You know the saying. At the primaries paint yourself as a radical and then run for the midlle at the presidental election.
Lucky enough for dean he is closer to the middle than people think so he just have to speak up about his politic after he has won the primary (not that I hope he does. I still hope for Clark)
And just how "acceptable" has Bush been to the left?
Quit your whining and start figuring out why Dean's a weak candidate. Btw, I think Dean will probably do a LOT better in the general election than many think but he still will probably lose.
On your first question, Bush was very acceptable to me at first. I was actually "proud" of him in the aftermath of 9/11. I completely supported the war in Afghanistan. I believed him when he said Saddam was an imminent threat. But then he betrayed my trust as an American and now he must go. This notion that any Republican president will be despised by the left is completely erroneous. Every president has a clean slate to win over the public's trust. This president and his chronies on the hill, unfortunatley, are so anti-Democrat it's utterly disgusting.
On your second question I'm not whining. Just stating the obvious. The Republican marketing machine has you and everyone else convinced that this is a slam-dunk election. The more they repeat it the more the "sleepwalkers" believe it and therefore don't bother to go to the polling sites. At this point, if John F. Kennedy came back from the dead and was running for president Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would be slamming him daily for being an uber-leftist New England white boy.
I believe in Dean's grassroots movement. I think there is a phenomenon brewing that could surprise everyone come election day. However, I believe the Republican marketing machine will do everything in its power to dilute the word "grassroots" to the point that it no longer has meaning. By the time they're done with destroying the definition of "grassroots" it will no longer have any resonance with the American people.
Mark my words, Rove and the rest will turn the word "grassroots" into another sub-definition of the term "campaign". Hence, any Republican running a campaign is being run by the "grassroots". The Republican marketing machine is so powerful that they will effectively STEAL the term from the Dean campaign.
Dean is a strong candidate. Dean would stomp Bush in a debate.
It'll be fun to see Bush try to defend his policies when Dean goes after him face to face.
You know Chewie I've been thinking about this as well. Personally, I can't wait for the first debate between Dean and Bush. This won't be like Bush versus Gore where all Bush had to do was not fall down. Gore was so trumped as a clandestine debater that anything less was considered a failure.
This will different. Many Republicans are starting to say things like, "Deans not as smart or bright as liberals think he is", etc. They think he's a hot-head who's going to lose his cool. No, Dean is going to hold the president's feet to the fire on a laundry list of massive f*ck-ups. The President is not going to be able to just chuckle, wink at someone off camera, smirk and then give gray answers like "fuzzy math." Dean's going to hold him down and I can't wait!
Dean is a strong candidate. Dean would stomp Bush in a debate.
It'll be fun to see Bush try to defend his policies when Dean goes after him face to face.
That kind of underestimation of Bush is EXACTLY why gore lost the third debate to him. Bush is far more intelligent thatn he appears to be, and he also far more prepared than any Dem will admit.
As far as Dean threads, maybe we could have another anti-conservative, anti-bush, anti-republican, anti-cheney, rumsfeld, ashcroft or whomever thread? I love how we can have a thousand of those, but I get a wink from a moderator when i post this. typical.
Dean is going to lose big. And he is no centrist at all. That's a crock. He is ultra left, which is why the Dem party is in shambles right now. There's a war in the party between the DNC and the Deanites. Dean is winning. Clark and the Clintons are losing. The Democratic party will not continue to be a major political force if it continues the direction it is going. Mark my words.
Kerry, Kucinich and Mosely Braun are all to the left of Dean. And they would still be better Presidents than Bush. Hell... McCain would be a better President than Bush. He's to the left of Bush too.
If anything Dean is the McCain of the Democratic party.
You attack my rhetoric then systematically assume teh wrong reading of what I said.
i did not say racist!
I am talking about the free trade stipulations appended to every IMF loan. I am talking about the growth of "Tax Free Zones" promoted by the IMF loan agreements and all of the related items pushed by these loans . . . as well as the subsidization of American produce and exports
These things are contrary to [edit: balanced human centered Trade] and are bad for people and developing countries
as far as benefitting the powerful . . . clearly Bush is only watching his own arse here . . . he doesn't care how much the idea of tariffs runs counter to his espoused conservative Lessez Faire philosophy he merely wants to maintain support in Penn and Ohio and retain lobbyist money . . .
