Democrats & Liberals Archives

Dean Should Go

I don’t think Howard Dean is crazy, and I don’t think he is particularly left-wing. He is, however, great at coming up with lines that help the other side. His first big gaffe as party leader was characterizing Republicans as the party of white Christians. (Don’t the Democrats want to be the party of white Christians, along with everyone else?) In terms of the Iraq War being unwinnable, well, I’m not exactly sure what he means. Whatever he had in mind, it’s a great sound bite for Republican ads. Dean should resign now.

Posted by Woody Mena at December 7, 2005 6:43 AM
Comments
Comment #99624

And I know the perfect person to “fire” him: Hillary Clinton.

I’m not saying she should stab him in the back. If I were her, I would talk to him in private and try to get him to resign first. If he won’t go, the Clintons have the clout to take over.

Posted by: Woody Mena at December 7, 2005 7:14 AM
Comment #99625

The republicans aren’t the party of white christians? Is that because they have a few hispanic voters sprinkled in there? Most republicans i know are very white, so much so that i need sunglasses when i address them.

all kidding aside addressing demographics within a party isn’t a gaffe. And i don’t think any party should want to soley be “the party white christians” because america is much more than just white. You couldn’t tell that if you looked at the house or the senate, but you get my drift.

Dean speaks his mind. You know where he stands. Approve or dissapprove, he isn’t shady. He is an intelligent man who isn’t afraid at taking punches (or recieving them). He is one of the few democrats with a brass set of gonads and i repsect him for that simple fact.

Dean, like all politicians should be watched with the eye of a hawk— because as a politician they are inherently up to something that is no good (im sure he wouldn’t start a war someplace for the hell of it however— i mean, what kind of idiot would do that???? *sigh).

Dean is a good leader for the party because he speaks to more than just the topics that are hot now (and usually not relevant to the big picture of actually improving things here), which is refreshing. Do i want him as president? Hell no. The only politician i trust with that job is Ralph Nader (go ahead and mock me, tell me that my vote is wasted—i know the script).

Actually, the only man i want as president never would take the job: My Father.

Dad in ‘08!!!

Posted by: tree hugger at December 7, 2005 7:15 AM
Comment #99628

Woody

Actually,Woody,he should stay.

He is a pluperfect poster boy of the true thought that is running across America at this very moment.

He is an inspiration and he is now my leader.

Wait a minute…I made a mistake..you were talking about Bush right?…No? Dean then….Geez…

So then who will it be in ‘06…McCain or Guilianni?

Is it possible to elect a president by public acclaim…like ancient Rome?

Now that’s an idea….

And all along

Posted by: sicilian eagle at December 7, 2005 7:19 AM
Comment #99632

It was a dumb thing to say because “white Christian” essentially describes a majority of the people in the US. (For what it is worth, I am not now, nor have ever been, a Christian.) When he describes the GOP that way, he is really doing them a favor. It is like saying “The GOP is run by people who like chocolate and puppies.” Basically political sense says that you should not describe your opponent in a way that people are going to find appealing and make you sound like a jerk.

Dean is smart, but he is not a good party leader. He run for the Senate or something where he would only represent Vermont and himself.

Posted by: Woody Mena at December 7, 2005 7:26 AM
Comment #99636

Finally, one Dem with balls!

I guess it is to be expected that the “Party” will be the one to destroy him.

Well, maybe the real Dems, the grassroots, are more in tune with Dean than Bush and Clinton and Lieberman.

We deserve the leadership we have in this country.

Posted by: B. Tribble at December 7, 2005 7:30 AM
Comment #99640

Guilianni? (*cringes)

McCain? Well, he is the best republican for the job, a stand up man that if were elected wouldn’t be the end of the world. He is eloquent, knows the travesty and violence of war (first hand), would be a good man for the job because he doesn’t seem to play into the hands of the religious right. He is a moderate. He still is heavily corporate funded and likely will side with corporations instead of the citizens he governs, but that is the republican way to favor business over everything else, so we see it coming. There won’t be any unjust wars with this guy thats for sure.

The democrats do not have someone who can beat McCain.

Posted by: tree hugger at December 7, 2005 7:37 AM
Comment #99641

Dean is a well educated, intellegent man; however, he IS stupid and is the perfect tool for the Republican party.

If he wants to speak his mind, fine. Everyone’s entitled to that in America. However, he represents the Democratic party and everything he says (in effect) represents the ENTIRE party.

The longer he stays, the better the Republicans look. He’s everything the majority of voters dislike - arrogant, brash, insensitive and ignorant of the facts. I vote on both sides of the ticket and if Howard Dean is the Democtrat’s leader, then they give me very little reason to vote for them.

Posted by: mac6115cd at December 7, 2005 7:41 AM
Comment #99644

He’s everything the majority of voters dislike - arrogant, brash, insensitive and ignorant of the facts.

=========================

No, that sort of perspective gets you re-elected man.

Posted by: tree hugger at December 7, 2005 7:53 AM
Comment #99645

I like Dr. Dean as a person but, I do not think that he has the makeup to be a good DNC Chair just as I did not believe that he was a good Presidential candidate.

Having said that, isn’t Sen. Jeffords retiring and might this not be a job for which Dean is suited? A majority of Vermont Democrats believed he was the man to run for the Whitehouse (in spite of knowing that he couldn’t win the nomination) so, isn’t it reasonable to think that he could get a majority of all Vermonters to vote him into the Senate?

I don’t tink Dean has given up on a run for the Whitehouse and being in the Senate can’t hurt his chances. And he works much better as a representative of one state versus a guy trying to run a nation-wide organization.

Being the head of the DNC means being its defacto spokeperson. From “I want to be the candidate for voters with Confederate flags…” to the infamous scream to “The Republican Party is the party of white…” he has consistently failed in that type of role.

By running for the Senate, he could step down, not in a cloud of failure but in the light of seeking a new opportunity to serve. I think it works out best for all involved.

Posted by: Dean Hernandez at December 7, 2005 8:02 AM
Comment #99653

Never posted before but your comment on Dean is such a perfect example of why the Democrats on almost irrelevant these days. So Dean is outside the DLC box- lieberman. Clinton (either one),Biden,etc.,etc.,etc. A guy who speaks his mind, makes somtimes not so smart statements but is not afraid to voice his ideas—sounds like most people I meet every day. If there is any hope for the Democratic Party its for someone like Dean to shake it loose from the DLC!!
A lifelong Democrat searching for his party.

Posted by: Joe Festa at December 7, 2005 8:34 AM
Comment #99654

While I like Howard Dean personally, I agree that another spokeperson would be way more effective if they could “stick to the message” and drive it home.

A sane plan for iraq, taking care of those in need, explain how the tax cuts for the top 2% hurt the middle class, have a plan to secure the ports and borders, a plan for energy and health insurance and tell the american people that the dems will be transparent, honest and interactive with the people…

This plan should all be in a book, a pamphlet… something that can be waved about whenever some repub tries the same old talking point crap or tries to spin the american people into bending over for the GOP shaft.

Posted by: skip gleichman at December 7, 2005 8:38 AM
Comment #99658

Isn’t that the job of the party head? To say the brash, uncomfortable truths that the incumbents and other office seekers cannot afford to say?

Posted by: Jim Collis at December 7, 2005 8:41 AM
Comment #99662

I think Dean’s modus operandi here is to be inflammatory and controversial. He is taking shots at the Republican party that national candidates (those running for the presidency in 2008) cannot afford to take. Is he right? Who knows, but he’s out there and much more visible than his predecessor, Terry McAuliffe. McAuliffe was a buttoned-down sales corporate sales type content to work with big money and back room pols. Dean as evidenced from his campaign for presidency is much more comfortable at the grass-roots level. He’s attempting, I think to be a populist and to energize the youth to get out an vote. The young voters, especially those coming of voting age in the next 2-3 years will have Iraq in front of their mind more than any other issue. I think this is all planned and the Clintons, Biden, and anyone else seriously considering the run for the presidency wants him exactly where he is.

Posted by: Dennis at December 7, 2005 9:08 AM
Comment #99665

Woody

I agree about Dean. I was always happy he was on your team for partisan reasons, but not for good ones. I met him twice in NH. He is a nasty, snarling little man. He well represents the left wing haters of the party, but (I certainly hope and believe) not the reasonable Democrats.

It is not good for our country to have such men so prominent in either party. From a partisans point of view (he helps Republicans win) I would say keep him. From an American point of view, I hope he goes soon.

