Bill & Hill Push for 'Anybody But Dean'

[John Ashcroft]

Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean may be the frontrunner in the race for Democratic National Committee chairman, but the party's two biggest stars are quietly working behind the scenes to torpedo his chances.

"The Clintons don't like Dean on substance or style, seeing him as too left and too loose-lipped," reports Newsweek in Monday editions.

The former first couple headlined an inauguration night bash at the D.C. home of former Clinton pollster Mark Penn, where one attendee said, "There was a ton of positive energy at the house - except for the fear and loathing of Dean."
The Clintons are doing their best to keep their antipathy towards Dean under wraps, lest he win the post and throw his support to someone besides Hillary in 2008.

But while Sen. Clinton is keeping her head down, Newsweek says her ex-president hubby has taken an active role is searching out an acceptable substitute for the volatile Vermont liberal when the party votes on Feb. 12.

Last month Mr. Clinton personally sounded out current chairman Terry McAuliffe, asking him to stay on the job and head Dean off at the pass. McAuliffe declined.

Dean's chief rival had been longtime Clinton loyalist Harold Ickes. But he dropped out of the race in December after saying he didn't think Sen. Clinton could win the White House.

Other names touted as possible alternatives to Dean: former Texas congressman Martin Frost, one-time party chair Ed Rendell, pro-lifer Tim Roemer and former Clinton U.N. ambassador-turned-New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

Link: here (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/23/83029.shtml)

Anyone still think the Clintons don't run the Democratic party? How many elections does your side need to lose before you abandon the love affair with the Clintons???

[FORD]

no love affair with Stepford Neocon Zombie Hillary here!

Did you see her swaying back and forth like a 13 year old girl at a Journey concert when that Lawrence Welk reject was singing "your" fascist anthem "Let The Eagle Sooooooooaaaaaaar"???

I was waiting for the delusional bitch to hold up a flaming lighter.

FUCK Hillary!

DEAN for DNC chair - the ONLY hope of saving this fucking party.

[Jesterstar]

Clinton a known member of "THE BOHEIMIAN MEN'S CLUB" and puppet for the NWO.

[T,nextquestion]

Thundershit is not allowed in this forum**

[T,nextquestion]

I'm a criminal racist pedophile who has been banned from this site 5 times.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by T,nextquestion
The humiliation and embarrassment over that 3 million vote margin really eats at ya doesn't it. Poor, poor choice in supporting this jag off. But you're probably use to it.

I guess Bush got the Pedophile vote, eh JoeSucksThunderingCocks!?

[ALinChainz]

Originally posted by T,nextquestion
I'm a criminal racist pedophile who has been banned from this site 5 times.

Finally the truth huh Joe?

[John Ashcroft]

Heh heh...

You guys are harsh!

Pretty fucking funny though.

[freak]

Bill, in particular, is right about not wanting Dean. He lead the Democrats to power by presenting a moderate face to the party. Dean is Walter Mondale on amphetamines. Way too left wing.

Hillary, of course, wants no-one to step into "her" limelight.

[FORD]

Originally posted by freak
Bill, in particular, is right about not wanting Dean. He lead the Democrats to power by presenting a moderate face to the party. Dean is Walter Mondale on amphetamines. Way too left wing.



Do you actually know anything about Howard Dean's record, or do you just take FAUX News' word for it.

How is a fiscal conservative who balanced the budget of his state every year he was governor (even though Vermont state law does not require it) a "left winger"??

How is a governor who recieved an "A" rating from the NRA a "left winger"??

Care to cite some examples of Dean's alleged "liberal extremism"?

[freak]

Originally posted by FORD
Care to cite some examples of Dean's alleged "liberal extremism"?

All you have to do is look at his campaign. He courted the far left and it got him no-where. Hillary and Bill did it better.

He balanced his state's budget largely through taxation. Not exactly fiscal conservatism.

Also, sealing his records for ten years isn't indicative of someone proud of his record.

He will never be a president. And, with Hill and Bill still in the mix, he will never be a chair.

[madraoul]

Originally posted by freak
All you have to do is look at his campaign. He courted the far left and it got him no-where. Hillary and Bill did it better.

He balanced his state's budget largely through taxation. Not exactly fiscal conservatism.

Also, sealing his records for ten years isn't indicative of someone proud of his record.

He will never be a president. And, with Hill and Bill still in the mix, he will never be a chair.

I agree somewhat. But with our country currently to the right of the pope, maybe it's time for the extreme left to lash out. Dems are not going against "normal" Republicans here. Now is the time to challenge these "monarchs" and their lies. Remember, John McCain has a black baby!

[FORD]

Originally posted by freak


Also, sealing his records for ten years isn't indicative of someone proud of his record.



Like Reagan, Poppy, and Junior, you mean?

In fact theirs have been sealed much longer.

Dean has said that, to his knowledge, records that were sealed were done so to protect the privacy of private citizens in Vermont, not for his own benefit. While much of state government documents in any state are considered public property, there ARE definite exceptions on confidentiality grounds, and the specifics of that would likely vary from state to state.

Furthermore, during the Presidential campaign, the sealed records were under judicial review and it was not possible for Dean to either release them or demand them to remain sealed.

[madraoul]

Originally posted by FORD
Like Reagan, Poppy, and Junior, you mean?

In fact theirs have been sealed much longer.

Dean has said that, to his knowledge, records that were sealed were done so to protect the privacy of private citizens in Vermont, not for his own benefit. While much of state government documents in any state are considered public property, there ARE definite exceptions on confidentiality grounds, and the specifics of that would likely vary from state to state.

