Governer Dean Becomes Chair of DNC

sg3000 writes "It's official: the Democrats elected Howard Dean as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Dean won the position after a particularly contentious run for chairman, as reported in The New Republic. Governor Dean became a national figure during his impressive run for president in 2003, where he started as an outsider and long-shot candidate but became the front runner, only to see support fail to materialize during the Iowa caucuses."

Comments

Spelling Mistake?

[Ieshan]

In article title: Not "Governer", "Governor"

BALRHGHGHASGHH!

Re:Spelling Mistake?

[sg3000]

> In article title: Not "Governer", "Governor"

The extra "e" is for "electronic democracy" because Governor Dean raised so much money over the Internet.

ahem.

Okay, fine, I'm pretty sure I typed it wrong when I submitted the headline. I deserve all the mocking you can dish out. But for restitution, allow me to offer this appropriate Simpsons quote:

Homer: Look kids! I just got my party invitiations back from the printers.
Lisa: [Reading the invitation.] "Come to Homer's BBBQ. The extra B is for BYOBB."
Bart: What's that extra B for?
Homer: That's a typo.

Democratic Attempt?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Democratic Party has long been trying to appear more "with it" for the past couple of decades. Howard Dean struck a chord with the comman man, perhaps this will bring more attention to the party and their goals.

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[maunleon]

Struck a cord with the common man? Come on, Howard Dean was a joke, and it shows there is a leadership problem at the top of the Dem party.

If this is the best they can do, I'm sorry for them. They need someone who can distance himself from the mudslinging and negative image the democrat party got during the last election. Put some class back in the Democrat party. Select someone with class and integrity, even if his name is not as well known as Dean.

Like it or not, the last election was more of an indictment of the demorats than a victory for the republicans.

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[kevin lyda]

i'm just curious, when you suck down that much right-wing spin (regardless of your own political views), do you get dizzy?

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[rkcallaghan]

Struck a cord with the common man? Come on, Howard Dean was a joke, and it shows there is a leadership problem at the top of the Dem party.

I agree with you that Dean wasn't the one striking a chord with the common man, but I don't think that was the reason. As much as I, and many here, hate George W. Bush, the reason he's in office is "striking a chord with the common man."

He comes off as "common man" with his poor speaking abilities. He goes to schools, and reads stories to children. He went out in the crowd of terrified family members after 9/11, shaking hands and pausing to listen to frightened citizens stories. Then shortly after, he stood up and told the country that he was going to make us safer, and make it alright.

"Common men" don't care about secret tribunals, election fraud, attacking the wrong guy, invading soveriegn nations, alienating the world, or any of that stuff that "nerds" (of all types) care about. They want to be told that their leader empathizes with them, and that by golly, he's going to make it right. That's the stuff that makes the "common man" sleep easy at night.

~Rebecca

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[Anonymous Coward]

imho, and in many, many other's, bush is in office thanks only to a corrupted election

see mom, money can buy anyone

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[Rev Wally]

They need someone who can distance himself from the mudslinging...
Yeah, 'cos Republicans never sling mud, or take the low road. Oh, wait, never mind.
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/entertainment/4186 094/detail.html

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[Hard_Code]

I really detest that cynical attitude. That the only ones whose opinions are fit are these theoretical "joe sixpacks" that go to blue collar jobs, don't read books, drink domestic beer, etc. etc. I think that stereotype, and buying into it, is stupid, and I don't think any American "common" or "uncommon" should buy into an idea that their opinion doesn't really matter because they are not somehow the "prototypical American". There is no prototypical American. There is no universal Joe Sixpack. There's an implicit reverse elitism in that. There is no fucking reason a lab-worker or aerospace engineer, or single mother middle-manager, or ex-drug-addict playwright are any LESS American than our theoretical Joe Sixpack. I think that's what makes us Americans.

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[Anonymous Coward]

The GP didn't say "common man", he said "comman man". HD may not have struck a chord with the common man, but he sure did with the comman man.

What ever that is.

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I, and many here, hate George W. Bush

There's your problem. The typical American doesn't "hate" Bush. They may not agree with him, but they won't go as far as hating him. When you spout hatred, you turn off the majority of Americans.

