Dean the Disaster

My thoughts are that this is utterly unbelievable: the winger obsession with the Dems has now reached the level of a fixation and is, imo, bordering on a compulsive disorder and certainly an idée fixe.

My question would be why ? - can someone please explain ?

The problem I have is not so much that the 'opposition' is constant, unremitting and universal - but more that it is not based on conduct but is based instead on political affiliation.

Now it seems (and there is abundant evidence to back this up) that in this view a crime, misdemeanour or gaffe is not classified as one of those things on the basis that it IS one of those things but rather, is a crime (or not) depending on the political allegiance of the perpetrator.

We can see this clearly in the above post where an issue relating to a Dem is postworthy purely because it is Dem-related - if such were not the case then surely equivalences in the Republican sphere would be quoted. They are not.

This compulsive behaviour extends even to broader areas than the Dem/Rep split - for example Saddam gassing people = bad and worthy of constant reiteration ad nauseum whereas Uzbeki President boiling people alive is unworthy of omment and not regarded as a crime in itself per se. Certainly not a punishable one or one worthy of comment.

I have no doubt now that this is some kind of malady - perhaps those of us with an exertise in such areas (Powerdoc ?) might be able to isolate it more succinctly and suggest remedial measures.

I really hope so. I'm starting to be concerned.

sego:

Get on topic.
If you don't like the topic, don't post in it.

Maybe I missed the point of the first post. Dean didn't raise enough money? Dean said someone should go to jail?

Is there news here?

Delay is a bastard, and anyone who supports him is so entrenched in Republicanism that they will never vote for a democrat.

So I don't think that this will hurt Dean or the democratic party at all.

NUM:

No news, just another opportunity for SDW to provide his objective commentary on the Democrats.

I don't think Delay and support or nonsupport of him have anything to do with the success of Democrats or Dean in leading them.

The real issues here are message and money. So far Dean has been a disaster on both accounts.

First it is clear that regardless of whether you think Bush is the anti-Christ or the Second Coming, that the Democrats still have no alternative plan to anything he proposes. All they do is criticize and oppose. Social Security is just the tip of the iceberg. If you oppose oil drilling for example, how about proposing a party-wide plan that raises CAFE standards, uses more nuclear power and less oil, etc. Instead we just get Bush = bad. If you are honest and know that the federal government will never be able to fund both Social Security and Medicare at the current rates, why not propose some reform? Claiming the Bush reform is terrible simply isn't enough.

On top of this lack of alternatives, Dean's and Reids messages have gone into basically personal attacks. Delay should go to jail, Bush is a loser, etc. which give off a very negative tone and show use of the low road in achieving a political aim. You can't kick someone in the nuts and then complain about low blows in a boxing match.

The last issue is a large one and that is money. It is clear that the 527's kept the Democrats competitive last election. If not for them and their clear coordination, it would have looked like a repeat of 1996 when Clinton was practically carpet bombing the country with airtime while Dole didn't have enough money to respond. A lot of complaints were lodged with the FEC in 2004 and while they couldn't rule on the large soft money laundering that was passing for donations on the left, they will have done so by the next election

So the fundraising gap is significant because there will be no group that can take 30 million dollar soft money donations and somehow use it to support certain campaigns.

Nick

That sounds like a reasonable assessment.

I am pretty apathetic about the next election:

Republicans:

pros:

- Actively using the military is a much better foreign policy than bribing dictators
- support nuclear power
- lower taxes
- good on immegration reform

cons:

- spend too much money
- party is full of unsavory characters (Cheney, Delay, Bolton)
- evil social policy
- ties to christianity too strong

Democrats:

pros:

- socially acceptable to me
- religion toned down
- I like Dean and Obama, they seem "clean" in ways that many of the republicans seem "dirty"

cons:

- wimpy foreign policy
- spend too much money
- no solid plans
- pander to "import drugs from Canada" folks
- foes to free trade and outsourcing

Just for the record, I hate headlines like "Dean Rips Delay" or "Delay Blasts Dems." Who's with me!?

I'm with you completely. Sophomoric "journalism" makes me want to blow up cable news stations.

Hey, we should start our own group and call ourselves Extremists.

I can see the headline news now "Extremist group destroys headquarters of patriotic news organization".

Agreed.


Good.


Depends on who you are talking about. Not Bush.


Isn't that hoot. It's true...but just funny to be saying it.


Sadly, this sword cuts both ways. Politics in general has a tendency to attract unsavory characters, regardless of your stripes.


Not quite sure what this means. Just so we're all clear "christianity" isn't an organization or voting bloc.



Not sure about Dean. But Obama looks like an interesting fellow. Possibly a "bridge builder". We'll see.


Generally, yes.


Seems like the biggest problem right now.


As opposed to pandering to the pharmaceutical industry?


Well, I am generally a free-trader, but the complete, laisse-faire approach desired by the republicans concerns me. Not because I don't think that free-trade can work it's just that most participants (the U.S. included) don't really play by the free and fair trade rules.

No way, if I start a terrorist group it's going to be called "LOLERSKATES & ROFLCOPTERS"

And aside from laughing very hard at the name... the REALLY insightful bit is that *I* said Extremist, *YOU* jumped to Terrorist. Scary how that connection has been wired into our brians now huh? Makes people standing up (and in many cases dying) for what they believe look down right scary.

I'd like to think it hasn't always been that way.

There are two components in the cost of drugs - 1) manufacturing costs and 2) amortised R&D

The Canadians force the drug companies to sell at a loss in total (counting the R&D), but at a profit when you count just manufacturing costs. If the drug companies do not do this, Canada will start manufacturing generics.

