Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I don’t know. Both Dean and Kerry are Yankies. Of course Bush is also from New England but he has Texas convinced he is a yokal.

Here is what I just found out about Dean that has me a bit worried.

—Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe secretly went to all the campaigns a few weeks ago and said that when it was “mathematically clear” that the party had a nominee (a date he estimated would be no later than March 9) he wanted the losers to drop out, release their delegates and endorse the presumptive winner. Dean refused. He is going to the convention with his delegates pledged to him no matter what.

I know that US News is a conservative biased new source.

If he is not going to drop out if the party leadership tells him to and he is going to fight all the way to the convention floor that would be just like 1972.

GRRRREAT

I don’t know what to make of that. I wonder whether he suspects MacAuliffe of planning to declare it “mathematically clear” that someone in second place is the presumptive nominee, or some such thing.

Wow, Jake has a good point. If Mcauliff wants to run this thing he better do it from a position in the center. He needs to find a candidate that is more centrist. If he fails to do that, all will be lost for the Democrats. I personally think that Mcauliff and the Clinton old guard are running the party into the ground. That is good news for conservatives far and wide. There still is no coherent party message and the party is clearly in dissaray, also good for conservatives. This is going to get interesting.

I don’t particularly like the idea. I’m a Dean supporter, and I’m in Texas, but I think that anyone that knows anything about Texas politics knows that Dean nor any other Democrat has a chance of beating Bush in 2004 in Texas. I don’t think that there’s any chance we can really fake it either (like Bush tried to pretend that he was competetive in California in 2000 - fortunately, Gore didn’t take the bait). Sure, the ad may help Dean in the primary, but I’d rather he be spending the money somewhere where it makes more of a difference in defeating Bush.

I blogged on this myself a little earlier.

No, this is clever tactics. Very clever tactics.

Dean plans to win the nomination well before March 9. He may even be the presumptive nominee before the first vote is cast.

No one who “analyses” politics — either for money or fun — really gets it at all.

This isn’t about Iraq, or Bush, or even Dean. This is about building a new grassroots, an army of people who will go to war for someone they believe in.

I’m glad no one gets it. I really am. Means they won’t be able to copy it. But I guarantee you that, with Dean the nominee presumptive, every Democrat will run the Dean way next year.

Think of it as campaign finance reform in action. Get people excited, get them believing, give them the power, get out of the way.

“I personally think that Mcauliff and the Clinton old guard are running the party into the ground.”

Pete, interesting how you think that it’s the centrist factions who are threatening the Democratic party, because of course centrists are blaming it on Dean! In a Time magazine article about Dean,

The centrist Democratic Leadership Council (d.l.c.), which helped nurture Bill Clinton’s political career, warned last week that the “far left” was taking over the party and pulling it over a cliff. No one had to ask whom the d.l.c.’s chairman, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, was referring to when he posited, “Do we want to vent, or do we want to govern?”

I have long questioned whether it’s better to votes for the candidate most in line with one’s views or to vote for one who seems most electable in the general election because any Democrat is better than Bush.

While I’m still not conviced that Dean has everything that’s needed to ultimately win the nomination or the White House, I do see him creating a lasting legacy within the part and presidential campaigns. Other candiates have begun to realize the power of organizing via the Internet and have begun to use Meetup as well as allow for supporters to set up their own web sites like Dean’s campaign does. The power of the internet allows for word to spread and people to organize is way that were unimaginable only a decade ago.

I’m sorry…Dean is far left? That’s just deeply stupid.

If that’s the DLC’s spin, they’re even bigger Bush clones than they appear. The DLC needs to acknowledge their grave irrelevance and get the heck out of the way.

I need to applaud Dean on numerous counts today. Not quite sure where to begin so in no particular order…

First, for making the cover of Newsweek, (right click to open a new window) which hits the stands tomorrow. Not bad at all for a guy that was 2 percent in the polls a few short months ago.

Next, for refusing to take credit for finding and using the Internet. He correctly states in the article that he didn’t find the Internet, the Internet community found him. And that’s what makes it so powerful and sustainable.