And don't give me that shit about the 2000 election. I saw as much (maybe more) voter fraud on the left as you did on the right.

If the Dems EVER want to win another election, they're going to have to get the hatred out of their system and come up with REALISTIC plans to solve the country's problems. Yelling (Dean), screaming (Dean), and hate (Dean said he hates Republicans) just won't do it. Americans are smarter than you think.

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[Pluvius]

If they get someone with class and integrity who distances himself from the mudslinging, they're going to lose again. No, they need to have someone who appears to have and do all of those things, like the Republicans do.

That said, Dean is definitely the wrong person for the job. This is going to push moderates even farther away from the party, not bring them in.

Rob

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[Pluvius]

By definition, there are more common men than uncommon men. People win elections (well, in theory) by getting more votes than the other guys. Therefore, appealing to the common man is more important than appealing to the uncommon man. Don't shoot the messenger, kiddo.

Rob

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[Pluvius]

It's funny, because there are as many people on the right who show hatred for the Democrats (either Clinton, for example) as there are people on the left who show hatred for the Bush administration. It goes along with what I was saying earlier--the reason why the Republicans win elections is because they appear to have a much smaller group of haters than the Democrats do.

Americans are smarter than you think.

Oh, if only they were.

Rob

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[jadavis]

You seem to be implying that Bush won the election because of rhetoric and image. Certainly that's partially true, as with any politician. However, as long as the Democrats keep thinking that, they will never win an election.

The reason Bush won is because people knew what Bush was about, knew what he stood for, and agreed with some of his ideas.

The Democratic party needs to put forth someone with a message that the people like, and positions the people agree with. It's that simple. The Democrats are having somewhat of an identity problem, and that was reflected last election.

The fiscal liberals (i.e. people who want to involve the federal government more in economic transactions) are a strong component of the Democratic party. However, for better or worse, those ideas just don't get votes. Neither do politicians who support gay marriage.

There are really two options:
(1) Try to be honest about core values, like fiscal liberalism, abortion as a civil right, gay marriage, and more involvement with the U.N. This will initially cost the Democrats many positions, but will provide an opportunity to convince people of their ways.

(2) Continue their policy of Republican-Lite. The Democrats will hold more offices, but never will they gain the dominant position in the nation. They will never be able to convince anyone that liberalism is the way to go, because they can't even stand up and say it (or they'll lose votes).

Now, I'm not a member of the Democratic party, so maybe you shouldn't take my advice. I just want a healthy political landscape because that is better for me too. If the Democrats are constantly pandering and compromising and never really come up with a main issue that really creates a following, that means we have a bunch of Democrats, none of whom actually agree with the Democratic party.

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[JavaLord]

"Common men" don't care about secret tribunals, election fraud, attacking the wrong guy, invading soveriegn nations, alienating the world, or any of that stuff that "nerds" (of all types) care about. They want to be told that their leader empathizes with them, and that by golly, he's going to make it right. That's the stuff that makes the "common man" sleep easy at night.

I take offense to this. I am a "nerd". I am young, I have a degree in computer science, live in a blue state, and work in another blue state (as a programmer) but I vote Republican. There are plenty of smart people who agree with the Republican party platform.

Isn't your party the one that dislikes stereotypes? Your basic argument that Bush won because Americans are stupid is disgraceful, not insightful despite the modding of your peers.

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[Anonymous Coward]

because there are as many people on the right who show hatred for the Democrats (either Clinton, for example) as there are people on the left who show hatred for the Bush administration

Never, have I ever seen anyone on the right compare either Clinton with Hitler. I've never heard the out and out hatred for a sitting president than I hear the democrats have for Bush. It's one thing to disagree with his policies. It's another to make fun of him for his quirks. Calling a sitting president Hitler, an imperalist, the "anti-christ" etc is disgusting. I've never heard anyone on the right or left do that prior to GWB.

As for your crack about Americans, what makes you think they are stupid? Did they just stumble into being the greatest nation in the world?