Posted by: Jack at December 7, 2005 9:13 AM
Comment #99680

Sometimes Dean says some inflammatory remarks just like every politician does. Is what he says the truth? One thing I can say about Dean is that he seems to actually listen to the concerns of regular democrats. At least he isn’t some party stooge mouthpiece and speaks his own mind. The problems with the Democratic Party are not Dean’s fault. The leadership of the party(before Dean)has allowed the republicans to define who they are, what they are, and what they stand for. Big mistake! The party’s leaders have not developed sound strategies for winning high elected offices. The leadership has missed countless opportunities to expose and inform the American public of the many failed policies under the republican controlled Congress and White House. The list goes on and on. This isn’t the fault of Dean. This is the fault of the democratic leadership prior to Dean who forgot who they represented.

Posted by: Marko at December 7, 2005 9:29 AM
Comment #99682

Regardless of what you think about Dean, he is definitely not helping the Democrats.
Perhaps Dean is really a Republican implant?
That would explain a lot.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 7, 2005 9:31 AM
Comment #99691

Dean is one of the reasons I’m still in the Democratic Party. Nader was not far off the mark when he said there was little difference between the two parties. I would have gone Green a long time ago if it weren’t for people like HD who were willing to stand on principle instead of mouthing GOP-Lite DLC platitudes.

Pretending to be Republican is why the Democratic Party has lost ground over the years. They’ve alienated their traditional supporters without gaining any new votes. Social conservatives are voting for the party they already control, not people who are simply copying the opposition.

The DLC likes to tout Bill Clinton as their biggest success, but Bill would have won with or without their support. He had the charisma, vitality, and vision the voters were looking for. He also promoted a much more liberal line than they are using now.

Besides, I’ve got to be fond of anyone who is less diplomatic than I am. ;-)

Sarah G

Posted by: SarahG at December 7, 2005 9:42 AM
Comment #99697

howard Dean :
at a time of war when the american way of life is being threatened by radical rabid inhuman killers whose only goal is to enslave women and go back in time 500 years ,the democratic party has howard dean to represent them …how foolish for a respectibal main stream american party to degenerate into ..however unlike in the 70s with vietnam this time the terrorists killed 3000 americans and with the anti war anti american message currently being spouted by the democrats will make them a full time minority party by 2008 ,until the democrats find some one willing and able to defend our country and not attempt to use appeasement to satisfie thier demands they will not have canidate who is electable.
The current message being sent to the public from people like sen durbin ,congressman murtha
John kerry and thier type want to villifie america,while advancing thier goals to again run this country .I personally believe the message being sent by most democrats make most voters very nervois for a president who cant or wont defend america ,should not be there .with that in mind please keep howard dean and his vitrolic anti american massages alive and well within your party for it will make the democratic party a minor and shrinking power unable to advance its hipacritical anti american agenda .keeping mr dean insures america we’ll continue to have strong republican leaders who will reduce taxes while defending us from all enemys.GO DEAN 2008:

Posted by: rylee at December 7, 2005 9:47 AM
Comment #99710

TreeHugger:

McCain is the biggest waffler there is…I live in Arizona…we Arizonans know this…why doesn’t the rest of the country see him for what he is?

Sure, he stands up and spouts off once in a while, but on 99% of things he toes the Bush line. Even after being attacked by the Bush machine by lies in the 2000 election, he was still ready to lick Bush’s boots in the 2004 election.

He doesn’t have the moral high ground except on a very few issues…like campaign finance and torture…he needs to move himself away from rubber stamping Bush administration policies to be believed.

He’s still very much a Republican…too much so for him to receive my vote of confidence.

Posted by: Lynne at December 7, 2005 10:09 AM
Comment #99715

Dean stands up and says what the rest of you cowards are afraid to say.


Concerning the Republicans - rip out the rear view mirror and you don’t look back. You just go forward knowing things have been wrong and make them right. They won’t like it and will complain and you don’t care, you just keep going.

Dean isn’t afraid to go when you cowards are to scared to move.

I will support Dean even though he may say things that offend people, because frankly I’ve been insulted, slapped and tortured by this administration.

Go get em Dean - I’m with you all the way.

Posted by: Roger The Okcitykid at December 7, 2005 10:16 AM
Comment #99738

W said the war on terror was unwinnable during the election. Remember?

“I don’t think you can win it. [the war on terror]”
- NBC’s Today Show 8/30/04

Since when is the truth controversial?

For those who disagree, please explain at what point can you declare victory? When all the insurgents have been killed? 80% of Iraqis want us OUT.

58,000 people died in vietnam because we didn’t want to “cut and run”. How many is too many this time?


Posted by: dave at December 7, 2005 11:00 AM
Comment #99742

“I don’t think you can win it. [the war on terror]” - NBC’s Today Show 8/30/04

Posted by: dave at December 7, 2005 11:04 AM
Comment #99749

Isn’t Dean good at fundraising? Didn’t Democrats do better than expected in 2005? Isn’t that what you want from a party Chair? Doesn’t Vermont have Universal Health Coverage? Doesn’t Vermont have Civil Unions for same-sex couples? Aren’t those like no-brainer things that Democrats should stand for? Look, Republicans can post whatever ad hominem BS they like, this board is pretty loosely regulated, but they can’t dispute any of the above facts. Republicans pride themselves in their own ignorance, so maybe they’d like to debate whether Dean was responsible for any of the above.

Posted by: Mike at December 7, 2005 11:10 AM
Comment #99761

I don’t think Dean should go!

He (basically) is one of a few Democrats that is telling us who they really are and what they (truly) believe in. They are the party of anti-war, abortion on demand, raise taxes (especially on the rich), more gov’t involvement, etc. That is exactly who they are and Howard Dean definitely tells us that every time he opens his mouth. So, I don’t have a problem with Howard Dean at all! RRRRRaahahhhhhhh!!!!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at December 7, 2005 11:26 AM
Comment #99764

Jack, what’s an American point of view? I’m sure that you have the exclusive answer to this question.

Posted by: Marko at December 7, 2005 11:38 AM
Comment #99766

I supported Dean ascension to Democratic Chair because I was desperate to see, as others have said on this blog, someone unafraid to speak their mind and fight for once. Dean has however failed to meld that moral courage with any sort overall political strategy. His ‘courage’ seems to inspire nothing more than controversial sound bites every now and then. I have also noticed his outbursts seem to coincide with any other prominent Democratic politician enjoying the spotlight, in this case shortly after Murtha’s speech. Dean should not be competing for attention with the Democratic Party’s best.

Mark my words; the low polls of this president and the Republican party WILL NOT drive them from Congress in 2006 or from the White House in 2008 if we don’t have a clearly articulated message and something resembling a strategy for defending it.

Yea, I know the old political creed, “don’t attack you opponent when he’s doing the job for you”. That is complete BS in my opinion. Just another in a long line of excuses which the Democrats have had for remaining silent. I don’t blame the American people for wondering if we have any ideas of our own. I’m starting to wonder myself.

Time for Dean to resign. Not just because of what he said, but because I’m TIRED OF JUST TALKING!

Posted by: Mike Cooper at December 7, 2005 11:38 AM
Comment #99774

Dean is the new Democrat. We need to kick out all the old fogy Democrats such as Lieberman (traitor), Kerry and Clinton. They didn’t have balls to stand up to the evil of the Republicans and they ain’t growing any now. You want morals and intellegence back into the USA culture?…, look to Dean, Boxer and hopefully Hackett as leaders.

Posted by: Susan Ramsay at December 7, 2005 11:54 AM
Comment #99775

I have never had a problem with the things Dean has said. In a sea of Republocrats, Dean is a voice of the opposition. After all the Dems are suppose to be the opposition party and I think may Dems what them to start acting like it. Silencing people like Dean only serves to futher blur the differences between Dems and Repubs.

The problem I have with Dean is his chaos. There is no unity or organization at the DNC. It is important that the Democrats distinguish themselves from Republicans, but they must do it in a unified way. The Repubs win everytime, not because they are right, but because the unity is missing in the Dem party.

When Murtha made his feelings known about Iraq, did the Dem party rally behind him? No, they broke off into at least 4 different directions. Why? Because Dean has not brought organization or unity to this party. Dean definatly has a place at the DNC, but perhaps not as it’s leader. I’m not sure what former gov Mark Warner is doing now, but he turned Virginia into the best managed state in the country. Maybe his kind of management is what is needed at the DNC.

I usually don’t put any worth in polls, but it would be interesting if someone did a poll to find out why the Dems approval rating hovers around the same approval ratings as the Repubs . Is it Dean? or is it because they are no longer the opposition party?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 7, 2005 11:57 AM
Comment #99776
You want morals and intellegence back into the USA culture?…, look to Dean, Boxer and hopefully Hackett as leaders.

I agree, a good indicator of how well a Democrat is doing their job, being the opposition party, is by how much they are hated by Republicans. If the Repubs like a Dem then you know they are nothing more than a Republocrat.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 7, 2005 12:01 PM
Comment #99777

What? Republicans demonize Dean for fundraising purposes? Do you mean like they do with Hillary Clinton? Like they did with Bill Clinton? Like they did with Jon Kerry? Like they did with Al Gore? Look, Repulicans like to demonize people? That, and contradict themselves in order to prove that Democrats are hypocrites. They will demonize any Democrat that they can get their hands on.