Third, airing an ad in Texas (also tomorrow) is a signal to me that he’s in it for the long haul, not that Texas is in play. I’m tempted to refer to the cliche concerning beating around the bush, but will resist. Although his ad will clearly be a sign that Dean has no intention of…well, you know what I mean.

And last, but not least, for rejecting McAuliffe’s attempt at “can’t we all just get along,” particularly at this stage of the game. Instead, McAuliffe should be providing the Gang of Nine with a strategy on how to conduct themselves in a primary race so as not to provide ammunition to the GOP in August. Period. Any talk of giving up delegates - BEFORE ANY HAVE BEEN WON - is ludicrous for ANY candidate to agree with and shame on those who weren’t as honest as Dean about it.

I suggested a while back that a wholistic approach is needed - and I still believe it - but that’s for the candidates and the voters to decide. Not for the hacks, wannabes or political analysts to dictate.

The problem with our current political system is that the political parties end up choosing candidates, sometimes ignoring the candidates using grassroots campaigns and winning the votes of the people.

Dean represents the vote and will of the people, not the votes for a candidate chosen by a party long before election day.

Dean threatens the established candidacy process, because he’s not the Democratic party’s first choice, though he clearly has the most momentum out of all the contenders so far.

Dean is the new Nader. It appears the Democratic party is, yet again deeply divided. That is why he cannot possibly win any election against GWB. If I am wrong I will have to eat my words but I do not believe this election will be close at all. Bush will gain an easy victory. This victory is because of Republican openness.

Dean is in no way the new Nader. Ralph never held a public office in his life. Dean has a career of public service. Ralph made a career out of being an attack dog (albeit for some good causes.) Dean has spent a lifetime focused on governing and healing. Nader is the reason Bush is in the White House today. But Dean will not be the cause if Bush is returned. And it will have nothing to do with openness. We can lay that “victory” squarely at the feet of a voting public so fearful that they’re willing to risk the republic.

Quote:
“If Mcauliff wants to run this thing he better do it from a position in the center. He needs to find a candidate that is more centrist.”

More centrist than a business friendly, budget-balancing, pro-Israel, A-rated by the NRA, NAFTA-supporting scion of Morgan Stanly DEAN Witter, who nonetheless appeals to the left? Just what would be more centrist than that?

Quote:
“It appears the Democratic party is, yet again deeply divided.”

Only on what tactics to use and which individual to have as the candidate. Al From may never get over not getting to be kingmaker, er, losing-candidate-maker, but the vast majority of the party will go along with a winner. Expecting the party to be unified behind a non-incumbent candidate five months before the first primary is ridiculous.

9th wave:
We can lay that “victory” squarely at the feet of a voting public so fearful that they’re willing to risk the republic.
Do you really think that is true? Do you actually think that the republic is threatened?
Dan:
You have changed my mind about Dean being a centrist. What his problem is, is that he doesn’t APPEAR to be a centrist when he is shown on T.V. so I went out and read article after article about him. You are correct. I wonder how much of my misconception of Dean is based on the major networks coverage of him. Now that I am clear about his political positions, I wonder who is behind the constant misrepresentation of him. I know that Hillary and Bill and Mcauliffe really don’t want him to win because the plan is to run Hillary in 2008 and (probably) Bill wants to head the united nations.
Hillary will not want to run against Dean in 08.
Dean’s problem is his visible anger regarding the issues. He is really coming off like a hothead.
I wonder if he will take a softer position in the future.

Quote:
“What his problem is, is that he doesn’t APPEAR to be a centrist when he is shown on T.V.”

You agreed with me on a point, and now I have to agree with you on this one. We have quite a while to fix that, though, and there are a lot of us who frequent the Dean blog, watch for links, and send out minor variations of the “Dean is a centrist” letter to media people who repeat the “too far left” line. On TV he’s not making much of an effort to appear as a centrist; his path to victory is as a centrist who mobilizes the base, and with TV it’s difficult to focus on more than one thing at a time.