Furthermore, during the Presidential campaign, the sealed records were under judicial review and it was not possible for Dean to either release them or demand them to remain sealed.

Ford, you can't win this argument. Of course the NeoCons hide everything. Nobody seems to care. When they bring up a bogus charge, it's time to make up a worse bogus charge about them and move on. You know, just to get on ET. Why must we answer for everything and they answer for nothing? Funny, my guy gets a blow job and is raked over the coals. Men (used loosely) that commited treason by selling arms to the enemy are more powerful than ever. These include people that were convicted and then pardoned by George I.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by freak

He balanced his state's budget largely through taxation. Not exactly fiscal conservatism.



What does that mean?:confused: Who the hell doesn't balance the budget through taxes?

Oh yeah, there's always massive deficit spending!

[ELVIS]

Dean is too radical...

He scares normal people...

Not gonna happen...

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Dean is too radical...

He scares normal people...

Not gonna happen...

Like I said to Freak, where's the evidence of Dean's alleged "radicalism"??

I have cited specific examples of his record, and you Busheep have yet to mention anything factual to support the mediawhore claim of his "radical extremism"

[academic punk]

Originally posted by FORD
Do you actually know anything about Howard Dean's record, or do you just take FAUX News' word for it.

How is a fiscal conservative who balanced the budget of his state every year he was governor (even though Vermont state law does not require it) a "left winger"??

How is a governor who recieved an "A" rating from the NRA a "left winger"??

Care to cite some examples of Dean's alleged "liberal extremism"?

FORD, I like Dean a whole lot, and he defintely brought fire and a perspective to the Democrats last year.

But in politics, perception is everything. He's been labeled a "loose-cannon liberal", and there's been enough (somewhat false) SOUNDBITES to support this. Now is the time - and Clintons understand this - to put a more centrist face on the party.

[ELVIS]

I agree with that...

There is absolutely nobody to fit this bill...

The democratic party is dead!

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
I agree with that...

There is absolutely nobody to fit this bill...

The democratic party is dead!

The reasons the Democratic Party is close to being "dead" are:

1) The Corporate Whore media.

2) Electro-fraud voting

3) The DLC's domination of the Democratic party, which leaves "Democrats" like Judas IsKerryot with absolutely nothing to run on, because they fucking voted for 95% of Bush's agenda.

Howard Dean can definitely change the third one in short order. In fact he's already begun that process in his Presidential campaign and continuing through DFA.

Air America radio, proclaimed "dead" by most of you Busheep less than a month after it's launch date, due to financial difficulties common in ANY start up company, has grown rapidly in the last few months and can now be heard in 27 states. Not a match for Fear Channel, FAUX, AOLCNNCIA, MSRNC, and the Washingmoonie Times just yet, but it's a good start.

As for electro-fraud voting, that's the most troublesome of all. But the people of Washington state prevailed over the neocon theft attempt here, so there's hope for the rest of you.

With or without the DNC, we Deaniacs ain't even started yet. That you can count on :cool:

[freak]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Oh yeah, there's always massive deficit spending!

Or cutting spending and eliminating/overhauling wasteful programs.

[FORD]

Originally posted by freak
Or cutting spending and eliminating/overhauling wasteful programs.

Let's start with DOD.

First cost saving measure - Fire Rumsfeld and the PNAC treasonous fucks.

[freak]

Originally posted by FORD
Let's start with DOD.

First cost saving measure - Fire Rumsfeld and the PNAC treasonous fucks.

Actually, I am thinking of change on a more local level. String up Robert Byrd and the rest of the crooks running WV for that nonsensical Corridor D bypass system. Billions spent to bypass an area no-one drives through to begin with. Pork. Nothing more.

[freak]

Originally posted by madraoul
I agree somewhat. But with our country currently to the right of the pope, maybe it's time for the extreme left to lash out. Dems are not going against "normal" Republicans here. Now is the time to challenge these "monarchs" and their lies. Remember, John McCain has a black baby!

John McCain is an opportunist. He's neither Dem or Rep.

As for the extreme left lashing out, that's why the Dems lost again. The far-lefties are every bit as crazy as the moral majority types. Actually, they share a great deal in common and both need marginalized in a hurry.

The center is the only way to go.

[FORD]

Originally posted by freak


The center is the only way to go.

What exactly would you call "the center" these days?

Remember the 1992 Republican Convention? Remember how it was the extremism of people like Bob Dornan and Pat Buchanan who scared the living shit out of voters and sent them running to Clinton AND Perot?

Dornan's still considered extremist, because let's face it, the man's a fucking nutcase. But Buchanan these days is looking like a sensible moderate compared to the neocon lunatics currently in charge of the Republican party, and gaining far too much of a foothold in the Democratic party, thanks to the DLC.

Would Buchanan be considered a "centrist" today then? And if so, if the "center" can be dragged to the right as the far right goes completely off the road, then when does the whole idea of a "center" become useless?

[freak]

Originally posted by FORD
What exactly would you call "the center" these days?

Remember the 1992 Republican Convention? Remember how it was the extremism of people like Bob Dornan and Pat Buchanan who scared the living shit out of voters and sent them running to Clinton AND Perot?

Dornan's still considered extremist, because let's face it, the man's a fucking nutcase. But Buchanan these days is looking like a sensible moderate compared to the neocon lunatics currently in charge of the Republican party, and gaining far too much of a foothold in the Democratic party, thanks to the DLC.

Would Buchanan be considered a "centrist" today then? And if so, if the "center" can be dragged to the right as the far right goes completely off the road, then when does the whole idea of a "center" become useless?

