Dean For DNC Chair Thread #2

[Guest Cerebus]

Since the last thread degenerated (surprise!) I decided to start another one.

 

One overlooked part of Dean was that he got an A rating from the NRA while he was governor of Vermont, a rating most Republican governors didn't come close to getting. Interestingly enough, if Dean becomes DNC Chairman "gun-control" may face a crippling blow politcially.

 

Really, the only reason Dean is considered a far left wing firebrand is more thanks to Joe Trippi than anyone else. The media is at fault for being more concerned with licking Trippi's ass than reporting the facts about him.

 

Dean would be an interesting pick as a DNC Chairman but it would NOT be good for the Dems. Hardcore leftists Dems would hate the fact that the Dean they bought, the Trippi-style "YAAAAAAAAAAARGH!" Dean, was a false good but nearly everyone else will think that the Dems have gone so far to the left they've fallen off the edge (when, in fact, the opposite would be true). Dean as a chair is an interesting conundrum for Democrats, but a boon for Repubs.

 

So as a Repub, I say go Dean, but for my Dem friends, I say pick different. He's got too much baggage and you have Trippi to thank for that.

[BUTT 0]

Yes, but the DNC chairman isn't really a job where image is that important. I mean, look at Terry McAuliffe: nobody really knew anything about him, and nobody really cared. Certainly Dean, being a well-known figure, will attract more attention that McAuliffe did, but in this case the important thing is ideology, not image. Sure, Dean has a "crazy hardcore liberal" image to many (who know nothing about him) but when 2008 comes around, is a voter going to overlook the Democratic candidate simply because of what they perceive Howard Dean's views to be?

[C Dubya 04 0]

I actually think that Dean would be a good choice. The party needs someone with energy to organize and inspire. I do agree though that how far left is is perceived to be would be detrimental.

[Guest Cerebus]

To the famous "Joe Six-Pack" maybe not, but to policy wonks (such as myself), donators, reporters, and politicians it can make quite a bit of differnece. You have no idea how much people in political circles made fun of McAuliffe. Last year I met and had lunch with a number of Rep. Larson's (a Democrat rep in my state) staff and he McAuliffe came up and all of Larson's staff started cracking jokes (one called him "Baghdad Bob" McAuliffe for his tendancy to say outrageous things completely removed from reality). And this was from the staff of a New England Democrat Congressman!

[Styles 0]

Really, the only reason Dean is considered a far left wing firebrand is more thanks to Joe Trippi than anyone else. The media is at fault for being more concerned with licking Trippi's ass than reporting the facts about him.

I think his constant outspoken anti-war rhetoric, and just dumb comments like Bin Laden deserving a fair trial, Bush possibly being warned about 9/11, being the guy for "truckers with confederate flags" and promising to repeal the tax cuts may have had something to do with that image. Not counting the fact that the insane left worships the guy...

[NoCalMike 0]

Actually the "insane left" as you so profoundly put it, does not worship him at all, if when you say "insane left" you mean someone like a Green Party member.

[Styles 0]

Actually the "insane left" as you so profoundly put it, does not worship him at all, if when you say "insane left" you mean someone like a Green Party member.

Are you admitting to insanity?

 

What I meant was the far-left Democratic base. The Bush is Satan crowd. They love the guy.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

What I meant was the far-left Democratic base. The Bush is Satan crowd. They love the guy.

 

There really isn't much of a far-left Democratic base, so to speak. Most of them have jumped ship to the Greens, as Mike has said. Some have stayed and tried to influence the party, but for the most part, you're seeing middle-of-the-road Democrats swelling support for Dean in this chairmanship race.

 

I'm not convinced that the Oklahoma Democratic Committee is "far left", despite the fact that they were among the first to endorse Dean.

 

BTW, Roemer dropped out, so it's a done deal for the most part.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

What I meant was the far-left Democratic base. The Bush is Satan crowd. They love the guy.

Shit. I wish you had posted earlier. I had written up a huge post about how this moderate middle of the road Clinton crap isn't working, and how far more than the Democratic base hates Bush and Kerry failed to capitalize on it, trying to hard to not offend anyone or outright criticise the guy's judgments in his little "Well, I like the President and I think he's a nice guy, BUT..." fence-sitting.

 

We needed more Bush is Satan, honestly. We're not going to get anywhere without playing as bloodthirsty as the GOP do.

[Vyce 0]

Please do so.

 

The vast majority of America is NOT hard-left - if anything, they're moderate, and very resistant to the extremes of either party. A move in that direction by the Democratic party only ensures many more years of Republican control.