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[Pluvius]

Never, have I ever seen anyone on the right compare either Clinton with Hitler.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Clinton+Hitle r

Note especially that WND article about halfway down the first page.

As for your crack about Americans, what makes you think they are stupid?

I don't think that they are stupid. I just don't think that they're particularly smart, either.

Did they just stumble into being the greatest nation in the world?

No, they got there on the shoulders of their forefathers. Americans used to be a lot less complacent and reliant on the government for everything. We've grown fat and sluggish much like the Roman Empire did before its fall. Not to say that most of today's nations are any better, but it's only a matter of time until somebody else becomes the main superpower on Earth, most likely China.

Rob

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[WCityMike]

Struck a cord with the common man? Come on, Howard Dean was a joke, and it shows there is a leadership problem at the top of the Dem party.

Oh, yes, Howard Dean is a joke among the common man. That must be why thousands of individuals generated over $106,061.77 in Democratic contributions in just two days in order to endorse his leadership.

Nay-saying's a lot of fun, isn't it?

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[laughingcoyote]

Great. Now since you're one of the smart ones, you are going to bother to tell us your logical, rational reasons for supporting Bush, right? Although I'm sure you were just about to do that.

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[laughingcoyote]

And I'm out of mod points. I could not have said it better. It's time that Democrats quit BUYING INTO the Republican position-namely, that "liberal" is some kind of epithet, a "dirty word" if you will. I am a LIBERAL, I'm proud of it, and it's about damn time we put some pride back in it.

There is one other thing-the Democrats need to play on the inherent wish of Americans to be moral. And in fact, they can do that! The Republicans pick garbage issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) that they know will divide. It's time for the liberals (Dem or otherwise) to stand up and say "Who GIVES A CRAP if 2 guys get married, when over 40 million Americans live without basic health coverage! THAT is immoral! THAT is unethical! And for that matter, it is UNCHRISTIAN!" Well guess what, Joe Average can rally around that! Now you're making it a question of basic morality, not a question of any type of cost-benefit scenario, not looking at it as some sort of "handout".

It's time for liberalism to quit being seen as an elitist philosophy, and for what it is-the philosophy which really DOES care about every man, instead of pandering to him and then stabbing him in the back with a cheerful smile, and trying to convince him that he did it to himself. That is my liberalism, thank you very much, and I see it as a good thing. And when someone calls me a "liberal", expecting me to begin backpedaling and prove that I'm not, I smile and say proudly "You are goddamn right I am, and I am proud to be. Thank you for noticing." They don't even know what to do!

And no, I'm not a member of the Democratic Party, either, they don't represent my wishes really any more than the Republicans do. When they get back to being good old social democrats, well then, I'll be the first to sign up. Until then, I have no wish to participate in the ultraconservative (Republican) vs. plain old conservative (Democrat) scam.

As for Bush-he DID win with rhetoric, and most certainly with image. Personally, I'm scared of the guy, although I'd be scared anytime that the guy with access to the "nukyalur" button can't even pronounce "nuclear" properly. Apparently, a lot of people find that endearing. I find it disturbing. But he did win on a lot of style and very little substance (for example, not correcting several of his statements during the debates, even when they were proven factually incorrect.) But he's not the first politician to try the image-over-substance trick. The Dems, however, handled it artlessly-instead of exposing the fraud, they played along. Instead of pointing out that he'd rigged the game, they played by his rules. And unsurprisingly, they lost.

The liberals also need to show that THEY are the real "freedom party"-the ones who advocate genuine freedom. Freedom of religion, including, for those who desire it, freedom FROM religion. Freedom of opportunity for everyone, not just the elite. Freedom from those we did not elect having power by virtue of their bank balance. Freedom from tyranny by corporations, as well as from tyranny of the government. Freedom from government interference in our bodies and bedrooms. Freedom from poverty. This is freedom. The conservatives only seek to offer us corporate tyranny, where instead of a dynasty of monarchial rulers, we face a dynasty of the wealthy elite, who, exempt from nearly all taxes, hold all the REAL power.

