READER COMMENTS ON
"Dean for DNC Head!"
(44 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2005 @ 4:22 pm PT...
Howard Dean has the political instincts of a Lyndon LaRouche. If he had been the Democratic nominee, with all the vote stealing going on, his vote totals would have been in the negative.
While I admire and respect the man, especially for his opposition to the 2nd Gulf War, were he to take charge of the DNC, I am afraid the Democratic Party will be relegated to the status of a third party (maybe the Libertarians would be second, certainly not the Greens.) This is political reality, folks.
There is most certainly a role for this patriot and this citizen. Head of the DNC is not it.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2005 @ 4:27 pm PT...
Lord knows we need a differing approach than what we did in 2004. I still can't believe that the 2004 election budget ended in a surplus. What in the world did they (DNC) think they where going to spend it on that was more important than the Presidental race?
Too smelly" in them Thar Headquarters.
Dean sreams to all of you who are afraid of change and keep going back to the same old tired well.
Bye Terry --Hello Dean!
Peter in Oregon-Where paper ballots rule!
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2005 @ 4:36 pm PT...
I don't think we should pin too many of our hopes an any one person right now.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2005 @ 5:08 pm PT...
The Democratic Party needs strong leadership along with a good house cleaning. We need people who will back up their words with action. People I trust who know Howard Dean have told me he is the real thing. I was speaking with a long time MA Democratic Party member who was personal friends with Kerry. I would like to say I travel in these circles, but it was just by chance we were speaking to each other. He said “I used to be an old school Democratic”. He went on to say “I am now a new school Democratic, and we need Howard Dean to lead the DNC”. He also said he would not support Kerry again.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2005 @ 5:16 pm PT...
I'm all for pinning our hopes anywhere but on the ass of the donkey(s) we have had running the gutless Demo-publican party.
They had a candidate who hasrun the country and its foreign policy into the ground and we had an ABB who tried to be a look-alike but smarter.
What is needed is two Deans--one to run the DNC and the other to place the facts into view real time and call a liar a liar.
Or just dissolve the Demo party and rebuild one with conviction and a reason to exist.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2005 @ 5:17 pm PT...
If you truly believe that the Democratic candidate won the last election against those tremendous odds, then you would realize that there is not so much wrong with the D.Party as you are being led to believe. If anything, The Republican party is in deep trouble. They do not have the base that it seems.
By buying into this idea of failure, we are making a big mistake. You have to look at what's right and build upon that, correct the mistakes, and not try to attempt a complete overhaul.
If the electoral problem were fixed, the Democrats would win.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2005 @ 5:27 pm PT...
I personally detest most politicians, and both parties, but there is an important election coming up soon, and I would prefer not to lose any more Democratic seats.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2005 @ 5:47 pm PT...
"Dean was the man then for the Democrats. Dean is the man now for the Democrats.
Anyone who says differently, does not have the best interests of either the DNC or America in mind."
This is a bit strong, Brad, to put it kindly. I canvassed in NH (for Kerry) the weekend before the primary and a lot of people who had been Dean supporters were by then Kerry supporters. Why? Because, in a word, he wore thin. Whatever you think of him, you go rather far on a limb by saying that people who don't buy his shtick aren't good Democrats or Americans. Think about qualifying your statement.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2005 @ 6:02 pm PT...
To be clear, I'm not suggesting anyone is not "good" if they don't agree with me on the above. You can be both a good American and a good Democrat and believe that Howard Dean is worse than Saddam Hussein to lead the Democratic party.
What *I* said was that it is not in the best interests of the DNC or America to think otherwise (in my opinion, which obviously, all the stuff I write is
And, of course, I'm gotten this far (however far it is, or isn't) by going "rather far on a limb", so why should I stop now?
I will, however, agree to kindly disagree with you on why Dean dissolved in NH. It is my opinion (and mine only) that it was the Dems buying into the Rep argument that "Dean can't win". I found it bullshit then, and I find it bullshit now.