I define centrist as fiscally responsible and socially moderate. You have to compromise with both sides. Big government is not the answer - Efficient government is. Pipe dream, I know.

Both sides have their dead-weight and radicals.

Bob Dornan and Pat Buchanan are/were about as helpful to Republicans as Kerry and Boxer are to the Dems.

[FORD]

Originally posted by freak
I define centrist as fiscally responsible and socially moderate. You have to compromise with both sides. Big government is not the answer - Efficient government is. Pipe dream, I know.



But Howard Dean did exactly that as governor of Vermont. Hell, Gary Locke did that as the governor here. Actually Locke was a bit too conservative for my standards (but still better than that ass Rossi who tried to steal his job)

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
The reasons the Democratic Party is close to being "dead" are:

1) The Corporate Whore media.

Aside from FOX, which I admit leans to the right, the "corporate media" as you say is liberal...

2) Electro-fraud voting

If you look at the FACTS, there were more documented cases of fraud in Ohio from the left...

3) The DLC's domination of the Democratic party, which leaves "Democrats" like Judas IsKerryot with absolutely nothing to run on, because they fucking voted for 95% of Bush's agenda.

I have yet to hear of a democrat that voted for Bush...

I do, however, know of some republicans that voted for Kerry...

Howard Dean can definitely change the third one in short order. In fact he's already begun that process in his Presidential campaign and continuing through DFA.

Howard who ??

Air America radio, proclaimed "dead" by most of you Busheep less than a month after it's launch date, due to financial difficulties common in ANY start up company, has grown rapidly in the last few months and can now be heard in 27 states. Not a match for Fear Channel, FAUX, AOLCNNCIA, MSRNC, and the Washingmoonie Times just yet, but it's a good start.


Dude, Air America sucks! I listen to it more than anyone I know...

Al Franken is the best talent they have and he is awful on the radio...

His 'Oi Oi Oi Show' is the the most un-funny thing I have ever heard...

Randi Rhodes is disgusting and disturbing talking about her sick sex life on the air with her drunken gay friends...

Ed Schultz, with his drunken Sylvester the cat like lisp, and Barney Rubble laugh, is the worst!

How many times can he say "righty" in one day ??

I prefer your "neocon shitbag" over his crap any day...

As for electro-fraud voting, that's the most troublesome of all. But the people of Washington state prevailed over the neocon theft attempt here, so there's hope for the rest of you.

How many King County votes were there ??

What's the population again ?? Thought so...:rolleyes:

With or without the DNC, we Deaniacs ain't even started yet. That you can count on :cool:

"Deaniac" is the most uncool thing I have heard in recent times...

C'mon Dave, give me a break...

You can do better than that...:cool:






:elvis:

[FORD]

Ed Schultz isn't actually on Air America radio, though he does air on many of their afilliates. Some stations, like yours apparently, mix in programming from other syndicators along with AAR shows like Franken & Rhodes. I think Schultz might be better if he stopped trying to be a slightly left of center Limbaugh (he doesn't seem that Liberal to me really) and developed a little more of his own style.

As for Randi Rhodes, she even gets on my nerves at times. Kinda like Stern did when I had to listen to him for a while when Bob Rivers was off the air. I think it's the New York thing. Nothing wrong with that, just not what I'm used to.

And yeah, the Oi Oi Oi bit is anoying as Hell. I doubt even the Jews find that stuff funny. Franken should drop it. I've stopped listening to the streaming of his show in the mornings actually.

If I were running Air America I would probably make a few programming changes, but the network is growing, so they must be doing something right.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by freak
Or cutting spending and eliminating/overhauling wasteful programs.

AHAhahahahahahah...

Yeah right, but unfortunately the Republicans have become the party of pork. We claim to be against bigger government and spending, but what happens when the Repub's control the entire Gov't? This:

The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28252-2003Nov11?language=printer)
Government Outgrows Cap Set by President
Discretionary Spending Up 12.5% in Fiscal '03

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 12, 2003; Page A01

Confounding President Bush's pledges to rein in government growth, federal discretionary spending expanded by 12.5 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, capping a two-year bulge that saw the government grow by more than 27 percent, according to preliminary spending figures from congressional budget panels.

The sudden rise in spending subject to Congress's annual discretion stands in marked contrast to the 1990s, when such discretionary spending rose an average of 2.4 percent a year. Not since 1980 and 1981 has federal spending risen at a similar clip. Before those two years, spending increases of this magnitude occurred at the height of the Vietnam War, 1966 to 1968.

The preliminary spending figures for 2003 also raise questions about the government's long-term fiscal health. Bush administration officials have said fiscal restraint and "pro-growth" tax cuts should put the government on a path to a balanced budget. Bush has demanded that spending that is subject to Congress's annual discretion be capped at 4 percent.

But the Republican-led Congress has not obliged. The federal government spent nearly $826 billion in fiscal 2003, an increase of $91.5 billion over 2002, said G. William Hoagland, a senior budget and economic aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). Military spending shot up nearly 17 percent, to $407.3 billion, but nonmilitary discretionary spending also far outpaced Bush's limit, rising 8.7 percent, to $418.6 billion.

Much of the increase was driven by war in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as homeland security spending after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But spending has risen on domestic programs such as transportation and agriculture, as well. Total federal spending -- including non-discretionary entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- reached $2.16 trillion in 2003, a 7.3 percent boost, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

White House officials have said the president's 4 percent annual growth cap was never supposed to curtail "one-time" spending requests, such as natural disaster aid or wars. But even if such emergency spending measures are removed, spending jumped last year by 7.9 percent, Hoagland said.

