A few minutes ago on CNN's Inside Politics, Ron Brownstein indicated that Dean (along with Lieberman) were the two big winners Saturday evening.
According to Brownstein Kerry, Graham, and Gephardt need help.
"...anybody who thinks that they have to prepare for the day that we're not the strongest is preparing for a day when we have serious problems."
Is it just me or does this statement make Kerry look like a total moron? My first thought (well, I actually spoke outloud) when I read this comment from Kerry was "Good, I want someone who is prepared for the day when we have serious problems!"
Perhaps if someone had been preparing for the day when we have serious problems we wouldn't have things like devastating terrorist attacks, Homeland 'Insecurity' Departments and crushing recession.
Please tell me someone else was thinking along the same lines. Since when is being prepared for the worst a bad thing?
i didn't see/hear the debate, but when i read that line, i thought the same thing.
TK
Cheap attack tactic by Kerry. If he really believes that we should not prepare for a future where we may not have the strongest military, then I have to question his ability to be Commander in Cheif.
Actually, Matt, the term 'preventive war' is also correct. A quote from Eisenhower in 1953, on the subject: "All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. . .I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone who came in and talked about such a thing." (Exit, stage left, Bushy Boy, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie, Schmitty and the rest!)
J Sinclair: I as well question Kerry's abilities if he isn't preparing for the worst. Give me a break! Anyone with half a brain has got to look at the big picture and realise that in the future, China, the EU, or an alliance between (for example) Russia/China/Germany could prove to be a major threat. If Senator Kerry is naive enough to believe we'll always be on top, then I have a few history books for his reading list.
I've also heard it said that "pre-emptive war" is incorrect because that means acting in the face of an imminent threat and is widely recognized; Bush's doctrine is "preventive" because you invade the country before the imminent threat has a chance to materialize. (Unless of course the country begins in "N" and ends in "Orth Korea"; then you close your eyes and hope for the best. Did anyone see the lead story in the NY Times today? Oy.)
Nice to see some positive feedback from the debate. In retrospect our expectations were probably too high for someone who's never been in a national debate before (Deanistan can verge on hero worship at times). It might have played quite differently for people who weren't expecting as much or who haven't even heard of Dean before.
oops. I see "refresh" causes a double post. Sorry.
it's okay katherine. we've all double posted a few times. 
Katherine and Samantha are right. Pre-emptive war means striking first against an immanent threat. "Preventive war" is newspeak.
I'm not too worried about the "preventive war" issue. Dean will get it straight. Hey, Bush STILL can't say "nuclear!" Of course, Dean and Bush are an apples-and-oranges comparison if ever there was!
Oh, and right there with ya, J Sinclair! Kerry's comment was a big slip-up and I'd say the Dean camp should capitlaize on it if I didn't wish they'd stop slapping each other already.
I was concerned about the debate, and my concerns were only partly realized. I didn't feel the campaign was taking the debate seriously enough. I thought Dean came out well; if I had to rank them I'd say there was no "winner", but Dean, Lieberman, and Kerry (yes, him) came out the best. I don't think Dean helped himself overall; it wasn't a stunning performance, but they were all mediocre at best, and I don't think any damage was done from this LEARNING EXPERIENCE.
wrt Kerry's comment: I've posted to all my local groups that this statement needs to be letter-to-the-editor fodder. i.e. "the President who fails to prepare for the day we have serious problems is a President who will have serious problems, and will be unprepared." I hope the campaign won't jump on this (yet), but I think we can do a lot of good if we hit it hard on our own. We should also make a great deal of noise about Gephardt stealing sound-bites. This is the kind of thing the grassroots is good for; griping about the petty stuff so Dean can stay above it.
Prior to the war, there was a good anti-war article in (surprisingly) The New Republic which clearly differentiated between "pre-emptive" and "preventive". So Dean was right. However I completely agree that the word *sounded* inappropriate. This wasn't Dean's best night, but remember even the best have bad nights: Clinton fumbled the keynote (I think it was the keynote)address at the Democratic Convention in 1988.
I agree, Kerry's comment was the most stupid thing I heard in the debate. I just wished Dean had pounced on it then. Dean has been very good at articulating how as governor he didn’t give in to “big spenders” because he was preparing for a rainy day so-to-speak – a form of preparing for the worst I’d say. It was the perfect opportunity to substantively rebut Kerry about a positive of his own making (and expand the notion to attack republican irresponsibility thereby forming an implied connection between Kerry and Bush) rather than baldly pointing up misstatements/interpretations etc.. of Kerry as seems to be his unfortunate tendency. …esprit d’escalier as they say.
I like the Eisenhower quote above. I think that such quotes (like the Lincoln quote Dean used earlier) should be thrown to the press more often. Take for example the Teddy Roosevelt quote employed by the Dixie Chicks in their interview.