 

On that aspect, I have to agree with Mike....er, "Chickenhawk", in that the Dems just really don't understand why they lost this election (the one that was theirs to lose), and all of the answers they're coming up with ("I know - let's move FARTHER to the left!!!") are all wrong.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

The Democrats need to push social issues and the economy. If criticizing national defence policies is their main campaign point, such as in the last election, they will lose every time. Rightly or wrongly, Americans simply do not trust the Democrats in that area. They didn't with Korea, they didn't with Vietnam, they didn't with the Cold War, and they don't now.

[Guest Vitamin X]

They sure did for World War II, though...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The vast majority of America is NOT hard-left - if anything, they're moderate, and very resistant to the extremes of either party.  A move in that direction by the Democratic party only ensures many more years of Republican control.

I don't mean that we decide to become big on socialist programs like universal health care or something. I mean we should have done more to channel the dislike of Bush more in the campaign. How many years has it been since there has been such public outrage over an American President? None of that was reflected in this campaign.

 

Kahran is sadly correct in his post, I think. But what we could hardly attack the President's judgment for going into Iraq after phantom WMDs when our guy said he'd still go in even if he knew it turn out the way it did.

 

But, they have a machine that eats Democrats in their current profile. Notice the echo chamber. Notice how "liberal" has all the impact of a swear word but "conservative" doesn't, etc.

 

The machine has got to stop somehow. If we just keep shuffling heads and giving things up the metaphorical walls will close in anyway. A watered-down Republican message gives people no reason to not just vote for the real genuine draft, and I think we were watered down this year.

[SuperJerk 0]

The vast majority of America is NOT hard-left - if anything, they're moderate, and very resistant to the extremes of either party.  A move in that direction by the Democratic party only ensures many more years of Republican control.

If someone comes along and actually tries to CONVINCE people he's right, instead of relying on polls to tell him what to say, he shouldn't have any trouble winning. Ronald Reagan is a perfect example of this.

[Guest Cerebus]

The vast majority of America is NOT hard-left - if anything, they're moderate, and very resistant to the extremes of either party.  A move in that direction by the Democratic party only ensures many more years of Republican control.

I don't mean that we decide to become big on socialist programs like universal health care or something. I mean we should have done more to channel the dislike of Bush more in the campaign. How many years has it been since there has been such public outrage over an American President? None of that was reflected in this campaign.

 

Kahran is sadly correct in his post, I think. But what we could hardly attack the President's judgment for going into Iraq after phantom WMDs when our guy said he'd still go in even if he knew it turn out the way it did.

 

But, they have a machine that eats Democrats in their current profile. Notice the echo chamber. Notice how "liberal" has all the impact of a swear word but "conservative" doesn't, etc.

 

The machine has got to stop somehow. If we just keep shuffling heads and giving things up the metaphorical walls will close in anyway. A watered-down Republican message gives people no reason to not just vote for the real genuine draft, and I think we were watered down this year.

The clothespin vote obvioiusly didn't work for Kerry, what makes you think that pushing it even more would have helped? The victory of Bush, like it or not, was largely, but no where near completely, a validation of his foreign policy in a broad sense, and Iraq in a narrower sense. The fact that the media got its panties wet about "family values" or whatever garbage they were using as an excuse is irrelevant.

 

As the non-foreign policy stuff goes, however, the Republicans have managed to frame with religion and family, much to their advantage since the American people are religious and worried about keeping their families intact and healthy. I'm sorry, but too many in the Democratic party are so anthema to those things in the abstract that they will never be able to use them to frame their message effectively.

 

Pushing clothespin votes didn't work in 2000 or 2004, why should it be different in 2008?

[Styles 0]

Exactly. The Democrats don't get it. The Republicans are appealing to people all across the country and their concerns. The Democrats seem intent to just cater to the dense populations in the Northeast and Northwest. They need to become more moderate, putting the Joe Liebermans and Evan Bayes and Joe Bidens of the world into the forefront of their party instead of the Nancy Pelosis and Harry Reids and Barbra Boxers that they trot out there now (I would include Ted Kennedy, but let's face it, no matter what anyone says, he's not going away). Once again, it's a Clinton who is smarter then the average Democrat and doing what they need to do to get elected. As much as I don't like her, and her past will catch up to her, Hillary is doing all the right things to make herself electable in the eyes of the ENTIRE country (not just New England and Seattle) by giving speeches embracing religion, and speaking out against abortion and being more pro-milatary in her rhetoric. I'm not saying it will work and the country won't see right through her, but it's exactly what got her husband elected and re-elected. He was a populist that stayed moderate in his rhetoric and embraced some conservative issues. Like it or not, Democrats have to understand that the majority of the country DOES NOT agree with them on leftist positions. They more left they go, the more people they alieante, they're not going to convince anyone. The Clintons got it and are getting it again it appears, move more towards the right and push suttle differences to gain the trust of the electorate. If that fails, I guess Howard Dean could always give one of his trademarked frothing at the mouth angry liberal speeches...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Harry Reids

 

...?!?