"Getting growth down to 4 percent? We're still not there, not by any stretch of the imagination," he said.

Administration officials say spending is being brought under control. White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo said the president cut spending growth, excluding the Pentagon and homeland security, to 6 percent in 2002 and 5 percent in 2003, and has proposed to hold all discretionary spending to 4 percent growth this year.

"The president has said that he would spend what's necessary to win the war on terrorism and protect Americans at home," she said, "but outside these items, he has put a serious brake on other spending, which is key to halving these deficits over five years."

Even some Republicans have trouble squaring such comments with the evidence. "It's still more than it ought to be," Hazen Marshall, Senate Budget Committee staff director, said of spending that excludes the military and homeland security.

Official spending figures for fiscal 2003 will not be released until January, when the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office unveils its next 10-year federal deficit forecast. But the latest figures track closely with the CBO estimates released in August.

"I don't expect the official numbers to be any different than those, or not much different," Marshall said.

Regardless of the final numbers, there can be little doubt that government growth has been accelerating, said Richard Kogan, a federal budget analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And although Congress ultimately controls the purse strings, Bush is not immune from criticism, said Rudolph G. Penner, a Republican and former CBO director.

"The most interesting thing is Bush has not vetoed anything, let alone a spending program," Penner said. "One wonders how serious the White House is about holding the line."

Stan Collender, a federal budget analyst at Fleishman-Hillard Inc., said: "This is an administration that cannot possibly take up the mantle of fiscal conservatism. It's probably the least fiscally conservative in history."

Penner said the lapse in spending restraint occurred in two stages. First came large, projected budget surpluses at the end of the Clinton administration. Discretionary spending rose 0.9 percent in 1998, then 3.6 percent in 1999 and 7.5 percent in 2000. The projected surpluses have disappeared into a flood of red ink, but the 2001 terrorist attacks, coupled with a recession that year, eliminated any sense of restraint beyond rhetoric, Penner said.

"After September 11, it was 'We have to do anything we can to pull ourselves out of recession and protect ourselves,' " he said, adding that the surge in deficits and spending have so far had few political ramifications. "I don't remember a time when there's been so little commentary on it, and I can't really explain it."

Marshall said the surge in military spending was inevitable, once the nation mobilized for war, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. The nonmilitary discretionary spending increases have been driven by increases in homeland security spending, he said.

But even after factoring those out, some Republicans say spending is rising too quickly. Marshall noted that after Republicans took control of Congress in the 1994 elections, discretionary spending actually fell, by 1.6 percent between 1994 and 1996.

Budget experts said taxpayers should not anticipate a return to austerity anytime soon. The military bill that passed Congress yesterday would mandate $40 billion in additional spending over the next decade, Marshall said. Nearly half of that would be for veterans' benefits, but $18 billion would finance a controversial program to buy and lease military tanker planes from Boeing Co.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[ELVIS]

Time will tell...


:elvis:

[FORD]

Why Dean should take charge
With his passion and populist appeal, Howard Dean is exactly the leader the Democratic Party needs right now.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Mark Hertsgaard



Jan. 24, 2005 | Florida Democrats' decision to unanimously back Howard Dean as the new chairman of the DNC (Democratic National Committee) shows two things: first, there are still some Democrats out there -- including in the supposedly hopeless South -- who have brains and guts and aren't afraid to think for themselves; and second, Dean now has a real shot at winning the DNC job and launching a much-needed makeover of the Democratic Party.

Political and media elites in Washington are at once horrified and dismissive of Dean's quest. They insist that Democrats would be crazy to pick a raving liberal like Dean as their next party chairman. But as is so often the case, this inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom is based on dubious "facts" and assumptions about how ordinary Americans relate to politics. Dean is exactly the leader Democrats need to become relevant again.

The Florida Democratic chairman's statement to the New York Times reveals just how out of touch the Washington establishment is: "I'm a gun-owning pickup-truck driver and I have a bulldog named Lockjaw," said Scott Maddox. "I am a Southern chairman of a Southern state, and I am perfectly comfortable with Howard Dean as DNC chair."

And the reason Florida Democrats like Dean?

"What our party needs right now is energy, enthusiasm and a willingness to do things differently," Maddox added. "I think Howard Dean brings all three of those things to the party."

Maddox isn't the only prominent Southern Democrat backing Dean. On Tuesday, the state chairman from Mississippi and the vice chairmen from Oklahoma and Utah announced that they too were endorsing the former Vermont governor, leading ABC News' influential The Note to declare that Dean "is now emphatically the front-runner" for the DNC job.

A year ago, Dean was jeered off the national stage by television's nonstop coverage of his "scream" speech. And it must be admitted that he showed some undeniable weaknesses as a presidential candidate in 2004, including a tendency to speak first and think later. But Dean is running for party chairman now, not president. The chairman's job is to rally and organize the party faithful to do the unglamorous but vital grass-roots work that will expand the Democratic base, reach out to new and uncommitted voters, and win future elections. As Maddox said, Dean fits that job description perfectly. He inspires grass-roots enthusiasm and his time as governor of Vermont grants him the necessary executive and administrative skills.

What's more, in the wake of the Democrats' loss to President Bush in November, Dean's political message, and especially the way he delivers it, looks better and better.

Dean, after all, was right about the central issue of the 2004 election -- the Iraq war. Nowadays, a majority of the American public believes that attacking Iraq was a bad idea. Dean was saying this -- and being criticized for it -- in the fall of 2003.

