or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dean makes speech on the future of the Democratic Part
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dean makes speech on the future of the Democratic Part

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/f...transcript.php

My favorite part:

Quote:
When some people say we should change direction, in essence they are arguing that our basic or guiding principles can be altered or modified.

They can't.
post #2 of 25
If they couldn't win this time around, with the worst presidency since Nixon, and a decent candidate in Kerry, it's pretty clear that the majority of the country just doesn't agree with Democrats. So now they need to decide: be principled, or get votes? I'd rather they go the Clinton/DLC route and win than stay where they are now and lose. At least we'd be going in the right direction if, say, Lieberman was president.
post #3 of 25
It would NOT be a step in the right direction. Bush over Liebermann. Sorry, but a democrat that is so eager to fold individual rights the choice would be like in the second round of the last french presidential election. At least with Bush in office the opposition is on the right (left) side of him.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #4 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
If they couldn't win this time around, with the worst presidency since Nixon, and a decent candidate in Kerry, it's pretty clear that the majority of the country just doesn't agree with Democrats. So now they need to decide: be principled, or get votes? I'd rather they go the Clinton/DLC route and win than stay where they are now and lose. At least we'd be going in the right direction if, say, Lieberman was president.

kerry was a pretty horrible candidate. he was just better than the other crackheads that the democrats came up with.

It's pretty sad that in a nation so great and large we can't find a couple decent candidates. All the intelligent people stay away from politics it seems.
post #5 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by applenut
kerry was a pretty horrible candidate.

Maybe. But think of the best political candidate you can imagine - do you really think he or she wouldn't be mocked and ridiculed and reduced to a pile of shit by the time the other party and the media were finished? I don't think it's so much the person as our election process. It's just impossible to get through it and retain any respect.
post #6 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Maybe. But think of the best political candidate you can imagine - do you really think he or she wouldn't be mocked and ridiculed and reduced to a pile of shit by the time the other party and the media were finished? I don't think it's so much the person as our election process. It's just impossible to get through it and retain any respect.

Right-- it's just Blaming the Victim.
post #7 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Maybe. But think of the best political candidate you can imagine - do you really think he or she wouldn't be mocked and ridiculed and reduced to a pile of shit by the time the other party and the media were finished? I don't think it's so much the person as our election process. It's just impossible to get through it and retain any respect.

while that's certainly true in most cases, Kerry just never came across as a good candidate to me. I remember first seeing him as a nominee and saying he'd never have a chance. He just has always come across as a politician to me. And I think a lot of people thought that. And usually coming across as strictly a politician is not a good thing. I mean, look at our last 2 presidents. They are more like crazy uncles than strict politicans.
post #8 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Maybe. But think of the best political candidate you can imagine - do you really think he or she wouldn't be mocked and ridiculed and reduced to a pile of shit by the time the other party and the media were finished?

And this DOESN'T happen to Republicans?
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
post #9 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
And this DOESN'T happen to Republicans?

Yes.
post #10 of 25
/me rubs his hands together to wait for the RNC free-for-all in 4 years. Most certainly golden child Rove will be able to shut people out, but there's always the chance of a Buchanan or a Perot.

Who will be it be? Santorum? Rudy? Delay? Do the Republicans have a governor they can field next time around? Barbour?

What about the Dems? Warner? Who else?

Here's a thought: Kerry took 40% in MS. 37% in AL. 41% in GA. 42% in LA. 41% in SC. 43% in TN. 45% in AR.

All without even GOING THERE.

What if the dems turn 40 years of conventional wisdom on its head and try to take the South?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #11 of 25
Jeb in '08.. it's got that certain ring to it, don't it.
post #12 of 25
I think a perceived straight-talking 70 year old will be only one to defy conventional wisdom come 2006.
post #13 of 25
McCain/Guilliani 2008
post #14 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by Akumulator
Jeb in '08.. it's got that certain ring to it, don't it.

Yeah, a very scary one.

One ring to rule them all! And in the darkness bind them.

Definitely sounds like the Republican strategy to me.
post #15 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by applenut
McCain/Guilliani 2008

No. After Rudy's performance at the RNC, I wouldn't trust him to change my cat litter. He's as much as a liar as the rest of them, and we could just expect more of the same.

McCain -- at least he seems to have some values... which is exactly why the Reppublicans will never allow him to win the nomination.

McCain is the only Republican I'd support, that I know of, any way.
post #16 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
/me rubs his hands together to wait for the RNC free-for-all in 4 years. Most certainly golden child Rove will be able to shut people out, but there's always the chance of a Buchanan or a Perot.

Who will be it be? Santorum? Rudy? Delay? Do the Republicans have a governor they can field next time around? Barbour?

What about the Dems? Warner? Who else?

Here's a thought: Kerry took 40% in MS. 37% in AL. 41% in GA. 42% in LA. 41% in SC. 43% in TN. 45% in AR.

All without even GOING THERE.

What if the dems turn 40 years of conventional wisdom on its head and try to take the South?

And Bush took around 45% in California and New Jersey and had Pennsylvania as close as Ohio was for Kerry.

Swing any of those and the Democrats are seriously, radically hurt.

Also the Democrats effectively threw their best punch in many ways in 2004. Let me try to list a couple.

The biggest thing to add to all of this are the midterm Senate elections on 2006. The Democrats, while being a minority actually have more seats to defend during this off year election. Any Senate gains could effectively implode the coaltion that is today's Democratic party. If you start talking about a Republican party with say, 58 seats up from 55, then the fit will hit the shan as they say.