This situation is immoral and horrific. But the Dems, if they want to have any hope, better start painting a hell of a lot clearer picture of where we're REALLY going if we follow the conservative method. Otherwise, the conservatives will just keep nudging that heat on up, until it really IS too late for the frog to jump out of the pot. Currently, it's not.

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[jadavis]

I am a LIBERAL, I'm proud of it

Finally, someone I can talk sense with. You know what your positions are, and you know the logical conclusions of those positions. I respectfully disagree with you on many issues I'm sure, but that's better than you disagreeing with yourself (and trying to make a political party out of that idea).

when over 40 million Americans live without basic health coverage

Without health coverage does not mean without health care. Another interpretation of that statistic is that 40 million people think that they can manage their own health better than someone else managing it for them.

he DID win with rhetoric, and most certainly with image

But there was substance there, consider:
* no gay marriage
* continue with war in Iraq on course
* hold Iraqi elections soon
* don't increase government involvement in health care
* avoid increasing tax burden
* appoint SC justices wihtout a "litmus test"

Those are positions of substance. You and I may both disagree with some of his positions, but at least we knew who the man was. Kerry, we had no idea. During the debates he kept talking about a big government health program, but everytime Bush said "So you mean socialized heath"*, Kerry would say "No No No, it's all through a series of private companies that the government just pays"*. Of course that's dumb: the goverment paying for health is socialized health care, and everyone knew it. You say that's good and you might be right. But then Kerry won't call it what it is, so he looked like an idiot.

To this day I don't entirely know for sure a policy that Kerry supports. He really didn't have much substance. He basically ran the "I'm not Bush" ticket.

Freedom from tyranny by corporations, as well as from tyranny of the government.

Corporations are a government-imposed structure with rights above and beyond what private individuals or groups can achieve. Particularly, corporate owners have immunity from liability beyond their corporate investment in most cases. So perhaps those are one and the same? Or at least partially so?

Freedom from poverty.

Be a little careful with this one. Don't create a right for one person that enslaves another.

* Bush/Kerry quotes are paraphrased to the best of my recollection.

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Note especially that WND article about halfway down the first page.

Which links to a poll that claims it's source is the NY Post, but really links to a geocities page. I saw a lot of Geocities pages in those results, mostly with tounge in cheek jokes comparing the two. I've seen many on the left who seriously think Bush = Hitler which is just silly.

No, they got there on the shoulders of their forefathers. Americans used to be a lot less complacent and reliant on the government for everything.

Agreed.

We've grown fat and sluggish much like the Roman Empire did before its fall.

Agreed.

Not to say that most of today's nations are any better, but it's only a matter of time until somebody else becomes the main superpower on Earth, most likely China.

I know popular though here on Slashdot (and really for many people) assumes China will be the next Super Power, but considering the demographics a Muslim Super State would be much more likely superpower.

I don't doubt that America is heading for a fall if She can not get off the government teat, and more importantly stop buying her way into debt and balkanizing her people by taking on too much immigration at one time. Never mind the fact that America is below the replacement rate (ie, Americans aren't having enough children to replace the current population) even though most Americans think they are doing the country a service by having less children.

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[MattW]

Bush won because he has very strong support with Christians, especially fundamentalists. They (being the GOP and Karl Rove in particular) motivated and mobilized a huge segment of people in '04 that never voted before: people who were largely fundamentalist in religion but disinterested in politics, and they did it by making those people afraid or angry with respect to a supposed "moral decline".

I voted strictly Republican for a number of years. I graduated from a Christian high school. I agreed with (and largely STILL agree with) what I saw as the fundamental tenants of the Republican party:

* Fiscal responsibility (by both the government and individuals)
* Smaller government (ie, less of it, and more local where possible)

Eventually, I abandoned my religious viewpoints. Lacking the religious impetus to maintain them, a lot of my so-called "viewpoints" reversed: for example, when I was 18, I'd have probably been arguing for an Amendment to ban Gay Marriage. Now, I just can't figure out why people care who marries who. (Of course, I don't wonder why the religious right cares...)