 

Harry Reid is a moderate. Sure, he's an idiot, but he's a moderate.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Whoa. Hillary's speaking out against abortion?

 

I don't think I heard about this.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

She's just getting ready for 2008 presidental run and this is her way to try and con a few red states to vote in her corner. Don't read anything into this...

[Styles 0]

Whoa. Hillary's speaking out against abortion?

 

I don't think I heard about this.

From FairAndBalancedLOL2005 on her Jan. 24 speech before the New York State Family Planning Providers:

 

Clinton emphasized that “we should embrace” research that shows that teenage girls with strong religious and moral values more frequently abstain from sex and argued that continuing to educate young people about abstinence is the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancy. She concluded that “the jury is still out” on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs.

 

Clinton's call to abortion rights advocates in her audience to try and find common issues with their anti-abortion counterparts as well as recent high-profile appearances drove press coverage afterward — and talk of a possible 2008 candidacy.

 

"If you heard Sen. Clinton during the election, there was no one who sounded more presidential," said Wilson, referring to the New York senator's speech at the Democratic National Convention.

 

"But now, after [sen. John] Kerry's defeat, there is speculation that the voice that sounded so presidential is now seeking to be president," said Wilson, who added that the political news wires have been electrified by “HRC” sightings, quotations and maneuvers.

 

Not everyone is pleased by the prospect of a Clinton run in 2008. Janice Crouse, executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the policy arm of the abortion opponents Concerned Women for America (search), said Clinton won’t get away with trying to re-invent herself as a moderate, particularly on the abortion issue.

 

"It all has a hollow ring to it," Crouse said, noting that “a radical agenda” lurks behind Clinton's speech. “It’s just another example of Clinton political spin. She’s been good at that from the very beginning.”

 

Crouse said she and many others believe the pro-life, socially conservative ranks had a strong role in helping Bush win re-election in November, and now Democrats like Clinton are running scared.

 

“The Democratic Party realizes that it has got to come to the center if they are going to win any election in the future,” Crouse said.

[NoCalMike 0]

John Kerry didn't lose the election because of this imaginary push to the hard left. The fact is, Kerry at various times said "Well The war is right, but I would have done it differently" or some other form of that statement. That ALONE was the reason for his downfall. Over half of this country according to polls now feels that this Iraqi war was not worth it. John Kerry screwed over the anti-war crowd, and acted like a scared little boy when it came time to man-up and go after Bush about the war. Most everyone polled said the "War on Terrorism" was the #1 issue they voted on, and they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Kerry because he really had no policy regarding the war. Kerry didn't inspire anyone, he was soley JUST the "not Bush" candidate. Still, he pulled 48% of the vote being as weak of a candidate that he was. Kerry's entire campaign strategy was horrid. He took for granted that he was going to get the anti-war crowd, so he went out of his way not to sound anti-war. Then saying ludicrous statements like he would have still voted for the war and given the President the power to go to war and all that other nonsense.

[SuperJerk 0]

The Republicans are appealing to people all across the country and their concerns.

By "across the country" I think you mean:

-people in rural areas

-people in the suburbs

 

Democrats, by contrast, appeal to:

-people who live in cities.

 

 

Think about it. If Bush really appealled to as broad a group as the Republicans claim, wouldn't he have gotten more than 51%?

 

 

Not everybody who lives in the midwest voted for Bush. I know I sure the hell didn't. Kerry won the West Coast and Northeast because that's where most of the major cities are. Kerry probably would've carried Missouri if the rural towns and suburbs weren't bigger than KC and St. Louis.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The victory of Bush, like it or not, was largely, but no where near completely, a validation of his foreign policy in a broad sense, and Iraq in a narrower sense.

That would have been a nice statement if everyone voted, but polls show that peoples' outlook on the war is much more iffy.

 

Yes, I know Bush won. Yes, I know everyone doesn't vote. It's a shame. It was a crap shoot until the very end, and the Republicans managed to get more people out to vote AND the youth the Democrats were marketing at didn't turn out. It's not like the whole country was told "US interventionist pre-emptive strike policy: Yay, Nay."

 

And looking at his approval numbers, I'm guessing there's some people who didn't like him that voted for him anyway. Anyway, it's not this great victory where everyone came out and said "YES! We like attacking countries for sketchy reasons!"

 

As the non-foreign policy stuff goes, however, the Republicans have managed to frame with religion and family, much to their advantage since the American people are religious and worried about keeping their families intact and healthy. I'm sorry, but too many in the Democratic party are so anthema to those things in the abstract that they will never be able to use them to frame their message effectively.