There is the likelyhood that the freespending 527's from the 2004 election will be told by the FEC that they must create PAC's for their political spending that are subject to hard money restrictions. This will put a serious money crimp on the Democrats because it will actually create the true intent of McCain-Feingold instead of the giant slush funds that occurred in 2004. If that doesn't happen, the Republicans will have created their own offsetting 527's by then.

2004 had some incredible efforts to turn out voters. It appear that Republicans at a minimum matched Democrats for new registrations and for turn out. However the Republican machine was created of volunteers and new true believers. The Democratic machine (aside from the Deaniacs) was mostly paid people signing up people with all the big checks written to the 527's. I think the former is more likely to stick around for 2006 than the latter.

Names I have heard for possible President in 2008 are Sen. McCain, Gov. Pataki who is a Republican proven that he can win even New York, and Sen. Frist who is majority leader of the Senate and from Tennessee.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #17 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
No. After Rudy's performance at the RNC, I wouldn't trust him to change my cat litter. He's as much as a liar as the rest of them, and we could just expect more of the same.

you'd be surprised. i think he'd be a hard VP to match in an election run.
post #18 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
If they couldn't win this time around, with the worst presidency since Nixon, and a decent candidate in Kerry, it's pretty clear that the majority of the country just doesn't agree with Democrats. So now they need to decide: be principled, or get votes? I'd rather they go the Clinton/DLC route and win than stay where they are now and lose. At least we'd be going in the right direction if, say, Lieberman was president.

Wtf??? Kerry's campaign was pathetic, horrible, enbarassing. There is something severely wrong when a whopping $hundreds of $millions in campaign revenue couldn't defeat an administration which has gotten us into an appalling fiscal mess, an endless unwinnable war "justified" by lies and fueled by corruption, lost more jobs than any presidential term in US history, dismembered the Constitution, forced anti-American religious fundamentalism down our throats, and not only presided over the worst breach of national security in US history, but at the very least, deliberately allowed it to happen in order to justify the extremist foreign policy DEMANDED since 1992 by the PNAC religious fundamentalist neo-con warlords, now in senior administration positions.

Kerry blew his ace cards, for example instead of coming out against the Iraq war in a clear and concise position, he fumbled his way about trying to appease both camps; and regarding national security, he was equally unclear. The DNC's whole approach was almost as if they wanted to lose, or didn't dare to win. The TV commercials, made at huge expense, were lame and bland beyond all recognition: any of of those winning 25 ads in that Moveon.org amateur "Bush in 30" set (there were some 1600 ads entered) beat the pants off anything the DNC aired during the campaign.

And Lieberman??!!!! He was amongst the most unsuitable of all the "democratic" candidates to be president, alongside the bland Gephardt. Good heavens, the man is only a democrat by label. He's almost as far to the right as Zell Miller. The problem with the democrats is that they are scared of the concept 'liberal', when they should be proud of it and running with it. The time they start to embrace real liberalism, rather than trying to appease the right of the party and moderate republicans, maybe the time they win back those hordes of people who can't be bothered to vote (nearly 50% of eligible voters), namely those who feel ideologically disenfranchised.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #19 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
If they couldn't win this time around, with the worst presidency since Nixon, and a decent candidate in Kerry, it's pretty clear that the majority of the country just doesn't agree with Democrats.

No, to me it seems as if the Bush administration has successfully scared enough people into thinking he and Cheney are needed to prevent a wave of Beslan school hostage situations, a smallpox epidemic and/or a nuclear attack in the U.S. Many of them probably do yearn for a Democrat in office except for the terror/security issue which the Bush administration has so well co-opted.

"Status quo during time of war" won. Fear, isolation and hatred won.

Logic, diplomacy and freedom was sodomized with a strap-on steak knife.

Four more years, indeed.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #20 of 25
Thread Starter 
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04120804_dean.rm

Realvideo link of the speech (20 minutes).

Dean will also be appearing this Sunday on Meet The Press on the future of the Democrats.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3898804/
post #21 of 25
The Democrats need to redefine themselves or accept becoming an irrelevant party like the Socialists, Communists Libertarians and so on. They are most free to be whatever they want. If they want to go far left in order to have a forum to express their views, fine. They just have to accept that they will never win again.
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
post #22 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by Common Man
The Democrats need to redefine themselves or accept becoming an irrelevant party like the Socialists, Communists Libertarians and so on. They are most free to be whatever they want. If they want to go far left in order to have a forum to express their views, fine. They just have to accept that they will never win again.

I've posted this before, and it's still accurate.



That's Common Man on the left, and thinking man on the right.
post #23 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
No, to me it seems as if the Bush administration has successfully scared enough people into thinking he and Cheney are needed to prevent a wave of Beslan school hostage situations, a smallpox epidemic and/or a nuclear attack in the U.S. Many of them probably do yearn for a Democrat in office except for the terror/security issue which the Bush administration has so well co-opted.

"Status quo during time of war" won. Fear, isolation and hatred won.

Logic, diplomacy and freedom was sodomized with a strap-on steak knife.

Four more years, indeed.

BINGO! Moral values my ass. This whole notion that Bush was elected because of "values" is crock of shit.

"Fear will keep the local system in line. Fear of this battle-station."
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #24 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate

"Fear will keep the local system in line. Fear of this battle-station."

Is that really a quote from Star Wars or did Jon Stewart make it up?
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #25 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Is that really a quote from Star Wars or did Jon Stewart make it up?

Grand Moff Tarkin baby!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dean makes speech on the future of the Democratic Part