Dean, splitting the party, pushing Jesus
Dean loves Jesus
Of course we all know this would never be a calculated political strategy. Why I saw so many calls in the blogs for a Bat for Jesus and also for Dean to tell people about his religious beliefs.
Especially from the Dykes for Dean. (Their name, not mine for you easily offended types.)
Meanwhile we have William Safire suggesting that Dean might even split the Democratic party in two. Dean won't take second while kicking the DLC to pieces
Take a look at this part in particular.
Another link with some more quotable fireworks.
It's the 4th
So what do you think? It seems to me every time Dean attempts to interact with more conservative Democrats, or southern Democrats, it comes off badly and insulting. Now he appears ready to split the Democratic party in two by insulting the DLC and most centrist Democrats.
There was another column I read about how Gore was redeeming himself and getting the jump on 2008. It spoke about Nixon losing very narrowly to JFK. The election was very close and there were allegations of tampering regarding the voting. Rather than drag it out, Nixon conceded. The next election the Republicans were looking for a firebrand who would fire them up to win back the stolen election. They chose, because Nixon endorsed, Barry Goldwater, who went on to lose spectacularly. Nixon came back in 1968, and the rest so they say is history.
Gore has helped mainstream Dean, but it appears almost daily that Dean has a core of support and then alienates beyond that. Did Gore endorse him quickly to insure that the Dean-eacs would owe him a favor in 2008, knowing he would lose in 2004.
Thoughts, opinions?
Nick
Of course we all know this would never be a calculated political strategy. Why I saw so many calls in the blogs for a Bat for Jesus and also for Dean to tell people about his religious beliefs.
Especially from the Dykes for Dean. (Their name, not mine for you easily offended types.)Meanwhile we have William Safire suggesting that Dean might even split the Democratic party in two. Dean won't take second while kicking the DLC to pieces
Take a look at this part in particular.
Quote:
Following this week's he-said-he-said, the unforgiving Dean slammed Clark's Clintonites and their ideological home, the Democratic Leadership Council. Updating his early declaration, Dean called for unity by deriding the D.L.C. as "sort of the Republican part of the Democratic Party ? the Republican wing of the Democratic Party."
Stung, the D.L.C., now headed by Senator Evan Bayh and the Bill Clinton guru Al From, complained online about Dean's "insulting charge of crypto-Republicanism" and disapproved of "the brain-dead tactic" and "incoherent rage" of his followers.
Following this week's he-said-he-said, the unforgiving Dean slammed Clark's Clintonites and their ideological home, the Democratic Leadership Council. Updating his early declaration, Dean called for unity by deriding the D.L.C. as "sort of the Republican part of the Democratic Party ? the Republican wing of the Democratic Party."
Stung, the D.L.C., now headed by Senator Evan Bayh and the Bill Clinton guru Al From, complained online about Dean's "insulting charge of crypto-Republicanism" and disapproved of "the brain-dead tactic" and "incoherent rage" of his followers.
Another link with some more quotable fireworks.
It's the 4th
Quote:
"Does he realize when he's saying that he's pushing Bill Clinton, a hundred members of Congress, countless governors and mayors around America, state officials, who are members of the DLC and the new Democratic movement out of the Democratic Party?" Lieberman told reporters today in Manchester, N.H.
"Howard Dean thinks he can conquer by dividing, but the truth is, in politics you win by uniting," he said.
"Does he realize when he's saying that he's pushing Bill Clinton, a hundred members of Congress, countless governors and mayors around America, state officials, who are members of the DLC and the new Democratic movement out of the Democratic Party?" Lieberman told reporters today in Manchester, N.H.
"Howard Dean thinks he can conquer by dividing, but the truth is, in politics you win by uniting," he said.
So what do you think? It seems to me every time Dean attempts to interact with more conservative Democrats, or southern Democrats, it comes off badly and insulting. Now he appears ready to split the Democratic party in two by insulting the DLC and most centrist Democrats.
There was another column I read about how Gore was redeeming himself and getting the jump on 2008. It spoke about Nixon losing very narrowly to JFK. The election was very close and there were allegations of tampering regarding the voting. Rather than drag it out, Nixon conceded. The next election the Republicans were looking for a firebrand who would fire them up to win back the stolen election. They chose, because Nixon endorsed, Barry Goldwater, who went on to lose spectacularly. Nixon came back in 1968, and the rest so they say is history.
