dean and the dnc

[bishop]

so, the maverick of the democratic party has become it's chairman.. republicans are saying gloating over it, saying that this spells certain doom for the democrats.. democrats seem to be largely silent about this.

what do you think dean can do with the democratic party? can he fix them up into a group that can regain power, or will they lose more power?


personally, i've always seen republican ire against dean as a big bluff. when i was an ardent bush supporter, i used to bash the shit out of dean. but, in the back of my mind, i knew that bush would have a horrible time trying to debate someone like dean - who unlike kerry, was sure of himself, accomplished, and had a consistent record. if the members of his party support him, i think dean can be very successful in reforming the democrats and helping push america away from the fascists.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: bishop so, the maverick of the democratic party has become it's chairman.. republicans are saying gloating over it, saying that this spells certain doom for the democrats.. democrats seem to be largely silent about this. what do you think dean can do with the democratic party? can he fix them up into a group that can regain power, or will they lose more power? personally, i've always seen republican ire against dean as a big bluff. when i was an ardent bush supporter, i used to bash the shit out of dean. but, in the back of my mind, i knew that bush would have a horrible time trying to debate someone like dean - who unlike kerry, was sure of himself, accomplished, and had a consistent record. if the members of his party support him, i think dean can be very successful in reforming the democrats and helping push america away from the fascists.

Dean had a LOT of people on his side. Remember a great deal of his funding was generated in small amounts as opposed to the huge contributions most front-runners get. Those people are still out there and the only difference is the party chose Kerry. I don't think Dean's people ever went away and they could easily be back.
I don't see this as doom for the Dems (DemDoom?) but as a way to have Dean possibly bring in those people and energize the party.
And of course, George Bush is out there every day, working hard to give the next Democrat a landslide victory.

Of course that's just an observation, as I still think both parties suck and I figure the thing was fixed anyway. I'm guessing if Jesus Christ himself had run in either primary we would STILL have Bush and Kerry as the choices.

[bishop]

from cnn:

"The Republicans will not tell Americans what the Democratic agenda is. We will do that," he aid. Dean also vowed to work to help the Democratic Party build a reputation as strong on national security, saying, "There is no reason for Democrats to be defensive on national defense." We cannot win if all we are is against the current president and his administration. -- New DNC chief Howard Dean Some Democrats are nervous that Dean, who has actively opposed the Iraq war from the start, will galvanize Republicans. But others see him as just what the party needs: an outspoken, courageous voice that does not bend to the winds of political change. Dean has proven an ability to build widespread, grass roots support, particularly through the Internet. Many Republican leaders have said they look forward to Dean leading the DNC. Many describe him as an angry, northern liberal -- a symbol of what many argue is "wrong" with the Democratic Party. "I think if (Democrats) have a true death wish, he'd be the perfect guy to go with," former House Majority Leader Newt Gingrich told Fox News last month.

mcauliffe is well known for his fund raising abilities.. and he's also well known as being the man who presided over the party's steady atrophy, slowly losing the 40 year long rule they enjoyed (and took for granted).

from what i've read, dean did some good work in vermont (especially in cutting wasteful spending and balancing the budget), and certainly doesn't seem like one of the typical career politicians we all know and hate. the fact that he had such strong grassroots support is a good thing imo, since the party desperately needs to work in that area. what i'm looking for dean to do is to define alternatives to bush's policies, that are plausible and reasonable. plus, with his energy, he might be able to get new voters into the booth to vote against the fascists.


i'm not sure i agree with everything dean advocates, but i'd take him over these "conservatives" any day of the week. i do agree that both parties certainly suck, but if dean can make the party dependent on grassroots support, it's possible that the party will see itself as being more beholden to the public than to corporate donors.

[Mr.Vicchio]

I might actually believe Karl Rove IS all powerful.

He managed to put the best guy in (for the GOP) as head of the DNC....

[bishop]

how did rove get dean to be the dnc chief?? do you have any evidence of this, or is this just flame bait?

[ericsp23]

The Dems definately need some new leadership. They need to break of of the status quo, and Dean will certainly do that for them. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if he is the man for the job.
I predict he will either be fabulously successful or a dismal failure.

[Mr.Vicchio]

I was making a joke Bishop. I.E. during the election Rove was blamed for just about every thing under the sun it seemed at times.

Dean is going to be a disaster for the Dems. But hey, 2006 will be a great year for the GOP (and conversly, for America) so I welcome it.

Dean's a loose cannon, and that is never a good thing in politics.

[bishop]

dean's painted by GOP partisans as a loose cannon. he has a long list of accomplishments as a governor. and he mobilized substantial grassroots support - something that you bushistas acknowledge helped your guy beat kerry.

it's interesting how you summarily assume that the public won't agree with his message. reminds me of when i was a rabid bush supporter - i would say similarly baseless statements like the ones you're making. what it hides is fear that people might agree with him. i like eric's approach better - wait and see.

[Mr.Vicchio]

I don't think that based on my opinion, I base it on the fact the Dem voters, not the party leadership, rejected him over Kerry. For a reason. Whatever good he had going for him as governor, he blew going hard left running for president.

Yes, the man has passion, and fire, and knows how to fire up the base.