And yes... the extreme left sold out people . . . but thoughtful allocation of resources and regulation is not selling out the common man as much as blind corporatism and the IMF
I see they sold them out.. but less.. and they sold them out, but to someone other than the IMF and corporate interests?? NAFTA was signed by Clinton and the Democratic Congress in 1993. The Republicans didn't even take the house until 1994. How is it that only the "extreme left" sold them out?
Likewise when Bush wants to maintain the support of Ohio and Penn then he is "watching out for his own arse." What is it then when Dean declares he is for free trade and then declares he never would have lifted the tariffs, acting unilaterally, and using U.S. strength to defy the E.U. and the WTO?
It's getting deep in here...the same actions yet one is a saint and the other satan with them.
Bush was very acceptable to me at first. I was actually "proud" of him in the aftermath of 9/11. I completely supported the war in Afghanistan. I believed him when he said Saddam was an imminent threat. But then he betrayed my trust as an American and now he must go. This notion that any Republican president will be despised by the left is completely erroneous. Every president has a clean slate to win over the public's trust. This president and his chronies on the hill, unfortunatley, are so anti-Democrat it's utterly disgusting.
The Republican marketing machine has America convinced that this is a slam-dunk election. The more they repeat it the more the "sleepwalkers" believe it and therefore don't bother to go to the polling sites. At this point, if John F. Kennedy came back from the dead and was running for president Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would be slamming him daily for being an uber-leftist New England white boy.
I believe in Dean's grassroots movement. I think there is a phenomenon brewing that could surprise everyone come election day. However, I believe the Republican marketing machine will do everything in its power to dilute the word "grassroots" to the point that it no longer has meaning. By the time they're done with destroying the definition of "grassroots" it will no longer have any resonance with the American people.
Mark my words, Rove and the rest will turn the word "grassroots" into another sub-definition of the term "campaign". Hence, any Republican running a campaign is being run by the "grassroots". The Republican marketing machine is so powerful that they will effectively STEAL the term from the Dean campaign.
Bush was very acceptable to me at first. I was actually "proud" of him in the aftermath of 9/11. I completely supported the war in Afghanistan. I believed him when he said Saddam was an imminent threat. But then he betrayed my trust as an American and now he must go. This notion that any Republican president will be despised by the left is completely erroneous. Every president has a clean slate to win over the public's trust. This president and his chronies on the hill, unfortunatley, are so anti-Democrat it's utterly disgusting.
The Republican marketing machine has America convinced that this is a slam-dunk election. The more they repeat it the more the "sleepwalkers" believe it and therefore don't bother to go to the polling sites. At this point, if John F. Kennedy came back from the dead and was running for president Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would be slamming him daily for being an uber-leftist New England white boy.
I believe in Dean's grassroots movement. I think there is a phenomenon brewing that could surprise everyone come election day. However, I believe the Republican marketing machine will do everything in its power to dilute the word "grassroots" to the point that it no longer has meaning. By the time they're done with destroying the definition of "grassroots" it will no longer have any resonance with the American people.
Mark my words, Rove and the rest will turn the word "grassroots" into another sub-definition of the term "campaign". Hence, any Republican running a campaign is being run by the "grassroots". The Republican marketing machine is so powerful that they will effectively STEAL the term from the Dean campaign.
Watch. It's already started
Again I find it amazing that the same actions are somehow give such different motive when applied to a different party. Dean has a lot of people flocking to his campaign. He asks those people to recruit other people. I'm sure he has planned goals of money raised, people recruited, people contacted and so forth.
This is "good" campaigning and grassroots. When Bush does it it is bad campaigning and not grassroots. There was a mention in an article here about the Bush campaign that they were going door to door, not relying on 30 second spots, trying harder than ever to sign up voters, get them to the polling place on election day, and instead of informing them via 30 second spots, have someone actually give them face time door to door or at a minimum with a phone call.
Yet somehow these are given sinister motive when it is the Bush campaign doing it.
Your whole first paragraph regarding a president winning over the left and starting with a clean slate is a lie. All I have heard since day one of the Bush presidency from the left is that he "stole" the election. That he is illegitimate, etc. Perhaps in some special fantasyland that is called a clean slate, but in my book that is called lunging for the throat from day one.