Dean was also right when he said Democrats should be the party not only of urban liberals but of "guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," another comment he was derided for. But in view of how many centrist voters chose President Bush over John Kerry, even though Kerry's economic policies would have benefited them more, Dean's call to reach out to culturally conservative voters was prescient.

Above all, Dean was right that Democrats would win only if they told voters exactly what they stood for and why. Kerry never did that, especially on Iraq, where his reluctance to call the war (and not just its prosecution) a mistake let the president off the hook on his most vulnerable issue.

By contrast, Bush never shrank from saying what he believed. Like Dean, he understood a basic fact of American politics: voters value plain-spokenness in a politician much more than agreement on specific issues. Bush was even clever enough to steal one of Dean's signature lines: "You may not always agree with me, but you'll always know where I stand."

All of the news stories reporting Dean's decision to seek the DNC chairmanship repeated the standard rap against him: He's too liberal. But that charge doesn't reflect reality so much as it reflects the Washington establishment's version of reality. Dean was labeled a liberal by the media essentially because he opposed the Iraq war. Never mind that he was also a deficit hawk who opposed gun control, gay marriage and universal healthcare, or that many conservatives later embraced his criticism of the war. In the post-Sept. 11 mood of false patriotism, the media assumed that anyone who criticized an apparently successful war had to be a liberal, and that was that.

This mischaracterization has led observers to miss the real source of Dean's appeal to a jaded electorate: He knows what he believes and he's not afraid to say it plainly enough for ordinary people to understand. His vision for Democrats is not about moving the party to the left; it's about Democrats standing for something that resonates with ordinary Americans -- a task that current party leaders have manifestly failed to achieve.

Dean believes the Democratic Party's allegiance to big donors and cautious incrementalism has alienated many of its logical voters. Alone among prominent Democrats, he recognizes that the party has little future if it cannot connect in an authentic way with the extraordinary grass-roots energy that propelled his own presidential campaign (and that later nearly got Kerry elected, despite the Kerry campaign's many shortcomings).

In 2004, Dean rewrote the rules of presidential campaigns by using the Internet and local "meet-ups" to raise small donor money. But Dean's real secret was to give supporters real influence within his campaign and thus hook them on continued political participation. The idea of meet-ups, for example, came from the grass roots, not from campaign headquarters.

The Bush campaign tapped into similar grass-roots energy among conservatives and thereby expanded Republican turnout enough to gain the president a second term. Democrats must do more of the same in the years to come, and Dean is the leader who best understands that imperative. Dean, after all, is a populist. And his populism is not the brand espoused by President Bush -- a millionaire who shills for billionaires while talking like the common man. Dean's is the real thing. Which is why Republicans privately fear him.

Another part of the media consensus on Dean is that he only wants the DNC job to grease his run for president in 2008. For his part, Dean has declared he won't run if he gets the DNC job. Of course, he could change his mind. But it's worth remembering that presidential candidate Dean always said that Democrats must first reform their party and its approach to politics if they want to win the White House.

Dean is now traveling around the country telling his supporters that remaking the Democratic Party is a long-term project that could take 20 years. His first hurdle comes on Feb. 12, when 447 largely unknown party officials from around the country will vote for the next DNC chairman. The Florida and other Southern Democrats' decision to back him will, of course, be enormously helpful to Dean's prospects, but it also figures to call forth still more "anyone but Dean" efforts from the party establishment.

Everyone agrees the Democrats have to remake themselves; they just lost to perhaps the most vulnerable incumbent in history. The DNC vote will give the first hint of how they plan to proceed. At a time when America has never needed an effective opposition party more, let us pray Democrats can rise to the challenge.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Mark Hertsgaard is the author, most recently, of "The Eagle's Shadow: Why America Fascinates and Infuriates the World," and "Earth Odyssey: Around the World in Search of Our Environmental Future."

[BigBadBrian]

Here's a cunt-n-paste job for you to tear apart, Dickyfresh. :spank:

[academic punk]

FORD -

Clearly your political views are in direct opposition to the rest of the country at this time.

If Dean had been the candidate, the margin of Bush's victory would've been larger. Deal with it.

as to the Dems being dead, horseshit. 50,000,000 ain't dead. and the push that took W over the top was the extreme religious right. Trust me, the country will not kow-tow to them any further than it already has.

My belief is that what the Dems need more than anything else is a new CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST: Bob Shrum lost it in 2000, he had no business being the man again in '04.

What brought the oval office to clinton in '92: Perot taking away a significant enough portion of George HW's vote and the machinations of James Carville. What brought w victory in 2000: Nader taking enough potential Gore votes and the min of Karl Rove.

Carville and Rove may be less photogenic, and maybe less interested in the political stance of their candidate, but they understand and know how to win the votes of the COUNTRY's population.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Here's a cunt-n-paste job for you to tear apart, Dickyfresh. :spank:

Where Blunder?

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
Why Dean should take charge
With his passion and populist appeal.

Populist appeal ??

By Mark Hertsgaard

Liberal BS writer...

"What our party needs right now is energy, enthusiasm and a willingness to do things differently," Maddox added.

This can be interpreted as what happens when a liberal starts thinking with his brain and becomes a conservative republican...;)

A year ago, Dean was jeered off the national stage by television's nonstop coverage of his "scream" speech.

I think his goofy Hagar scream was acceptable and displayed a certain amount of passion, it was actually genuine...

The thing that jeered him from the national stage is his general awkwardness, and his tendency to be nevernous on camera...



And it must be admitted that he showed some undeniable weaknesses as a presidential candidate in 2004, including a tendency to speak first and think later.

The first bit of truth in this article...:D

But Dean is running for party chairman now, not president.