I think that the telling part is the lengths that they had to goto to smear Dean. “He made a list of states? He’s CLEARLY A MADMAN!!!” Just because Bush isn’t capable of reciting a list that is more than 3 items long doesn’t mean it’s a sign of insanity. I mean, you couldn’t pick anything else? Oh, and now Dean’s critics are dropping that talking point. In other words, the only reason to oppose Dean is getting a little stale.

Is there a question that Democrats did better than expected in 2005 in both the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial elections? Isn’t that what the chairmanship is all about?

Posted by: Mike at December 7, 2005 12:05 PM
Comment #99778

At least people are talking about Dean, who were the previous Dem leaders? and in Politics 99% ov voters typically have the attention span of a goldfish

Posted by: Todd at December 7, 2005 12:06 PM
Comment #99779

The author is echoing the right wing echo chamber. When are you going to get a clue?
Look at the poll numbers. A 40% approval rating means it is safe to criticise the pres.
The author is a jerk and a quizzling. He represents the cowardly wing of the democrats.

Posted by: tony.s at December 7, 2005 12:07 PM
Comment #99781

Susan,
“They didn’t have balls to stand up to the evil of the Republicans and they ain’t growing any now.”


Do you really think that the true “evil” is Republicans? I mean, to strengthen the democratic party so they can “overtake” the Republicans is just crazy. The true plan should be to “overtake” the terrorists and other enemies that want to do harm to the US. That should (truly) be what the dems should make their “agenda” (whenever they present one) about, not the “evil” Repubs.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 7, 2005 12:09 PM
Comment #99784
At least people are talking about Dean, who were the previous Dem leaders?

Todd,

this is very true, I have no idea who this McAlfie guy was.

Look at the poll numbers. A 40% approval rating means it is safe to criticise the pres.

Tony,

Good point. I think this is exactly why the Dems have such low numbers as well. They are no longer the opposition party, they are Republocrats. The party needs to stop taking up the ass, and do what they were put there to do. Question everything! Oppose stupidity!

As it is right now, we have a majority party working for the minority of voters. If the minority party started working for the majority of voters, there would be no stopping them in 2006 & 2008.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 7, 2005 12:18 PM
Comment #99785

rahdigly,

Susan is half right. Thanks to Bush/Cheney, America is now the axis of evil. We need a G Ford to come and pardon us so we can regain some respectibility.

Posted by: Dave at December 7, 2005 12:19 PM
Comment #99787

I support Dean now as I did during the 2004 campaign. Everything he said about the war in Iraq back in 2004 has born out to be true. He’s ahead of his time, people need to stop and listen to what he is saying instead of just sound bites. I am a democrat but I am thinking of leaving the party because I am so disgusdted with the party’s lack of backbone and weighing their every move against polls. I think Dean should also leave the party and work towards starting a new one, not because of his remarks but we need to get out of this two party system. The democrats have been bought out just like the republicans and neither party speaks for us. I believe Dean does speak for what the majority of Americans are thinking.

Posted by: jonitodd at December 7, 2005 12:25 PM
Comment #99791
The true plan should be to “overtake” the terrorists and other enemies that want to do harm to the US. That should (truly) be what the dems should make their “agenda” (whenever they present one) about, not the “evil” Repubs.

rahdigly,

As our representatives, they should be talking about what is important to the majority of America. Stopping terrorism is certainly important to most of America when it is done in a commonsense way. Going around the world and randomly attacking countries because they “may” be a threat is lacking in commonsense and only breeds more terrorists. The majority of American’s want us out of Iraq. The majority of Iraqis want us out. So the Dems should be addressing the concerns of those Americans.

It is ridiculous to say that the Dems wouldn’t defend America. Of course nobody will know for sure, but if Gore would have been in office on 9/11 we would have gone after the Taliban, al-Qaeda and OBL. He would have had worldwide support and the support of all America. Would he have gone into Iraq? No, and rightly so.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 7, 2005 12:32 PM
Comment #99792

rahdigly, Don’t even go the route of the democrats being the tax and spend party. Bush is the bigger spender to ever occupy the White House, it must be nice to grow up believing you can just spend and borrow, he probably never spent a real dollar in his life. The govn’t has grown not shrunk under his leadership! The tax breaks were not for me, but my children will be paying off the deficit and how can this adminstration be so cruel to cut programs that help the neediest of Americans while continuing to have pork in the budget which is clearly just political payoffs.

Posted by: jonitodd at December 7, 2005 12:36 PM
Comment #99793

What he says is true. If Dems don’t get someone out there respected for telling the truth, all is lost, I don’t even care about the gaffes; they still contain a good amount of truth. Try looking at what he was saying when running for the presidency. ALL of it true, almost prescient.

” The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western world. No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity - much less dissent.”: Gore Vidal

Posted by: Sharon Metcalf at December 7, 2005 12:45 PM
Comment #99794

jonitodd,

I agree, government has grown under the last three Republican administrations including this one. The only time it has shrunk in my lifetime was during the Clinton administration. It’s hard for me to know what a tax and spend Democrat is. In my lifetime I have only seen Borrow and Spend Republicans, a Reagan invention.

As far as the tax cuts go, if I got one, it is unnoticeable. If an unnoticeable tax cut results in the financial mess Bush has gotten us into, then I would rather not have the tax cut.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 7, 2005 12:45 PM
Comment #99801

Woody,

Howard “silly string” Dean is gaffa-palooza. I really pine for the days of Eddie Rendel. Howard is by no means a strong hatchetman but a hatchetman that winds up clobbering himself on the rebound. Eddie Gilespie and Ken Mehlman must be having a field day everytime he opens his mouth. Especially if he has John Kerry beside him. We dems have alot of dim-witted heroes and Dean is on that roster for some reason because he raised funds for his campaign without corporate softmonies. Nader did that too! Can Ralph Nader please be our DNC chair please???

Remember all the dumb things that Dean was espousing during the 2004 campaign? It’s like a democratic party for those who aren’t especially knowledgable. I’m so glad he made that scream but it also garnered sympathy in the DNC to the point where he now chairs the DNC.

How do we get rid of him now that we really need to utilize the democratic party to win elections? Not get self-suckered into gaffes and verbal conundrums. How do we get rid of this guy? Okay you lure him over to the staircase and I’ll…

Posted by: Novenge at December 7, 2005 1:18 PM
Comment #99803

Sarah and Susan are both right. I didn’t support Dean for President, and now looking back , I wished I had. I see too many republicrats in key positions in the Democratic Party. These people need to get flushed down the drain. Dean was a breath of fresh air. He’s got balls. I don’t want a talking head chairman of the party I belong to. I hope that everytime this administration lies, decieves, twists the truth, etc. it is exposed and ridiculed by the chairman of the DNC. Dean is that man. Instead of talking about Howard Dean I would be more worried about trying to get my Congressman or Congresswoman to listen to the wishes of their constituency and to quit pandering to this fascist administration.

Posted by: Marko at December 7, 2005 1:24 PM
Comment #99808

JayJay-

I’m not defending the Republicans as sending has been out of control for the past few years, but the U.S. Federal Government did not shrink in your lifetime. There was nominal spending growth in every year during the Clinton Presidency.

Posted by: George in SC at December 7, 2005 1:34 PM
Comment #99809

tony.s,

“The author is echoing the right wing echo chamber. When are you going to get a clue? Look at the poll numbers. A 40% approval rating means it is safe to criticise the pres. The author is a jerk and a quizzling. He represents the cowardly wing of the democrats.”

Here’s Congress’s job approval throughout the year; as you can see, it’s lower than the Presidents. So, I guess it’s just as “safe” to criticize Congress?!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-03-14-congress-poll_x.htm?csp=34

“31 percent of Americans now approve of the job Congress is doing, and 57 percent disapprove. Approval of Congress has never been high, but since March it has been especially low, at about a third.”

http://www.dalythoughts.com/index.php?p=3441

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/CBSPollOct_3.htm

“Fewer than one in 10 Americans think members of Congress—-of either party—-have more honesty than Americans in general.”

Posted by: rahdigly at December 7, 2005 1:36 PM
Comment #99814

jonitodd ,
“Don’t even go the route of the democrats being the tax and spend party. Bush is the bigger spender to ever occupy the White House, it must be nice to grow up believing you can just spend and borrow, he probably never spent a real dollar in his life. The govn’t has grown not shrunk under his leadership! The tax breaks were not for me, but my children will be paying off the deficit and how can this adminstration be so cruel to cut programs that help the neediest of Americans while continuing to have pork in the budget which is clearly just political payoffs.”

I agree that Bush is a big gov’t spending politician; which is one reason democrats should (actually) like Bush for that matter. That and immigration have been the biggest issues that I don’t like about Bush.

