly. McCain's military service has no relevance to the economy. I agree. And Dean agrees to, because he put that thought aside when, as Brab pointed out to you, he said "While we honor McCain's military service," meaning while this thing was good, "he is a blatant opportunist" which is bad. Honestly, I know I'm not going to convince you, because if you can't understand basic sentence structure, then you're not going to understand the more complex ideas I'm putting forth.
I can understand Doocy's motives for trying to twist Dean's words (which you admitted he did, btw) but I didn't think you had a political motive. Guess I was wrong.
DB,
Your condescending lectures have no affect on me except you just look ridiculous. Find someone who eats up your tutorial little lessons, if that is the way you want to discuss an issue, don't bother to respond to me......you're not getting through to me, very sorry.
Really? Apparently your ego is the one having trouble admitting that, not me......I have no problem admitting anything of the sort if one can sufficiently show me where I am mistaken.
DB, I like our conversations but your tendency to lecture and condescend to make your point does not solidify your points at all. I respect most people here for intelligent and thoughtful insight into issues, even if we vehemently disagree.....to basically accuse someone of being stupid is beneath the belt. If I do that, I should apologize. We are adults, not children.
I've never said you were stupid...and if I come off condescending at times, I do apologize. But you have not refuted my points, and have merely offered up an explanation of what you believe are behind Howard Dean's words. You tend to do that a lot, prescribe motives to other people's words. I want to point that out to you because when you do that, you start dealing in conjecture, and there's usually no hard evidence to back that up.
Again, if I come off condescending, I really am sorry. I just want you to see the light Tommy. ;)
I said at the very beginning that it was unclear exactly what Dean meant, and could be argued either way - I have one opinion, you and others have another, hence the comments section. We don't have to agree - Dean is the one who said it and considering some of his past disrespectful comments that is why I am of the opinion it could be either way, as I said.
Agree to disagree....
I just said the same thing in a previous post.
Grate mines, eh?
Geez Tommy sorry I wasn't here to lend a hand. Too much work to do...But as usual I see you've held your own. I'm home now & I think this discussion has come full circle. As you said from the get go, Dean's statement is open to interpretation.
And as I asked earlier, why would anyone think it would be opportunist for McCain to align himself with Bush? Most Americans would not agree it's a positive. So why would Dean?
"And as I asked earlier, why would anyone think it would be opportunist for McCain to align himself with Bush? Most Americans would not agree it's a positive. So why would Dean?"
The Republican base is not "most Americans". Most people aren't going to be swayed by his kissing up to people like Falwell either, but he's got enough baggage on social issues that he has to take those opportunities to bolster support.
Dean doesn't have to think it's a positive. It just has to be a positive to the sort of people who call McCain a "liberal".
Brab,
McCain has to capture the votes beyond the Republican base if he wants to win the general election. Most Americans & even a good many Republicans will be pleased to see the last of George Bush. McCain aligning himself with Bush makes little sense & it's ridiculous for Dean to suggest [if that's what he was doing, I'm still not convinced] that McCain aligning himself with Bush is blatantly opportunistic. If anything, it would be blatantly stupid.
I still think Dean was taking a jab at McCain for referencing his military record. You & others here think differently & that's fine. I believe it's debatable & not necessarily FALSE as MMFA has stated.
He has to convince people beyond the base, but to start with he has to get that base. He had to worry about the nomination before the general election, right?
If I think something is a good idea and I sacrifice my principles to do it, then that's opportunistic. It may not actually be a good idea. That doesn't magically change the nature of my behavior (see Mamet's "American Buffalo" for a demonstration). We're talking about a guy who tried to prove how safe Iraq was by walking around in a flak jacket surrounded by a battalion, helicopters and warships. Was that a message the war-hating American public wanted to hear? Was it smart, or was it more like something he just thought he had to do regardless of its wisdom?
Like I told Tommy, I know Dean is capable of making inflammatory comments. I'm not claiming he's an angel. But I'd like to see some sort of cogent rationale for this interpretation (meaning demonstration of a basic understanding of sentence structure, no mind-reading) if it's even going to be declared reasonable, much less as the only interpretation as Doocy suggests. I don't think that's too much to ask.
But as usual I see you've held your own.
And if he keeps doing that, he'll go blind.
Your condescending lectures have no affect on me except you just look ridiculous.
Hint: DB is not the ridiculous one in your dialog.
Then why did Dean bring up his military service in any context?
