Howard Dean: The Next DNC Chief.

[Guest MikeSC]

but considering the success of the GOP, the voters are clearly more conservative than the Dems are

 

Overgeneralization that isn't based in reality.

Hmm, the GOP has held the Congress, save for a stint when a "Republican" switched parties after he won election as a Republican --- non-stop for 10 years now.

 

We've won the last 2 Presidential elections.

 

Yeah, no reality in my sentiment. No siree, bob.

 

But, hey, keep believing it. I wouldn't trust a Dem to do anything as it is, so I'm happy to see the Dems refuse to acknowledge what their problem is.

Its been shown time and time again that most voters have no clue where the Republicans really stand on the issues.

Then prove it once.

 

Feel free.

However, the point remains that Mike's gross overassertion of conservative nature the Independant public is absolutely idiotic.

I'm only going with the only real measuring stick of success --- you know, that pesky "winning elections" thing.

 

Again, the most popular Dem in recent history couldn't pull down 50% of the vote ever.

My point was that pork and personalities is what keeps people in power, not positions or policies. Of course both parties do it.

So the only party with personalities that win national elections tend to be Republican?

 

Wow.

-=Mike

...Keep believing the problem is not the Dems' stance on issues...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

What's funny is that most of the symptoms you've listed can be solved by good leadership -- i.e. real funding for smaller candidates in "red" states and other points I made in the original post you no-sold.

 

However, your complete lack of any knowledge of political science is jading you from realizing that this country is divided enough that the smallest thing could swing the electorate.

[Guest MikeSC]

What's funny is that most of the symptoms you've listed can be solved by good leadership -- i.e. real funding for smaller candidates in "red" states and other points I made in the original post you no-sold.

 

However, your complete lack of any knowledge of political science is jading you from realizing that this country is divided enough that the smallest thing could swing the electorate.

Tyler, your political science education you have proven, repeatedly, to be shoddy.

 

When a party REPEATEDLY loses elections, ESPECIALLY when they are totally shocked by it, indicates that there is a REAL problem with the party.

 

You want to think that the Dems stances on issues doesn't cause them problems, feel free. You're horribly mistaken.

 

Americans do not trust the Dems with national security. Your party has an amazing knack to put the biggest morons in the spotlight (*cough*Kennedy, *cough* Pelosi) which only demonstrates how out of touch they happen to be. Who do they stick out there to respond to Bush's SOTU speech?

 

The inept and rather unlikeable Sen. Reid. Not Obama, who the press fellated for a while before he fell off the map. Not Hillary, who is trying to paint herself as the moderate she isn't. Not Lieberman, who can at least play moderate decently.

 

And what do the Dems blame for their losses? Non-existent voter disenfranchisement, "slick marketing", "negative campaigning", etc --- ignoring that they did the SAME damned thing and lost. The Dems love to believe that they run these incredibly respectable campaigns when reality is different.

 

Hell, 2004 disproved two long-held notions: That Republicans won't win high turnout elections and that the GOP's biggest advantage is money. The Dems outspent them, voter turnout was rather high --- and the Dems STILL fell down.

 

The DNC is in a world of trouble. They have money, but are unelectable on a national level. And the problems are so obvious that it boggles my mind that they are ignoring them.

 

A person who actually CAN win elections in red states might not be a poor choice to lead the party in their attempts to regain power.

 

But since the children who now dominate the party don't like any moderation, the party will simply FURTHER marginalize itself.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Not Obama, who the press fellated for a while before he fell off the map.

 

...?! He's a fucking junior senator from Illinois. What the hell do you expect from the guy?

 

Reid is the MINORITY LEADER. Of COURSE he's gonna be the one to do the response.

 

And what do the Dems blame for their losses? Non-existent voter disenfranchisement, "slick marketing", "negative campaigning", etc --- ignoring that they did the SAME damned thing and lost.

 

Mike, the staunch Democrat, knows exactly what the Democratic leadership is thinking about the last few elections.

 

A person who actually CAN win elections in red states might not be a poor choice to lead the party in their attempts to regain power.

 

Who would you suggest? Maybe someone who has pledged to support state and local parties in red states?

[SuperJerk 0]

Its been shown time and time again that most voters have no clue where the Republicans really stand on the issues.

Then prove it once.

 

Feel free.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Ele...ort10_21_04.pdf

 

Americans do not trust the Dems with national security.

