Centerfield

Oh come on now. The cokehead impression is the most easily identifiable drug user impression, and I've seen it used by many a person to imply use of many different drugs, not just cocaine. I think this is another case of some mildly stupid thing being said and the sayer being taken to task by the other side for not being an up-tight politically correct drone for every waking hour.

I just think people need to lighten up. Rush Limbaugh's drug problem, while sad, is the possibly the biggest god-send the left could have asked for. Let them have a little fun at the expense of the man who does the same to them.

Posted by: Art at April 21, 2005 02:09 PM

Dean's a hothead.

He has made us realize time and time again why would we should not allow that man access to nuclear weapons...lol.

Posted by: AH at April 21, 2005 02:15 PM

Gotta agree with Art on that one.

Posted by: stephanie wendelken at April 21, 2005 02:22 PM

Lets see, Trent Lott, makes a simple comment praising Strum Thurmond on Strums retirement and the libs are out with pitch forks amd torches after him.

Dean comes along and does a Rush Limbaugh/drug adict caricature during a public speech... and all of a sudden it's "lighten up, it's just good clean fun". Can you say double standard?

I guess libs think it's ok to be politicaly incorrect as long as you're picking on conservatives. Me, I've got no problem with the "lighten up, let em say whatever they want" attitude for Dean.... as long as folks are willing to extend the same courtesy to politico's on the right when they spout stuff.

Posted by: cengel at April 21, 2005 02:38 PM

No story here. O'Reilly's doing his job by being outraged.

Dean is doing his job by amusing the party faithful, and making them feel good about opening their wallets.

For the zillionth time, Dean's most important role in his new job is to raise money. He's not going to give speeches telling the faithful things they don't want to hear, and he's not going to raise much money by being bland, and politically correct either.

Dean will have been a good choice if he raises lots and lots of money. Period. By and large, the things said by party leaders just are NOT going to be campaign issues.

Posted by: bk at April 21, 2005 02:40 PM

Dean's job is largely fundraising. Cracks like that probably are good at getting DNC patrons to laugh and write more checks. Since Rush is a private citizen polemist on the other side, it should be a safe target, especially considering his audience.

Jokes that make drugs a point of derision and ridicule might discourage others from doing them, that's probably a good thing. We can learn from Rush's mistake, one many ordinary people fall into.

It would be unseemly for someone in his position to make this type of crack at an official function against a president or senator. Can you imagine his counterpart Karl Rove making jokes about Senator Byrd's former KKK membership, or Ted Kennedy abandoning drowning women?

Fundraising shouldn't be Dean's only goal. He should be reaching out to the middle, including trying to steal moderate Republican voters to his side. In the past few months Dean has said he "hates Republicans and everything they stand for", called them evil, and stupid. Perhaps the idea is to make Republicans so uncool that people won't want to be one, but I'm not sure this is the most effective way to reach out to voters.

I think some Democrats spend too much energy attacking Republicans personally, giving them less time to inform voters about their substantive alternative policy proposals.

Posted by: Susan at April 21, 2005 02:41 PM

I can't agree with Art. We need a higher tone of debate for politics in this country. I don't have a problem with Jay Leno or Chris Rock or even one of the many Hollywood liberal movie stars doing a Rush cokehead impression. But I have a major problem with the leader of the Democratic party doing that.

In addition to advancing the politics of personal destruction, it is hypocritical of the Democrats to make such jokes. They are the ones always lecturing conservatives that drug addiction is a disease which must be treated, not a crime for which addicts should be locked up. Would the Democrats laugh at a Republican with cerebal palsy or some other disease? How would they react if the head of the Republican party, at an official function, were to make fun of booze-hound Ted Kennedy by doing a smarmy impression of him slurring his words and shuffling his feet?

Posted by: PatHMV at April 21, 2005 02:42 PM

Just an addendum...

Years ago, I saw an hilarious video used by Republicans for fundraising. It was a movie of a large male rhinoceros mounting a female. I forget all of the voice-over, but the main line was "This is what the Democrats are doing to America."

That was funny. I've got no problem throwing red meat to the party faithful for fund-raising purpoes. But it's one thing to make fun of the other PARTY, and quite another to make fun of individual members of the other party, be they public officials or private citizens. And when the "funny" remarks are directed at someone's personal misfortunes, that's an altogether different kind of low.

Plus, far too many Democrats clearly believe their own attempts at humor. Sure, for awhile painting candidate, then-President Bush as a "cowboy" may have been funny, but when the caricature takes on a life of its own and huge swaths of the Democratic base come to truly believe that the man is a barely functioning moron being led by Dick Cheney, nobody is well-served. Having gone to obscene extremes of personal invective in the most recent election, the Democrats would be much smarter to put a lid on it and start talking about policies, not people.