Which brings me to Cyteria's point and two of Teresa's. I (again, just me) don't believe Dean's numbers would have been negative, I believe they would have been so far positive prior to Election Day, that no amount of election day malfeasance (if there was or wasn't any) could have kept Dean from winning.
Yes, as Teresa suggests, there is reason to believe that Kerry likely won. But if he did, I'd grant that he won by not too much more than 3%-5% of the popular vote.
Had Dean run (with the full support and strong backing of the DNC, as opposed to the Do-It-Yourself Republican Attack number they played on him...at the suggestion of those Republicans!) it would have been a landslide. Period.
Again now back to Bill. Way out on a limb with the above. Which I realize. And which you (and Cyteria and Teresa et al) are very welcome to disagree with. But, that's my feeling.
And it's a very very strong one.
And no (Back to Teresa) I have no hopes pinned on one man. Dean may or may not be some kind of savior. I don't consider him as such. But I do consider him, the best person right now to lead the DNC.
What good that ultimately does, depends --- frankly --- on the rest of the DNC. With whom I have very very little confidence in at this time.
Hope that clarifies all of the above. A little bit, anyway.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2005 @ 6:08 pm PT...
Hi, everyone - I like Howard Dean, his ideas and his approach. He is not a natural actor - GOOD! He's a smart, good man, and over time he'll get more comfortable standing on stage. Canvassing and the primaries are unnatural situations, and I suspect Dean tired of repeating himself over and over (wore thin on himself). He's not mired down in the status quo and is beholden to no-one yet. Kerry, after 20 years in the Senate, probably has to constantly play politics with all his Senatorial buddies and consequently probably has to function with one hand tied behind his back. If change for the better is required, and we and Dean know it is, for a fact, then give Dean the reins and let him at it. VIVA LE DOCTOR!
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2005 @ 6:42 pm PT...
I like Howard, but let's not rely on one personality or a cult of personality, or even one party to do what needs to be done.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2005 @ 6:46 pm PT...
Brad, you are overlooking a major point .....
Has everybody forgotten what Bradblog and what Bev Harris and BlackBoxVoting.org have proven about the fixed elections in the USA through untraceable electronic manipulation? We no longer live in a democracy with free elections. The major elections can be rigged, and the presidential election of 2004 was rigged, along with various congressional elections in 2002 and 2004.
Until this problem of the lack of transparency in electronic voting machines is addresed, it does not matter who runs the DNC. The Republicans have control of the ballot box, and Democrats are doomed to lose any presidentail election. Howard Dean does not even mention this problem in his statement. I would support the person who puts solving this problem at the TOP of their priority list. If someone does not even mention it, they do not get my "vote".
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2005 @ 7:54 pm PT...
I hope Dean gets the job. If it is not the time for the Democratic Party to come down on the side of progressive values, I don't know when it will be. (Dean's not perfect, of course, but who else would it be? And I honestly do think he is a good man who will grow into the job.) Remember, this is a revolution. We have to start thinking in terms of what we need, and our standards and requirements have to be more stringent than in the past. We have to focus like a laser on our goals. Being part of a revolution also means we have to condition ourselves to take chances in the pursuit of our goals and to always reject falling back into the political swamp we are trying to extricate ourselves from. So important. A different but exciting kind of thinking.
BTW, I just discovered the Brad Blog a short time ago and have been listening in for awhile. You all are terrific (except you-know-who) and this place has a very good feel about it. Thanks for some great mental stimulation.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2005 @ 7:54 pm PT...
Fair enough, Eddie. And you will note that The BRAD BLOG doesn't vote for anyone in the endorsement. We'd be happy to make an endorsement for the RNC as well if that questions was currently afoot (isn't Mehlman, the alleged closeted homosexual already on board for the RNC? If not, we endorse him!)
Beyond that though, there is much to the role of DNC Chair beyond getting candidates elected. I don't have time to mention some of them now, but as a figure head for the DNC, I think he may work wonders for *all* that the party has to do beyond winning Presidential (or other) elections.