However, to deny that the democrats are big gov’t spenders only proves my point and that is Democrats are not admitting what they are about. The repubs have been spending yes, but that’s an abberation with their party and the conservatives are getting upset. For the dems, it’s not uncommon and yet they (still) won’t admit it; they just point fingers and blame the repubs. It never ends!

Posted by: rahdigly at December 7, 2005 1:45 PM
Comment #99818

Here’s the difference Rahdigly,

When we do it we don’t throw tax deferrals on it and try to make those deferrals permanent which means that the wealthiest 4-5% DON’T have to pay it off. This tab is being thrust right on the backs of the middle classes.

Plus the republicans obviously ever since Reagan have been enormous spenders—enormous in contrast to the dems federally. Throw whatever names you want but facts are facts and figures are figures. Now I agree on a state level that dems can be overtaxing and even wasteful and overly bureaucratic, ticks me off too (also repubs get in on that too) but on a federal level the facts speak for themselves the republicans are the big spenders federally.

And why do we have parties that allow states too much rights to blood-sucking in nickel and dimes. I need to find a party that doesn’t just stand idly by while states fleece the populace of it’s own state. I’m tired of hearing about giving the states rights on everything. When I buy a $5,000.00 dollar car why do I have to pay nearly TWO GRAND in taxes?

That’s where the dems have me irate not at a federal level.

Posted by: Novenge at December 7, 2005 2:00 PM
Comment #99821

Noevenge,
“Here’s the difference Rahdigly, hen we do it we don’t throw tax deferrals on it and try to make those deferrals permanent which means that the wealthiest 4-5% DON’T have to pay it off. This tab is being thrust right on the backs of the middle classes.”


Right. When the Democrats do it, they tax the rich and give it to the poor; making the poor dependent on the Dems so they keep voting for them. In other words, success is punished. If you’re successful it’s b/c you didn’t earn it or you earned it and have to give it to someone else that doesn’t have anything.

At least, I’ve finally heard someone agree that the dems are for big gov’t and tax increases. Thanks.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 7, 2005 2:07 PM
Comment #99824

Let’s see: Clinton=surplus; Bush-Bush-Regan=deficit; look at history—-under Dems the country improves; under the Repub. the rich improve.

Posted by: susan ramsay at December 7, 2005 2:11 PM
Comment #99825

Howard Dean seems to be trying to change his image.
The Dean that I now hear and see is almost a total opposite of the one who ran for president.
While I agree that he is very intellegent, I don’t think he has/or uses very much common sense.

He has gone from one extreme to another. It’s a shame he can’t find the middle ground - if he could he might actually be a good candiate - unfortunately he has turned off many people, not only the left, and right, but moderates like myself. Even if he were to try to change his image at this late date, he would appear to be a fraud.
Linda H.

Posted by: Linda H. at December 7, 2005 2:13 PM
Comment #99827

Marko, Mike, dave and Snowman, very good posts.

B. Tribble
“Finally, one Dem with balls!”

It’s the truth. And the saddest thing is, when faced with kind of far-right Republican wingnuts who have been running the show, a guy like Dean is the perfect leader of the DNC. But they want him gone because his boldness is making too many Dems timid, jumpy, and fearful.

Joe Festa:
“A guy who speaks his mind, makes somtimes not so smart statements but is not afraid to voice his ideas—sounds like most people I meet every day. If there is any hope for the Democratic Party its for someone like Dean to shake it loose from the DLC!!
A lifelong Democrat searching for his party.”

I know how you feel, Joe. I was a lifelong member of the party and I’d always worked my ass off for them — until the last election. When they couldn’t stand together over “what went wrong in Ohio” (aside from some in the House and Barbara Boxer), I knew I’d become too weary of searching for them and continually being dissappointed.
The way I see it, if the Dem’s could lose someone like me, they’re definitely doing a hell of a lot wrong.
When Dean came in, I thought, well maybe he can get things back on track. But they haven’t let him. Instead, the majority are still trying desperately to be Republican Lite rather than the opposition party — and keep losing people who might vote for them as a result.

Jim Collis:
“Isn’t that the job of the party head? To say the brash, uncomfortable truths that the incumbents and other office seekers cannot afford to say?”

I think it is, too. And after all, it’s only tit for tat after all the TV and radio hacks the GOP has employed in such a perfectly organized fashion to demonize, lie, and swiftboat everyone on the left side of the political isle.

SarahG:
“Dean is one of the reasons I’m still in the Democratic Party. Nader was not far off the mark when he said there was little difference between the two parties. I would have gone Green a long time ago if it weren’t for people like HD who were willing to stand on principle instead of mouthing GOP-Lite DLC platitudes.”

I went Green and now just left them. They were advocating things I just couldn’t get behind. I think basically I’m like Joe Festa — a liberal Democrat searching for my lifelong party which has gone missing.

“Pretending to be Republican is why the Democratic Party has lost ground over the years.”

Yes. And you’d think it would finally dawn on them, since it’s becoming more and more obvious they’re losing their supporters.

Lynne:
“McCain is the biggest waffler there is…I live in Arizona…we Arizonans know this…why doesn’t the rest of the country see him for what he is?”

It has certainly become clear that is exactly what he is. In fact, just yesterday in another thread I said:
“McCain is obviously also a changeable Republican. One minute he’s the straightshooting maverick, and the next he’s the knife-wielding party hack praising the president for no bloody reason.”

Jonitodd:
“I support Dean now as I did during the 2004 campaign. Everything he said about the war in Iraq back in 2004 has born out to be true. He’s ahead of his time, people need to stop and listen to what he is saying instead of just sound bites. I am a democrat but I am thinking of leaving the party because I am so disgusdted with the party’s lack of backbone and weighing their every move against polls. I think Dean should also leave the party and work towards starting a new one, not because of his remarks but we need to get out of this two party system. The democrats have been bought out just like the republicans and neither party speaks for us. I believe Dean does speak for what the majority of Americans are thinking.”

Another person thinking of leaving the party. You’d think they’d start listening not just to Dean, but to people like us, eh?
I agree Joni, Dean has been right about everything, and because he has, he speaks his mind. The Republican Lite Dem’s are becoming petrified of him, not realizing that his lack of polish and his entirely justified anger at what the Neocon Republican’s have been doing to this country can’t help but loudly ring a bell in the minds of so many of us.

Susan Ramsay:
“Dean is the new Democrat. We need to kick out all the old fogy Democrats such as Lieberman (traitor), Kerry and Clinton. They didn’t have balls to stand up to the evil of the Republicans and they ain’t growing any now. You want morals and intellegence back into the USA culture?…, look to Dean, Boxer and hopefully Hackett as leaders.”

I think of Dean as a brave old-school Democrat, rather than a new one, but I agree with the rest of what you’ve written here.

Sharon Metcalf:
“What he says is true. If Dems don’t get someone out there respected for telling the truth, all is lost, I don’t even care about the gaffes; they still contain a good amount of truth. Try looking at what he was saying when running for the presidency. ALL of it true, almost prescient.”

Indeed. I find it very interesting how many of the ladies in this thread are echoing the exact same sentiments. Women’s intuition? Anyway, the majority of Dem’s don’t seem to be listening.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 7, 2005 2:16 PM
Comment #99830

Rah,

It’s not reward or punishment on the federal level with the democrats but with the republicans it’s reward in the form of tax cuts. Now this may sound strange coming from a democrat but actually tax cuts at the top are good for the economy under some circumstances but they have to be monitored and have to remain limited to a given time period. What happens(this is probably boring you)but it lowers interest rates and actually can spark an economy if it stays within guidelines and not extended for too long.

So with Bush who went too long with the tax deferrals and with the payback having to be now made not by the rich who got the breaks but on the middle, it actually winds up punishing the middle classes as well as lower middle classes. There’s a way to do it properly so it creates a good spark and a way in which trickle down actually erodes what it set out to reinforce (boring huh?).

The state/local level dems and repubs is where the corruption really is. I don’t like the concept that they should have the right to fleece us so heavily rich, poor and median alike.

Posted by: Novenge at December 7, 2005 2:21 PM
Comment #99834

As I have read some of the comments here at watchblog, there is a common theme coming from those on the right. That the Democrats are soft on Defense. So let’s talk about where that perception comes from.

I have to assume some, if not a lot, of this perception comes from the fact that there were substantial reductions in defense under the Clinton administration. That is a fact. But, was there good reason to reduce defense? Absolutely.

To Reagan’s credit the Cold War ended, removing a major military threat. Would the American taxpayer have been happy with increasing defense budgets in the wake of removing such a major threat? I don’t think so. The Republicans knew this as well as Democrats. Defense spending started being reduced after the Cold War by Bush Sr. and had bipartisan support. Additionally there there is almost no difference between the level of funding proposed for defense by President Bush in his last fiscal year (FY) 1994-99 budget plan and the level of funding actually provided for defense under the Clinton Administration. Both Bush planned funding and actual funding amounted to $1.72 trillion (in FY 2001 dollars).