 

On this we agree. Carter couldn't have won if Vietnam was still going on, and Clinton couldn't have won had the Cold War not just ended, in my opinion.

[Guest MikeSC]

Not Obama, who the press fellated for a while before he fell off the map.

 

...?! He's a fucking junior senator from Illinois. What the hell do you expect from the guy?

 

He's one of the only guys in the party who voters don't have a rather strong distaste for.

 

Your party doesn't have much to work with --- might be wise to use somebody likeable.

Reid is the MINORITY LEADER. Of COURSE he's gonna be the one to do the response.

He's also a shit speaker, a dullard, and a thoroughly unlikeable fellow.

 

He did your party no favors with his horrid attempt at a speech.

And what do the Dems blame for their losses? Non-existent voter disenfranchisement, "slick marketing", "negative campaigning", etc --- ignoring that they did the SAME damned thing and lost.

Mike, the staunch Democrat, knows exactly what the Democratic leadership is thinking about the last few elections.

Yes, I CLEARLY do --- going with WHAT THEY'RE DOING ABOUT THE PROBLEMS.

 

No, don't moderate --- simply put MORE extreme people in positions of power in the DNC.

 

Brilliant!

A person who actually CAN win elections in red states might not be a poor choice to lead the party in their attempts to regain power.

 

Who would you suggest? Maybe someone who has pledged to support state and local parties in red states?

Roemer was an infinitely better choice, like it or not. But, the children will get their way and, as usual, the Dems will wonder what happened when they lose more elections.

-=Mike

...Who doesn't mind watching the Dems commit suicide. I'm just baffled that they are doing it with such glee...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Roemer had absolutely no plans to reform anything within the party. He pledged no additional support to any of the state and local parties. He was the candidate of the status quo. Why in the fuck would Democrats want the status quo to continue?

[Guest MikeSC]

Its been shown time and time again that most voters have no clue where the Republicans really stand on the issues.

Then prove it once.

 

Feel free.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Ele...ort10_21_04.pdf

 

Americans do not trust the Dems with national security.

 

On this we agree. Carter couldn't have won if Vietnam was still going on, and Clinton couldn't have won had the Cold War not just ended.

Hmm, let's go over this.

 

Iraq DID have WMD before the war (ask the Kurds if he did --- they might give you a different answer than this group. Well, the Kurds who WEREN'T gassed). And for these experts who apparently always thought he didn't have them --- they managed to keep quiet until, oh, AFTER the fact.

 

Iraq DID provide support to Al Qaeda. Read up on Salman Pak, skippy.

 

World opinion could not conceivably be of less importance on a US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION than it does. Even mentioning it is funny. And I'd love to see what breakdown of Bush supporters thought the world wanted Bush to be re-elected, seeing as how nobody I've ever heard of thought that. Not one single soul. I flat out reject that poll as I have not seen one that approaches its finding. Not one.

 

They seem to mistake opposing the ICC as opposing multilateralism, which is a laughable thesis. They also seem to think opposition to Kyoto means an opposition to opposing Greenhouse gases, which is also laughable. It'd be like me saying opposing CFR means you support bribery.

 

The report blatantly misquotes the 9/11 Commission, who stated that there WERE ties between AQ and Iraq (the chairmen went on TV to clear that up) --- but that Iraq had no role in 9/11 itself. This is some shoddy scholarship here.

 

What Kerry supporters think of what Bush said is immaterial, as they are mischaracterizing what Bush said.

 

In fact, I heavily doubt many of the findings of this report, given the insanely shoddy work here.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Roemer had absolutely no plans to reform anything within the party. He pledged no additional support to any of the state and local parties. He was the candidate of the status quo. Why in the fuck would Democrats want the status quo to continue?

He was the only guy who showed any success in a red state. Dean is promising to do more of the bad. That's PREFERRABLE?

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Dean is promising to do more of the bad.

 

Find me that, please.

[Guest MikeSC]

Dean is promising to do more of the bad.

 

Find me that, please.

His rhetoric is even more divisive than McAuliffe's. When you're a MINORITY party, insulting the MAJORITY is the dumbest thing you can do --- and it's something the left (not just Dems, the left) has done for a long, long while now.

 

How is Mr. "I hate Republicans" planning on REACHING OUT to a fucking soul?

 

Firing up the liberal base did not work in 2004. It won't work in 2008.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

You said he's pledged to do more of the same, find me that quote, will you?