And Dean did speak to that in his statement, Eddie [emphasis here is mine]:
"Offering a new choice means making Democrats the party of reform—reforming America's financial situation, reforming our electoral process..."
So there ya go. Add to it that PDA (who just endorsed him as well, as per the UPDATE I just made to the original item) is one of the fiercest leaders in Electoral Reform. So we think those are all very good signs!
Not a panacea for anything...But a very good sign. And even while our fight continues for the things you've mentioned, there are other ongoing actions which can lead to a better America where we can support them.
There is no reason to throw out all of the bathwater while working towards buying a new tub.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2005 @ 8:36 pm PT...
John Kerry won the real election. Most everyone here agrees. Now, with that said. I support Howard Dean, and I'll tell you why. I know John Kerry is an honorable man. Sometimes to the point of being too honorable. During the 2004 campaign, the Karl Rove machine built the Swift Boat veterans. They attacked and attacked and attacked with "facts" that were merely partisan hearsay. How did Kerry respond? He did the truly Christian and turned the other cheek. It broke my heart. The radical right got there message across loud and clear. Your leader is too weak and stupid to fight, therefore you Liberals are weak and stupid. HA! HA! HAAAAA! (Picture Karl Rove laughing with horns on his head, easy to do). Kerry didn't need to fight dirty, but fight. Show a human side. I know it's in there. Quit following the polls and follow your heart once in a while. Show all of us that a passionate caring human exists. Even in defeat, I would have liked to see it. When he didn't fight back, it left a hole in my gut. I still think Kerry is a great man, but he's more of a strong silent leader. The DNC needs a voice. It needs one now more than ever. Right now ,in America, a war exists between compassionate rational thinkers and win at all cost political thugs. Dean is the right man, in the right place, for the right war.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2005 @ 8:41 pm PT...
I lean towards Dean myself, although I never liked him as a Presidential candidate for the simple reason that I knew he would be unable, personally, to defeat Bush. On the other hand, he is a wonderful energizer and innovator and people like him. (I can't stand Terry and never could).
Of all the potential leaders out there, I think Dean is the best choice.
And I TOTALLY agree with everyone here who protested that Kerry had indeed won the election. But I think also that new, honest blood at the head of the party would be a very good thing.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2005 @ 9:43 pm PT...
I have to agree with Eddie, though Brad, you probably know alot more about the DNC than I do so I could be wrong...but
I like Dean too, he seems a decent man with convictions & principles. And the way the media swarmed all over that "yell" like a pack of army ants was one of the most absurd carnival rides in this whole dark circus. Christ on a bike, the man yelled. bfd!!
The thing is, Kerry also seemed like a decent man with convictions & principles. Until he conceded. I'm sorry, it blew my mind & it's still blown. And it was further blown by his recent email & more recent behavior. Further blown by Clinton saying Bush had won fair & square.
Here is the question that is burning a hole in my brain:
WHY is every senator, congressman/woman, democrat in the DNC, whomever, including Boxer afraid AFRAID! to come out & say THERE IS EVIDENCE, THERE ARE AFFIDAVITS, THERE IS SWORN TESTIMONY, THERE ARE ALLEGATIONS OF TAMPERING & PERJURY?
Somebody tell me why. Those who did speak & were not outright ridiculing the challenge ALL stopped short of that. Why? What am I too stupid to see here? Why should we support ANY of these people ever again?
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2005 @ 10:51 pm PT...
Yes, Joan, I too would like to know the rationale that justifies (in their own minds) the complete fade-out of the Senate Dems. I sometimes suspect they are on some different planet than the rest of us.
But why has everyone discarded Kucinich? He is the only one who really stuck to his guns, all the way. And he had the right track from the very start. It would seem that the DNC, the entrenched Demo base, is the group that cast him aside. Why should I ever hope the DNC is going to rise from its present cowardice? Why should I ever give the Dems another vote?
