Dean ahead in votes for DNC chair

[Steve Savicki]

Let's pray he can make it to the 12th.

[FORD]

11 days until the ressurection begins :cool:

[ELVIS]

Sunday, Jan. 30, 2005 (http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/30/104654.shtml)


Dean: 'I Hate Republicans'

The front-runner in the race to head up the so-called party of compassion and understanding said unabashedly on Saturday that he "hates" the opposition.

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for," former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean told Democrats gathered at a Manhattan hotel, in quotes picked up by the New York Daily News.

He and six other candidates came to address the final DNC forum before the Feb. 12 vote for chairman.
Dean said that despite his hatred for the GOP, he "admires" their discipline and their organization.

But he cautioned his Democratic audience that their party shouldn't become "Republican lite."

"We can talk about our faith, but we cannot change our faith," he said. "We need to be people of conviction."

[FORD]

How many times are you going to post that out of context quote?

[ELVIS]

As many as I want...

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
How many times are you going to post that out of context quote?

If you claim Elvis is posting it out of context, maybe you should put it IN context for us. ;)

[McCarrens]

I agree with BigBadBrian.

[ELVIS]

I have no idea why FORD is all excited about Howard Dean...

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
If you claim Elvis is posting it out of context, maybe you should put it IN context for us. ;)

Can't find the transcript of the Sunday event, but I watched it on C-Span and know exactly what he said. The following FAUX News transcript should clarify where Gov Dean stands, however.....


BEGINNING OF INTERVIEW CLIP

Now that you've announced you're seeking the DNC Chairmanship, does that mean you're not going to run for President in 2008?

Dean: If I become the DNC Chair, I will not run for President in 2008. You really can't use this as a stepping stone to elective office, and my job will be to get other people elected.

Colmes: If you don't get the DNC Chair and you lose this election, would it hurt your chances to run for President?

Dean: I haven't even thought about that. You know, you focus on one election and I'm focusing on the DNC election.

Colmes: Why do you want to do this?

Dean: Because I think we're in the best financial shape we've been in, probably ever, certainly in my lifetime. We don't have a debt coming out of the presidential race, which is extraordinary. We now need to do, frankly, some of the things Republicans are doing. There's nothing I admire about the Republicans. They can't manage money. They've gotten us into a war without telling us the truth about why we're there. But I do admire their discipline and their organization. And we need to build a grassroots organization in the states the way the Republicans have.

Colmes: You said on Meet the Press, it could take some time to bring the Party together, diverse factions. You said, "I really fried the Party when I was out there running for President." What did you mean by that?

Dean: Well, you know, I think there's a tendency within the Party—inside Washington, not so much outside Washington—towards the Stockholm Syndrome. That is, you kind of drift towards the winner. In this case, the winner turns out to be a fairly right wing president. And I think it's a tendency inside Washington to think that if we can only be a little
more like the Republicans, then we can win.

It's a bipartisan problem. Bob Michael had this problem when he was Minority Leader, and Newt Gingrich stood up for what he believed. Now there's nothing I believe that Gingrich believes, but I do admire Gingrich's strategic ability. He differentiated the two Parties, claimed a particular set of issues and the beat us with those. We really need to understand that you win by differentiating yourself from the other party.

[BigBadBrian]

So....Elvis WAS correct. :gulp:

[ELVIS]

So, out of one side of Dean's mouth we hear we need to be like Republicans, and the other we hear differentiate yourself from the other party.

:rolleyes:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
So, out of one side of Dean's mouth we hear we need to be like Republicans, and the other we hear differentiate yourself from the other party.

:rolleyes:

Alike in organization, apart in the bullshit.

[ELVIS]

I have my warts. I sometimes say things that get me in trouble. In other words, I lead with my heart and not my head. That's the only chance we have against George Bush.

Howard Dean

[ELVIS]

I've waffled before. I'll waffle again.

Howard Dean

[ELVIS]

Look, I'm not a perfect person. I have my warts. I sometimes say things that get me in trouble. I wear suits that are cheap. But I say what I think and I believe what I say, and I'm willing to say things that are not popular but ordinary people know are right.

Howard Dean

[ELVIS]

We won't always have the strongest military.

Howard Dean

[ELVIS]

Every day it becomes clearer that this was the wrong war at the wrong time.

Howard Dean

[ELVIS]

As Commander in Chief of the United States Military, I will never send our sons and daughters and our brothers and sisters to die in a foreign land without telling the truth about why they're going there.

Howard Dean

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
We won't always have the strongest military.