Funding for national defense declined by about 16.9 percent between the last Reagan Administration defense budget (FY 1989) and the last Bush Administration budget (FY 1993). These were the deepest cuts of the post-Cold War period. Under the Clinton Administration, funding for defense declined by about 13.1 percent between FY 1993 and FY 1998, when funding for defense bottomed out, and then rose 6-7 percent by FY 2000, mainly in response to new terrorist threats.

Over the FY 1996-01 period, various Congressional Budget Resolutions passed by the Republican controlled Congress have generally called for adding only about 1 percent to the Clinton Administration’s own defense plan.

During the 2000 presidential campaign Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush asserted that US military deployments are “too often open-ended and lacking in clear objectives.” Bush advisor Condoleeza Rice has criticized the Clinton Administration for using the US military as a “global police force.”

In fact at the end of the Clinton era neither party was yet ready to support a major increase in funding for defense. Both parties placed higher priority on other policy initiatives, such as protecting Social Security and Medicare, expanding some entitlement benefits, increasing funding for some domestic programs like education, and cutting taxes.

Defense spending began to increase in 1998 under Clinton and continued to rise in the first year of the Bush administration. These increases in military spending came under criticism.

Many Americans question the appropriateness of giving more resources to this sector in the absence of credible threats to U.S. security and the relative peace that prevails around the world. Given the situation in Washington, however, the question is, realistically, how fast will the military budget continue to rise in the administration of George W. Bush? -Jan 2001, Richard Kaufman, Bethesda Research Institute

Defense spending during the Clinton years was bi-partisan and began with Bush Sr. as a reaction to the end of the Cold War. Defense spending reductions during this period do not make Dems soft on Defense. In fact it was Clinton that reversed the trend in 1998. In fact some of the advances used in the Iraq War II are attributable to the Clinton Administration.

“A combination of precision, speed, and boldness the enemy did not expect and the world had not seen before,” as the second President Bush put it in his victory speech onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln—were developed and built during the presidency of Bill Clinton. Some of the advanced defense systems that originated in the Clinton years included JDAMs, a Global Positioning Satellite receiver, that can turn nearly any dumb bomb into a smart bomb, the Predator drone, and The longer-range, more-enduring Global Hawk drone, and the Tactical Tomahawk.

There were defiantly bi-partisan defense budget reductions but, contrary to many Republicans’ claims, Bill Clinton did not weaken the U.S. military.

What else? The dems need to talk about this and clear up the issue once and for all.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 7, 2005 2:29 PM
Comment #99835

Should have been:

There were definitely bi-partisan defense budget reductions but, contrary to many Republicans’ claims, Bill Clinton did not weaken the U.S. military.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 7, 2005 2:31 PM
Comment #99842

Dean needs to make more noise. Express more opinions. Louder and louder to put down every mistake that’s been made in the current administration and bring it to the forward position so it can be recognized for the mistake that has happened. Bring it to the attention of the press. GO ON THE ATTACK. Then ATTACK AGAIN!

You have to get the Democrats noticed and put forth a plan. Change the plan as things progress .The plan has to be a living plan that is able to change. But at least make it look like we’re paying attention.

Posted by: Rick at December 7, 2005 2:45 PM
Comment #99843
When the Democrats do it, they tax the rich and give it to the poor; making the poor dependent on the Dems so they keep voting for them. In other words, success is punished.

rahdigly,

Actually Clinton’s welfare reform reduced the welfare rolls from over 8 million in 1996 to less than 2 million today.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 7, 2005 2:45 PM
Comment #99845

Jayjay,
“As I have read some of the comments here at watchblog, there is a common theme coming from those on the right. That the Democrats are soft on Defense.”


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot30nov30,0,520033.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

“AND THE DEMOCRATS wonder why they are considered weak on national security? It’s not because anyone doubts their patriotism. It’s because a lot of people doubt their judgment and toughness. As if to prove the skeptics right, Democrats have been stepping forth to renounce their previous support for the liberation of Iraq even as Iraqis prepare to vote in a general election. Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, John Edwards, John Murtha — that’s quite a list of heavyweight flip-floppers. Clinton characteristically wants to have it both ways. He says the invasion was a “big mistake” but that we shouldn’t pull out now because “there’s a lot of evidence it can still work.” (You mean, Mr. President, that we should continue sacrificing soldiers for a mistake?) The others are more consistent. Because they now think the war is wrong, they favor a withdrawal, the only question being whether we should pull out sooner (Murtha) or slightly later (Kerry).”

Posted by: rahdigly at December 7, 2005 2:52 PM
Comment #99850

Marko

Since you ask - the American point of view should be one looks beyond partisan politics. You notice that I was actually speaking against a Republican point of view. For a Republican, Dean should stay. Just like if we made Ann Coulter head of the RNC, I am sure you would love to hate it. It is always good to have an extremist as the leader of the opposition. Partisans love Dean, but he is unattractive to others. He also adds to the polarization of the country.

To criticize Dean you just have to quote him. He is a wonderful gift to the opposition, but it is a hateful and destructive gift to the country.

Posted by: Jack at December 7, 2005 3:06 PM
Comment #99854

The Republican congress fought Clinton tooth and nail on terrorism. When Clinton bombed Iraq to rid it of it’s WMD capabilities, the Republicans in congress were outraged. They did not want anything to distract the public from that stain on that little blue dress that was worn by that women. We now know that Clinton’s mission was accomplished, as no WMD’s were found in the Iraq invasion. In other words the Iraq war, based on Bush’s original reasons (there have been so many)for attacking, was won in December 1998.

Now some have charged that Sudan tried to hand OBL over to Clinton pre 9/11 and the offer was refused. I don’t see that as any worse then Bush leaving this post 9/11 mass murder at large. In fact Bush has stated he is not concerned with OBL. What?

“We haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is,” Bush said during the 2002 news conference. “I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

During the 3rd 2004 presidential debates:

“Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, ‘Where’s Osama bin Laden?’ ” Kerry said. “He said, ‘I don’t know. I don’t really think about him very much. I’m not that concerned.’ We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.”

Bush protested, “I don’t think I ever said I’m not worried about Osama bin Laden. That’s kind of one of those exaggerations.”

But during a news conference at the White House on March 13, 2002, Bush said something close to what Kerry quoted. “I truly am not that concerned about him,” the president said, according to the official White House transcript.

In the post-9/11 world the American public will never feel that justice has been served or that we are winning the war on terror until OBL is captured dead or alive.

So, who is soft on defense when it comes to OBL? I say it’s a draw.


Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 7, 2005 3:17 PM
Comment #99857

Woody: Are you a serious person? Hillary? Hasn’t she already stabbed Dean in the back with her Democratic Leadership Council/Committee (which is nothing more than a 4-5 man operation that pretends it has something important to say and do) coming out against his heading the DNC, and opposing everything he says and does!Hillary is nothing more than another Zionist Republican in disguise—who do you think has been bankrolling her, for god’s sake?! The Zionists/NeoCons (NEWS FLASH: Rupert Murdoch/FOX News being a primary financial supporter http://www.realnews247.com/who_runs_the_media.htm) have figured out that converting fundamentalist Christians to their cause is easy: since they believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible and Jesus’ “Second Coming” (which is actually a raising of one’s consciousness), they believe that a state of Israel is necessary to bring that event to pass. So Israel gets rabid Christian support and a blank check to do whatever it wants.

Read up on what is really behind the whole mess our country is in: http://judicial-inc.biz/1_master_supreme.htm

NOTHING IS AS IT SEEMS…WAKE UP!!

Posted by: Cari at December 7, 2005 3:24 PM
Comment #99863

Let me put it this way: Hasn’t anyone wondered why Bill Clinton has become so close to GHWBush? It won’t be long before we see him on the Carlyle Group payroll…after Hillary’s run for President in ‘08. Haven’t you wondered why Hillary chose New York, the seat of Zionist power? Don’t you know why Hillary supports the Iraq War and Bush? She sold her soul to the Zionist/NeoCons in exchange for fame and fortune…she only pretends to be a democrat. The GOP loves to bash Clinton for reducing defense spending, yet GHWBush started it…it is nothing more than the weakening of National power and security, to be distributed into the hands of the private sector.

I used to buy into the “Democrat good, GOP bad” line until I started to realize there was a missing piece to the puzzle of current events…something the media was NOT reporting. It is the Zionist ties to the NeoCons, and Dems and GOP are both a part of it.

WAKE UP AMERICA! YOU’RE BEING LULLED TO YOUR OWN DEMISE…

Posted by: Cari at December 7, 2005 3:38 PM
Comment #99865

Woody, I’m sorry to see you post an article that divides Democrats. We Democrats will never win anything unless we learn to work together. The DLC has been attacking Dean and all Democrats who were against the Iraq war or want to bring our troops home. Naturally, the other side retorts.