The left has moved since the Clinton days. Clinton wasn't portrayed as "evil" for Don't Ask Don't Tell, not acting on water treatment until he signed an executive order the last hours of his administration, signing NAFTA, etc. Bush when carrying on the same policies is suddenly Satan even when adding more to federal education funding, passing a prescription drug benefit, etc. Sure he didn't add as much spending as some wanted, but that doesn't make him the devil, evil or trashing our nation.
Again I find it amazing that the same actions are somehow give such different motive when applied to a different party. Dean has a lot of people flocking to his campaign. He asks those people to recruit other people. I'm sure he has planned goals of money raised, people recruited, people contacted and so forth.
This is "good" campaigning and grassroots. When Bush does it it is bad campaigning and not grassroots. There was a mention in an article here about the Bush campaign that they were going door to door, not relying on 30 second spots, trying harder than ever to sign up voters, get them to the polling place on election day, and instead of informing them via 30 second spots, have someone actually give them face time door to door or at a minimum with a phone call.
Yet somehow these are given sinister motive when it is the Bush campaign doing it.
Your whole first paragraph regarding a president winning over the left and starting with a clean slate is a lie. All I have heard since day one of the Bush presidency from the left is that he "stole" the election. That he is illegitimate, etc. Perhaps in some special fantasyland that is called a clean slate, but in my book that is called lunging for the throat from day one.
The left has moved since the Clinton days. Clinton wasn't portrayed as "evil" for Don't Ask Don't Tell, not acting on water treatment until he signed an executive order the last hours of his administration, signing NAFTA, etc. Bush when carrying on the same policies is suddenly Satan even when adding more to federal education funding, passing a prescription drug benefit, etc. Sure he didn't add as much spending as some wanted, but that doesn't make him the devil, evil or trashing our nation.
I don't think you even my post. How is having someone from the campaign personally come to your door your idea of sleepwalking through the campaign?
You are the one naive enough to believe that Dean doesn't control or set goals for his campaign. You think of him as just the guy who caught the wave of discontent and is surfing it. So again when Bush has an organization that works with and down to the personal level, that is grassroots.
The funniest thing of all is how Bush is constantly portrayed as an idiot yet people mock his campaign for having so many goals, reports in about activities, timelines, deadlines, etc. Yep that sounds like a guy who has no clue and no intellect to me.
Yes Dean has already forgone matching funds because he has no idea where his money is coming from, or if it is going to come.
Yes Dean has already forgone matching funds because he has no idea where his money is coming from, or if it is going to come.
So that's why Dean didn't opt for the FMF! Silly me, I thought it was because you can't campaign effectively against a fundraising *machine* like Bush with that kind of handicap.
Here. It's an article from Harper's about how Bush's fundraising machine works.
I don't think you even my post. How is having someone from the campaign personally come to your door your idea of sleepwalking through the campaign?
You are the one naive enough to believe that Dean doesn't control or set goals for his campaign. You think of him as just the guy who caught the wave of discontent and is surfing it. So again when Bush has an organization that works with and down to the personal level, that is grassroots.
The funniest thing of all is how Bush is constantly portrayed as an idiot yet people mock his campaign for having so many goals, reports in about activities, timelines, deadlines, etc. Yep that sounds like a guy who has no clue and no intellect to me.
Yes Dean has already forgone matching funds because he has no idea where his money is coming from, or if it is going to come.
Get a clue.
Nick
Sorry. Doesn't stick. Grassroots works from the bottom up. Not like GWB's campaign this year which works from the top down. Big difference. There are no subtleties or gray areas here. It's either a grassroots movement or it is not.
Grassroots is when "the people" decide to do something, NOT when the party tells them too. Having the GOP send out soldiers to sign up new voters is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the people seeking the candidate out on their own. What a crock!
Your team wouldn't even be considering this term if it weren't for Howard Dean. This is the most disingenuous notion to come from the Bush campaign headquarters yet and further evidence that you have absolutely no ideas what's truly going on in America right now.
From The Washington Post :
Quote:
Organization alone cannot elect Bush to a second term. Given the reality that the president's campaign team cannot control such potentially decisive factors as the economy or events in Iraq, officials are determined to maximize their advantage in areas they can control. Rarely has a reelection committee begun organizing so early or intensively -- or with the kind of determination to hold state party and campaign officials, and their volunteers, accountable for meeting the goals of the Bush team.