Howard Dean

Watch those Chinese closely. They make all our stuff as it is.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
As Commander in Chief of the United States Military, I will never send our sons and daughters and our brothers and sisters to die in a foreign land without telling the truth about why they're going there.

Howard Dean

Are you stumping for Dean now Elvis? he's making a hell of a lot of sense!

[ELVIS]

No, I'm just being fair...

[ELVIS]

From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people.

Howard Dean

[ELVIS]

After I get done, Hillary will be president.

Howard Dean

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
I've waffled before. I'll waffle again.

Howard Dean

No, that was Judas who said that.

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
After I get done, Hillary will be president.

Howard Dean

Dean never said that.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
Dean never said that.

Yes he did, in the context of after he was president...

[FORD]

Anyway, just in case you missed it, within the last 24 hours, 2 of the other "major contenders" for DNC chair, Wellington Webb of Colorado and Martin Frost of Texas have dropped out of the race. Both have endorsed Howard Dean :cool:

[ELVIS]

Dean might win. I hope he does, because having a radical liberal as the chair will create even more division within the Democratic party...

I'm telling you, people are not going to warm up to Howard Dean...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Dean might win. I hope he does, because having a radical liberal as the chair will create even more division within the Democratic party...

I'm telling you, people are not going to warm up to Howard Dean...

How about more like a populist, moderately left-of-center political force?

[ELVIS]

Like Hillary is trying to be ??

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Like Hillary is trying to be ??

No, Hillary is trying to be a corporatist neocon sellout.

[Steve Savicki]

Originally posted by FORD
Anyway, just in case you missed it, within the last 24 hours, 2 of the other "major contenders" for DNC chair, Wellington Webb of Colorado and Martin Frost of Texas have dropped out of the race. Both have endorsed Howard Dean :cool:
Finally, someone from the home of the president has their head on straight besides Austin!
Ahh.. gotta love it. Not a single Bush support sign there in Austin where I went. Still, it's sad that even Austinites dislike Texas so much.

FORD, do you think Dean can stick it out these 11 more days? I mean without any serious competition?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Steve Savicki


FORD, do you think Dean can stick it out these 11 more days? I mean without any serious competition?

I believe the real story here is the endorsements Howard's getting from Dems in the red states. These people see what DLC appeasement has brought them.... Remember that the South used to be solidly Democrat. As it will be again when they realize the Repukes have done nothing but use and exploit them in the name of religion.

[Warham]

I'm hoping Howard Dean will be chosen.

In fact, I'm praying that he's picked.

[Steve Savicki]

If not, we gotta PRAY for the next 4 years.

[McCarrens]

Nothing would make me happier than a Dean-run Democratic Party.

[McCarrens]

Just like nothing would have made me happier than Bush running against Dean in the 2004 election.

But then it turned out not to matter...

The Dems picking Dean to head the party is just another sign the Left is falling apart and losing touch with America.

[BigBadBrian]

It'll be interesting to see how Howie gets along with the Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate. Neither Pelosi nor Reid supported him for the DNC Chairmanship. Dean has also criticized both recently on several issues. :gulp:

[Guitar Shark]

I still think Dean would make a good DNC chair. His vision is good even though he's not electable. A position as DNC chair is behind-the-scenes enough that I think he could be very effective.

Of course, there's a huge mountain to climb before the Dems have any realistic shot of winning a presidential election.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark


Of course, there's a huge mountain to climb before the Dems have any realistic shot of winning a presidential election.

In a brief nutshell (I realize you don't have a lot of time, GS), would you care to define that "huge mountain", GS? I'm being serious here. How can the Democrats "get over the hump" and get their boy (or Hillary) in the Oval Office in '08? :confused:

[Guitar Shark]

I don't believe they can, honestly. By "huge mountain" I meant the Dems have a long way to go before they are competitive. The mindset of the country right now is conservative, and I doubt 4 years will change that, unless Iraq continues to go very badly. If Iraq goes well and Bush can claim a victory of sorts, then I don't see how it's possible for the Dems to win. Especially if they pick Hilary as their nominee, God that would be stupid.

[ELVIS]

Well, having 96% of all registered Iraqi voters at the polls is not considered bad...

[Steve Savicki]

What's wrong with having Hilary run for pres?
At least she has her husband's legacy to back herself up with.

[ELVIS]

Teeheehee...:D

[FORD]

Well, she's a corporatist DLC/Likud whore, for one thing. For someone who once warned America about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (which turned out to be no exaggeration) she sure doesn't seem to mind them now that her lips are all over their swastika tatooed asses.

