Ace of Spades HQ

« Liberal Columnist: Bush "Lucky" On Economy | Main | How 'Bout Some Fries With That Sheik? »

August 01, 2005

Dean's Comments Too Deceptive Even For a Kosmonaut

Some sanity from the reality-based community (ahem), as a Daily Kos diarist takes Howard Dean to task for, well, lying about the Kelo case. He claims Bush's "Right wing court" gave the okay to seize private property for corporate use, conveniently forgetting that 1) no one on that court was appointed by Bush and 2) more importantly, the three strongest conservatives (joined by Daffy Sandra Day O'Connor) dissented and the three strongest liberals (joined by the ever-"evolving" Kennedy) okayed this power.

Kind of brave of a Kosmonaut to actually speak the truth:

There's simply no way that Dean's comments can be spun to make them even remotely defensible. Dean's tendency to shoot his mouth off was endearing to us Deaniacs as a matter of pride during the campaign, but as DNC chair it's been a constant embarrassment.
...

However, Dean's trajectory of late has me worried. It's a different one from early 2003 or even late 2004. The new trajectory takes us too close to Democratism should the trend be extended to a futue where Republicanism is defeated - if we replace the Elephant with the Ass, has America been well-served?

Far better to make the course correction now - and ensure that there is no overcompensatory swing to the same kind of excess for which we rightly castigate the Right for. Update [2005-7-26 17:17:22 by azizhp]: in case you're wondering why Dean's comments are factually incorrect, ask yourself. How many Bush 43-appointed justices voted in favor of Kelo? How did Scalia and Rehnquist vote? How did Ginsburg vote?

But check out this comment, disagreeing with the diarist and supporting Dean's lie:

I'm 100% behind it. Why? Because it resonates, and I'm perfectly willing to go for a false statement that illustrates a truth.

Now, all of this might be deemed trivial, the musings of idiots with nothing better to do than write silly shit on-line all day (umm... ahem), but the Kosmonauts have a lot of influence on the left-wing of the Democratic Party, and I think the mindset of this commenter -- "Lie, lie, lie, so long as your lies promote a 'greater truth'" -- is quite common on the left.

Obviously it's not shared by all on the left; the diariest certainly knows the difference between truth and lie, and seems to think that lying is a bad thing per se, whatever political usefulness the lie might have. But this is a common belief on the left, that our country is faced by such dire peril by Chimphitler McHalliburton that any underhanded tactics are justified, if not demanded.

Thanks to Slublog.

posted by Ace at 02:11 PM

Comments

Notice that in one of the comments, this goes back to Florida 2000. It is Bush's "Right Wing Court" because they "selected (not elected!) him" in 2000, i.e. made the right decision.

What a bunch of f'n loons.

Posted by: Bonze on August 1, 2005 02:33 PM

The tiwsted logic some of the commenters there are using to justify Dean's statement as 'true' or 'accurate' are amusing.

"Well, this is the supreme court that selected Bush for president, so if you think about it, Dean is accurate in calling it "Bush's right-wing supreme court.""

Posted by: John from WuzzaDem on August 1, 2005 02:33 PM

Bush's "lies" about Iraq (despite no proof of knowing deception) are taken as gospel.

Dean's patently, provably untrue lie about the Kelo decision is, however, A-OK.

I expect partisanship, but come on now. The reality-based community indeed.

Posted by: Bonze on August 1, 2005 02:54 PM

What 'truth' does Dean's statement illustrate??? Please somebody tell me.

As for going back to the 2000 election, can't any of those morons at Kos or that moron Dean figure out that 4 of the 5 votes that ended the Florida Supreme Court's shenanigans were also the 4 dissents in Kelo? In other words four-fifths of the majority in Gore vs Bush were one hundred percent of the minority in Kelo.

'Reality based' = moron drool lobotomy central.

Posted by: max on August 1, 2005 03:02 PM

Dean is, unfortunately, confirming every fear I had about him, both as a candidate and as the DNC Chair. Why couldn't the Dems have installed somebody who actually has charisma, eloquence and smarts, say Edwards, rather than someone who's only quals seem to be that his first campaign manager knew how to leverage the Internet and the phrase, "I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party!"

YEEARRrrrgh!

Posted by: vonKreedon on August 1, 2005 03:05 PM

Ohhh Deano

(ripples of pleasure)

How can you not just love that man? How can you not?

Posted by: lauraw on August 1, 2005 03:08 PM

With all due respect, Dean is a symptom, not the disease.