[SuperJerk 0]

You said he's pledged to do more of the same, find me that quote, will you?

Its not up to him to find it, its up to you to find it. Right?

[Guest MikeSC]

You said he's pledged to do more of the same, find me that quote, will you?

I'm going with his rhetoric, you fucking moron.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Find me a quote, okay?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I like how the party that Mike ass-kisses constantly had an ENRON LOBBYIST for a Chairman until recently. I don't know how Dean could even come close to that in infamy.

 

Also, LOL that Dean is burying himself by attacking Fox News. Which side attacks ALL media except Fox News & WashTimes?

 

I can take the attacks, I just can't take this pot/kettle/black nonsense.

[SuperJerk 0]

You said he's pledged to do more of the same, find me that quote, will you?

I'm going with his rhetoric, you fucking moron.

-=Mike

Yeah! Why should you have to provide evidence for your own claims?

 

 

What a fantastic job your doing showing us you're right, Mike.

[Justice 0]

My personal opinion is similar to Hogan Made Wrestling:

 

Howard is far from the perfect candidate, but he has fire and charisma, and he doesn't come off as the biggest political tool of all time (MacCaulife). If they want ot move towards a more 'progressive' style, they may be able to find a real base rather than a tossed-together bunch of interest groups that the Republicans have rejected.

[Guest MikeSC]

My personal opinion is similar to Hogan Made Wrestling:

 

Howard is far from the perfect candidate, but he has fire and charisma, and he doesn't come off as the biggest political tool of all time (MacCaulife). If they want ot move towards a more 'progressive' style, they may be able to find a real base rather than a tossed-together bunch of interest groups that the Republicans have rejected.

All Dean will do is take the CURRENT Democratic base and slash it down further.

 

The GOP learned their lesson when Newt went overboard.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

As a primary voter, I was not impressed with Dean’s comments regarding Osama bin Laden presumed guilt (a statement he later retracted), and his (I felt) overly populist and energetic to-a-fault speaking style which also got him in trouble with the national media. I also, in all honestly, couldn’t imagine—no matter how right he may have been—the governor of a small rural state debating foreign policy with the President, given 9/11. I wasn’t the only one, since Dean’s early lead soon collapsed and he became a campaign footnote.

 

This isn’t to say he wasn’t important, since he managed to do several things that needed to be done within the primary process: he gave a strong voice to those who opposed the war in Iraq (which was becoming more and more unpopular with the general public as the campaign went on), and he pointed out the problems the Bush Administration has been having putting forward a domestic agenda that truly benefited all Americans. His image as a "wild man" would of course cause him to loose, but the strategy of expanding core-support rather than playing to the so-called moderates ended up winning George W. Bush a second term.

 

Being Party Chairman is not some token position that you give a consolation prize. It requires hard work and a clear set of goals. One of Dean’s goals would be to turn the Democrats back into a national party, something neither party has done successfully in almost a generation.

 

This is not a good time for the Democratic Party to give up anywhere in America. The President won the election based on foreign policy issues (Iraq and terrorism combined dwarf “moral issues” in importance in the minds of the voters on election day), but allows the Religious Right to set the agenda for his domestic policy. We are closer now than we’ve been in 30 years to a woman’s right to choose being abolished on a national level. The next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will probably be a rude, pompous right-wing jerk. The federal government’s budget deficit continues to soar due to the combined effects of over-spending and tax cuts which have not helped the economy one bit. An effective national opposition party needs to emerge to fight for the true good of the public.

 

The Dean philosophy is the correct one if the Democrat Party is to prosper. It cannot allow itself to concede any state to the Republicans, and (more importantly) put sound national policy in place. Dean’s goals, and it should be the Democrats goal, is to win 538 electoral votes in 2008, instead of the 270 John Kerry aimed for.

[Guest MikeSC]

I like how the party that Mike ass-kisses constantly had an ENRON LOBBYIST for a Chairman until recently. I don't know how Dean could even come close to that in infamy.

Almost as bad as the Dems having a guy neck-deep with Global Crossing's demise leading them for the last few years, right?

 

Don't waste my time trying to paint the GOP as the "bad guys" here.

 

And Dean, like it or not, is a political moron. He's as dumb as your side loves to believe Bush is. He will be an albatross to the party.

Also, LOL that Dean is burying himself by attacking Fox News. Which side attacks ALL media except Fox News & WashTimes?