Another point about tactics such as running ads in Texas — there’s no real chance (imo) of Dean carrying Texas next November, but there well may be some competitive elections there for the state legislature or for Congress, or both. If an increase in Democratic voter turnout from Dean campaign activities turns even one of those elections, that’s really worth something for my money.

Quote:
“I know that Hillary and Bill and Mcauliffe really don’t want him to win because the plan is to run Hillary in 2008 and (probably) Bill wants to head the united nations.”

I read recently that Dean went and talked to Hillary before deciding to run. I hope that means the Clintons are willing to get behind him if he has a chance. He seems like someone who would do what it took to have them nominally on his side, if not fully involved on his behalf, once he gets the nomination. I think it would be neat to have either or both of them in the administration in some capacity, as long as it didn’t mean losing the NY senate seat.

Where have you heard about the Clintons’ supposed opposition to a Democratic win this time? I’ve read it as a supposedly “everyone knows” sort of thing, and I’ve read it once from Dick Morris. It seems amazingly unlikely to me. They have to know she can’t win, don’t they?

Well I do think it is impossible (right now) for a woman to win the presidency. Not because of men, rather because of women. Women hate Hillary. Men on the right hate her even more. More importantly, women will never elect any woman to office because of thier nature. I think that most people overlook the fact that Hillary and Bill do not care about what reality is. When your ego is as large as Hillary’s is, you don’t see what the reality of the situation is. It is not that she thinks about whether she can’t win in 08. It is that she thinks she can. That is the core reason why the party is being run down by these two. In my view, these two are the worst thing to happen to the Democratic party since
johnson….wait no….Carter. The problem is that there are too many in the party that stand by them. The party could possibly be revitalized by an “honest”
candidate (perhaps Dean can fit that bill) but they have a stranglehold on the party. If people really want to see what is happening from an honest standpoint I would suggest they start listening to right-wing radio. Rush Limbaugh is a genius whether you like him or not, so is Dick Morris. Rush’s political analysis (if you can read between the lines) is forthright, prudent and always accurate when it comes to prediction in the political arena. I think it should be watched closely from at least SOME angles. What a lot of people do not realize is that people like Rush and Morris and Hannity are close friends with a lot of insiders from the DNC in Washington. They are friends that disagree politically but still have dinner together and are good people. I think that too often people would be surprised at the relationships that are formed in Washington in this two party system. For example, did you know that Sean Hannity and Rush are close personal friends of Tom Leykis and Chris Mathews? How about the relationship between The singing senators? Many of whom are political “enemies” publicly but in private are buddies. How about the fact that Bush and Clinton are both Skulls?
There is a lot of information out there. I agree with you that Hillary cannot win. At least not in this decade. There is some credence in the belief that the Democrats have some chance of winning with Dean but I think that it will never happen because of the old guard. What Morris says should always be payed attention. He did get Clinton re-elected after all. Come to think of it, I have never heard him say anything unrealistic or invalid when it comes to political analysis.

I think that I could have summed it up best by saying…
Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.
Didn’t Sun Tzu say that in the ART of WAR?

Reading all these comments, it appears Democrats still have a case of the heebee jeebee’s where Bush is concerned. No need. The big picture is that Bush is going to lose 1/2 to 2 percent of his 2000 vote from the extreme right wing of his party. Damage is done, he is trying to repair now, but, too late.

The jobs situation is not going to abate enough before next summer to give Bush a shoe in on the economy. The economy may be well into recovery, but, the jobless rate always lags behind for 6 to 18 months after the economy is kick started. That is going to cost him 1 to 2 percent of his 2000 votes.

Contrary to polls and popular hype, the majority of Americans remain identified with the Democrat party and allusions to a mass conversion are illusions, to put it mildly.

Bush’s plan to keep the country in a state of alert due to overseas operations has begun to backfire. He is now boxed in by a plan to keep the “Support the Troops” patriotism going through election on the one hand, and a rising body count, low troop morale, and media coverage of troop vocal dissent on the other.