Gore has helped mainstream Dean, but it appears almost daily that Dean has a core of support and then alienates beyond that. Did Gore endorse him quickly to insure that the Dean-eacs would owe him a favor in 2008, knowing he would lose in 2004.
Thoughts, opinions?
Nick
Comments
From Dean, under attack, revives feisty style (NYT)
Most recent attacks have capitalized on Dr. Dean's candid comments, like saying Saddam Hussein's capture did not make the United States safer, acknowledging that he would need to "plug a hole" in his résumé with a running mate experienced in foreign policy and calling members of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council Republicans.
Those are not slips of the tongue. They are calculated to appeal to his core constituency of disenchanted Democrats who have proved in the past that the attacks on him only stoke their ardor.
Yeah!
Originally posted by trumptman Nixon conceded. The next election the Republicans were looking for a firebrand who would fire them up to win back the stolen election. They chose, because Nixon endorsed, Barry Goldwater, who went on to lose spectacularly. Nixon came back in 1968, and the rest so they say is history.
Yes! That is exactly what is happening! Gore in 2008!
You're right I'm just making it up.
I mean I must be listening to right wing, echo chamber sources like ...
The New Republic
Democratic Underground
Alternet
The LA Times
New Democrats Online 1
New Democrats Online 2
Obviously it's just some Republican talking points only being pushed by Republican talk show hosts and Fox.
Nick
Dean the dodger
Nick
Dean should lay down and stop the divisiveness.
He appeals to people who like to imagine themselves as 'radicals' because they like Tom And Jerry's
He'd do everybody a good spell if he decided to be Clark's VP
That way his campaign to 'reclaim' teh Democratic party wouldn't further destroy the party he claims to represent
By next year, no one will bring up what he says now except maybe Republicans, but that's fairly easy to spin at that point.
thing is, for all the backing away that politicians like to do, it's much harder to be backing away from "angry" stances, and the "take back your country" types of statement.
you back away from that path and your core support is going to cry foul. in this case, that core of support is also an angry, vocal group of their own. hard to shut them up and make them go away.
although i suppose for all the talk, the vast majority of the angry people are sheep just the same, and will swallow this new Dean when the time comes.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Dean can easily afford to play this game now. He's still up for the Democratic party nomination. ....
His mouth seems to be getting him into trouble in a way that will sound bite him back someday. He's too reckless.
Spin Sanity on Dean.
Dean's not-so-straight talk on Bush and the war
It's up to the independent media to paint him one way or another. Right now, he's painted as the guy who takes the opposite stance from Bush's Republicans, so he appears reactionary. If that continues, he won't appeal to a lot of independent voters, moderates and/or undecided voters because he won't have an identity away from Bush. (It's like that Gateway commerical that compares their computer to the iMac and shows the iMac in the spot.)
But I wonder if anything he says now aside from the war issue will be heard again next autumn. I would bet he's has a free pass on other issues right now.
His stance on partial birth abortions is a good example. In one instance he says that these procedures are only done in very rare instances, and only to save the mother's life. Then he says a position against partial birth abortion will affect "countless" women... and then goes back again and notes how exceedingly rare the procedure is.
Crap like this insults my intelligence and makes me want to not even investigate Dean's positions further. Also, you can telll by looking over all the topics covered under "the Dean record", where he really stands vs. where he says he stands. What he really is focused on, IOW.
A Dean blast from the past.
From Overlawyered.com
Howard Dean letter to the editor
An eagle-eyed reader draws our attention to the June 29, 1988 New York Times, where the then-Lieutenant Governor of Vermont writes to the editor about a Times story on large damages awards in a libel case.
To the Editor:
Randall Bezanson and Gilbert Cranberg detailed a situation that I hope will get far worse. As a physician, I have been frustrated for years by the reluctance of state legislatures and the United States Congress to deal with liability problems of all kinds.
I have long maintained that until the legal profession and the news media are also afflicted with the increasingly severe consequences of a tort system that benefits few people outside the legal profession, there will be no return to a fair and reasonable system of justice.
The trends toward lawyers suing one another for malpractice and toward outrageous-size punitive damages in libel cases give me hope that the crisis in our tort system may finally come to the attention of those who can make this a public issue and improve the situation for all of us who require liability insurance to do business.
HOWARD DEAN, M.D.
Montpelier, Vt., June 17, 1988
The events of the past fifteen years should make Dr. Dean an even more enthusiastic proponent of tort reform; his Dean for America web site is somewhat more neutral.