That's fine. But firing up the base is only half the battle, the other half is expanding it. I just don't think Dr. Dean has that in him.

[Nono]

Given the probable extent of electoral fraud, Bush was bound to win any close election.

That said, Kerry was some piss-poor candidate and the Democratic establishment seemed to join him in its obsession with wooing The Undecideds and fer crissakes going a million miles out of their way to avoid the slightest suggestion God forbid that the Dems are anywhere at all to the left of Genghis Khan. In other words, they agreed to play Karl Rove's game and, predictably, they lost.

If Dean had been the candidate, he would have been crucified. As chairman, though, he may be a badly needed breath of fresh air. The Dems could do a lot worse than being led by someone who believes in a change of message ... if he still does.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Given the probable chance of Kerry loss, the unfounded, and absurd claims of election fraud by the losers was inevitable.

Oh they could do worse, I won't disagree, and he DOES bring a different view to the DNC. I just think he is going to shove left wing rhetoric that will fire up the Hard left base, but alienate other voters.

As much as I LIKE having the GOP in charge, they are not, by any means perfect. Not haveing a viable Democrat or opposing party means that while yes, we should take 2006 and 2008 fairly easily, the GOP will get lazier, and lazier and fall as any party power without competition will.

I LIKE haveing more then one party viable, but if the Dems are going to go the Barbara boxer, Howard Dean, Nacy Pelosi Michael Moore route... well they are going to fail.

[bishop]

Oh they could do worse, I won't disagree, and he DOES bring a different view to the DNC. I just think he is going to shove left wing rhetoric that will fire up the Hard left base, but alienate other voters.

how hard left is he? he has a record of fiscal responsibility, balancing the budget in vermont 11 times. that's hard left? he supported the war in afghanistan. that's hard left? he's a fervent supporter of gun rights. that's hard left?

boy to you love to be a partisan. get some objectivity in your diet.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Yeah yeah yeah. And he abonded all that to run for president. Keep dreaming he's gonna be sane Dean of old and not power dean of new.

[Nono]

Quote by: Mr.V Given the probable chance of Kerry loss, the unfounded, and absurd claims of election fraud by the losers was inevitable.

Well, *I* am making that claim, and I'm a mere disinterested observer.
The fact is that US elections are run in such a shambolic way that nobody can say with any degree of certaintly what the exact result is.

By "the probable chance of Kerry loss" you mean that it is probable that Kerry lost, right? I think he may have. However -- given hole-ridden fabric of the electoral process -- neither you nor anybody else can be sure. You'd like to be, but you can't be.

As those three shit-disturbers in Ohio (Fritakis, Rosenfeld and Wasserman) -- who are now being punished for their act of good citizenship -- point out, all this is a matter of public record:

These expert analyses are based on state and local Board of Election statistics, U.S. Census reports, and other public documents. They were not conducted with any assistance from John F. Kerry's campaign. All the conclusions presented can be re-checked among the wide range of documents posted at www.freepress.org under the Election 2004 department.

Other countries somehow manage to hold free, fair and transparent elections. It beats me why the US just can't pull it off.

[bishop]

with the amount of corporate money that pollutes our system, it's a wonder we even have a semblance of democracy left to talk about.

[Mr.Vicchio]

I'd suggest moving then, to a paradise free of corperate scum and where democracy riengs free and pure.

Ohio was won by a wider margin then PA, yet you don't hear a peep about that state... amazing.

[Nono]

Quote by: Mr.V Ohio was won by a wider margin then PA, yet you don't hear a peep about that state... amazing.

Vicch, if you'd read outside your narrow ideological straightjacket, you'd know that this isn't true at all. Take this quote from the very article I posted:

The stark shift from exit polls favoring Kerry to final results in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio all went in Bush's direction, and are, according to Baiman, a virtual impossibility, with odds as high as 150 million to one against.

Ain't that a peep? Their well-documented shenanigans (detailed in the article) gave the Republicans Florida twice and Ohio this time, but were apparently insufficient to swing PA. Well, ya can't win 'em all, no matter how dirty you fight.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Statitistis and human behavior.... never a reliable mix.

[ericsp23]

This thread has gone off topic, but I would like to pursue this. Can we get a topic split?

I want to know how the Bush supporters can justify what happened in Ohio. Specifically, I'm refering to the well documented fact that the Republican party made a blatant attempt to disenfranchise voters who were likely to vote Democratic by shorting those precincts of voting machines, by sending challengers into Democratic precincts to challenge ballots, and by holding those who registered as Democrats to a higher standard than those who registered Republican. These are not wild claims by a small number of people. It has been well documented in the main stream media. The same kinds of things happened in Florida and New Mexico as well, where the GOP was in a position to pull this kind of thing off.
So my question is, was it really so important for you to win that you have to turn your backs on the most basic democratic ideal there is? The right to vote should not be based on party affiliation.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: ericsp23 This thread has gone off topic, but I would like to pursue this. Can we get a topic split?

I agree that this thread is veering off-topic (can we get back on track please?) but a split isn't necessary. A voluminous thread covering the election and its legitimacy is HERE .

Please post anything to do with election fraud there.