We should be looking for ways of bringing the 2 factions together. Fighting each other will never bring us victory over the Republicans.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at December 7, 2005 3:40 PM
Comment #99868
Democrats have been stepping forth to renounce their previous support for the liberation of Iraq even as Iraqis prepare to vote in a general election.

rahdigly,

The Democrats previous support was based on faulty intelligence. I have much more respect for someone who says, look we made a mistake, now lets make it right. I have little respect for someone who continues to perpetuate the mistake.

Clinton characteristically wants to have it both ways. He says the invasion was a “big mistake” but that we shouldn’t pull out now because “there’s a lot of evidence it can still work.” (You mean, Mr. President, that we should continue sacrificing soldiers for a mistake?)

I can respect him for that, because he is saying, yes, we made a mistake, but there is still good being done, so lets turn our focus to that so that our soldiers are not sacrificed for a mistake, lets make it right.

The others are more consistent. Because they now think the war is wrong, they favor a withdrawal, the only question being whether we should pull out sooner (Murtha) or slightly later (Kerry).”

I have reservations about this. Murtha did not as Republicans like to claim present a “cut & run” plan, that belongs to Republican Duncan Hunter alone. I agree with Clinton. This war was a mistake but we must finish it and hope some good comes from it. On the other hand there may be some advantages, defense wise, by redeployment. The more time we spend and the more resources we use on Iraq, the more vulnerable we become to other threats. Threats that are growing by the day. The other question we must ask is, has our actions in Iraq thus far strengthened our defense?

Many think we have weakened our defense. Iran is just as happy as a peach with the U.S. for eliminating their biggest foe. It has allowed them to focus on their own WMD, and to set their sights on their next biggest foe; the U.S.

And how does forcing our way of life on a culture that does not accept those ways make our defense stronger?

I really must question if Bush has strengthened our defense or made it softer.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 7, 2005 3:44 PM
Comment #99869

P.S. I just read Howard Dean’s remarks again, and I wonder, Woody, what you find so objectional about them? They are truthful and accurate, and I applaud Mr. Dean for having the cajones (which most of the Democratic Party are lacking these days) to say what most of us are thinking!

Posted by: Cari at December 7, 2005 3:45 PM
Comment #99872

I think having someone who won’t play the game the way it’s been played for the last few years is energizing and thought provoking and great…and being a young voter highly targeted for wooing, I don’t care what he says as long as he’s being honest and being himself. It’s the completely fake thinly veiled innuendo, half or complete untruths, and general politics as usual that turns most people off from the whole system…and Dean’s style may be unorthodox but it’s brought a whole lot of people into the fold who otherwise could care less. Republicans will twist things that are benign as well as controversial to further their agenda, so I say let the us say, scream, mumble all that we want as long as it’s honest. I rarely hear republicans fussing over what their right-wing politicians and other such figureheads say…so I’m taking a stand with the man who says what he thinks!

Posted by: c r at December 7, 2005 3:48 PM
Comment #99880

Cari,

Isn’t it alot less complex to say they suck?

Posted by: Novenge at December 7, 2005 4:09 PM
Comment #99883

I think part of the Dean problem is that the Republicans are unified in their criticism, so whenever someone on the Democratic side speaks up in an outrageous way, the critics gain traction and are able to keep the issue in the several news cycles.

When a Republican does the same, our critiques are not orchestrated, we don’t have have an equivalent to fox news, and the Republicans hit back for criticizing their outlandish comments.

As a result, Democrats must choose between being quiet and denegrated for lacking positions or speaking up and denegrated for being critical.

Republicans are just beating us on the news. They’ve set the terms of the debate and have done so for a number of years.

Until we can turn that around, Dean is a liability and the DNC would be better served with someone else.

Posted by: CPAdams at December 7, 2005 4:13 PM
Comment #99884

If I were the DNC I would fire Dean because:

The democratic party is divided on Iraq from Lieberman to Pelosi. Dean’s job is to run the party as a whole. Dean can’t stop trying to run the “democatic wing of the democratic party”. He is small minded and can’t think big picture past his own beliefs.

He hates me. (I am a Republican). He can have his own views, but he is paid to represent the Democratic party position and he just wont.

Of course as a Republican, I hope he stays,

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 7, 2005 4:16 PM
Comment #99885
WAKE UP AMERICA! YOU’RE BEING LULLED TO YOUR OWN DEMISE…

Carl,

You are absolutely right. America needs to wake up soon or we will be too far down a road we won’t be able to turn around on. As long as we don’t ask questions and demand the truth from our government they will continue leading us down that road. It is the duty of every American to ask tough questions of the governenment, whether we are at war or not. The more we bicker amongst ourselves the more we deflect from the real issues, and the more powerful the government grows. What is happening to this country today at the hands of our government is quite scary. Our way of life is threatened more from our own government then from any terror network.

The government has used scare tactics to get us to give up some of our most fundamental rights and give them unquestionable power. This same thing happened in the 30’s. The party was the Nazi party and their leader was Hitler. We can either ignore history and let it happen again, or we can educate ourselves to prevent history from repeating itself. If you unfamiliar with how Hitler and his regime came into power, please do some research, some of what happened in Germany in the 30’s is extremely similar to what is happening here now. While I’m not saying that this country will ever become like the Third Reich, it is scary that we are traveling down that same road.

If we want to win the war on terror we need to find the root at what caused the terror to begin in the first place.

What the Republicans are doing now is the equivalent of trying to kill a weed. They keep cutting it down, but it just keeps growing back. If you want to be rid of the weed you must kill it’s roots.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 7, 2005 4:17 PM
Comment #99888

Dr. Dean is in the position of causing thought,conflict, and sometimes guidance. I have thought that he is doing a good job. I do believe that the power base of the Republican Party is white male Christians. Why not call a white Christian a white Christian? I also have found it interesting that Democrates, have had a hard time making their differences from Republicans acceptable to the silent majority of minorities. Dean’s statements do this at times. I think Dean is a problem-solver not a person working at being righteous.

Posted by: Marv E. at December 7, 2005 4:19 PM
Comment #99887

Paul:


Woody, I’m sorry to see you post an article that divides Democrats. We Democrats will never win anything unless we learn to work together. The DLC has been attacking Dean and all Democrats who were against the Iraq war or want to bring our troops home. Naturally, the other side retorts.

Woody didn’t write an article that divides Democrats. He is stating the obvious, that the head of your party is dividing democrats.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 7, 2005 4:19 PM
Comment #99893

CPAdams,

You have hit the nail squarely on the head. Unification. I don’t find Dean offensive, but his management style has led to the Dems becoming fractured. Bush ran on a platform of a uniter not a divider. No one has divider this country more sharply. Now Dean seems to be doing the same thing within the Democratic party. Although, I admire Dean for saying it like it is, I think based on his ability to unite the party alone, he should step down.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 7, 2005 4:27 PM
Comment #99897

CPAdams Wrote
‘When a Republican does the same, our critiques are not orchestrated, we don’t have have an equivalent to fox news, and the Republicans hit back for criticizing their outlandish comments.”

“Republicans are just beating us on the news. They’ve set the terms of the debate and have done so for a number of years.”

Great points!

I was watching Faux news channel the other day casue I needed a good laugh, and one of their fair and balanced talking heads was hammering home all the factions of the Dem’s and how we can’t get a unified policy on Iraq.

I personally don’t think as a party we need just one, I have read a handful written by people like Murtha, Kerry , and a few others written in the NY Times. Everyone of them seemed better than “stay the course” and “sit down when they stand up crap”. But Faux news twists that and uses it against by calling it how we dont have a plan. It must be nice to have an entire network that backs 100% what one political party does.

Hopefully someday Salon or a different liberal news source starts a cable network to counter all the crap they report.

As far as Dean he does have a set of big brass balls and in my book that is a good thing. I do think that he is prone to shooting from the hip to often. As with any person you can always take what they out of context and use it against them which has happened to Dean alot over the past few weeks

Posted by: Jeff Gannon at December 7, 2005 4:36 PM
Comment #99899

Oh I do think Dean will be a great Secruitary of Health and Human services in 08’

Posted by: Jeff Gannon at December 7, 2005 4:37 PM
Comment #99902

The democrats have one person Howard Dean, who has enough guts to stand up before the right wing and the wimpy right leaning democrats and somebody wants him out. I knew it! The democrats see a way out of the deep hole by using the administrations weakness and lousy governing as a ladder, and what do they do? Start leaning toward the right like Hillary Clinton. I’m so tired of the stupidity of the democratic so called leadership I think I’ll start voting independent!