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2005 @ 10:53 pm PT...
I agree, Joan. While it is important that the case for fraud be built before any accusations can be made , there is enough evidence of suppression and other violations to express outrage and the need for immediate change. I am not hearing that. I heard that pansy-ass matinee idol, Barack Obama, tonight talking about how #@%!!! won the election by being so appealing to the American people and all that blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum. And how Dems needed to change and get religion.
Why can't they deal with reality? It is so frustrating to see this lack of courage, but I am totally not surprised.
Dean might do all right, but we should not expect too much. I think it is time for the people to realize that we have the power, and our elected official are our public servants. We let them get away with this.
They will not get my vote, until they get me my vote.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2005 @ 11:46 pm PT...
To Joan (and all) who berate all the Democrats for not speaking up about vote stealing machines. First of all, Curtis's affidavit states that Feeney approached him about vote stealing sotfware, nothing more. Curtis says nothing about Feeney actually using the software. The exit polls discrepancies, computer malfunctions, and vote shift data all show signs of smoke, but no gun has been found. When I say gun, I mean someone who can actually testify about vote switching software being used or authentic documentation that is provable of such. This warrants real investigation. That person is out there, maybe afraid to come forward for fear of incriminating his or her self, or were ushered out the of the country with a big fat bank account. Who knows?
Let's say the Democrats use the electronic voting fraud issue and fight for it. That's political suicide with no gun yet. Why? The Republicans fight it first (giving it a good show), then relinquish. Diebold and ES&S would then purge their old programs, replacing them with new programs. "See? Look at how nutty those Democrats are." Political suicide.
The best they can do, for now, is push through legislation for transparent elections. Uncovering electronic voting fraud requires real investigation with witnesses and district attorneys like Ronnie Earle (investigating Tom DeLay against the wishes of the Republican Texas Governer, Senators and Congressmen).
I'd love nothing more than to see the Republican Dynasty caught red handed. But ground yourself in reality. They may never get caught. And believe it or not, those of us who believe the election was stolen are still in the voting minority (to my amazement). However, election reform for honest and transparent elections guaranteeing all citizens the right to vote is a victory nonetheless.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2005 @ 2:04 am PT...
Brad, you are right on with the "briar patch" analysis. Rove starts any campaign by picking the Democratic opponent. Way, way back, in another lifetime, I wasn't paying attention to the news or politics of any kind (in a Thoreauean sort of way), but even I noticed how disingenuous the "Dean Scream" echo was, and then, kaboom, Kerry, Mr. Inside the Box, was the Democratic nominee. After the election, I remember reading that Rove wanted to run against Kerry because he had voted to authorize the war, so any criticism of Bush was already compromised. But Rove was afraid of Dean, because Dean had an unalloyed opposition to it from the start.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2005 @ 4:27 am PT...
Alwaysfree I could not agree more. I spoke to a State Rep who was there at the so-called "Dean Scream". He said the speech Dean gave was great. He could not believe the controversy that occurred. At another event a few days later this Rep encountered Tucker Carlson (CNN) who was at the Dean speech that night as well. He asked Tucker what he thought of the speech Dean gave. Tucker Carlson said, "He thought it was a great speech". Carlson then said he went back to CNN where everybody was talking about the so-called scream and he could not understand what the controversy was, but he followed CNN's lead regardless of the fact that he was actually there.
Karl Rove cheats! If you follow his career you will notice there have been suspicious events that occurred in every campaign that he has been involved in. He is not a genius he is a man who will do anything to win.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2005 @ 7:46 am PT...
On Brad's response to my post: That works for me.
On Joan's comment about members of Congress and other Democrats being afraid, I would like to cite here the words of one congressman - and mine I'm happy to say - Jerry Nadler:
"The right to vote has been stolen from qualified voters – stolen through corruption, through political cynicism, through incompetence, and through technical malfunction. Regardless of the reason, the denial of the fundamental right to vote is a crime against our democracy, against our way of life, and against the most fundamental rights of every American." Very strong!