Gee, I can't imagine WHY anybody would think the press might have a bias.

 

God knows CBS didn't give ANYBODY a reason to ask the question.

Yeah! Why should you have to provide evidence for your own claims?

Read his fucking rhetoric, you fucking idiot.

 

Really, not that complicated.

 

You've already demonstrated non-existant knowledge in history. Let's try to avoid adding to that list.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

My personal opinion is similar to Hogan Made Wrestling:

 

Howard is far from the perfect candidate, but he has fire and charisma, and he doesn't come off as the biggest political tool of all time (MacCaulife). If they want ot move towards a more 'progressive' style, they may be able to find a real base rather than a tossed-together bunch of interest groups that the Republicans have rejected.

All Dean will do is take the CURRENT Democratic base and slash it down further.

 

The GOP learned their lesson when Newt went overboard.

-=Mike

Is that in his platform?

[Guest MikeSC]

My personal opinion is similar to Hogan Made Wrestling:

 

Howard is far from the perfect candidate, but he has fire and charisma, and he doesn't come off as the biggest political tool of all time (MacCaulife). If they want ot move towards a more 'progressive' style, they may be able to find a real base rather than a tossed-together bunch of interest groups that the Republicans have rejected.

All Dean will do is take the CURRENT Democratic base and slash it down further.

 

The GOP learned their lesson when Newt went overboard.

-=Mike

Is that in his platform?

Wow, you REALLY are bad at this, Tyler.

-=Mike

...Dean as DNC head: That's a scream. Yuk, yuk!

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

"READ HIS RHETORIC", he screams.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Are you seriously leaving it up to me to prove your argument, by the way?

[Guest MikeSC]

"READ HIS RHETORIC", he screams.

Actually, if they hope to win, they better hope nobody does.

Are you seriously leaving it up to me to prove your argument, by the way?

I already explained it. If you choose to ignore it, knock yourself the hell out.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

You didn't explain anything. You just said "READ HIS RHETORIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" over and over again without citing a single example of something he's said during his campaign for the DNC chairmanship. Nor have you provided a single example of how his plans for the DNC would be a boon for the RNC, or vice versa. Really, you haven't proven anything either way. You've just wasted about four hours of your time banging your head against the wall and repeating the same thing about sixteen times, perhaps trying to convince yourself that it's true.

[Guest MikeSC]

You didn't explain anything. You just said "READ HIS RHETORIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" over and over again without citing a single example of something he's said during his campaign for the DNC chairmanship.

You missed the "I hate Republicans" thing, eh? Figured you might read back a little in the thread.

 

I was wrong.

 

From now on, I will assume you have no short-term memory.

 

We're discussing Howard Dean.

 

We're discussing how bad he'd be as head of DNC.

Nor have you provided a single example of how his plans for the DNC would be a boon for the RNC, or vice versa.

Hmm, insulting more than half of the electorate seems like a pretty obvious benefit to the opposing party.

 

You REALLY should ask for your money back for your poli.sci courses.

Really, you haven't proven anything either way. You've just wasted about four hours of your time banging your head against the wall and repeating the same thing about sixteen times, perhaps trying to convince yourself that it's true.

You know it's true. You're just trying to ignore it.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Hmm, insulting more than half of the electorate seems like a pretty obvious benefit to the opposing party.

 

It's actually about ~21% of the electorate. ~20% are Democrats, 21% are Republicans, and ~59% of the electorate are Independants. But yeah, insult my polysci knowledge, because I don't know shit. Insulting 20% of the population that isn't going to vote for you anyways in a NY newspaper that nobody outside of NYC reads is TERRIBLE!!! He'll be a HORRIBLE DNC CHAIRMAN, DESPITE ALL LOGIC!

[SuperJerk 0]

Yeah! Why should you have to provide evidence for your own claims?

Read his fucking rhetoric, you fucking idiot.

 

Really, not that complicated.

 

You've already demonstrated non-existant knowledge in history. Let's try to avoid adding to that list.

-=Mike

Maybe I fucking expect you to actually be able to fucking back up what you fucking say instead of resorting to half-ass replies to my fucking posts.

 

 

Burden of proof lies on the person making the claims, not those attempting to examine them.

 

Where'd you get YOUR history degree? Correspondence courses from inside Sean Hannity's ass?

 

By the way, "non-existant" isn't even a word.