In Ohio, for example, more than 70 elected officials and volunteer workers dial into a conference call every other Wednesday at 7 p.m. to report on their efforts to recruit leaders and voters, and to hear updates from Bush's campaign headquarters in Arlington. Roll is called, which initially surprised participants used to less regimented political operations.
Roll call? Accountability for sign-up quotas? This is not how the Dean campaign is ran. Not even remotely.
A true, authentic "grassroots" movement does not require regimented quotas and deadlines. The movement itself is highly motivated and often surpasses expectations without such Gestapo tactics. Witness the recent phenomenon of true, authentic grassroots members constantly outraising funds that surpass the Dean campaign's expectations. You can mock all you want, but it's real and it's palpable.
Quote:
Republican officials say these efforts are necessary to counteract voter mobilization by Democrats and their allies in organized labor and liberal interest groups, who plan to spend substantially more than $100 million on get-out-the-vote efforts.
Although Republicans have their own network of outside groups, from the National Rifle Association and the National Federation of Independent Business to the Christian Coalition, GOP strategists say privately that none of them comes close to matching the resources, sophistication or fealty of organized labor and liberal groups.
"...none of them comes close to matching the sources..." That's f*cking funny!
Also, I noticed the GWB's blog doesn't allow its readers to post comments. There apparently is no forum either. The Dean campaign reads what their membership posts constantly. Several fantastic ideas have emerged from the blog. This will only strengthen the candidate. GWB's site appears to be fearful of opening up its blog to comments. Perhaps they're afraid of Trolls running amok. Oh, well.
What's next? Will GWB starting ending his stump speeches with, "You have the power!" It wouldn't surprise me.
Comments
Lucky enough for dean he is closer to the middle than people think so he just have to speak up about his politic after he has won the primary (not that I hope he does. I still hope for Clark)
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
And just how "acceptable" has Bush been to the left?
Quit your whining and start figuring out why Dean's a weak candidate. Btw, I think Dean will probably do a LOT better in the general election than many think but he still will probably lose.
On your first question, Bush was very acceptable to me at first. I was actually "proud" of him in the aftermath of 9/11. I completely supported the war in Afghanistan. I believed him when he said Saddam was an imminent threat. But then he betrayed my trust as an American and now he must go. This notion that any Republican president will be despised by the left is completely erroneous. Every president has a clean slate to win over the public's trust. This president and his chronies on the hill, unfortunatley, are so anti-Democrat it's utterly disgusting.
On your second question I'm not whining. Just stating the obvious. The Republican marketing machine has you and everyone else convinced that this is a slam-dunk election. The more they repeat it the more the "sleepwalkers" believe it and therefore don't bother to go to the polling sites. At this point, if John F. Kennedy came back from the dead and was running for president Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would be slamming him daily for being an uber-leftist New England white boy.
I believe in Dean's grassroots movement. I think there is a phenomenon brewing that could surprise everyone come election day. However, I believe the Republican marketing machine will do everything in its power to dilute the word "grassroots" to the point that it no longer has meaning. By the time they're done with destroying the definition of "grassroots" it will no longer have any resonance with the American people.
Mark my words, Rove and the rest will turn the word "grassroots" into another sub-definition of the term "campaign". Hence, any Republican running a campaign is being run by the "grassroots". The Republican marketing machine is so powerful that they will effectively STEAL the term from the Dean campaign.
Watch. It's already started.
Please help kick Bush out of the White House,
Vote Wesley Clark for President 2004
Fellowship
Originally posted by chu_bakka
When is SDW ever right about anything? hehe.
Dean is a strong candidate. Dean would stomp Bush in a debate.
It'll be fun to see Bush try to defend his policies when Dean goes after him face to face.
You know Chewie I've been thinking about this as well. Personally, I can't wait for the first debate between Dean and Bush. This won't be like Bush versus Gore where all Bush had to do was not fall down. Gore was so trumped as a clandestine debater that anything less was considered a failure.
This will different. Many Republicans are starting to say things like, "Deans not as smart or bright as liberals think he is", etc. They think he's a hot-head who's going to lose his cool. No, Dean is going to hold the president's feet to the fire on a laundry list of massive f*ck-ups. The President is not going to be able to just chuckle, wink at someone off camera, smirk and then give gray answers like "fuzzy math." Dean's going to hold him down and I can't wait!