Posted by: PatHMV at April 21, 2005 03:41 PM

The comments seem to take as gospel O'Reilly's take on someone else's "vague reference." Pardon me for wanting a more credible source for the story than a serial liar.

Should it actually be true, I would find it difficult to feel bad for Mr. Abu "frat prank" Ghraib Limbaugh. However, I do agree that Dean is a poor choice for the Dem leadership, and such behavior unseemly for someone in that position.

Posted by: Mike P at April 21, 2005 03:46 PM

Although I see where Art is coming from, I have to disagree...

I don't like Rush Limbaugh, but I have even less respect for those who deal with mudslinging by jumping into the sty with the rest of the pigs... Howard Dean has no class, and it is just more evidence that the fanatical anti-war left has taken the reigns of the party of Bill Clinton.

To think, they could have chosen Tim Roemer or Martin Frost... How stupid and pathetic can they be?

Posted by: Mathew at April 21, 2005 04:10 PM

I say let Dean have his fun. Since Limbaugh is more entertainer than pundit (OK, you disagree, show me the stats on how many voters pulled the Republican lever because of Rush), it seems to me a continuation of Democrats firing arrows at the wrong target.

Posted by: Literally Retarded at April 21, 2005 04:28 PM

In addition to my above comments - I note the referenced link is from The National Ledger??!! So we have the usual - a hard right website quoted by hard right "commentator" - hey, before you know it, it'll be on Drudge, then of course picked up by Delay, or Santorum, et al. Then we'll know for sure it's true!

...But I do still believe Dean was a poor choice, FWIW.

Posted by: Mike P at April 21, 2005 05:05 PM

MikeP:

It was in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, about as far as you can get from a conservative rag.

And why is it that some liberals and Democrats revile Drudge so much? He has very, very little original reporting. Almost everything he puts up is links to MSM stories. How does whether a story has been linked to by Drudge affect its credibility in any way?

Posted by: PatHMV at April 21, 2005 05:35 PM

"And why is it that some liberals and Democrats revile Drudge so much? "

It's not necessarily an issue of partisan identity or political ideology. O'Reilly hates him for example. He runs lots of inaccurate stories and simply scrubs his site when they prove embarrassing (cf. his "Hillary for VP" exclusive).

Re the "poor rush" thread - you all are kidding right? Mr. "Femi-Nazi" gets nailed for his own hypocrisy (all drug users should do jail thunders rush until he's caught) and then not Rush, but his audience complains that the level of political discourse is too coarse? Spare me.

Posted by: Pudentilla at April 21, 2005 08:16 PM

Well, for the record I am not part of Rush's audience. And it's not so much a matter of coming to Rush's defense as pointing out hypocrisy and distasteful conduct not by some talk show host who makes more money by being outrageous but by the chosen leader of the Democratic party. Are you suggesting that it was a good thing for Dean to lower himself (as you suggest) to Rush's level? Or would you rather that political party leaders hold themselves to a higher standard of discourse?

As for Drudge, he doesn't "scrub" inaccurate stories. He takes them down. On the main page is a link to an archive site, maintained by someone else, which archives everything he posts. Would you prefer he leave up inaccurate stories? And again, I would point out that the overwhelming majority of material on his site are simply links to other news sources; his original reporting is pretty rare.

Posted by: PatHMV at April 21, 2005 08:44 PM

The point is, if Ken Mehlman (sp?) had made a joke about Robert Byrd in his pointed hat, he would have had the house brought down on him by now.

I think the joke is funny by a comedian. Dean is not a comedian...he's the leader of a national party, and a rather lame one at that.

Posted by: AH at April 21, 2005 08:56 PM

Which are we more upset about: the Democratic Party moving too far to the anti-war left or the Republican Party moving too far to the fundamentalist right.

I would propose that as centrists we'll have a heightened awareness of either of these tendencies. And in so doing get upset, complain, exagerate etc. Maybe we should all take a deep breath and focus on what's important for centrists.

Posted by: c3 at April 21, 2005 11:15 PM

c3,

I think one of the thing centrists should focus on is elevating the political discourse in this country. Dean certainly isn't working toward that end.

Posted by: PatHMV at April 22, 2005 02:52 AM

I think O'Reilly's outrage comes from the fear that Dean will use the same tactics used against limbaugh against him when the opportunity presents itself.

I saw O'reilly last night raging at dean with dick morris. what a pair. morris' claim to fame was being busted by a tabloid for hanging with a prostitute while on the government payroll working for bubba clinton. the prostitute's story was morris had a fettish for sucking her toes. O'reilly latest claim to fame is the sexual harassment lawsuit in which he was taped making some pretty lewd comments.