If he withdraws the troops, he will have failed his self-defined mission. If he pursues further conflicts, middle Americans will question the cost. Middle America will accept a body count in defense of America. The body count from Iraq and Afghanistan is no longer in defense of America since no threat there remains, real or perceived.

So what is needed to take advantage of the situation is a candidate who can appeal to the same respected virtues that put Bush in office in the first place. Those were apparent honesty, straight forwardness, a willingness to compromise and get legislation passed (haven’t seen to much of that, but) and sincerity. Some previous executive experience helped Bush and will help a Democratic candidate in the same way. Bush was an outsider with regard to the Beltway, that too gave him appeal.

Such a democratic candidate would be able beat Bush in 04 by 2 to 4 percent of the popular vote (given the absence of any ‘wag the dog’ scenarios. Dean seems to be the one candidate that meets most or all of these criteria from what I have read about him. I would advise Dean however, to reach out to the Green Party… That is crucial, and relatively easily done.

With only very small reductions of 2000 voters from the Bush camp, and a Democratic candidate meeting the criteria above, a win is possible. Forget not, that middle America believes a bi-party government is safer and better for Americans than a one party government. That is going to prove to be a big component in 04, if the Democrats can put forth a viable opponent as discussed.

When will Republicans finally get over it and stop talking about Bill and Hillary Clinton? I’ve given up trying to figure that one out. You can say what you want about Hillary (I voted for her btw) but don’t talk about something you know nothing about.

So as the only female contributor around here (at least that I can tell), I can’t let the following comment from Pete stand unchallenged:

“More importantly, women will never elect any woman to office because of thier nature.”

You meant the “highest” office, right? Since we all know some well-respected women have been elected. But why quibble.

While I begrudgingly concede the point that there is probably little chance of a female president in my lifetime, it’s quite another thing to say it’s not in the nature of women to elect one. That’s how they kept us from voting (and many other things) for centuries. When I read things like that, I realize we haven’t come such a long way after all. And as your friend Ronald Reagan was fond of saying: never say never.

I would not say that the Democratic party is deeply divided. If you look at how Dean and Kerry stand on the issues there is about 80% overlap. Even if Dean fights all the way to the convention and even if he gets the ticket there is enough time for the party to stabilize and unify before the election. I think we want debate and energy among the Democrats. If I look at either the voting record of Kerry or Dean neither on is a bleeding heart hippie liberal and both have a good chance at beating Bush. The question is which one is a safer bet.

Dean just said that Terry McAuliffe Never went around the Canidate and the US News made that up

Pete, if the Clintons were *that* out of touch with reality, they would never have accomplished anything.

>If I look at either the voting record of Kerry or Dean neither on is a bleeding heart hippie liberal and both have a good chance at beating Bush. The question is which one is a safer bet.

No question in my mind.

Governors often make it to the White House; senators don’t, lately. Dean has greater credibility on the record for fiscal responsibility, which is what I think can give the Dems the leverage on the big issue, the economy. Dean is more centrist from what I’ve heard, but is getting the left energized better. I’m not sure, but I think Massachusetts has a worse image nationwide than Cabot-cheese Vermont. Dean has been campaigning to rural voters for decades, and there are a lot of rural voters who I think have been voting Republican out of inertia.

DR Remer: what did you mean by “The big picture is that Bush is going to lose 1/2 to 2 percent of his 2000 vote from the extreme right wing of his party. Damage is done, he is trying to repair now, but, too late.”
What damage?

Dan:
“Pete, if the Clintons were *that* out of touch with reality, they would never have accomplished anything.”
I am talking about thier recent far-left stance on virtually everything and thier alliance with Terry Mcauliffe to drive the party further left. I am not referring to thier past actions. They used to play the “center”. The key word there is play, as noone in thier right mind honestly believes that thier views lie in the center politically.

