Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 9, 2004 Howard Dean considering bid to chair Democratic Party Monday November 08, 2004 MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) Former presidential candidate Howard Dean is considering a bid to become chairman of the national Democratic Party. Steve Grossman, himself a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said Dean had told him he was thinking about it. Dean was traveling today in New York and unavailable for comment. His spokeswoman, Laura Gross, said ``it was far too early to be speculating on that.'' The 240 members of the Democratic National Convention will elect a new chair early next year. Several names are already being mentioned, including former Clinton aide Harold Ickes; Donna Brazile, who ran Al Gore's presidential campaign, and Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. Dean has been outspoken since the beginning of his presidential bid in saying that the Democratic Party must establish a separate and unique identity from Republicans. The next chairman will replace Terry McAuliffe, whose term is ending. http://cbsnewyork.com/local/NYC--Dean-DNC-...urces_news_html -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted November 9, 2004 The last thing that the Democrats need is to go further to the left. Expect another 20 years of Republican control. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted November 9, 2004 I don't know, this could be a positive. Howard has an insane energy that the party may need to wake them from their walking coma. This could be a very big positive for them. Granted it could also blow up in their faces but I think it has a better chance of working. Plus the guy is more than likely next in line for the run for President so maybe this is like a trial run. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted November 9, 2004 When Tyler comes in and gives his spin to this, close your eyes -- you won't get as dizzy... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted November 9, 2004 Actually, I think going more to the left would be a good thing. Kerry ran an extremely moderate campaign, and all it did was make him look just like the other guy when he agreed with most of his policies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Thread Killer 0 Report post Posted November 9, 2004 Howard Dean? All I have to say is: YEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH! ... Come on, SOMEBODY had to say it. It was only a matter of time. Actually, Dean (or his staff) certainly knows how to drum up grass roots support. You have to give them that. Oh and also... YEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH! OMGLOL2004! (tm kkk) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted November 9, 2004 Actually, Dean (or his staff) certainly knows how to drum up grass roots support. You have to give them that. And getting out the youth vote, don't forget that ever-important demographic... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted November 9, 2004 Anyone will do a better job than Terry "Baghdad Bob" McAuillife. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted November 9, 2004 I like McAwful -- I hope the Dems keep him around. And I couldn't resist: Dean: Next election, I'm gonna do it... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted November 9, 2004 Howard Dean is gonna knock the Republicans up really hard. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Wildbomb 4:20 Report post Posted November 9, 2004 You think Tyler's the only one who'll be spinning this one? I think that anyone could do a better job than McAuliffe. Good work on this election. Way to go. The Dems need to define themselves better. The Republicans have done a brilliant job as painting themselves as the defenders of the American Dream, family, and security. Meanwhile, us Dems look like whining little maggots. Granted, half of us are, but that's another story. Dean may be able to give this party a sense of direction, and that in 2006, we could see something come of it in the elections. Come 2008, who knows. But the Dems need to define themselves more than as just the anti-Republicans. It doesn't work. --Ryan ...kkk, I'll be back to short posts in the next couple of days, promise... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted November 9, 2004 I don't see how this is a positive at all for the Democrats. People were running from this guy like the plague in Iowa in January. The last thing they need is another guy who will glady talk about inane conspiracy theories and continue the angry Democrat thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Edwin MacPhisto 0 Report post Posted November 9, 2004 Dean would be wonderful for this. As we've all said, McAuliffe has become irrelevant. When Dean's not talking conspiracy theory - which he laid off during the campaign - he's a great asset. He'll be able to connect with the liberal base and, perhaps more importantly, generate a structure that will allow the party and the rest of the Democratic base to connect. Guy organizes like a mothafucka. I imagine he'd actually push the party in a direction more interesting than "on life support," one way or another. I'm all for it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted November 9, 2004 How is he going to connect with the liberal base when he failed to do so in the primaries? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Edwin MacPhisto 0 Report post Posted November 9, 2004 He was dead in the water after Iowa, and in Iowa about 100,000 people got angry because he and Dick Gephardt were just slap-fighting each other for the last two weeks. The important thing here is that he's not the actual candidate and doesn't have to run against anyone. He just has to put things in motion, and without another "yarrrr" (or mayb with a few more), I see no reason to believe that he wouldn't do a fine job of it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted November 9, 2004 Well, I didn't have to do much work in this thread. Needless to say, I think he'd do a damned good job in this role and it would alleviate the pressure on him from supporters of his organization to run again in 2008, which would be a bad idea in my opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndrewTS 0 Report post Posted November 9, 2004 Talk of Hitlery running has already occurred, and they're seriously considering putting Hulk Howie in charge? 