The moral of the story might be don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

Posted by: john at April 22, 2005 11:48 PM

A few points: Howard Dean was speaking at a fundraiser for the ACLU of Minnesota, not the Democratic Party, when he made his remarks and snorting noises and gestures. Dean, a physician who admits having smoked marijuana and having an alcohol problem in his youth, was using a joke about recreational drug use to ridicule someone for an addiction to prescription painkillers apparently brought on by chronic use for legitimate (and extremely painful) medical conditions and surgeries--a fairly common occurence.

It was an inappropriate "joke" for any physician to make in front of a public audience about a public figure. It was inappropriate for a physician to equate a legitimate and fairly common medical problem with the recreational use of illegal drugs--and mock it. As for the audience and Dean's fitness for his role, your mileage is your own.

Posted by: Tully at April 23, 2005 10:17 AM

politics is a rough business. get used to it. i don't think dean gives a damn that he might offend limbaugh supporters.

hope you've an advocate of treatment instead of jail where appropriate in drug cases. lots of people in jail on drug charges less serious than limbaughs. they just don't have his money.

Posted by: john at April 23, 2005 11:25 AM

I don't give a damn that Dean offended Limbaugh supporters, I care that he's a blatant hypocrite as a doctor, and that his remarks were cheap and sleazy. Last I looked, Limbaugh was not an elected official of any kind, or a GOP party official. If Doctor Dean were GOP party chair and he made nasty public piggy-grunt jokes about Michael Moore achieving his gross obesity by trough-feeding at KFC, I'd be just as offended.

Nope, politics ain't beanbag. But Dean seems to think there are NO lines, and that sleaze will broaden the party's appeal. Kinda like Kerry and Edwards with their Mary Cheney lesbian shots. They should know better. Such shots may gin up the base, but they alienate people in the middle.

Posted by: Tully at April 23, 2005 02:05 PM

i agree about the cheney affair. didn't vote for kerry by the way. not a dean supporter either. i'm an independent.

i've stated in comments here the US should, in its national interest, withdraw from iraq as soon as possible. in front of the same audience, on the same night, dean confirmed his support of the stay the course iraq strategy. Actually that's kerry's old policy. to me that's news. wish centerfield would've focused on that.

that he backhanded limbaugh for his drug hypocrisy is nothing to lose sleep over. guys like limbaugh and O'reilly, while not elected GOPers, have carried a lot of water for the GOP over the years and are paid hansomely for it. They're fair game for dean. limbaugh and O'reilly have spent alot of air time trashing dean. paybacks are hell.

Posted by: john at April 23, 2005 03:20 PM

I think one of the thing centrists should focus on is elevating the political discourse in this country. Dean certainly isn't working toward that end.

I personally wouldn't expect a party chair to "elevate" political discourse. I'm a registered Republican and I wouldn't expect the Republican chair to "elevate" the discourse. I would hope he didn't coursen it but I'd expect he'd likely take shots at the opposition and periodically go a bit lower if it brought in more funds. Don't get me wrong, I don't appreciate that, I just assume it. Much the same as I expect the Nebraska football coach to be unlikely to have a "elevated" discussion with boosters on the merits of the Oklahoma football team. Posted by: c3 at April 23, 2005 05:18 PM

I'd note, John, that Limbaugh and O'Reilly have aren't being paid by the GOP, but by commercial interests who are in turn making money. They get paid well for what they do because there's a lucrative commercial market for it, just as Michael Moore gets paid for what he does.

From a practical RealPolitik POV, getting publicly drawn out by the Limbaughs and Moores in any fashion is a major mistake. It's the political equivalent of Do Not Feed The Trolls. It's like coming down from the podium to argue with hecklers in the audience, instead of a simple polite or witty dismissal line while security handles 'em. You're just inviting more abuse, with limited response abilities, and personally doing something that should be delegated to the troops. A waste of effort and resources that publicly validates the abuse you'll get in return. Dumb.

Had the comments come from Terry MaCauliffe, my objections would be much smaller, if any. I'd take that as "normal" for the current atmosphere, though I still think it would be dumb. It's Dean's being a physician that annoys me with the particular remark. If he will sell out the ethics of that profession so casually, what level of ethics will he bring to his role as a party leader and politican?

Posted by: Tully at April 24, 2005 11:28 AM

Given the hypocrisies and verbal atrocities engaged in by Limbaugh, Drudge, Coulter et. al., I can't believe that people on this board think it's inapporopriate to treat them with humor and riducule. It's the best antidote. Now if similar comments were made about Bob Dole, Bill Kristol or Sam Brownback, you might have a point.

Unless one believes in unilateral disarmament, it's rather pathetic to insist on polite deference in political discourse when discussing Limbaugh.

Posted by: Ben Brackley at April 24, 2005 02:12 PM