and finally….9th wave:
It was not “womyn” that elected Hillary, It was men. Far left, old men and power brokers. Most women don’t vote. If you ask a woman about politics (usually) they have no idea who anyone is. Usually they have no idea who is in positions of power. Women, sadly, usually don’t have any knowledge of politics. The one’s who do are the exception that proves the rule. They are like you. You are a pariah. Talking to the “average” woman about politics is really pointless as most of them will have absolutely no idea who the Secretary of State is or who thier local representative is. When i was talking about Hillary and how women won’t allow her to be elected I was referring to the “generalization” that women often try to destroy one another and are, for lack of a better word “catty” to each other(well known generalization). If you have ever worked in an office that is full of women you know exactly what I am talking about. Women that I talk to (who are rarely ever into politics) will tell you that they think Hillary is a bitch. They have no idea why. New York is a rather special case. Do you think that Hillary could run in 80% of the United States for the Senate? Heck no (that was a Bush-ism :)) She could successfully run for a Senate seat in classicly liberal states only. Massachussettes, New York, Washington state, California and possibly Oregon. The presidency? No way in heck (another Bush-ism). Why do you think that she went to the trouble of running there? It certainly wasn’t because of the low property taxes or the staggering beauty of the New York skyline. For you to tell me that I don’t know what I am talking about is just rude by the way.

Don’t take it personally, kid. What you know of women — and their natures — wouldn’t fit on the head of a pin. That’s not rude - that’s evident from your own statements. Your obviously primitive view concerning women and politics is the most distasteful and insulting thing I’ve read here or anywhere else for that matter. If I’m the only one here who thinks this way, there’s no point in my sticking around any longer. I joined because I thought our goal here was to HELP an already confused electorate. Not to give self-indulgent, pontificating blowhards a forum to say whatever the hell they please.

And god help anyone who may have unfortunately been looking to us for enlightenment. The last few weeks have deteriorated into an excercise in group masturbation. This is the last time I will respond to anything pete has to say, so here goes: pete, I don’t give a shit what party you belong to or who you support - you’ve crossed a line here that if it were applied to any other demographic would have others howling. Am I the only one who finds this outrageous? And I’M the pariah?

Had to jump in again since Pete is showing the true face of the GOP. It is so evil.

9th wrote, “Your obviously primitive view concerning women and politics is the most distasteful and insulting thing I’ve read here or anywhere else for that matter.”

9th, you are missing the obvious. Our esteemed Editor Pete is a raging, but sadly typical conservative. In fact, he exemplifies what disgusts me about so many Republicans… wanna know why?

One minute he’s spouting off about how the GOP is “inclusive” (see posts on GOP side of page) and then when the rubber hits the road, out come the venemous truths.

Pete IS the average built-on-hate Republican and is a walking, talking and typing example of why we need to vote Democratic.

This underlying hate is the same poison in Bennett’s arguments against his liberal CA neighbors. It’s jealousy, distaste and frustration rolled up in a burrito of self-entitlement.

The entire Republican agenda is built on hate. I have said it before, and the GOP’ers here keep proving it, that unless you support the idea of a world run by rich, white, straight, Chrisitian white men you are not a true Republican. The talking points are about inclusion, but the actions are about 3 feet shy of the lynching tree.

This is why the neocons are a threat to the republic.

Robbie D.

Robbie D

Pete wrote, “I know that Hillary and Bill and Mcauliffe really don’t want him to win”

Dear Esteemed Editor Pete:

How do you “know this.”

Please explain. Personal conversation? Private discussion.

If you “know” the above to be true, please reveal how. If your statement was an embellishment, please print a retraction.

Robbie D.

Quote:
” “Pete, if the Clintons were *that* out of touch with reality, they would never have accomplished anything.”
I am talking about thier recent far-left stance on virtually everything and thier alliance with Terry Mcauliffe to drive the party further left. “

I’m talking about your claim that they think Hillary can win the presidency. If they were so delusional that they believed that, Bill would never even have made governor.

Quote:
“Talking to the “average” woman about politics is really pointless as most of them will have absolutely no idea who the Secretary of State is or who thier local representative is.”

The same is true of the typical man. All of us who participate in political blogs are the exceptions whose rarity proves the rule.

Dan: I agree with you in some respect that the average man doesn’t know much about politic’s either. The thing that holds back women in this country is their own dis-interest in politics.