That said, on top of a conversion to social liberalism, I think the Republicans abandoned their platform quite some time ago. I was a libertarian for quite some time and still regard myself as one at heart, but in races like '04, I had to back the Democrats. To short-list reasons why I was horrified that Bush won and I voted for Kerry instead: (and, yes, I was voting 'against bush'; the only democrat I really 'liked' was Dean)

* Bush and the Republicans passed one of the largest and most inefficient and expensive social program expansions EVER, in the form of the "Prescription Drug Benefit" for medicare. This was insane, as the legislation included language to stop the government from exerting pricing pressure on drug manufacturers...like, say, all the HMOs and PPOs do. Whether you believe we should pay for seniors' drugs or not, the handout to pharma companies was just ludicrous.
* Bush and the Republicans are the hard-core proponents of the PATRIOT act and under Bush, there have been a rash of extremely scary violations of civil rights. The complete lack of respect for the Constitution is horrendous, and Bush was completely disingenuous during the debates. During the town hall debate, he was asked a direct question about the way the PATRIOT act limited civil rights and he essentially said that it didn't and that he would never support that. Despite that, the PATRIOT act continues to have provisions struck down by the Courts and we're not anywhere done with it yet. He supported and is now working toward removing the expirations on many of the expiring provisions.
* Bush passed a huge tax cut and led us into a huge deficit. Given that tax cuts are often spent on consumer goods and we have an enormous trade deficit which largely comes from an insatiable demand for foreign consumer goods, you could argue that a tax cut stimulated China's economy more than it did ours. Where is the fiscal responsibility? Who's going to pay this bill? Meanwhile, the dollar is suffering huge declines against foreign currencies, especially the Euro.
* Bush argued from a position of certainty that Iraq had WMDs. We never found any. Worse, Bush has spread other deliberate misinformation, like using a completely bogus report to very loudly link Iraq with Al-Qaeda; then the report turns out to be a fraud.
* Republicans support their own brand of social program. Farm subsidies, for example, are this massive welfare program for red states. It's totally nuts.

Not that I don't have problems with the Democrats. The left side of the Democrats uses the term "Progressive" and when I think: "Progress towards what?" the answer that occurs to me is: full socialist wealth redistribution. Then there's the refusal to support legislation to ban horrendous late-term and even partial-birth abortion. I spent a lot of time analyzing abortion looking for a defensible moral ground, and my conclusion was only that it was indetermin

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[laughingcoyote]

I respectfully disagree with you on many issues I'm sure, but that's better than you disagreeing with yourself (and trying to make a political party out of that idea).

No problem there, I've met very many intelligent, articulate conservatives quite capable of having a respectful debate. Thus far, you certainly seem to fall into that category. I don't expect that the whole world would agree with me, that would be terribly boring.

Without health coverage does not mean without health care. Another interpretation of that statistic is that 40 million people think that they can manage their own health better than someone else managing it for them.

True, or that they are too young for anything to happen, or...

However, I would imagine that, if we did a survey of those people, we would find that at least the majority would have health coverage if they could afford it, and because they cannot, live without checkups, diagnostic screenings, and other basic health care services.

Some further information on this point:

"The proportion of children who were uninsured did not change, remaining at 11.6 percent of all children, or 8.5 million, in 2002."

Source: United States Census Bureau report. (PDF)

Children, of course, did not make that choice.

So far as adults?

"Even having to pay very small contributions to health insurance policies can deter workers from joining. In fact, about 20 percent of all uninsured people live in families where a worker has declined employer-sponsored insurance coverage, with two-thirds citing cost as the culprit. For many, the decision to purchase health insurance must compete with the need for food and housing."

Source: Urban Institute research paper.

You might be right in a few cases, but in the majority, cost of insurance is just not payable. Of course, those who cannot insurance can also not afford to pay directly for care. Therefore, lack of health insurance does, at least in a very significant number of cases, bear a causal relationship to a lack of health care. (Except in an emergency situation, where care must be provided regardless of ability to pay. Even in these circumstances, however, followup care is often inadequate.)

But there was substance there, consider:

I will indeed.