In other words, the R&D costs are recouped only in the US, which causes higher drug costs in the US. Importing drugs from Canada is not a sustainable business, and the politicians know this - they are just hyping it up to get votes.

NUM:

Extemist. Terrorist. Homosexual. Non-Christian. Non-white.

It's all the same. Get with the times!

Thoughtful reply e but one thing got my attention in particular:

quote:- Actively using the military is a much better foreign policy than bribing dictators - end-quote.

I am not sure how many democrats "bribe" dictators.
I am not sure using the military is a "foreign policy" which is always wise.
Most especially in the case of the actions of this admin.

Other than this I agree with pretty much with your view of the parties.

Fellows

After several electoral losses and shortly after a major fundraising windfall, is it really any surprise that raising money for Democrats would be hard to do? It will turn around, it always does regardless of who sits in the chairman's seat.

As far as Dean's penchant for using tough language against tough opponents, the more power to him. I'm relieved that we have someone finally williing to fight and fight hard. I believe his use of language is no worse than than the language hurled at Bill Clinton during his tenure.

For a more realistic perspective of Howard Dean, I present this article:


Wow. He kinda comes across as an old-school Republican doesn't he?

I was thinking of North Korea and Clinton when I wrote that ("If you stop your Nuclear ambitions, I will give you boatloads of foreign aid").

Think about where you want the world to be. I think that we would all agree that we want the world to be peaceful, clean, rich, safe, educated, and a bastion of equal rights for minorities and women.

Rich people demand clean air and water, and they have the leasure time to think ahead to prevent future ecological disasters. Rich democracies tend to have most of the characteristics that we want the world to have.

We does not have time to leave the rest of the world to their own devices. If they are not turning into rich democracies, then we need to intervene militarily. We can't afford to let them stay poor, because we need to have a cleaner and safer world soon.

If you send foreign aid to a dictatorship, all you do is buy the dictator a new rolls royce. In Somolia, the UN was bribing the dictator to release raped children from prison - after the children were released, more children were rounded up so that he could get more money. You have to cut the leach off the patient before any money will help.

One example of the way we make the 3rd world rich is outsourcing - I think that it is important that good jobs go to India, even though it affects me personally in a negative way. Similarly, the invasion of Iraq affected many individuals in bad ways, but the end result will be very positive (much more positive than anything that could ever be mananaged via a straight money transfer).

Comes across as in touch. When he was the Governor of VT I saw him many times at the football games at my high school. Good guy.

Oh and this whole Republicans = good military policy thing is FUBAR.

Hey NeoCons go check the news today. Any of you know anyone working at a military base? That's right, they may now be looking for new jobs. They're great for VA benefits too.



Maybe...clean energy? Kyoto Protocol?

Yeah we all know how the Democrats hate the environment, you disingenuous Winger.

"The plan was the fifth round of base closings. The last one was in 1995." - that means that Clinton also closed bases.

And the scrapping of the Kyoto protocol was bipartisan, 100% of the Senate voted against Kyoto.

The Byrd-Hagel Resolution actually passed 95-0. Bad enough, though.

Ain't that the truth!

Now that we're done making ourselves feel better by marginalizing SDW, anything of substance to contribute?

I want to be clear here. With the words that follow I am not saying that "you" are stupid.

What you post above is absolute ignorance. In fact it is just about as stupid a nonsense as can be said.

The flaw in your reasoning is simply the fact that the reason the poorer countries are polluted is due to their serving the lifestyles of the "rich".

They produce our goods and services for us at low cost. Why low cost? Because they get paid very low wages and simply dump waste into the environment.

I have never known republicans to be much in favor of care and respect for the environment. Talking heads like Rush Limbaugh lampoon conservation of the environment.

All the sudden the neo-con message is to use the military to go around the world to "clean up the world" that we paid to manufacturer our cheap imports?

I am sorry I just do not buy this self-righteous "we will clean up your dirty poor world" attitude.

"Pardon me while I bomb and tread over your ground in my tank while I clean up your dirty little country while I invade you. We are doing it for your own good."

What BS and lack of integrity.

Fellows

The big schism in the environmental movement is between those who believe that we can conserve and manage our resources, and those who believe that humans even touching them is causing harm.

Bush for example is pushing biodiesel which I know you very much approve of for use. However there are environmental interests that consider farming to be raping the land as badly as coal stripmining.

Newt Gingrich has been a very strong and vocal supporter of the environment. The reality though is that you need a balance and to weigh the cost versus the benefit. Republicans often are decried as desiring to destroy the environment for no other reason than they believe humans can manage and use it. That doesn't sit well with the don't touch it no matter the cost crowd.

Nick

Your own argument has tripped you up. If they become rich, they will no longer be making cheap shoes for us.

It is true that the west uses more resources than the 3rd world, but the west also produces 99.999 % of the scientific progress that will let us manage the world better. We need to get the rest of the world on-line (rich and producing technological ideas).

Well, I would agree that invading China (or even Iran) would be a bad idea. Dropping a few bombs on selected targets in Iran, maybe. Invading Somolia, definitely.

Fellows - I think our difference of opinion stems from differing perspective.

I am looking at what is best for the human race as a whole, ignoring bad effects that may occur to the individual (including myself).

You are willing to let the race die in order to save yourself from hurting any single individual.

An honest and ideology driven communist? A rare sigth these days

Except that your average communist would probably disagree with me about "what is best for the race as a whole".

I don´t think so. Not the ideology driven one.