I am actually saddened that you cannot see that 9th wave. I do think you are being heavy handed and really quite mean to me. Never once did I attack you personally and call you primitive or any other name. I would like just one of you to tell me what I said that was so “hateful”. All That I have done is parrot a common opinion amoung men of my age. Young women usually do not get involved in politics. All that you must do is pick up ANY mainstream young women’s publication or turn on a womans TV program to realize what it is that the young female demographic is interested in. It sure isn’t politics. I also qualified every remark with a statement admitting that I used generalizations. I am trying to figure out what made you so mad. Republicans and conservatives are not evil, just realistic and not politically correct. Does anyone from this blog have the courage to stand up and agree with me that women need to look at themselves and get more involved in politics? And that as a matter of fact MOST women have no interest in politics and it is a rarity to see them discuss it?

“Not to give self-indulgent, pontificating blowhards a forum to say whatever the hell they please.”

That wasn’t a very intelligent or even thoughtful thing to say. Thank you for your complete and utter lack of tolerance for my views and right to say them.

Robbie D: I am not even going to get pulled into another one of your flame wars. Calling me evil and calling the GOP evil is just flame bait. Go ahead and keep trying though, I find it amusing….and telling.

Pete —
Do you understand that your generalization could foreseeably be irritating to many people?

Yes that is precisely why I, myself labelled it a generalization.

“I was referring to the “generalization” that women often try to destroy one another and are, for lack of a better word “catty” to each other (well known generalization)”

Hello? Is this thing on? The fact is that it is already decided that I am some kind of evil bastard by default because I am a conservative. 9th wave already had her mind made up of that and nothing I ever say will change that. I have been called a lot of things by a lot of people but this is just over-sensitive wrangling and word-mincing.

I am telling you guys, Dean would have a good chance at challenging Bush if it were not for the fact that he sealed his legislative records for the next ten years. I ralize that you will think that I am “trippin” but consider this. Kerry is out to get Dean and you may well say “so what” but Kerry,along with others, is forming a hit squad to get Dean. He publicly denies it but read this buzz…

“You’ll recall that the campaign of Sen. John Kerry denied that it was using staff to do opposition research on Dean, who is shaping up as the media darling and far-left Democratic Party favorite.

But suddenly little bits of dirt are dribbling out of Vermont, and it isn’t Dean who’s letting them out. In fact, his effort to control information about himself is one of the stories.

Just before Dean left office, he signed orders that sealed almost half of his gubernatorial documents from public view until 2013 — ten years after the end of his service as governor. That is at least four years longer than any previous Vermont leader had held back his (or her) political papers.

Dean made it clear that he was locking up his documents to avoid political embarrassments, but was hesitant to explain why at the time. Dean staff believe the story now circulating is the direct result of Kerry’s opposition research attempts. “We certainly weren’t publicizing that the governor had sealed half his papers,” says a Dean volunteer. “But a bunch of political hacks looking for dirt would certainly have found out about it soon enough.”

A lesson to Dean…Never Ever mess with Mcauliffe publicly. Or the old gaurd establishment in the Democratic leadership structure. I guarantee Kerry will be able to sabotage Dean in some way. Dean will become the candidate that was.

What is interesting is that the far-left of the party like Dean, who, if you believe him is a moderate. Some in the party are calling him a conservative?!? Just what the heck is going on here?

The comments on this post are now closed. Thanks for participating.

Couple of points:

1. The supposition that “women are not interested in politics” may in fact, if this string is any example, illustrate that they are truly the better sex. While I’m typing on this blog at 12:28 at night, my girlfriend is sleeping.

2. From Pete: “I was referring to the “generalization” that women often try to destroy one another and are, for lack of a better word “catty” to each other(well known generalization).” Yes, clearly men are in no way competitive with each other.