The disease is a rabid hateful partisanship which I trust you will concede rivals, if not outright exceeds, the antipathy the right had for Clinton in the 90's.

Dean would not be making these comments if they weren't playing well with the increasingly-base base.

Posted by: ace on August 1, 2005 03:10 PM

somebody who actually has charisma, eloquence and smarts, say Edwards

vonK,

If you can promise you'll act on insights like this, I'll nominate YOU as chairman of the DNC.

Edwards. "Tchew Amurricuhs." I'd almost forgotten about Edwards. HAH. You slay me, vonK, you slay me.

Posted by: Rocketeer on August 1, 2005 03:12 PM

Ace - Oh, with all due respect, I respectfully agree that Dean is a symptom of a hyperpartisan and incompetent Democratic party and not the cause.

I'm not so sure how well he is actually playing with the base though. I hope and trust that the vast majority of those posting on the Internet are examples of partisan extremism and not examples of either parties broad base. The question I guess is whether or not the atmosphere of extreme partisanship will make the extremists the de facto base come primary season.

Ugh.

Posted by: vonKreedon on August 1, 2005 03:16 PM

Rummaging. In. The crazybox.

Say, is Gore TV up and running yet?

Posted by: lauraw on August 1, 2005 03:17 PM

lauraw is right,

How can you not just love that man?

Dean would not be making these comments if they weren't playing well with the increasingly-base base.

I doubt it, as does von K, for I doubt that Dean is that rational, and if he is it clearly won't work demonstrating again that he's not rational.

Posted by: 72 optinists on August 1, 2005 03:26 PM

Wasn't it Stalin or Lenin (or some other high profile 100% commie) that said a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth?

Posted by: tony on August 1, 2005 03:28 PM

Somewhat representative, I think. Compare the conspiracy-mongering Daily Kos to the big conservative bloggers. You might not like their partisanship, but they're not engaging in loopy internet detective-work.

Posted by: ace on August 1, 2005 03:55 PM

"You might not like their partisanship, but they're not engaging in loopy internet detective-work."

Hey, that reminds me ace, have you finished that expose on Ted Kennedy and Hillary's involvement in the London Bombings at the behest of the Greys?

I want to read it before you both disappear in the middle of the night, and "driven across a bridge in chappaquidick"

Posted by: Ring on August 1, 2005 04:02 PM

tony, Gobbels said that.

(not to be confused with Gobbelsford, who is a repeat commenter on this site.)

you're welcome

Posted by: Son of America on August 1, 2005 04:12 PM

Up untill I read these comments, it didn't occur to me that Dean was lying. I just assumed he didn't really know the votes. Remeber Zell Miller's take on Dean. "Clever and glib, but deep this Vermont pond is not"

Posted by: tweb on August 1, 2005 04:20 PM

Gobbles? Gobbles!!!

Posted by: Timmy on August 1, 2005 04:32 PM

If it is any indicator, my mom is about as liberal as a person can get without being a moonbat, and she describes Dean as "a crazy person".

If the dems think Dean (or Hildabeast) will lead them to the promised land, I got a bridge to sell them.

OK, I don't really have a bridge, I'm just sayin.

Posted by: fugazi on August 1, 2005 05:01 PM

Ace - I don't know, I don't read anyone other than you, Heywood, Wretchard, Van Steenwyk, TPW and the Mote. But I remember some damn loopy Internet detective work from the VRWC during Clinton's terms.

Posted by: vonKreedon on August 1, 2005 05:05 PM

The commenter who chose falsehood over truth was simply following the new Democratic Party's strategy of "framing" the debate (thanks to the now-ubiquitous George Lakoff). We have to be aware of these coordinated efforts and return the debate to the issues, rather than the soundbites. More on Lakoff's effect on the democrats at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/magazine/17DEMOCRATS.html?ex=1279252800&en=36ac46ed797d7ab6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Posted by: geoff on August 1, 2005 06:33 PM

Amazon.com Widgets

Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]

Top Headlines

Ryan Long goes to the No Kings rally to pick up young liberal hotties and is greatly disappointed in the quality of the mish
thanks to stevey

You know we "joke" about the GOPe just "conserving" leftist things?
David French just posted:

Populists ask what conservativism has ever conserved?
Well its about to conserve birthright citizenship!
Posted by: 18-1

I couldn't hate this queen of the cuck-chair more if it paid seven figures and came with a corner office.

TJM definitively ranks the films of John Boorman.