Uh, what? The Democrats do MORE for families, on average, than Republicans do. Republicans tend to shy away when it comes to using the government to give the middle-class a boost. And when you lose your middle-class, you lose your democracy.

 

The neocons' idea of family values is.... Well, check out the FCC lately.

[Styles 0]

Totally off topic, but Robot, your sig made me laugh at a funny memory, my senior year in high school, my friend and I (both wrestling fans) were in a Computer Apps class, and we had to create a Powerpoint presentation on an historical figure, so he chose Booker T Washington, and I gave him the bright idea that he should start it like Booker T's titantron with the words CAN YOU DIG IT SUCKA? all flying in big yellow print like they do on the titantron, and then have Booker T (the wrestler) appear doing the spinerooni and narrate the thing on BTW's life, saying "sucka" after every sentence. The teacher just looked at it and went "Can you dig it sucka?" (like what the hell?) and got pissed meanwhile we're laughing our asses off. Almost as funny as the time we had to make a Jeapordy type game and I decided to make "Good 'ole JR's Rasslin Trivia" all wrestling questions that depending on a right or wrong answer, a ridiculous picture of JR would pop up and say one of his saying in a word bubble (like "He's whipping him like a government mule, bah god!"). Luckily the teacher was a little bit of a wrestling fan and let us get away with this stuff (he always asked us when Goldberg was coming back). I wish I still had those projects saved, but they were deleted at the end of the semester.

 

Ok, carry on your partisan bickering.

[SuperJerk 0]

^YES!!!!!!!^

[Guest sek69]

I still want to know why Republicans can move to the far right and it's considered a good move, but Democrats moving to the left is crazy.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I still want to know why Republicans can move to the far right and it's considered a good move, but Democrats moving to the left is crazy.

Because the standard American is slightly right of centre. Therefore if the Republicans are at the extreme right and the Democrats are at the extreme left, they will go towards the Republicans. For the Democrats to be successful they need to be like the Liberals in Canada, position themselves as moderates in between the insane left (NDP) and the right (Conservatives). It doesn't have to be true, but it has to appear that way.

[Guest sek69]

If the DNC gets any more moderate, they might as well be Junior Republicans.

 

The main reason someone like Dean has so much support is because a lot of people are getting tired of bland, spineless, dry-as-toast moderates. I know that if I ever listen to another Joe Lieberman speech I'm going to saw my head off with a butter knife.

 

I mean hell, all the DNC chair does is raise money for the party, and the job Dean did in 2004 using just his website would suggest he's more than qualified for the job.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

The left will vote Democrat anyways, so they don't have to worry about that. They sure as hell aren't going to vote Republican and the Green isn't big enough to make a dent. It is the moderate vote that they need to win in order to get elected. The only successful Democratic president since Truman, and some would say Roosevelt was Bill Clinton, and he did it by swiping the moderates away from the Republicans.

 

You may agree with extreme leftwing policies, but 50+ years of history says that they won't win the election if they follow that route, barring some Watergate type disaster from the Republicans.

 

Would you rather have a moderate-style Democrat like Bill Clinton as president or a hardcore conservative like George Bush? Because those are your choices.

 

Even in Canada, which is a far more liberal country than the US is, the NDP routinely get trounced in elections. They barely win enough seats even to be recognized as an official party these days.

 

Here's a little secret for you, and followers of the Democratic party. The Republicans since World War II and probably even the Civil War have a much easier time getting elected than Democrats. They can make some mistakes and get away with it. The Democrats can't. If they don't play to the moderates they will lose, because the Republicans will just mobilize the bible thumpers and seniors and blow the Dems out of the water. It happened in 68, 72, 80, 84, 88 & 02, and it will continue to happen until the Democrats wake up. This isn't about pushing forward your platform, this is about getting votes and winning an election. If that means making compromises, you do it.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I still want to know why Republicans can move to the far right and it's considered a good move, but Democrats moving to the left is crazy.

Because while the rest of the world is becoming downright socialist, we have to argue ass-backwards from everybody else over who can be the more conservative party. Which, ironically, makes us most like a middle eastern country arguing over keeping tradition.

 

To keep this focused on Dean, I don't think his "OMG COFFEE DRINKIN LIBERAL GO BACK TO VERMONT YOU HIPPY" stuff is really going to have an effect as chairman like it did as a candidate. He was successful in getting people to unite and build an opposition to Bush. His defeat, before that stupid scream, was that the opposition forces he brought together decided he wasn't going to be the best face to put forward, especially since he was putting ideas on the table which were only right of Dennis Kucinich.

 

That won't be a problem here. Just because Dean is chairman doesn't mean they will all agree with Dean's unpopular decisions, like adopting Canada's healthcare system.