Now that trial lawywers are funding the democrats we'll have to see if Dean flops on his position.
Originally posted by Moogs
If Dean wants to create a split in the Democratic party / create the roots for a new one through next the upcoming election process, it wouldn't bother me. Especially if what we were left with was Left, Middle and Right (old Democrats being middle, with all the hard-core liberals going with Dean). The guy certainly has plenty to say, if his web site is any indication. Though I will say that there is some double-speak / veiled mud-slinging in there.
His stance on partial birth abortions is a good example. In one instance he says that these procedures are only done in very rare instances, and only to save the mother's life. Then he says a position against partial birth abortion will affect "countless" women... and then goes back again and notes how exceedingly rare the procedure is.
Crap like this insults my intelligence and makes me want to not even investigate Dean's positions further. Also, you can telll by looking over all the topics covered under "the Dean record", where he really stands vs. where he says he stands. What he really is focused on, IOW.
The only flaw with this is you assume the Democratic party occupies the political middle when it is actually to the left. Both parties are about 45% of the electorate. Dean taking 23-25% of that total 45% would effectively hand Republicans not only the presidential election but many other offices as well.
It would be like this
Bush 45%
Dean 25%
Dems 20%
Buchanan had this sort of angry insurgency within the Republican party and basically damaged the party. When you couple that with Perot who was also a nationalist/fiscal conservative, and it basically handed Clinton 8 years. (You do remember Clinton never had even 50% of the vote.)
Now something similar is happening on the left. It was done in part by Nader. It is threatening to grow even more with Dean.
Nick
I'm still leaning towards Clark.
Originally posted by trumptman
The only flaw with this is you assume the Democratic party occupies the political middle when it is actually to the left. Both parties are about 45% of the electorate. Dean taking 23-25% of that total 45% would effectively hand Republicans not only the presidential election but many other offices as well.
It would be like this
Bush 45%
Dean 25%
Dems 20%
Buchanan had this sort of angry insurgency within the Republican party and basically damaged the party. When you couple that with Perot who was also a nationalist/fiscal conservative, and it basically handed Clinton 8 years. (You do remember Clinton never had even 50% of the vote.)
Now something similar is happening on the left. It was done in part by Nader. It is threatening to grow even more with Dean.
Nick
The idea of Republican centrism is a joke. Republican centrism died with George HW Bush. Republican centrism died when they proclaimed that Clinton "stole the election" and proceeded to bury him with Blowjobgate.
Republican centrism is yet another round of fake propaganda that the right wants you to believe. Move the goal posts so far to the right, anything in the center will appear far far left. Trumpt reveals his hand by stating, unequivocally, that "The only flaw with this is you assume the Democratic party occupies the political middle when it is actually to the left."
Of course, Trumpt will come out swinging, using all kinds of "evidence" to support his claim that BushCorp is the most centrist administration in the history of the GOP. Which is, of course, absurd.
Trumpt will also claim that Dean's attack on the DLC is proof that he's a leftist radical, further cementing the notion that the DLC is, in point of fact, a "centrist" Democratic organization. You can't have it both ways.
It's only a matter of time before Tumpt, Scott, SDW and the rest start repeating Carl Rove's latest attempt at Hemingway, "Dean is a pessimist."
Let the "pessimism" charade commence in three...two...one....
Then, Trumpt uses an old article about draft dodging, while systematically ignoring his own president's history during Vietnam and being dubbed "The AWOL kid". Again, the disingenuousness and intellectual dishonesty astounds!
Further, Trumpt and his ilk of vile spewing Blame-America's-Ex-Presidents-First club insist on using the "Clinton never had even 50% of the vote" rhetoric when their own president didn't even win the popular vote. Again, the hypocrisy and distortions astounds!
Originally posted by Scott
Moogs gave me a good opening.
A Dean blast from the past.
From Overlawyered.com
Howard Dean letter to the editor
Now that trial lawywers are funding the democrats we'll have to see if Dean flops on his position.
The old "trial lawyers" are what's wrong with America argument. It's been a while since that one resurfaced. Of course, it was only a matter of time because it's the only real lobby that Republicans can demonize.
You know the mantra. ALL TRIALS LAWYERS ARE SCUMBAGS...until you need one.
seems like dean is simply drawing his lines, come hell or high water. i may not agree with where he draws those lines every so often, but at least you know where he stands (well, as much as you know where ANy politician stands based off election campaign statements).