2008 will be quite the insane election. I wonder what the GOP will have up its sleeve. That's assuming that we're not a dictatorship by 2008, of course. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted November 9, 2004 I think the depth chart for 2008 is Giuliani-McCain-Frist-DeLay. I could be mistaken as I pulled that out of my ass. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hogan Made Wrestling 0 Report post Posted November 9, 2004 I think the depth chart for 2008 is Giuliani-McCain-Frist-DeLay. I could be mistaken as I pulled that out of my ass. I pray it doesn't come to that. I'd take Jeb Bush over Delay. The thought of the Gerrymandering Exterminator as president is almost too terrible to contemplate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 9, 2004 The Dems didn't learn the lesson. Running to the left is a very poor idea to actually win elections. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 9, 2004 I think the depth chart for 2008 is Giuliani-McCain-Frist-DeLay. I could be mistaken as I pulled that out of my ass. Delay's campaign slogan: "I promise to base all of my foreign policy decisions on the book of Revelation and the input of my dispensational premillenialist advisors." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 9, 2004 I think the depth chart for 2008 is Giuliani-McCain-Frist-DeLay. I could be mistaken as I pulled that out of my ass. I pray it doesn't come to that. I'd take Jeb Bush over Delay. The thought of the Gerrymandering Exterminator as president is almost too terrible to contemplate. Thing is, DeLay simply sought to undo the insane gerrymandering the Dems did in 1990. How else can you explain the plethora of Dems in Congress from a state that could not conceivably be more Republican? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted November 9, 2004 The Dems didn't learn the lesson. Running to the left is a very poor idea to actually win elections. -=Mike Kerry sure didn't run to the left in this election. And he still lost. Pro-Patriot Act, pro-war, pro-No Child Left Behind, anti-gay marriage, anti-partial birth abortion. That's not leftist. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 9, 2004 The Dems didn't learn the lesson. Running to the left is a very poor idea to actually win elections. -=Mike Kerry sure didn't run to the left in this election. And he still lost. Pro-Patriot Act, pro-war, pro-No Child Left Behind, anti-gay marriage, anti-partial birth abortion. That's not leftist. They ran a blatant liberal (which Kerry is) and hoped to cover it up. They KNOW that liberalism doesn't work. And the way to fix it is --- to run even MORE to the left? Bush ran a moderate campaign, much as some on the left hate to state it. He ran a VERY moderate campaign. If the Dems think running further to the left is going to work, they'll learn what the GOP learned in 1996. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted November 9, 2004 And Dean would have little influence on the party's message to anyone except talk shows (providing an alternatve voice) and fundraisers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted November 9, 2004 They ran a blatant liberal (which Kerry is) and hoped to cover it up. They KNOW that liberalism doesn't work. And the way to fix it is --- to run even MORE to the left? Bush ran a moderate campaign, much as some on the left hate to state it. He ran a VERY moderate campaign. If the Dems think running further to the left is going to work, they'll learn what the GOP learned in 1996. -=Mike I can't even think of one issue where Bush was moderate. Not a single one. They have to find a way to invoke the same passion Bush had in his supporters in liberals. Clinton had shifted pretty far to the right by the end of his first term, so of course the GOP wasn't going to win. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 9, 2004 And Dean would have little influence on the party's message to anyone except talk shows (providing an alternatve voice) and fundraisers. The voice at the head of party does dictate, in very large part, who wins nominations. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cabbageboy 0 Report post Posted November 9, 2004 Well, thing is you know they'd love to get Arnold eligible to run (frustrating thing the Constitution). The GOP would salivate over those 55 EVs that CA would bring. But they'd also take Giuliani as well since he might well carry the 31 from NY. I think if Giuliani ran that'd be the inroad for Hillary to run, saying she's the only one who could protect the holy NY 31 EVs from the GOP. I'm hoping for something sane, like McCain vs. whoever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 9, 2004 I can't even think of one issue where Bush was moderate. Not a single one. They have to find a way to invoke the same passion Bush had in his supporters in liberals. Education. Approving civil unions. Not one word about outlawing abortion. Not one word about expanding gun owner rights. No Social Security privatization. He expanded Medicare benefits. Not exactly conservative. Clinton had shifted pretty far to the right by the end of his first term, so of course the GOP wasn't going to win. I was referring more to Congress. The Republicans lost because --- and I said the Dems would have the same problem MONTHS ago --- hatred of a candidate doesn't win elections. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted November 9, 2004 Education. What is the typically conservative policy on education? Approving civil unions. He didn't come right out and say he approved this until just a week before the election, and in fact, this is one of the issues that helped Bush win the election, as he had supported a Constitutional amendment for months, an amendment that included civil unions and domestic partnerships in most states. Not one word about outlawing abortion. He avoided those questions quite nicely. Not one word about expanding gun owner rights. That's probably the one issue I can give you. No Social Security privatization. Isn't that what Bush's whole proposal is? He expanded Medicare benefits. Actually, that change was more cosmetic, but that's another debate for another time. As a platform, perhaps it was moderate. I was referring more to Congress. The Republicans lost because --- and I said the Dems would have the same problem MONTHS ago --- hatred of a candidate doesn't win elections. -=Mike Agreed 100%. No incumbent will be running in 2008, so I don't expect this to be an issue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