I hope he wins. It will be a disaster, the liberal party will be divided, and Hillary will never be a presidential candidate...

The chairman's job is to rally and organize the party faithful to do the unglamorous but vital grass-roots work that will expand the Democratic base, reach out to new and uncommitted voters, and win future elections.

Cue the infamous scream...:D

What's more, in the wake of the Democrats' loss to President Bush in November, Dean's political message, and especially the way he delivers it, looks better and better.

What message; war bad, Bush bad, oil bad ??

Hahaha...


Dean, after all, was right about the central issue of the 2004 election -- the Iraq war.

I was right, "war bad"...

Nowadays, a majority of the American public believes that attacking Iraq was a bad idea.

That's a load of crap!


Dean was also right when he said Democrats should be the party not only of urban liberals but of "guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," another comment he was derided for.

FORD, are you sure this article is in Dean's favor ??

LMAO!


But in view of how many centrist voters chose President Bush over John Kerry, even though Kerry's economic policies (Tax cut repeals, socialized healthcare, and military cuts) would have benefited them more, Dean's call to reach out to culturally conservative voters was prescient.

I have no idea what a "culturally conservative voter" is...

Above all, Dean was right that Democrats would win only if they told voters exactly what they stood for and why.

That would require telling the truth, and the minority vote would become 90% conservative...

By contrast, Bush never shrank from saying what he believed.

Amen!

Like Dean, he understood a basic fact of American politics: voters value plain-spokenness in a politician much more than agreement on specific issues. Bush was even clever enough to steal one of Dean's signature lines: "You may not always agree with me, but you'll always know where I stand."

I thought George Bush was supposed to be stupid !?!

All of the news stories reporting Dean's decision to seek the DNC chairmanship repeated the standard rap against him: He's too liberal.

No, he's too radical...

Dean was labeled a liberal by the media essentially because he opposed the Iraq war.

No, it was the radical way he stated such opposition on the campaign circuit and media talk shows...

The people didn't buy it...


Never mind that he was also a deficit hawk who opposed gun control, gay marriage and universal healthcare, or that many conservatives later embraced his criticism of the war.

Name one conservative who "embraced" Dean charging the Bush administration with misleading us to an illegal war...:rolleyes:

He knows what he believes and he's not afraid to say it plainly enough for ordinary people to understand.

I agree, most people know to stay away from this guy...

His vision for Democrats is not about moving the party to the left; it's about Democrats standing for something that resonates with ordinary Americans -- a task that current party leaders have manifestly failed to achieve.

And they will continue to fail...

I believe there's a good chance we will never see another Democrat in office in our lifetime...

How about those apples, FORD ??:)



Alone among prominent Democrats, he recognizes that the party has little future.

Take a deep breath, FORD 'ole buddy...;)


The Bush campaign tapped into grass-roots energy among conservatives and thereby expanded Republican turnout enough to gain the president a second term.

More of that Bush stupidity ??

Dean is now traveling around the country telling his supporters that remaking the Democratic Party is a long-term project that could take 20 years.

That must be encouraging for a democrat to hear!

Imagine having a candidate ready for 2025...

No way is this article in favor of Dean...:D


Everyone agrees the Democrats have to remake themselves; they just lost to perhaps the most vulnerable incumbent in history.

The first part of this sentence is true, and your party should take the advice, especially you, FORD...

But, George Bush vulnerable ? You liberal pukes terrably underestimated the President...




Notice the link conveniently left out of this article...



:elvis:

[FORD]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by academic punk
FORD -

Clearly your political views are in direct opposition to the rest of the country at this time.

If Dean had been the candidate, the margin of Bush's victory would've been larger. Deal with it.

I won't deal with it, because it's a bunch of horseshit. Kerry and his wishy-washy, souless flip=flopping Internationalist House of Waffles was forced upon us by the DLC, with a little help from the whore media and KKKarl Rove, who knew exactly he wanted up against the Wonder Chimp.

Kerry couldn't beat an IDIOT who not only destroyed America's economy, but also this country's standing in the world. Even Al Sharpton could have beat Half Assed Monkey Boy with the right message. Which he didn't have. Howard Dean DID. Judas IsKerryot had NO message. Add a little help from Wally O'Dell and Ken OREOwell, and you get the Bush "win". With Dean, it never would have been close enough to steal.

as to the Dems being dead, horseshit. 50,000,000 ain't dead. and the push that took W over the top was the extreme religious right. Trust me, the country will not kow-tow to them any further than it already has.

My belief is that what the Dems need more than anything else is a new CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST: Bob Shrum lost it in 2000, he had no business being the man again in '04.

And that's the DLC's doing. One might begin to think they're throwing the game on purpose. But they wouldn't do that unless they were really working for the ........ Republicans


What brought the oval office to clinton in '92: Perot taking away a significant enough portion of George HW's vote and the machinations of James Carville. What brought w victory in 2000: Nader taking enough potential Gore votes and the min of Karl Rove.

Carville and Rove may be less photogenic, and maybe less interested in the political stance of their candidate, but they understand and know how to win the votes of the COUNTRY's population.

Sure Rove is a "genius" in the same sense that Adolf Hitler and Ted Bundy were geniuses. And Carville's got his talents as well, but he took a TV job which kept him from doing anything for Kerry. Not that Judas would have listened anyway. I don't entirely trust Carville though. He's gotta big mouth, and considering he literally sleeps with the enemy, that's a liability.

In any event, we not only need a better strategy for 2006 and 2008, we need some new blood involved in plotting that strategy. Kicking the Clintonista/DLC team out of the pilot seat is a damn good first step.