[JCOOK]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Dean might win. I hope he does, because having a radical liberal as the chair will create even more division within the Democratic party...

I'm telling you, people are not going to warm up to Howard Dean...

Shhhh. Elvis let them cut their throats again, and FORD quoting FOX news that's fucking incredible.... FORD: Who would you like to see run for president and win.;)

[FORD]

Originally posted by JCOOK
FORD: Who would you like to see run for president and win.;)

Well, the one bit of bad news in Dean becoming DNC chair is that he effectively takes his name out of the running for 2008 :(

But then, it's going to take a DNC chair like Howard Dean to ensure that a candidate like Howard Dean gets the nomination anyway, and cloning has not yet advanced to the point of making that a direct possibility.

About the only candidate out of last year's group whom I would take seriously other than Dean would be Wes Clark, and his chances would be much better if he got some political experience on his resume in the meantime. I believe the Arkansas Governor's office is open in 2006. That might be his best option. I'd also like to see General Clark working in partnership with Chairman Dean taking the Democratic message to the military & veterans. It's the understatement of the century to say that the BCE hasn't earned their support.

Senators simply can't win. Sure, Kerry was Diebolded in Ohio and Florida, but it never should have been close enough to steal. So thanks but no thanks Judas, Hillary, Edwards, Holy Joe and anyone else from the Senate whose egos might lead them into the next battle. Don't waste your time or ours.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Steve Savicki
What's wrong with having Hilary run for pres?
At least she has her husband's legacy to back herself up with.

What legacy?

Bill is just above Jimmy Carter the peanut farmer as far as how effective he was as President.

The good news for Slick Willy? He was stuck between two Bushes.

The bad news for Slick Willy? He'll go down in history (how ironic) as a worse President than either of them.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Warham
The bad news for Slick Willy? He'll go down in history (how ironic) as a worse President than either of them.

That's highly questionable. I bet if someone conducted a poll TODAY of all registered voters and asked them whether they'd prefer to have Clinton as their president instead of Bush Jr. (or Bush Sr. for that matter), a strong majority of them would respond that they'd prefer Clinton.

[Warham]

Polls don't matter right now. Give it about 50 years or so, and see what the after effects are of each President's legacy.

If Iraq eventually (even 20 years from now) becomes a democracy and is an ally similar to Israel, that accomplishment alone will put GW Bush ahead of Clinton.

[Guitar Shark]

LOL, you're assuming Junior's arrogance doesn't lead us into a nuclear war that obliterates life as we know it. ;) The way things are going right now, it wouldn't astonish me if nothing exists in 50 years.

And you're smoking crack if you think Iraq will ever achieve ally status similar to Israel. The Iraqi people as a whole aren't motivated to establish a democracy. It's being imposed on them by outside forces. Yes, many of them will like it -- but many will not. That type of tension leads to civil wars, not tranquil democratic regimes.

[Warham]

We had a civil war after 80 years in the United States. Was it worth it? Yes! Will it be worth it in Iraq if it becomes stable in a hundred years? Yes!

What is it with you guys? Why don't you think Mideastern folks don't want to be free and live in a democracy? You think they prefer living in fear under a Saddam-like rule? If that's the case, then why are so many Iraqis living over here then, in OUR democracy?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
What legacy?

Bill is just above Jimmy Carter the peanut farmer as far as how effective he was as President.

The good news for Slick Willy? He was stuck between two Bushes.

The bad news for Slick Willy? He'll go down in history (how ironic) as a worse President than either of them.

That's complete and utter bullshit and you know it! His approval rating at reelection was much higher than Bushies, let's wait 'til Dubya gets to his commemorative second-term scandal (as if he hasn't had enough already) until we crow about his legacy.

Polls consistently show people very favorable to Clinton. In fact, if he ran in the last election, he would have handed Dubya his ass and a pink slip!

And as for Carter, leave it for a Christian evangelical Republican to crow about values and the importance of being a good Christian, then flog the last one that was in the White House. I guess substance over form in your little world, eh Warham?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
We had a civil war after 80 years in the United States. Was it worth it? Yes! Will it be worth it in Iraq if it becomes stable in a hundred years? Yes!

What is it with you guys? Why don't you think Mideastern folks don't want to be free and live in a democracy? You think they prefer living in fear under a Saddam-like rule? If that's the case, then why are so many Iraqis living over here then, in OUR democracy?