Originally posted by chu_bakka
When is SDW ever right about anything? hehe.
Dean is a strong candidate. Dean would stomp Bush in a debate.
It'll be fun to see Bush try to defend his policies when Dean goes after him face to face.
That kind of underestimation of Bush is EXACTLY why gore lost the third debate to him. Bush is far more intelligent thatn he appears to be, and he also far more prepared than any Dem will admit.
As far as Dean threads, maybe we could have another anti-conservative, anti-bush, anti-republican, anti-cheney, rumsfeld, ashcroft or whomever thread? I love how we can have a thousand of those, but I get a wink from a moderator when i post this. typical.
Dean is going to lose big. And he is no centrist at all. That's a crock. He is ultra left, which is why the Dem party is in shambles right now. There's a war in the party between the DNC and the Deanites. Dean is winning. Clark and the Clintons are losing. The Democratic party will not continue to be a major political force if it continues the direction it is going. Mark my words.
Conservatism is dead.
It's as valid as saying liberalism is dead.
Besides that.
DEAN IS A CENTRIST.
Kerry, Kucinich and Mosely Braun are all to the left of Dean. And they would still be better Presidents than Bush. Hell... McCain would be a better President than Bush. He's to the left of Bush too.
If anything Dean is the McCain of the Democratic party.
Bush ran as moderate. Governed as conservative.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
When is SDW ever right about anything? hehe.
Dean is a strong candidate. Dean would stomp Bush in a debate.
It'll be fun to see Bush try to defend his policies when Dean goes after him face to face.
SDW is always wrong. The dow isn't 10,000. Unemployment isn't going down. Economic growth isn't going up.
That SDW, he lives in a fantasy world.
You guys should get religion, because Dean needs prayer.
Nick
Dean/Bush have/had the popular emotional support, the 'feelgood' support. Clark/McCain have/had the quieter, more reasoned support.
And every time, passionate and loud will trump quiet and reasoned.
Ah well.
This is the official Howard Dean thread
Enjoy ! 8)
Originally posted by pfflam
You attack my rhetoric then systematically assume teh wrong reading of what I said.
i did not say racist!
I am talking about the free trade stipulations appended to every IMF loan. I am talking about the growth of "Tax Free Zones" promoted by the IMF loan agreements and all of the related items pushed by these loans . . . as well as the subsidization of American produce and exports
These things are contrary to [edit: balanced human centered Trade] and are bad for people and developing countries
as far as benefitting the powerful . . . clearly Bush is only watching his own arse here . . . he doesn't care how much the idea of tariffs runs counter to his espoused conservative Lessez Faire philosophy he merely wants to maintain support in Penn and Ohio and retain lobbyist money . . .
And yes... the extreme left sold out people . . . but thoughtful allocation of resources and regulation is not selling out the common man as much as blind corporatism and the IMF
I see they sold them out.. but less.. and they sold them out, but to someone other than the IMF and corporate interests?? NAFTA was signed by Clinton and the Democratic Congress in 1993. The Republicans didn't even take the house until 1994. How is it that only the "extreme left" sold them out?
Likewise when Bush wants to maintain the support of Ohio and Penn then he is "watching out for his own arse." What is it then when Dean declares he is for free trade and then declares he never would have lifted the tariffs, acting unilaterally, and using U.S. strength to defy the E.U. and the WTO?
It's getting deep in here...the same actions yet one is a saint and the other satan with them.
Nick
The Republican marketing machine has America convinced that this is a slam-dunk election. The more they repeat it the more the "sleepwalkers" believe it and therefore don't bother to go to the polling sites. At this point, if John F. Kennedy came back from the dead and was running for president Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would be slamming him daily for being an uber-leftist New England white boy.
I believe in Dean's grassroots movement. I think there is a phenomenon brewing that could surprise everyone come election day. However, I believe the Republican marketing machine will do everything in its power to dilute the word "grassroots" to the point that it no longer has meaning. By the time they're done with destroying the definition of "grassroots" it will no longer have any resonance with the American people.
Mark my words, Rove and the rest will turn the word "grassroots" into another sub-definition of the term "campaign". Hence, any Republican running a campaign is being run by the "grassroots". The Republican marketing machine is so powerful that they will effectively STEAL the term from the Dean campaign.