3. While I won’t agree with Robbie D, he makes a salient recurring point that the right-wing often talks of inclusiveness, but rarely follows that up with any real substance, this string being a clear example. Karl Rove certainly is a genius, and, according to an associate of his in the book “Bush’s Brain,” you must run your politics like a TV with the sound turned off. So Bush says “inclusiveness” and then forgets to give a child tax credit to 8 million of our countries poorest. Bush says “inclusiveness” and then rejects gay marriage. Bush says “inclusiveness” and then cuts the budget on his own ballyhooed “Leave No Child Behind Act”. Hey, gotta give credit; these guys know what their doing if anyone can run around claiming “inclusiveness” and keep a straight face.

4. Pete, I guess I’m going to disappoint and not stand up for you. I will certainly stand up for your right to say what you want, but then I’ll also say I think you are wrong.

Personally, I found your comments to be misogynistic and ignorant. But then again, I’m friends with the current chairperson of the Maine Democratic Party, the former campaign manager for Rahm Emmanuel’s bid for the House, and the former campaign manager for the current governor of Maine (now national youth coordinator for Howard Dean for President), and all three are women. I’d introduce you but I’m pretty sure they, one of them in particular, would have you shot, and that’s just not good democracy.

5. The Dean/Kerry political sniping is really just par for the election course, so I don’t think its got anyone concerned. I did, however find your implication interesting that Dean was trying to hide something when you wrote, “Dean made it clear that he was locking up his documents to avoid political embarrassments..”

I’d wager that a lot of people might agree with you, and wonder why President George Bush has taken similar maneuvers to have the majority of his paperwork from his governership moved to his father’s library, guaranteeing that it won’t be open to the public for 25 years, a good deal longer than Dean’s 10 years. But by most accounts, this is the most secretive administration in a century (some say since Nixon, some say in American history), so that is also just par for the course (i.e. the 9/11 congressional report pages, stonewalling the 9/11 commission, the Cheney’s energy task force notes, Miguel Estrada’s memos, reversing the release bias of the FOIA, etc.)

In the end, I’d hope we could all agree that except in cases of extreme national interest, openess would be the watchword for our country. In the words of The Capital Times:

“The founders understood that the sharing of both power and information was the simplest way to ensure against the seizure of power by an American King George.”

6. I believe “keep your friend close, but your enemies closer” was in fact uttered by Don Corleone in The Godfather, and not Sun Tzu. But I could be wrong.

Pete,

It’s a no flame. You asserted you “know” about Hillary wanting to derail Dean. You are an Editor on this site, and I want to know how you “know” this.

By not responding, I will consider that it is, in fact, untreu that you “know this.

Rob

“Republican openness”

I haven’t stopped laughing yet. This is the greatest oxymoron of the age.

The Republican Party is about as open as the Ba’ath Party. You sell your soul, you get to steal from everyone.

“The Republican Party is about as open as the Ba’ath Party. You sell your soul, you get to steal from everyone.”

That isn’t offensive? I believe that comments like that are worse than anything that I have ever said about women. It is also deeply religiously offensive to me personally. What “warning” will be given for such behavior? None, of course. Why? Because it did not come from a conservative. As the conservatives said on Richards blog in the comments section. There is a serious bias here. I will not apologize for saying something merely controversial and don’t need to. What I will apologize for is the firestorm it has created in the discussion forum. What has been brought out into the light in those email exchanges is the fact that all of YOU on the left are just the same as me. It is just beneath the surface and barely hidden by your emoticon smiley faces after you say something outrageous about conservatives. I think that what went on in private should be made public. Right here on Watchblog. Am I wrong? I don’t think that it is fair for the liberals to hide behind the forum while I am bombarded with email. So why don’t you people show some integrity and make your REAL comments about me public? Fair enough?
Read all of your comments about me and then go back and read the inane comment that started it all. A comment that I meant no offense by. See the contrast, the sheer hate and then get back to me. You know, you all really missed the point to my comment about women and politics. My point was that women are not involved enough! How is that misogynistic! Not surprising though. You had all made up your minds about me anyway.

Pete said: “What has been brought out into the light in those email exchanges is the fact that all of YOU on the left are just the same as me. “

What e-mail exchanges? What are you talking about?