Read Marc Antony's eulogy for Caesar.
Absolutely agree Tommy. It's easy to think he [Dean] was suggesting McCain was being "blatantly opportunistic" by referring to his military record. I can't imagine what else Dean might have meant.
McCain was being a "blatant opportunist" for sucking up to George W. Bush at every turn, abandining his own principles in teh process. And THAT is what Dr. Dean meant - he specifically praised McCains military service before blasting him for pandering to the right.
It's easy to think he [Dean] was suggesting McCain was being "blatantly opportunistic" by referring to his military record.
Easy to think it, hard to understand what he really said, if you don't bother giving the effort to try.
Perhaps you should stop following the easy (read "lazy") way, and try to read for comprehension for once.
McCain is a Republican so the blatantly opportunistic part can be assumed.
Let's look at what Howard Dean said, Tommy:
The American people have been waiting for a president who understands the challenges they face, not another out of touch Bush Republican who promises four more years of the same failed leadership. John McCain can try to reintroduce himself to the country, but he can't change the fact that he cast aside his principles to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush for the last seven years. While we honor McCain's military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn't understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.
The "blatant opportunist" part is a reference to the John McCain who ignored his principles to suck up to George W. Bush - not the John mcCain who was held prisoner in Vietnam. Military service does not give someone a free pass in life,Tommy. John McCain needs to be judged by his words and deeds as a POLITICIAN today - not as a SOLDIER over 30 years ago.
Regarding Dean, he is the worst chair of the DNC. His stupid rules have divided the Democratic Party and his rhetoric will divide America.
Give us some example Bobthep...
Otherwise, we'll think you're a troll with your head in your nether regions.
Yeah I am a troll . Eyes roll.
Example- Disenfranchising Michigan and Florida because they moved up the primary date. If they were allowed to count, maybe this would be settled now.
I guarantee that your concern over Michigan and Florida Democratic voters does not extend beyond using them as another way to slam the Democratic party.
So there is no need to take your concerns seriously, as you really don't give a frak.
delete "cy", add "fus"...
I sure hope FOX NEWS never dumps Doocy.
He's sooo much fun to watch... and quote.
FOX NEWS: Idiots-R-Us
And what is Doocy describing in the photo with his hands spread 14 inches apart?
The smallest gap in his knowledge.
I find it hard how you CAN say that the "opportunistic" line refers to the military service.
"While we honor McCain's military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn't understand the economy"
Really, how does one make the connection there, after Dean explicitly even SAYS it's not about his military service?
The mind boggles sometimes.
It's also ridiculous how the rightwingers cry about this passing reference to the military service, that is in no way critical of it, while they themselves persecuted Kerry BECAUSE OF his military service.
They really have no shame.
It is astonishing. The "military service" line is actually a compliment amongst the criticism, and not the point at all. One would have to either purposely misconstrue this, or not really have any comprehension skills.
Either way, its red red meat for Fox viewers.
This line makes his point obvious
>>but he can’t change the fact that he cast aside his principles to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush for the last seven years.
Military service is one of the right's favorite things to be PC over.
Then he's a traitor.
And another thing - Doocy isn't even interested in MAKING the connection. He doesn't suggest that Dean called him opportunistic regarding the military service. He simply states that since McCain was a POW, it is "extraordinary" to suggest that he is opportunistic? Huh? Where is the correlation there? Apparently, Doocy believes that it is extraordinary to criticize a POWs opinions, no matter what the criticism is about.
DOOCY: Let me ask you about one thing. Howard Dean looked at the biography tour and called John McCain blatantly opportunistic, which is extraordinary about a guy who spent five years in the Hanoi Hilton.
I feel much more comfortable with a peaceful presidentlike Obama than a president who could get us into a war like McCain.
I do think it was opportunistic of McCain.
It's the right wing's spin on the day's events.
There's a big difference.
truthseeker77
he cast aside his principles to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush for the last seven years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the criticisms of John Mc'Cain is that he has fliped flopped and sold out to appease to the conservative right-wing base . That is what I think Howard Dean was refering to when he said opportunistic .
So, Bunny, you're saying McCain is opportunistic for citing his war record?
(just kidding, I was trying to channel the FoxNews mind)
I have to say, this thread contained a Tommy classic. Pretending that because McCain's military history and the economy are two different areas, that they aren't both very big issues in a presidential bid. Well done, Tommy!