* no gay marriage

Not a substantive issue at all. It's one that raises the hair on a lot of people's necks, but no one's shown how government belongs involved in the issue in the first place. Also, he knew well that the proposed Constitutional amendment against gay marriage didn't have anywhere near the kind of support it needed in order to pass, that was pure window-dressing.

I have yet to hear any objection to gay marriage on non-religious grounds. Pursuant to the separation of church and state, religious reasons are not and cannot be a rationale for government prohibition of an activity. (I presume this to be well-known, I'll cite sources upon request.) The only other argument I've heard is that it's "not natural"-and by that rationale, we should ban cars.

* continue with war in Iraq on course

Certainly no denying that this was an issue of substance, but I would've been far more comfortable had the failures of intelligence, etc., been more thoroughly addressed by Bush, instead of glossed over with "Well he wasn't a very nice guy anyway, so it's alright in the end."

* hold Iraqi elections soon

Fair enough, but I never heard Kerry be against that one, so I'm not sure how Bush "won on" that issue-to my knowledge, it was never in dispute. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me. As to the fact that the elections were held on time, and went off overall quite well, I'm thrilled to see it, and I certainly hope that Iraq can stay on that course.

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[N3WBI3]

The only know conviction is of a brother of a woman running on the democratic ticket for the house in Wi who slashed the tires of vans the republicans planned to drive people to the polls with..

Re:Democratic Attempt?

[jadavis]

Interesting health info. I'm still checking that out.

What we have now is a bad health care system. Costs are not controlled because the people making the buying decisions are not the ones paying the costs. To balance it out, the insurance companies must require patients to go to low-cost providers who underprescribe and generally provide poor service. And, because the costs are only loosely controlled, the premiums are still very high. So, we have high premiums and low quality medical care. The allocation of medical resources is very inefficient.

Health care in the U.S. is very important to me since I have high health care costs and I will my entire life. I need quality health care and prescriptions, and I am willing to pay the cost.

When a politician speaks to me of "health care as a right" or reducing the price to me, I don't like it at all, because I want quality health care. It's no secret that if you reduce the consumer's price, via insurance or social programs, one or more of the following things will happen:
(1) reduced quality
(2) shortage
(3) lines/queues/rationing

Which all result in doom for me personally.

I think it would be much better if the government got out of health care and employers got out of health care, and the government just issued a voucher to everyone below a certain income level. They could spend it on whatever health care they want.

Regarding gay marriage, I'm a little unclear whether that should be allowed or not. It is clear to me that government is involved in marriage, otherwise this wouldn't be an issue in the first place. It probably shouldn't be a Federal issue though. The only reason to make it Federal is because couples move around, and generally we expect to be able to maintain the same family structure when moving within the U.S. This whole issue is one of those unfortunate murky situations, because it's much easier to treat everyone as an individual.

But everyone is not an individual. A married person is no longer an individual in many practical ways. They share children with another person, who are also not really individuals. Marriage is a practical recognition of human nature. In many ways, marriage is designed to protect the woman from various outcomes. One common situation is that the woman might support a man for 20 years as he builds his career, and then if the man were to leave the woman would have nothing and the man would have everything. Marriage protects the woman in that case. And I don't consider marriage religious since it is pervasive throughout the human population of all different religions. It's more of an acknowledgement of human nature. I'm not saying that we should force people to bahave naturally, but in some cases it might be good to acknowledge a common human behavior.

Some of these assumptions do not really translate to same sex marriages.

I think if you allow other forms of marriage you might as well just get rid of the entire thing from government involvement. Everyone can just go to whatever church they want, or no church, and make whatever agreement they want. They can sign a contract or not make any legal committment at all. I'm not really against the idea of getting the government out of marriage (however, I think if you do that a lot of women will get really really screwed by their husbands if they break up). I just don't see the point in extending the definition of marriage so far that the laws regarding marriage don't even make sense any more.

Either way, it is an issue. I think people had an idea who Bush is. Let me put it this way: I don't think that Kerry alienated ONE PERSON in the entire country with a one-liner. You know someone doesn't have any stance when they don't alienate someone. Bush would take a stance, and if someone didn't agree with him, he would let the vote disappear, not pander. I'm not saying a candidate needs to be overly devisive (and I would respect the argument that Bush is overly divisive), but you can't please everyone.