(Click here for the whole statement.)
You will say that Nadler didn't vote for the challenge, but there's a reason as there is for some others: Jerry is the ranking member of the Constitution subcommittee and is going to be playing a very visible, critical role in working for reform. People like Pat Leahy are also going to be very, very key players. These folks may not be as effective as they could be in this if they have great honking bullseyes painted on them by the Bushistas. I think we have to be very circumspect about painting any of these folks' level of support in all of this according to how they voted. People like Pat Leahy will be more important than Barbara Boxer in the next phases. Count on it. Let's continue to work with Conyers, Boxer, and the other parties. And don't forget our brothers and sisters in the Green Party. The Greens estimation in the hearts of progressives in this country rose enormously in the last two months. We can get there, as David Cobb said on Jan. 6 in Washington very eloquently, if we pull together. See, in this regard, the new Velvet Revolution site by Brad and some others.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2005 @ 8:05 am PT...
From now on everyone should keep a very close watch on all the Dems. in the Senate and Congress who did NOT vote against the Ohio electors. There was enough wrong in Ohio to warrant a revote. Pretend Dems. are a serious problem. Some, or even all, of these guys and gals probably should be replaced. They've been there too long, are too comfortable, and are obstructing progress. Find new progressive candidates to run against them for their seats. I even think Cobb and his colleagues may also be potentially acceptable candidates for these seats.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2005 @ 8:13 am PT...
Bill #23 - I wrote mine before yours appeared. I hope you are right about the non-voting Dems. But they have FAILED for too long now. It feels like TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE. They should now support Conyers 150% or get OUT (of the way, of the building, out of Washington).
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2005 @ 8:28 am PT...
Sorry, one more thing (I'm feeling agitated now). OF COURSE! Those who do NOTHING when it counts, want to now get on board, AFTER Conyers has been praised nationally for his excellent work for the American people. Losers always want to jump in after the fact and run things - INTO THE GROUND! I hope Conyers knows who he can TRUST, and will accept constructive ideas, reject what he believes will not work, and KEEP ON GOING in the direction he outlined in his letter, regardless of all those (PATHETIC) Senatorial and Congressional Dems. who will tell him they know best and will try to stop him.
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2005 @ 8:57 am PT...
One more rallying cry. TARGETS! America doesn't need Dem. Sen. and Cong. who vote with the Repubs. or sit on the fence to avoid being targets. America needs MORE TARGETS - so many targets, that the Repubs. have to stop working on their own little devious projects and have to direct all their energy and attention to so many targets, that they lose control over the situation. The old ways DON'T WORK. America must change. America needs more heros, who are always TARGETS.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2005 @ 9:14 am PT...
CIRCUMSPECT! Circumspect is what got America where it is today. America needs radical change - the boat needs rocking, and quite a few Senators and Congresspeoplel need to be thrown overboard.
PRETTY SPEECHES! Pretty speeches from Dem. Sens. and Congr. are all very well, but what is REQUIRED is appropriate and TIMELY ACTION to protect the freedoms and people of Amerca.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2005 @ 11:07 am PT...
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
Terri in S. FL
said on 1/12/2005 @ 11:37 am PT...
I was a Deaniac early on. I ended up working for Kerry because he won the nomination.
I was fortunate to see Dean speak in Miami. He was fabulous, smart, engaged and, yes, Presidential.
He is not, however, progressive, but will forever have that tag due to Rovian media tactics and the gay marriage ammendement in Vermont.
He lost the nomination because his numbers were way ahead of anyones, so the press had to bring him down and convince the sheeples that, having spoke out against Iraq early on, he had no chance of beating the "war president".
He may not have had a chance in hell, but I'm confident of one thing: He would have shown up on January 6th and joined with the party to demand investigation of voting irregularites, and not hid in a closet like Kerry.