Kid punks CNN chump by speaking truth to retard

Podcast: CBD and Sefton talk birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment and SCOTUS, no boots in Iran, Artemis II and refocusing NASA, the NBA's hatred of everything non-woke, and more!

In more marketing for Project Hail Mary, scientists say they've found the biosigns indicating life growing on an alien planet. It's not proof, just signatures of chemicals that are produced by biological metabolism, and it could be nothing, but scientists think it's a strong sign that this planet is inhabited by something.

In a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, a team of scientists announced the detection of dimethyl sulfide (along with a similar detection of dimethyl disulfide) in the atmosphere of an exoplanet called K2-18b. This is actually the second detection of dimethyl sulfide made on this planet, following a tentative detection in 2023.
Tons of chemicals are detected in the atmospheres of celestial objects every day. But dimethyl sulfide is different, because on Earth, it's only produced by living organisms.
"It is a shock to the system," Nikku Madhusudhan, first author on the paper, told the New York Times. "We spent an enormous amount of time just trying to get rid of the signal."

He means they tried to prove the signal was caused by things other than dimethyl sulfide but they could not.

Artemis moon shot a go, scheduled for 6:24 Eastern time tonight
Great marketing arranged by Amazon to promote Project Hail Mary. Okay not really but it does work out that way.

TJM talks John Boorman, director of Excalibur

Good rickroll

What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*

Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.

A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.

The Hobbit Challenge: Read two more chapters. I didn't have much time. Bilbo got the ring.
I noticed a continuity problem. Maybe. Now, as of the time of The Hobbit, it was unknown that this magic ring was in fact a Ring of Power, and it was doubly unknown that it was the Ring of Power, the Master Ring that controlled the others.
But the narrator -- who we will learn in LOTR was none of than Bilbo himself, who wrote the book as "There and Back Again" -- says this about Gollum's ring:
"But who knows how Gollum had come by that present [the Ring], ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said."
In another passage, the ring is identified as a "ring of power."
I don't know, I always thought there was a distinction between mere magic rings and the Rings of Power created by Sauron. But this suggests that Bilbo knew this was a ring of power created by Sauron.
Now I don't remember when Bilbo wrote the Hobbit. In the movie, he shows Frodo the book in Rivendell, and I guess he wrote it after he left the Shire. I guess he might have added in the part about the ring being a ring of power created by "the Master" after Gandalf appraised him of his research into the ring.
I never noticed this before. I know Tolkien re-wrote this chapter while he was writing LOTR to make the ring important from the start. And also to make Gollum more sinister and evil, and also to remove the part where Gollum actually offers Bilbo the ring as a "present" -- Bilbo had already found it on his own, but Gollum was wiling to give it away, which obviously is not something the rewritten Gollum would ever do.
But I had no memory of the ring being suggested to be The Ring so early in the tale.

Finish the job, Mr. President!
Melanie Phillips lays out the case for the total destruction of the Iranian government and armed forces. [CBD]

TJM acts like he knows anything about John Wick and screenwriting. It's embarrassing, really.

Podcast: Sefton and CBD talk about how would a peace treaty with Iran work, Democrats defending murderers and rapists, The GOP vs. Dem bench for 2028, composting bodies? And more!

Oh, I forgot to mention this quote from Pete Hegseth, reported by Roger Kimball: "We are sharing the ocean with the Iranian Navy. We're giving them the bottom half."

Batman fires The Batman
Batman is disgusted by the Joachim Phoenix version of Joker
Batman tries to fire Superman
Batman is still workshopping his Bat-Voice

Forgotten 80s Mystery Click: Red Leather Suit and Sweatband Edition
And I was here to please
I'm even on knees
Makin' love to whoever I please
I gotta do it my way
Or no way at all

Tomorrow is March 25th, "Tolkien Reading Day," because March 25th is the day when the Ring is destroyed in the book. I think I'm going to start the Hobbit tomorrow and read all four books this time.
The only bad part of the trilogy are the Frodo/Sam chapters in The Two Towers. They're repetitive, slow, and mostly about the weather and terrain. But most everything else is good. Weirdly, the Frodo-Sam chapters in Return of the King are exciting and action-packed and among the best in the trilogy. (Though the chapters with everyone else in Return of the King get pretty slow again. Mostly people talking about marching towards war, and then marching towards war.)

Sec. Army recognizes ODU Army ROTC cadets for their bravery and sacrifice in private ceremony
[Hat Tip: Diogenes] [CBD]