Posted by: John at December 7, 2005 4:42 PM
Comment #99905

Jeff

Your comment about Dean reminded me:

There once was a man from Madras
Whose balls were made out of brass
He banged them together
And in stormy weather
Lighting shot out of his ass.

It really fits where Dean is talking from and the thunder and lightning he creates

Posted by: Jack at December 7, 2005 4:47 PM
Comment #99908

This is interesting

For the first time since 1816, the Bush administration has without explanation withheld the names and work locations of about 900,000 of its civilian workers.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 7, 2005 4:53 PM
Comment #99912

JayJay,

the Bush administration has without explanation withheld the names and work locations of about 900,000 of its civilian workers.

Thanks for the good news. As a government employee, I feel safer now.
I’m glad you aprove of something Bush has done!

Posted by: The Traveler at December 7, 2005 5:04 PM
Comment #99917

I don’t know how the republicans can claim to be tough on the war on terror when the 9/11 commission just gave them failing grades for being ill prepared if the US was attacked again. I think it was quite evident, with the lack of a cohesive response to Katrina, that FEMA has become a joke, “Brownie, You’re doing a heck of a job!”, that comment made me sick to my stomach. The placement of ill qualified people in positions that matter to our national security is an outrage. The military is important to our war on terror but we must also win the hearts and minds of people around the world to help and shape a peaceful tomorrow and this government is undermining that effort. How can you parade around espousing that the US does not toture when all evidence is th the contrary and the President will not sign a defense bill if it doesn’t allow the CIA to torture. Please help me, am I missing something here?

Posted by: jonitodd at December 7, 2005 5:18 PM
Comment #99923

The DNC post is perfect for Dean - he is supposed to be partisan and fire up the base. That is why it is a party post.

That said, I would have said “the Bush administration is turning our victory into a defeat by insisting on remaining when the Iraqi people do not want us there and we have accomplished our objectives.”

Dean’s “The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong” depends on how you define winning this war. That may be a debate Democrats want.

Posted by: Easter Lemming Liberal News at December 7, 2005 5:25 PM
Comment #99927

Dean is a clown, plain and simple. All mouth and no trousers. The people who “came in” to the party when Dean started his crusade are such a minority to the rest of us who have stuck with the party.

The Naderites are a joke. They are content to be the “smart kids” in the back of the room who won’t get involved in a real way unless we bow down to them. Nader was another rich asshole who found himself irrelevant and he wanted to put a stink in the room.

Dean has to stop putting himself in the front and speaking for people who don’t recognize his “leadership”. It may play with 2% of the population, but not with the rest of us. Dean is another richboy playing working-clas hero. Please.

Posted by: Peter at December 7, 2005 5:29 PM
Comment #99934

MarvE:
“I do believe that the power base of the Republican Party is white male Christians. Why not call a white Christian a white Christian?”

Damn right, Marv!
One of the best things about the left side of the isle is that we’re a real reflection of what America actually is. Take one good look at any Democratic convention — all shapes and sizes and colors, all faiths, and all income brackets, too. Not only is the Left as American as can be, but we’ve always known how to have a good time as well!
Now, look at any GOP convention — ho hum, sea of white faces, not much variety of any kind — and not a whole lot of fun by the looks of things, either.

PS. I’ve never felt anything but proud to be a white lady standing among the beautiful and colorful mosaic of American’s on the Left.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 7, 2005 5:53 PM
Comment #99957

Howard Dean is the ONLY dem with Balls enough to speak the truth. Dean is not the one with a problem. His party has to step up to the plate and back him up and keep pounding the message. Democrats continue to act like pansies and they will continue to lose.

Posted by: Greg at December 7, 2005 7:27 PM
Comment #99960

Why should Howard Dean resign or be fired for telling the truth?? Dean is one of the ONLY Democrats with a backbone. We’re a party who can’t seem to ever stand behind and unite behind anyone. People like you in our party always want to run away from anyone who stirs the pot on our side. Is Iraq a winnable war? No. Hell no. So he said it. It’s true. Most of America thinks so too. We should be praising for having the guts to stand up and saying it while supposed Democratic leaders like Hillary are cowards. Standing up and saying what needs to be said is what a leader does. That’s why our party is in the state that it’s in — it’s full of cowards.

Posted by: KISSman at December 7, 2005 7:29 PM
Comment #99965

I wish I could respond to all of your comments in detail, but I’ll have to categorize them:

1) Left vs. Centrist Democratic Party

Believe it or not, I am probably more left-wing than Dean. Nothing would make me happier than for the Democratic party to rally arond a progressive agenda. Dean isn’t helping. If anything, I think he actually strengthens the DLC wing, because he makes them look like the grown-ups.

Liberal Democrats should be looking for a mild-mannered person from the Midwest or South who can make progressive ideas seem pragmatic and sensible (which they are, of course). Dean is just the opposite. He takes a fairly popular idea, getting of Iraq, and makes it sound BAD!

2) Being a quisling, dividing people, etc.

All I am doing is criticizing a party functionary who isn’t doing his job very well. What is this, the GOP? The Soviet Union? Can’t I point out an obvious problem?

I think in the last Democratic primary, we probably overemphasized unity. No one wanted to say anything bad about the other candidates, saying it would help the GOP. But the GOP ended up saying all those things about Kerry anyway, when people were paying more attention.

Now we have 11 months to get our act together.

3) Dean having testicles, balls, cajones, gonads, etc.

Have any of you guys seen Ken Mehlman, the GOP chair, on TV? “Ballsy” is not exactly the first word that comes to mind, or even the fiftieth…

There is something terribly ironic going on here. Dean is known is admired as a straight-talking iconoclast. When I put out his obvious flaws, it is like I am beating up on daddy. Get over him. He is a smart guy, but he is not a very good politician. (I know some people admire that about him, but isn’t that a little perverse?) Remember, he came in third in Iowa — before the Scream.

4) “Destroying” Dean

I don’t think he is a horrible person. I don’t think he harms the Democratic Party just by living and breathing. I don’t think he needs to shut up. He is just the wrong person for the job. He should run for Senate, where would get experience points for being a governor.

5) The 50% or so of posters who agreed with me

Just realized I was ignoring you guys. You are so wise! ;)

Posted by: Woody Mena at December 7, 2005 7:43 PM
Comment #99969

Oh a few more things:

6) “Zionism”

Please don’t use this word to criticize Israel. It sounds like an attack on the Jewish religion, which I am sure is not intended.

7) Diversity

Of course diversity is a great thing. The problem wasn’t what Dean said, it was how he said it. Imagine that George Bush said that the Democrats were the party of Blacks, Hispanics, and atheists. Doesn’t that sound horrible?

Posted by: Woody Mena at December 7, 2005 7:56 PM
Comment #99974

Howard Dean speaks for me! I listened to John Kerry within this past week asked a question about his policy for Iraq and I knew it would be the tepid, circumlocutative b.s. it was. If this man would haved addressed instead of caressed a question during the campaign he would be the president and we wouldn’t be looking at a Supreme Court filled with neocons for the next umpteen years. I’ll fight for Howard Dean. He speaks for me.

Posted by: Herschel at December 7, 2005 8:10 PM
Comment #99993

If you’re gonna attack Dean for his comments you have to tell me what he is wrong about. Because I happen to agree with him. I think the minute we lost control of the country by not protecting the borders, allowing looting and turning a blind eye about Abu Graib we lost the war. The first 2 had to do with the reduced size of the military we invaded with. Rummy should have been fired 2 years ago. But, now that we are cleaning up the mess, I guess it all comes down to what we all consider “winning”. As we all know, the goals stated for the initial attack have changed dramatically. So what is the Bush administration going to claim as a victory? What do you see as a victory? Does winning mean a fully functioning Iraqi military? Does winning mean leaving Iraq with a working democracy? Does winning mean stopping the chaos in the middle east? Does winning mean slowing down Al Qaita or terrorist recruitment? Does winning mean we never get attacked again?

Dean is a very passionate and pragmatic guy. Happy talk and wishful thinking is not going to make the problems go away. The current route we are on - still with small US troop levels, either our reluctance or their lack of other middle east countries taking a bigger stake in Iraq’s success and no clear plan for getting out - does not make for a positive outlook. Perhaps his statements were based on that.

Should he have said it? Yes, sure, why not? Stir things up a little. The thing is, the Dems as a whole have diverse opinions, they always have. They don’t have a tight view on things and march in lock-step like the GOP. So his statements don’t represent the “party’s” view but he does represent a good number of them and a whole lot of people too. Besides, he was probably speaking for himself anyway.

Posted by: Matthew at December 7, 2005 9:28 PM
Comment #100000

Dean should continue to lead the Democratic Party to restore the democracy in the United States of America for next several years. Dean is the reason why the Democratic Party is beginning to win some elections. Dean’s honest and truthful speeches are winning the hearts and minds of American people. There are only one kind of Democrats who want Dean to go: Hillarycrats. Those DLC Democrats under Hillary Clinton’s evil dictatorship are the ones who should leave politics.