I'm a life long Democrat and am sick of my parties hard right swing and pandering. And I am way over everything Clinton (well, except for that peace and prosperity thing). But the Dems need to move beyond the Clintons and get back to our core values, which is people, not corporations. Bilary is not the only Democrat on the planet.
Dean IS the right choice to head the DNC.
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2005 @ 1:00 pm PT...
Hey Terri: Where did you get the idea that Dean is "not progressive"? Did I miss something somewhere?
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2005 @ 1:08 pm PT...
John F. wrote : "Karl Rove [...] is not a genius [...]"
I respectfully disagree. And I think it's quite clear that anyone who underestimates his intelligence is gonna get clobbered. I do not approve of his 'ethics' but that's another question entirely.
I am not saying the Democrats need to cower in fear, but at the very least they must recognize that they are up against a master tactician. My humble opinion as usual, but you are invited to share it.
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2005 @ 1:18 pm PT...
I would never underestimate Karl Rove. Nor will I elevate him in stature. Anyone can win who cheats. I like your postings Winter Patriot.
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
Terri in S. FL
said on 1/12/2005 @ 2:18 pm PT...
Dean was brought to the gay marriage ammendment kicking and screaming. He has said that he felt it was probably political suicide, but in the end he voted for it becuse it was the morally right thing to do. Nice, but not exactly cutting edge.
His health care plan falls short of a true national heath care. The only guy who ran that one was Kucinich, someone who I do consider a progressive.
Most of what Dean did as Gov. was moderate, nothing special really, but good solid policies none the less.
Honestly, if you'd have asked me in September of 2000, I would have told you I was a moderate. That all changed the day after the election, when I saw clear as day what was going on. It's the vote stealing, facist cons that have forced me hard left. Hard, hard, left! Little red book hard left. The Bushista's are so hard right that we have to be hard left just to break even.
In any event, labels get us no where, and the media and Rovites always get it wrong anyway. The thing about being a liberal is having a brain and using it is encouraged, unlike the goose stepping it takes to be a good Repugnant. Can you really get 2 liberals in a room to totally agree on anything? (OK, there is one thing, we just disagree on how to get there).
I would hope that whoever gets the DNC chair raises the level of debate and engages the public in that debate. I also hope that they win elections.
Anyway, Winter, I'm sure that we will have many exchanges here and at VU. You always make good points and give us alot to ponder. Keep evolving.
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
Terri in S. FL
said on 1/12/2005 @ 2:28 pm PT...
Howard will be on Randi Rhodes Show on Air America at 6:30 tonight.
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2005 @ 7:33 pm PT...
Thanks, Terri. Apparently I have missed quite a bit. Which is not surprising. There's so much going on!
I agree with you about a lot of the things you mentioned, especially "labels get us nowhere" ... and also about the fact that the political spectrum has been pushed so far to the right that the middle now looks like the left edge. Or over the edge.
From where I sit [which is admittedly way over in the corner someplace], anyone who dares to criticize the administration about anything looks "progressive" ... which I guess is another example of how the traditional labels are getting more and more meaningless all the time.
"Right" and "Left" are essentially relative terms, anyway. Compared to European politics, for example, the USA doesn't seem to have any Left at all. In Europe, it's not unusual to see "Social Democrats" and "Christian Socialists" and all kinds of left-leaning points of view, including "Communists". Now that's a true leftist party. Little red book indeed!
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2005 @ 11:44 pm PT...
There are probably many good people around for the jobs. I think the important thing is not to elevate any of them to superhero status. The work has to be done on all fronts, and I think should be approached like any organization, to get things done. Give people the jobs they are qualified for and make sure they do them well. And we have to take ultimate responsibility.
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2005 @ 4:49 am PT...
Look, the same thing that lost him the Democratic nomination should win him the chair; he's a f**king pit-bull!
We need someone who will aggressively and thoroughly trounce the Republican party, and Dean is that guy. You can say what you want about how far left he is, folks, but the middle-ground (the losing ground) sure as shit isn't working, is it?