Watch. It's already started
Originally posted by Northgate
Bush was very acceptable to me at first. I was actually "proud" of him in the aftermath of 9/11. I completely supported the war in Afghanistan. I believed him when he said Saddam was an imminent threat. But then he betrayed my trust as an American and now he must go. This notion that any Republican president will be despised by the left is completely erroneous. Every president has a clean slate to win over the public's trust. This president and his chronies on the hill, unfortunatley, are so anti-Democrat it's utterly disgusting.
The Republican marketing machine has America convinced that this is a slam-dunk election. The more they repeat it the more the "sleepwalkers" believe it and therefore don't bother to go to the polling sites. At this point, if John F. Kennedy came back from the dead and was running for president Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would be slamming him daily for being an uber-leftist New England white boy.
I believe in Dean's grassroots movement. I think there is a phenomenon brewing that could surprise everyone come election day. However, I believe the Republican marketing machine will do everything in its power to dilute the word "grassroots" to the point that it no longer has meaning. By the time they're done with destroying the definition of "grassroots" it will no longer have any resonance with the American people.
Mark my words, Rove and the rest will turn the word "grassroots" into another sub-definition of the term "campaign". Hence, any Republican running a campaign is being run by the "grassroots". The Republican marketing machine is so powerful that they will effectively STEAL the term from the Dean campaign.
Watch. It's already started
Again I find it amazing that the same actions are somehow give such different motive when applied to a different party. Dean has a lot of people flocking to his campaign. He asks those people to recruit other people. I'm sure he has planned goals of money raised, people recruited, people contacted and so forth.
This is "good" campaigning and grassroots. When Bush does it it is bad campaigning and not grassroots. There was a mention in an article here about the Bush campaign that they were going door to door, not relying on 30 second spots, trying harder than ever to sign up voters, get them to the polling place on election day, and instead of informing them via 30 second spots, have someone actually give them face time door to door or at a minimum with a phone call.
Yet somehow these are given sinister motive when it is the Bush campaign doing it.
Your whole first paragraph regarding a president winning over the left and starting with a clean slate is a lie. All I have heard since day one of the Bush presidency from the left is that he "stole" the election. That he is illegitimate, etc. Perhaps in some special fantasyland that is called a clean slate, but in my book that is called lunging for the throat from day one.
The left has moved since the Clinton days. Clinton wasn't portrayed as "evil" for Don't Ask Don't Tell, not acting on water treatment until he signed an executive order the last hours of his administration, signing NAFTA, etc. Bush when carrying on the same policies is suddenly Satan even when adding more to federal education funding, passing a prescription drug benefit, etc. Sure he didn't add as much spending as some wanted, but that doesn't make him the devil, evil or trashing our nation.
Here is Edwards take on it. We Can't Win on Anger
Maybe someone here will actually not question the source since he happens to be a Democrat.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Again I find it amazing that the same actions are somehow give such different motive when applied to a different party. Dean has a lot of people flocking to his campaign. He asks those people to recruit other people. I'm sure he has planned goals of money raised, people recruited, people contacted and so forth.
This is "good" campaigning and grassroots. When Bush does it it is bad campaigning and not grassroots. There was a mention in an article here about the Bush campaign that they were going door to door, not relying on 30 second spots, trying harder than ever to sign up voters, get them to the polling place on election day, and instead of informing them via 30 second spots, have someone actually give them face time door to door or at a minimum with a phone call.
Yet somehow these are given sinister motive when it is the Bush campaign doing it.
Your whole first paragraph regarding a president winning over the left and starting with a clean slate is a lie. All I have heard since day one of the Bush presidency from the left is that he "stole" the election. That he is illegitimate, etc. Perhaps in some special fantasyland that is called a clean slate, but in my book that is called lunging for the throat from day one.
The left has moved since the Clinton days. Clinton wasn't portrayed as "evil" for Don't Ask Don't Tell, not acting on water treatment until he signed an executive order the last hours of his administration, signing NAFTA, etc. Bush when carrying on the same policies is suddenly Satan even when adding more to federal education funding, passing a prescription drug benefit, etc. Sure he didn't add as much spending as some wanted, but that doesn't make him the devil, evil or trashing our nation.
Here is Edwards take on it. We Can't Win on Anger
Maybe someone here will actually not question the source since he happens to be a Democrat.
Nick
You missed the point.