Posted by: Gorestro at December 7, 2005 9:42 PM
Comment #100003

Dean’s honest and passionate speeches keep the fire alive in the Democratic Party. In fact, we need more of Dean’s honest and passionate speeches.

Posted by: Gorestro at December 7, 2005 9:47 PM
Comment #100008

Dean is the reason why the Democratic Party is beginning to win some elections. Dean’s honest and truthful speeches are winning the hearts and minds of American people. There are only one kind of Democrats who want Dean to go: Hillarycrats.

Hate to break it to you, but the folks who overhwelmingly voted no to Dean in the primaries in 2004 are not all Hillarycrats. I’m not. I wouldn’t vote for Dean if the only alternative was to duel with Zell Miller.

Dean was “speaking the truth” about Iraq, but he offered no concrete plan to leave. His bravery, if you want to call it that, was due in large part to not being in office. With no constituents, he was in a perfect position to traipse around the land and play populist patty cake. Similarly, I never heard one economic plan that didn’t sound like a thousand others.

Just becuase Deaniacs yell the loudest doesn’t mean their numbers are greater. I’ll be glad when he’s gone and the grown-ups can get to business….

Posted by: Peter at December 7, 2005 9:52 PM
Comment #100046

Woody:


Liberal Democrats should be looking for a mild-mannered person from the Midwest or South who can make progressive ideas seem pragmatic and sensible (which they are, of course).

I hope you loose this debate. You are too correct,and it could hurt my party’s (republican) chances in the future!!

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 7, 2005 11:49 PM
Comment #100047
Liberal Democrats should be looking for a mild-mannered person from the Midwest or South who can make progressive ideas seem pragmatic and sensible (which they are, of course).


I have brought up his name a couple of times, but I have not gotten any feedback. What do you guys think of former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner heading the DNC?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 7, 2005 11:59 PM
Comment #100065

Warner, huh? Hmm… I would turn it down if I were him because it would require him to get involved with things it may be best to stay out of if he wants to be president. Like Iraq.

Posted by: Woody Mena at December 8, 2005 12:47 AM
Comment #100073

Remember, the candidate the Dem’s pick is probably going to go up against McCain. That means that person better have a ton of Charisma and the ability to connect with voters and speak very articulately — someone like Barack Obama, for instance (maybe others here can mention possibles in this category besides him? I’m afraid I can’t think of any others.). Or they should possess as much Gravitas and Military Experience as McCain does.
That’s why I’ve been saying that Clark should run again. I think the man has got both of those covered and a whole lot more. He’s older like McCain, but Southern. He’s not a beltway insider. He outranks McCain, and surely has our military’s best interest at heart when those folks have been getting nothing but cutbacks on their benefits, and when it seems as though our military has been pushed so far it’s practically broken, as well as being out-of-control when it comes to unethical behavior. You know a guy like him would want to whip it back into shape. And he seems the sort people could trust to get right on fullfilling all those recommendations from the 9/11 commission.
Let’s face it, after the level of safety this administration finds acceptable, our citizens have good reason to be afraid of terrorism, and they’re going to want someone they think won’t neglect all the many details that need to be looked at in order to protect this country.
Clark is also a brilliant guy — he wouldn’t be stupid or beholden enough to hire inexperienced cronies or party favorites. Nor would he be dimwitted about further neglecting environmental concerns in the face of global warming, or allow the EPA be run by a bunch of corporate polluters any longer.
You mentioned Warner — I realize he’s done many good things for his state, but the real question to ask is could he beat McCain?
I’m not so sure about that…

Posted by: Adrienne at December 8, 2005 1:28 AM
Comment #100175

I would like to see Barbara Boxer win, Boxer and Clark could beat McCain hands down. Ofcourse, I like McCain, if McCain did win I don’t think it would be a big loss, at least he’s an honest man who doesn’t believe in torture and believes in freedom of speech and not propoganda or a corporate owned media. He’s also went against the Bush administration on global warming. He believes in political reform. I honestly believe that McCain and Dean could be good friends. We need to balence the power in the Congress and the Senate, rumor has it McCain might run on an independent ticket, if he does, nobody can beat him. Because I disagree with him on his Iraq policy, it doesn’t matter, we’re already there, but if we can balance the Senate and Congress, I believe we will have our country back and make it strong again.

Posted by: Roger The Okcitykid at December 8, 2005 10:20 AM
Comment #100206

It depends on the candidate, not the party leaders! I have never liked any of the party leaders, on either side. They serve their purpose, to aggrievate their opponents! The public is smart enough to pick the right candidate, well until George Bush!

Posted by: Randy Dixon,RN at December 8, 2005 12:36 PM
Comment #100223

Perhaps Dean is really a Republican implant?


Posted by: d.a.n at December 7, 2005 09:31 AM

The Republicans can only hope so.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 8, 2005 1:24 PM
Comment #100404

Adrienned:

You are assuming the war will be the major issue in the 2008 election. It might be but I think it is unwise to assume that.

What are your thoughts should another issue be dominant?

Let me paint this picture:

Stocks are currently undervalued. Let’s say that the Stock market is up three years in a row. So you are running against some pretty decent economic numbers.

In addition, lets say that troop level in Iraq is down to 30,000 and declining.

The 2008 race could lean toward Democrats because of domestic issues. My thinking is that with all of this focus on the military, if the war is winding down voters could be in the mood to focus on domestic. (Just for fun) who would you suggest if domestic issue dominate? Sort of a 2000 race all over again.

Hmmm, fiscal responsibility could be a major issue.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 9, 2005 12:16 AM
Comment #100610

Looking for the perfect politician is like lookig for the perfect husband…not going to happen. However, Dean has one thing going for him, and that is that he says what he thinks. I am sooooooooooo tired of hearing about the democratic and republican party lines. There are some dems who behave like republicans, and vice-versa. I don’t have to agree with everything Dean says, but it is refreshing to hear what he thinks and not what some abstract party wants him to say! I say, look at past acheivements of a politician…looking at what GW did as gov of Texas should have set off the alarms and red lights in the minds of Americans. NOBODY had the balls prior to the election to blast Bush and his policies except for Dean. It’s time to stop speaking about left and right. Bush has created, instead, the top and the bottom, and I for one am tired of living at the bottom and working to help those at the top. He has created a true Plutocracy, AND NOBODY SEEMS TO GET P****D OFF ABOUT THIS!!! I want health care provided for all, I want a livable minimum wage, I want our seniors provided for, I want what living in a counry such as ours should provide its citizens. I’m not seeing such a difference in our government these days than any of the third world dictatorships…it’s time for our leader to stop living like a king, stop providing the good life to his cronies, and to begin thinking about the millions of folks who live in this country. And I’m willing to give Dean a chance…it’s time to air out our government, it stinks!

Posted by: Susan at December 9, 2005 1:12 PM
Comment #100717

Dean is single handedly winning the elections for the GOP. He is taking all the publicity off the corruption by the GOP and making the Dems look like idiots and a fragmented party. Keep up the good work Mr Dean.

Posted by: jim bob at December 9, 2005 7:11 PM
Comment #100755

Actually, Dean is a lot savvier then many are giving him credit. He was heavily involved in the recent coups around the country. He is responsible for the, largely unreported, distancing of Congressional Democrats from big-business lobbyists. He is actively involved in funding insurgencies in red bastions around the country that the old head ignored. And, most importantly, he is willing to speak truth to the GOP at a time when many Democrats are cringing out of fear of reprisals from the media. Politics requires conviction which is why GOP candidates keep getting reelected even when they are blathering morons.

There are three problems wih Democrats attemptng to crucify Dean for speaking out: 1) No one else is, except Murtha and I don’t hear any criticisms there. 2) If no one does than the GOP maintains its strangehold over political discourse in this country. 3)To assume that Dean’s comments are bad simply because the media says so and because they have usability by the GOP is to assume that the same thing would not happen to anyone else in his position. If Dean came out and said that we should stay the course in Iraq the GOP would claim justification of all its policies and the media would still berate him as would Congressional Democrats.

On another note, who said Hillary was the nominee? Let’s see……the media! Are we going to let the media, who largely work for the GOP-owned donors pick our candidate for us? No thank you. I see Dean as a perfect foil to that kind of nonsense. If Hillary wants to be president then let her work for it. If she wins and goes after Dean the repercussion to the party will be detrimental and manifold.

Posted by: C Dalzell at December 9, 2005 10:28 PM
Comment #100873

Savvy is not the right word. The Dems still dont seem to have a unified message that the people want. He should focus on a platform of what they can do rather than bring out the bad from the other party. It would seem that this type of approach may win some people over to his side. He should start by winning his own first.

Posted by: Jim Bob at December 10, 2005 11:08 AM
Post a comment