Using these quotes affirms that the current administration is not only a far cry from American principled government, but also a far cry from the Republican Party. The Republicans used to have integrity - a few still do - but there hasn't been a respectable republican president since Ike. Since then they have been continuing the Nixon Dynasty. Check out the resumes of Cheney and Rumsfeld!
Dean was technically correct to use the
term "preventive" - in fact the author of
the recent commondreams.org piece
that Dean rebutted pointed out that Dean
used preventive there when he should
have said preemptive. So Dean apparently
learned the difference after that.
The problem is, almost nobody knows
the distinction - even most readers of this
site! This is why it was a mistake to use
the term. America needs to be spoken to
in a simpler language. When you go on
a one hour interview on Charlie Rose, you
can use the term "preventitive" and explain
it at length.
But when you are fighting for sound bite time, you have to be much clearer with language. Even "unilateral" is not going to work with the general public, IMHO. You have to say:
"Initiating the war without the support of
our allies was wrong and reckless, because it sets a dangerous precedent,
and because we need the support of the
rest of the world now more than ever in
the fight against stateless terrorists"
"It was also wrong because it puts an
enormous financial burden on the US
alone, reducing our ability to compete
economically with the rest of the world,
and taking money away from our people
at home. I want to build schools for
American kids before I build them for
Iraqis."
Instead of saying "Iraq was not a threat",
you have to say:
"There is still no evidence at all linking Saddam to the 9/11 attacks, and we still
haven't found any weapons of mass destruction. If he did have them, they may
have fallen into terrorist hands after the war,
which is exactly what we didn't want."
I think David Korn was accurate in the article - Dean has been struggling in articulating his
foreign policy, particularly post-war. This
is a concern to me.
Someone should write a letter to The Nation to defend Dean's use of "preventive war". OK, it might have sounded strange, but it was not a malaprop from foreign policy inexperience, but was a carefully chosen term based on the subtle difference between it and "pre-emptive" (as was discussed in TNR, as Rob mentioned). The fact that Eisenhower also used this word (good catch!) supports its authenticity as a political term. As to when Dean began using this term, I think sometime in March, when the war began, he changed from "preemptive", which he had been using earlier. This may be because he felt that the justification for this action didn't even merit calling it "preemptive", but I don't know, since I can't seem to find when he first used the term. Maybe someone else here knows?
The consensus seems to be muddled, but overall the loser was Kerry because he was just attacking Dean. Hopefully, Kerry will get a clue and remember he is in a 9-way race. Going negative on Dean gets both him AND Dean off message, which strengthens everyone else. There are lots of examples of bitter primary battles where the leading candidates attacking each other lose to a third candidate above the fray (like Feingold '92, Gray Davis '9
.
I don't think using an uncommon word is wrong.
People have short attention spans -- I don't think they'll hold on to the preventive/pre-emptive confusion. What I'm afraid they might remember is Dean READING his closing statement. Not good.
He definitely needs tv coaching (is Bill Clinton available?) so that his style enhances his substance.
steve, love your response. perfectly articulated.
Steve:
While I generally agree with your post, I would hope that Dean doesn't respond with "we still haven't found any weapons of mass destruction". We really don't know if there are any, and if WMD's are found, Dean will be hammered. It's too big a risk. I'd be all for it however if they're still not found by October 2004.
Serine,
... or, even, Martin Sheen. hehehe.
Several days after the debate, what strikes me most are, from bottom up--
Lieberman's weasely langugage: Hey cup a Joe, if you and Al Gore beat George Bush already, why aren't you in the White House? You both gave up on us and wouldn't fight for your "victory." And now we have this. That's toughness Joe?
Then Carol Mosely Braun. She was eloquent in her reading of the violations of the several amendments to the Constitution by the Patriot Act, voted on by this cowardly Congress (see J. Lieberman).
Finally, it struck me that perhaps Gov. Dean's choice of Abraham Lincoln's "government of the people, for the people, by the people shall not perish...," words from the Gettysburg address for his final statement were just right, given the laughable performance by Junior as Top Gun on the carrier Abraham Lincoln two nights before. Contrasting the best with the worst.
(Last idea inspired by recent column by Paul Krugman in NY Times.)
Dave B.
NYC
I'll second that assessment of the use of Lincoln's words, and I think Dean should be quoting Lincoln every single freaking chance he gets. I wonder if most Americans even remember that he was a Republican? Dean may need to point that out for some audiences.
If you read that David Corn piece carefully you realize that Corn is impressed at just about every turn with the performance of John Edwards. That tends to dovetail with the reaction I've read all over the net discussion boards. The Senator did himself some good.