[academic punk]

Well, I think a large part of that strategy is not taking Bush's intelligence for granted. He's stupid as a fox. It always amazes me how everyone seems to agree he can be manipulative, and then call him unintelligent. A synonym for manipulative is "savvy"! True, he may not be the most articulate president ever (in fact, he may well be the MOST inarticulate), but it's something he knows, appreciates, and jokes about.

Also, the name calling. "KKKarl Rove", etc. That to me is somehting that desreves to be dismissed as readily out of hand as the right calling Dean a "east coast sushi eating volvo driving liberal". Come on, FORD, you've got a worthwhile POV to share, make it worth hearing and listening to. At the least, rise above the level you obviously so despise. (now as far as Sammy name calling, go hog wild)

So we agree ultimately: Shrum out, new blood and perspective in.

Oh, here's some things I'm sure you're already aware of re: this last election, but enjoy anyway:

the youth vote was overwhelmingly in the dems favor

the greater education level, the more apt you were to vote dem

the greater the income, the more apt you were to vote dem

Still think the party is dead? I'd say the last four years (and the next four) have created an incredible number of people who will never vote republican in their life. people thought the republican party was dead when kennedy won...the tide'll always shift back and forth.

[ELVIS]

Has anyone ever considered that Bush's seemingly poor command of the english language is put on ??

Listen to an interview from when he was running for Governor of Texas...

Listen to his inaugural speech, it was generally flawless...

[academic punk]

those are REHEARSED, sweet balls.

Bob Woodward spent many hours interviewing him (who admires him and wasn't terribly critical of him in his two books). I was essentially quoting him.

[ELVIS]

"Essentially quoting" is an oxymoron...

[academic punk]

I'm going to refrain from the obvious retort.

(BTW, in addition to being well-rehearsed, the inaugural address was also WRITTEN by his speech writer)

Though worthwhile story: his speech writer (whose name of course escapes me) was told that - by BUsh - that he wanted a speech about "freedom". As it turns out, as the writer was working on his initial draft, he had a "heart-related episode" a month or so back. When Bush called him at the hospital while he was recovering, Bush said, "I'm not calling to see how the speech is doing. I'm calling to see how the guy who's going to write the speech is doing."

So Bush DOES have a wit about him (and, clearly, he is quite charismatic). BUt it also displays that Bush is adept at reading between the lines. With those words, Bush reassured his writer that he still had his job, no matter what, and that the chance of a lifetime (that this writer has worked his whole adult life towards) has not been lost due to circumstance.

So Bush DOES have - in addition to intelligence and wit - a sense of loyalty, fraternity and rsponsibllity.

(though some would call this cronyism)

[ELVIS]

I'm familiar with that story...

Cool post...:cool:

[academic punk]

For the record, I voted for Kerry, but that by no means makes me believe that Bush deserves any equation WHATSOEVER to Hitler.

As someone who has a great-aunt (my grandmother's sister) with a serial number tattoo on her arm, I know from this shit.

[ELVIS]

Hmmm...

[FORD]

From YubaNet.com

Columns
Howard Dean: From The Ground Up
Author: Howard Dean
Published on Jan 24, 2005, 07:28

Over the past 30 years, Republicans have become the majority party in America by building a terrific grassroots organization. If we are to take our country back for ordinary working Americans, Democrats will have to match or exceed the Republicans’ ability to motivate voters.

Grassroots organization really has to be based on two-way communication. In our presidential campaign we started with no money, no base, but a great number of enthusiastic grassroots activists. We ceded decision making power to local folks and let them run things in their areas as they saw fit. This turns out to have been our single most important innovation, and it is the only one that wasn't copied by any of the other campaigns, either Democratic or Republican. Everything else, the small-donor programs, the house parties, the interactive Web sites and organizing was used by others. The reason that the most important piece wasn't copied is because it requires real a change in thinking by people who run for office and their consultants, not just adopting new techniques or technology.

Letting go of central control is what gives voters real power. When I used the phrase "you have the power" during the campaign, I meant that by working together, Americans could overcome the forces of the right wing and reassume their constitutional role in running the country. What I didn't understand was that "you have the power" was more than that. It didn't apply only to people's ability to change America, it also applied concretely to their ability to make everyday decisions about how they would cause that change.

In our campaign, Americans without any previous political experience made decisions about when to leaflet, what to say in the leaflet, where to leaflet and how to organize. They organized and ran hundreds of organizations such as African-Americans for Dean, Latinos for Dean, Punx for Dean, Irish Americans for Dean, etc., which sprang not from a central "outreach" desk in Burlington, but spontaneously all over the country, finding each other on the Web, and creating a national organization from local ones.

The idea of a decentralized campaign terrifies most politicians who have gotten used to putting out ideas and letting others respond. We discovered that the path to power, oddly enough, is to trust others with it.

The true mark of a modern campaign will be to listen to Americans and let them shape campaigns instead of simply allowing them to respond.

Our campaign was far from perfect, and we did not win. But our organization today is almost 600,000 strong that we know of, and there are more people in the organization today than there were on the day I dropped out of the presidential race. People still meet monthly in about 500 locations across America to talk about how to bring reform, and then they act on their plan locally.

I wish I could tell you that this was all because of my leadership and charisma; that is not so. The reform movement lives because it isn't mine. Our people know that they have the power in their own communities, linked across the country, to elect reform-minded people. They did exactly that on six months notice all across the country in places like Utah, Alabama, and Idaho, not just New York and Ohio.

If Democrats use this model, we will effectively leapfrog the Republicans, who despite their discipline and organization, are still a top-down, control and command organization.

Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, is the founder of Democracy for America, a grassroots organization that supports socially progressive and fiscally responsible political candidates. Email Howard Dean.

© Copyright 2005 by YubaNet.com
Send your letters to the editor to news@yubanet.com

[FORD]

From YubaNet.com

Columns
Howard Dean: From The Ground Up
Author: Howard Dean
Published on Jan 24, 2005, 07:28

Over the past 30 years, Republicans have become the majority party in America by building a terrific grassroots organization. If we are to take our country back for ordinary working Americans, Democrats will have to match or exceed the Republicans’ ability to motivate voters.

Grassroots organization really has to be based on two-way communication. In our presidential campaign we started with no money, no base, but a great number of enthusiastic grassroots activists. We ceded decision making power to local folks and let them run things in their areas as they saw fit. This turns out to have been our single most important innovation, and it is the only one that wasn't copied by any of the other campaigns, either Democratic or Republican. Everything else, the small-donor programs, the house parties, the interactive Web sites and organizing was used by others. The reason that the most important piece wasn't copied is because it requires real a change in thinking by people who run for office and their consultants, not just adopting new techniques or technology.

Letting go of central control is what gives voters real power. When I used the phrase "you have the power" during the campaign, I meant that by working together, Americans could overcome the forces of the right wing and reassume their constitutional role in running the country. What I didn't understand was that "you have the power" was more than that. It didn't apply only to people's ability to change America, it also applied concretely to their ability to make everyday decisions about how they would cause that change.

In our campaign, Americans without any previous political experience made decisions about when to leaflet, what to say in the leaflet, where to leaflet and how to organize. They organized and ran hundreds of organizations such as African-Americans for Dean, Latinos for Dean, Punx for Dean, Irish Americans for Dean, etc., which sprang not from a central "outreach" desk in Burlington, but spontaneously all over the country, finding each other on the Web, and creating a national organization from local ones.

The idea of a decentralized campaign terrifies most politicians who have gotten used to putting out ideas and letting others respond. We discovered that the path to power, oddly enough, is to trust others with it.

The true mark of a modern campaign will be to listen to Americans and let them shape campaigns instead of simply allowing them to respond.

Our campaign was far from perfect, and we did not win. But our organization today is almost 600,000 strong that we know of, and there are more people in the organization today than there were on the day I dropped out of the presidential race. People still meet monthly in about 500 locations across America to talk about how to bring reform, and then they act on their plan locally.

I wish I could tell you that this was all because of my leadership and charisma; that is not so. The reform movement lives because it isn't mine. Our people know that they have the power in their own communities, linked across the country, to elect reform-minded people. They did exactly that on six months notice all across the country in places like Utah, Alabama, and Idaho, not just New York and Ohio.

If Democrats use this model, we will effectively leapfrog the Republicans, who despite their discipline and organization, are still a top-down, control and command organization.

Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, is the founder of Democracy for America, a grassroots organization that supports socially progressive and fiscally responsible political candidates. Email Howard Dean.

© Copyright 2005 by YubaNet.com
Send your letters to the editor to news@yubanet.com

[DrMaddVibe]

Tool!

If the Klinton's are against him...that's all I have to know about him!

Run Dean run!

[BigBadBrian]

Who in the hell votes on these people anyway? When?

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Who in the hell votes on these people anyway? When?

There's 450 voting members of the DNC who will vote on February 12, 2005. Wish I was one of them, but I haven't been involved much in the official party organization for a while. Of course the state party just renewed my membership. They might get a donation if Dean wins. If not, it's going to DFA, even though our state chair is endorsing the right man :cool:

[ELVIS]

I thought there was 447...

[Wayne L.]

Bill & Hillary Clinton are right about Howard Dean because if he becomes the next DNC chairman the Democratic Party sinks even lower than it already is with more losses coming.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Wayne L.
Bill & Hillary Clinton are right about Howard Dean because if he becomes the next DNC chairman the Democratic Party sinks even lower than it already is with more losses coming.

Thanks Wayne for that insightful, researched, and well thoughtout political commentary.

Please don't send me anymore e-mails Wayne. Use the PM feature if you have something to say to me fool, and don't do that even!

[Wayne L.]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Thanks Wayne for that insightful, researched, and well thoughtout political commentary.

Please don't send me anymore e-mails Wayne. Use the PM feature if you have something to say to me fool, and don't do that even!

You don't know anything anyway, so you're right.

[Nickdfresh]

Nice double-negative contradiction Wayne L.(ikes men).

[Wayne L.]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Nice double-negative contradiction Wayne L.(ikes men).

I like hot & desirable beautiful women with long, luscious legs & sexy, sensuous feet while you pretend EVH is still 25 years old sadly.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Wayne L.
I like hot & desirable beautiful women with long, luscious legs & sexy, sensuous feet while you pretend EVH is still 25 years old sadly.

Happy Birthday Wayne L(icks balls). Go post again at the Bee Gees site, they liked you there I see. Say Wayne, why don't you have a lady with "sensuous feet" fool?

[Wayne L.]

Nice picture of yourself Nickdfresh.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Wayne L.
Nice picture of yourself Nickdfresh.

It has your name on it Wayne L(oser); how could it be me fool?

[Wayne L.]

It's my name but it's your picture which doesn't make too much sense my mentally unstable friend.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Wayne L.
It's my name but it's your picture which doesn't make too much sense my mentally unstable friend.

Okay Wayne. I think the picture makes sense to most.

Congratulations on finally figuring out how to link an appropriate adjective to the correct noun phrase. Well, almost.