Actually I think Iraq WAS a democracy about 40 or 50 years ago. BTW, the British were also driven out of Iraq after trying to set up a Western style democracy in Baghdad.

And if only two of three ethnicities really voted, and if one of those ethnicities is predisposed religiously to Iran, well that may be a problem.

Besides, we are gradually giving up our freedoms here as we crow about spreading it through the world. Everyday our privacy rights go out the window with greedy corporate lobbyists, The unPatriot Act, and technologies that is unrestrained by both of the former.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
LOL, you're assuming Junior's arrogance doesn't lead us into a nuclear war that obliterates life as we know it. ;) The way things are going right now, it wouldn't astonish me if nothing exists in 50 years.

The fact that rational people such as yourself and I believe this says so much about gw and his supporters.

Someone has to be around to write history Warham!

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham


What is it with you guys? Why don't you think Mideastern folks don't want to be free and live in a democracy?

It's a ridiculous question. You might as well ask if Wayne L. likes pussy. It's impossible to answer the question, since he's never had it.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
That's complete and utter bullshit and you know it! His approval rating at reelection was much higher than Bushies, let's wait 'til Dubya gets to his commemorative second-term scandal (as if he hasn't had enough already) until we crow about his legacy.

Polls consistently show people very favorable to Clinton. In fact, if he ran in the last election, he would have handed Dubya his ass and a pink slip!

And as for Carter, leave it for a Christian evangelical Republican to crow about values and the importance of being a good Christian, then flog the last one that was in the White House. I guess substance over form in your little world, eh Warham?

Who said I was an evangelical Christian?

It's not bullshit at all. Even liberal historians put Clinton at #21 on the list, just behind Bush I.

I already think Bush II has done more than Bush I has, so that would put them both over Clinton.

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
The fact that rational people such as yourself and I believe this says so much about gw and his supporters.

Someone has to be around to write history Warham!

Oh, stop with the nuclear war crap.

People thought Russia was going to nuke our ass at any moment during the Cold War, especially in the 80's. I'm old enough and have enough grey hair to remember.

[Warham]

HA! I guess my self-imposed retirement didn't quite pan out like I thought.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Who said I was an evangelical Christian?

It's not bullshit at all. Even liberal historians put Clinton at #21 on the list, just behind Bush I.

I already think Bush II has done more than Bush I has, so that would put them both over Clinton.

Yeah sure. Which pseudo-history are you reading Warham? Done more what? Fuck things up, then you are correct sir!

[Warham]

I guess I'll have to find that article by using my google-fu.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Oh, stop with the nuclear war crap.

People thought Russia was going to nuke our ass at any moment during the Cold War, especially in the 80's. I'm old enough and have enough grey hair to remember.

Don't worry, with the nuclear proliferation going on now, things a far more likely to happen then with a fairly stable adversarial superpower.

[Warham]

Three words why it won't happen:

Mutually assured destruction.

[Warham]

What Makes a President Great?
Scholars finally begin giving Reagan his due.

BY JAMES TARANTO
Thursday, June 10, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Ronald Reagan has had a hard time getting his due from scholars. In 1996 Arthur Schlesinger Jr. conducted a poll of historians asking them to rank the presidents, and Mr. Reagan came in 25th out of 39, putting him in the "low average" category. The Gipper had done only slightly better in a Siena College survey two years earlier, finishing 20th out of 41--below Bill Clinton (16th), who had been in office less than two years, and well below Lyndon B. Johnson (13th). It's hard to agree that the president who won the Cold War was less successful than the one who escalated the Vietnam War.

The flaw in these studies is obvious. Because academics tend to be far to the left of the general population, conservative presidents, especially recent ones, usually get short shrift. (A C-Span survey in 1999, which included "professional presidential experts" as well as historians, did rank Mr. Reagan 11th.)

Public opinion polls tell a different story. In February 2001 Gallup asked Americans who was the greatest president in history. Mr. Reagan finished first, with 18%. Yet while Gallup's results are ideologically balanced, they also reflect a lack of historical perspective. When the firm asked the same question in May 2003, 51% of respondents named a post-1960 president. Among Democrats, 46% picked either John F. Kennedy or Bill Clinton, while 41% of Republicans chose either Mr. Reagan or George W. Bush. Whatever the merits of these four men, it seems premature at best to declare them greater than the likes of Washington and Lincoln.