Originally posted by Northgate
You missed the point.
I don't think you even my post. How is having someone from the campaign personally come to your door your idea of sleepwalking through the campaign?
You are the one naive enough to believe that Dean doesn't control or set goals for his campaign. You think of him as just the guy who caught the wave of discontent and is surfing it. So again when Bush has an organization that works with and down to the personal level, that is grassroots.
The funniest thing of all is how Bush is constantly portrayed as an idiot yet people mock his campaign for having so many goals, reports in about activities, timelines, deadlines, etc. Yep that sounds like a guy who has no clue and no intellect to me.
Yes Dean has already forgone matching funds because he has no idea where his money is coming from, or if it is going to come.
Get a clue.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Yes Dean has already forgone matching funds because he has no idea where his money is coming from, or if it is going to come.
So that's why Dean didn't opt for the FMF! Silly me, I thought it was because you can't campaign effectively against a fundraising *machine* like Bush with that kind of handicap.
Here. It's an article from Harper's about how Bush's fundraising machine works.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by trumptman
I don't think you even my post. How is having someone from the campaign personally come to your door your idea of sleepwalking through the campaign?
You are the one naive enough to believe that Dean doesn't control or set goals for his campaign. You think of him as just the guy who caught the wave of discontent and is surfing it. So again when Bush has an organization that works with and down to the personal level, that is grassroots.
The funniest thing of all is how Bush is constantly portrayed as an idiot yet people mock his campaign for having so many goals, reports in about activities, timelines, deadlines, etc. Yep that sounds like a guy who has no clue and no intellect to me.
Yes Dean has already forgone matching funds because he has no idea where his money is coming from, or if it is going to come.
Get a clue.
Nick
Sorry. Doesn't stick. Grassroots works from the bottom up. Not like GWB's campaign this year which works from the top down. Big difference. There are no subtleties or gray areas here. It's either a grassroots movement or it is not.
Grassroots is when "the people" decide to do something, NOT when the party tells them too. Having the GOP send out soldiers to sign up new voters is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the people seeking the candidate out on their own. What a crock!
Your team wouldn't even be considering this term if it weren't for Howard Dean. This is the most disingenuous notion to come from the Bush campaign headquarters yet and further evidence that you have absolutely no ideas what's truly going on in America right now.
From The Washington Post :
Organization alone cannot elect Bush to a second term. Given the reality that the president's campaign team cannot control such potentially decisive factors as the economy or events in Iraq, officials are determined to maximize their advantage in areas they can control. Rarely has a reelection committee begun organizing so early or intensively -- or with the kind of determination to hold state party and campaign officials, and their volunteers, accountable for meeting the goals of the Bush team.
In Ohio, for example, more than 70 elected officials and volunteer workers dial into a conference call every other Wednesday at 7 p.m. to report on their efforts to recruit leaders and voters, and to hear updates from Bush's campaign headquarters in Arlington. Roll is called, which initially surprised participants used to less regimented political operations.
Roll call? Accountability for sign-up quotas? This is not how the Dean campaign is ran. Not even remotely.
A true, authentic "grassroots" movement does not require regimented quotas and deadlines. The movement itself is highly motivated and often surpasses expectations without such Gestapo tactics. Witness the recent phenomenon of true, authentic grassroots members constantly outraising funds that surpass the Dean campaign's expectations. You can mock all you want, but it's real and it's palpable.
Republican officials say these efforts are necessary to counteract voter mobilization by Democrats and their allies in organized labor and liberal interest groups, who plan to spend substantially more than $100 million on get-out-the-vote efforts.
Although Republicans have their own network of outside groups, from the National Rifle Association and the National Federation of Independent Business to the Christian Coalition, GOP strategists say privately that none of them comes close to matching the resources, sophistication or fealty of organized labor and liberal groups.
"...none of them comes close to matching the sources..." That's f*cking funny!
Also, I noticed the GWB's blog doesn't allow its readers to post comments. There apparently is no forum either. The Dean campaign reads what their membership posts constantly. Several fantastic ideas have emerged from the blog. This will only strengthen the candidate. GWB's site appears to be fearful of opening up its blog to comments. Perhaps they're afraid of Trolls running amok. Oh, well.
What's next? Will GWB starting ending his stump speeches with, "You have the power!" It wouldn't surprise me.