What's the worst that could happen, Jeb Bush wins in '08? Like we've won anything lately anyway.
Who do you want, Rosenberg? Shit, he won't win, Trippi's behind him.
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2005 @ 9:31 am PT...
You can't beat anybody, no matter who "runs" the Democratic party, as long as you place your votes in the black pit of Bush-controlled machines. They will only elect those Democrats Bush decides to keep around to keep the illusion of democracy.
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2005 @ 12:15 pm PT...
I think labels mave always been somewhat meaningless.
One of the problems in this country, I think, is the fundamental lack of interest in politics, definitely in comparison to Europe. Maybe this is because we are relatively isolated and bordered only by two countries. We have so much lack of experience and we seem to have a parental guidance approach... just let Daddy take care of it while we watch cartoons. It does actually take some intelligent thought, knowledge of geography and history, understanding of economic theory, etc. to form a political party.
I am convinced that a large portion of the people in this country still do not know where Iraq is.
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2005 @ 8:09 pm PT...
Bill Hewitt said:
"These folks may not be as effective as they could be in this if they have great honking bullseyes painted on them by the Bushistas."
For whatever my opinion may be worth, Bill, I believe those who believe (specifically the politicos we're talking about here) that they don't already have that great honking bullseye on them, as painted by the Bushistas, may be kidding themselves.
Those guys have clearly shown that they will stop at nothing --- nothing! --- to get what they want, and cleanse anyone (from either party!) who isn't 100% on board with their agenda.
It was such a concern about bullseyes that forced the DNC to throw over Dean for Kerry, and look where that got the Dems.
I believe you would all be stunned to hear it, but I am far more conservative (in the real sense, not in the Rush-speak "fake conservative" sense) than most of you would likely have pegged me as. And at least, less to the Left than many of the good folks who comment regular hear.
But as (I believe it was) Teresa said, what we have learned since Nov. 2 has pushed a lot of us farther to the Left than we may have been before. It's become a clear matter of survival.
To paraphrase from The Untouchables, the Republican strategy seems to be "If they pull a knife, we pull a gun. They send one of ours to the hospital, we send one of theirs to the morgue!"
That's what the Dems have to contend with. So I'm not certain the strategy of the last four years (playing nice, avoiding bulleyes) is operable any more at this time.
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2005 @ 9:18 pm PT...
I agree with you completely on this one, Brad. I never did buy the bullseye argument.
And as for the right-vs-left thing, I don't know where I stand on that one at all. I sure know where I am on right-vs-wrong, though!
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
said on 1/14/2005 @ 10:47 am PT...
As a card carrying member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, I want Dean too. Can't wait to hear the word "progressive" over and over and over again! Everyone knows what that means! AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!
COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
said on 1/16/2005 @ 7:08 am PT...
If Dean is elected as party chairman, I might vote Dem. again. After Kerry's awful concession early on, my early suspicions were confirmed. They, Bush and Kerry are both working for the same company. I have been a close observer of Bush's drive to do away with overtime pay for a broad segment of America. Initially, nurses, fiiremen and the police. Best I can remember... I was moving at this time ...it went through the house and senate twice and didn't pass. So Bush just made it a law through his Sec. of labor. I think a watered down version passed with the Omnibus bill. If Dems. had really wanted to win this election, why didn't they hammer that?That would have gotten the attention of the most evangelical nurse, I can assure you. I used to be a nurse. If you are tired after working eight hours ..your mistakes could cost a life..you are told to woark another shift...you'll be paid in comp time at the employer's discretion...waithin the year. This isn't safe fair or rational. If this doesn't seem important. imagine you are in the hospital, too sick to notice the meds. you are taking and this tired worried angry nurse gives you your roomie's meds. Believe me, only your family might know something odd was happening. You were recovering so well .. and boom. you are gone. The hospital sure won't care because the might have to pay out to a lawsuit. That is a whole new idea right over the horizon. Anyway...this why my suspicions were raised early on in the so called debates for dem. nominee. Personal experience.