In 2000 the Federalist Society came up with a way to remedy the flaws in both types of surveys. It asked 78 scholars in history, law and politics to rate the presidents on a five-point scale. "We tried to choose approximately equal numbers of scholars who lean to the left and to the right," explains Northwestern University's James Lindgren, who analyzed the data. "Another way to express this is that we sought to mirror what scholarly opinion might be on the counterfactual assumption that the academy was politically representative of the society in which we live and work."
Mr. Lindgren averaged the ratings for each of the 39 presidents (George W. Bush was not yet elected, and William Henry Harrison and James Garfield were omitted because they died shortly after taking office) and divided them into six categories: great, near great, above average, average, below average and failure. The results appeared in November 2000 on OpinionJournal.com and have just been published as a Wall Street Journal book, "Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House," which also includes an essay on each president and several thematic chapters on presidential leadership. (For excerpts, click here.) Some highlights:

• Three presidents made the cut as "great": George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt. They are the top three finishers in most surveys of scholars.

• Eight presidents were judged "near great," including Mr. Reagan, who finished eighth. Among them only James K. Polk (10th) served just one term.

• Among recent presidents, only Mr. Reagan ranked as "near great." JFK (18th) and LBJ (17th) were "above average," George H.W. Bush (21st) and Bill Clinton (24th) "average," and Richard Nixon (33rd), Gerald Ford (28th) and Jimmy Carter (30th) "below average."

• Mr. Clinton was the most controversial president--that is, the scholars' rankings of him diverged more sharply than for anyone else. Woodrow Wilson, who finished 11th overall, was the second most controversial president, but the next three were all among the post-1960 group: Mr. Reagan, Nixon and LBJ.

• Four presidents rated as failures: Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Warren Harding and James Buchanan. Buchanan finished dead last.

An obvious question is how the current President Bush would fare if such a survey were conducted today. Arguably, it's too early to take the measure of Mr. Bush's presidency, since its success or failure will largely be determined by what happens in Iraq and whether he is re-elected in November.
But if liberal and conservative scholars mirror the nation's partisan divide, one may surmise that he would be very controversial--perhaps even more so than his predecessor. His admirers and detractors would perhaps cancel each other out, leaving him somewhere near the middle of the pack. Yet partisan passions have a way of fading with time. Lincoln and FDR both today rank as great, even though both, like Mr. Bush, faced bitter partisan opposition while in office (and FDR still has his critics).

George W. Bush could eventually end up joining the ranks of the greats. The three great presidents have three things in common: All faced unprecedented challenges, all responded to them boldly, and all ultimately were successful. Mr. Bush so far meets two of these criteria: History dealt him an unprecedented challenge in the form of the 9/11 attacks, and no one can deny that he answered it with boldness. If he is able to overcome the current troubles in Iraq, and if he succeeds in his mission of combating Islamist terror by promoting democracy in the Middle East, history will be far kinder to him than are his contemporary critics.

Should this happen, the reputations of his predecessors are likely to suffer, for they will come to be seen as having failed to address the problems that came to a head on 9/11. Both Lincoln and FDR were preceded by a series of presidents who today are held in low esteem: Zachary Taylor (who ranks 31st), Millard Fillmore (35th), Franklin Pierce (37th) and James Buchanan (39th); and Warren Harding (37th, tied with Pierce), Calvin Coolidge (25th) and Herbert Hoover (29th). The former group allowed the issue of slavery to fester until it nearly destroyed the nation; the latter, fairly or not, are blamed for the Depression.

George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton are likely to bear the brunt for not dealing decisively with the gathering terrorist threat. Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan can also be faulted here, but Mr. Reagan's reputation is probably secure, since it rests on other accomplishments, and Mr. Carter doesn't have much farther to fall.

Those who believe that history runs in cycles will be interested to note that the three great presidents took office at 72-year intervals--Washington in 1789, Lincoln in 1861 and FDR in 1933--and that this November it will have been exactly 72 years since the election of our last great president.

Mr. Taranto is editor of OpinionJournal.com, author of its Best of the Web Today column, and co-editor, with Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, of "Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House," just out from Wall Street Journal Books and available from the OpinionJournal bookstore.

[Warham]

Wouldn't that just burn the libs if Bush was regarded as a great President 100 years from now. God, would I be laughing six feet under.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Wouldn't that just burn the libs if Bush was regarded as a great President 100 years from now. God, would I be laughing six feet under.

Dare to dream!

[FORD]

If the right wing still controls the whore media then, he probably will

[JCOOK]

Originally posted by FORD
It's a ridiculous question. You might as well ask if Wayne L. likes pussy. It's impossible to answer the question, since he's never had it.

Hey FORD, is'nt Wayne L. the feet guy?