Former head of DNC calls Steve Bannon a 'Nazi'
The Democrats’ hysteria over the presidential defeat and down-ticket collapse has hit bottom. At this point, the more they shout, the worse it gets.
Apparently, the former DNC head has never heard of Godwin’s Law and its corollaries. Howard Dean, who sports credentials as a medical doctor, former governor, and leader of one of the nation’s two major political parties, evidently has been driven mad by the results of the election just passed. Perhaps off guard because he was speaking with a reporter from a small-market TV station (KAUZ-TV Newschannel 6 in Wichita Falls, Texas) and unaware of the power of the internet, Dean actually called the strategic adviser of the next President of the United States a “Nazi.”
DEAN: “He’s a complicated guy. He appoints a reasonable person, who’s much more conservative than I am, but for somebody who can talk to, as chief of staff, and then his senior adviser is a Nazi. You know—“
REPORTER: “Hang on, slow down, this is interesting. You are talking about Reice Priebus who is the Chairman of the RNC—“
REPORTER: “Right? He’s now his chief of staff.”
REPORTER: “Steve Bannon who runs something called Breitbart News—“
DEAN: “Which is a far-right, anti-Semitic publication.”
REPORTER: “You call him a Nazi?”
DEAN: “He’s anti-Semitic, he’s anti-black and he’s anti-women.”
REPORTER: “People like to throw around this word ‘Nazi.’ It’s a pretty big word.”
DEAN: “It’s a big word, and I don’t usually use it unless somebody’s really anti-Semitic, really misogynist and really anti-black.”
Does Dean think this will work? The evidence for Bannon being a Nazi is less than zero. Flinging the label “Nazi” is equivalent to a surrender statement that “I don’t really have a good argument, so I am escalating the rhetoric.”
Does he really think that Breitbart, founded by a Jew and led by an orthodox Jew, can credibly be called “anti-Semitic”?
I realize that news organizations are by definition public entities that have a difficult time winning slander and libel lawsuits. “Actual malice” has to be proven. But Dr. Dean probably has a history of negative statements about Breitbart. As an heir to a fortune that had him raised on Park Avenue, Dean may actually have assets that could be made available to pay a sizable judgment against him, should a viable legal case exist.
This would encourage others to speak more accurately when describing their political opponents.
Bannon might even have a stronger case. But as a key White House adviser, he cannot take the time to launch a case and place himself under oath for depositions.
If there are any Democrats who are smart and not deranged (Tulsi Gabbard, this includes you), they would denounce Dean's unforgivable slander and demand an apology. Silence means assent.