Ker

Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[jpatters]

Dean? A Democrat? Yes, he signed civil unions into law, but publicly declaired his discomfort about it and did the signing in private with no press allowed. He was practically the Republican governor of Vermont for ten years!

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Planesdragon]

Psst...

Gay rights are not a core Democratic platform. Every democratic presidentcal candidate EVER has been against Gay marriage. At the most expansionist, they're in favor of it being up to the states.

(Gay rights are included within a few other party ideals, but they're hardly a major issue.)

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[kevin lyda]

yes, yes, but not by the standards of a vast amount of your fellow americans. i know, it's scary as hell, but there you go.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Pendersempai]

Sad but true. Gay rights are not a core Democratic issue. But they SHOULD be. Democrats are having a hard time distinguishing themselves from Republicans. No one believes that they're in favor of fiscal responsibility, or that their position on Iraq is viable.

But if they remade themselves as the Party of Tolerance, I think they could do a lot better. They could brand the Republicans as intolerant, exclusionist, backwards. They could make gay rights into the Civil Rights struggle of the new generation that it will inevitably be and call themselves the champions of it. They could personalize all of the anti-gay policies the GOP pushes under the sterile cover of "protecting the sanctity of marriage." Put some very charismatic, very likable gay people on TV. Have them tell their stories. "Why does President Bush hate this man? Why doesn't he deserve the right to marry someone he loves? Why does the Republican Party think they're more moral than him, when he's just trying to live his life with the hand God dealt him?" The Republicans are VERY vulnerable on this front, and the Democrats could make a lot of headway pushing at it. They could also make the world a much better place.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Planesdragon]

And if they did that, then the Republicans could reincarnate Hitler and get the vast Christian majority of this country to vote him in on "moral issues."

Kerry ran and was fairly open about wanting tolerance -- and he lost to a President with the lowest par-approval rating EVER.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Lance Petersen]

I've backed Kerry since way back before he won the first primaries (4JKB4IA), but when was he ever "open about wanting tolerance"? Kerry stood for a lot of specifics: affordable health care, smarter foreign policy, &c. The values Kerry stood for were mainly those of nuance, not of tolerance.

That said, I do think the Democrats could do better by reshaping their rhetoric along the common thread of tolerance.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[moof1138]

"Gay rights are not a core Democratic issue. But they SHOULD be. Democrats are having a hard time distinguishing themselves from Republicans. No one believes that they're in favor of fiscal responsibility, or that their position on Iraq is viable."

What the Dems really need to do is convince the American people that they are more fiscally responsible than Republicans. After all, this is actually true, and it appears that the fiscal profligacy and incompetence of the Republicans isn't likely to ever end.

They also need to make sure that people know that the core values of the Democratic party are affordable healthcare, protecting american jobs, and affordable education, and that these can be achieved while being far more fiscally responsible. They also need to do a better job of pointing out that the Republicans have failed us with respect to all of those goals.

I am all for gay rights, and am disgusted by the cynical and twisted rhetoric that the Republicans use to try to use people's fear and hatred of gays to push their agenda, but I don't think that should be the focus, as it really isn't going to give that much headway. There are a lot more bigoted jerks in this country than there should be, and many of them will be more motivated to vote based on hate and fear than anything else. While the Dems should be progressive, they shouldn't be holding up their banner about an issue that they have consistently gotten bloody noses on.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank god Dean was made DNC chairman. With any luck, he'll get the nomination in '08.

4 more years of Republican leadership after that.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Planesdragon]

but when was he ever "open about wanting tolerance"?

Watch the debates?

Right then and there.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Anonymous Coward]

What the Dems really need to do is convince the American people that they are more fiscally responsible than Republicans. After all, this is actually true...

That's such a cute falsehood.

I'm not saying the republicans are fiscally responsible - just that the democrats sure haven't shown they are either.

What the democrats really need is to give people a reason to vote for them. Lately they seem to be the party of "We're not Bush," which brings just about enough people onboard to narrowly lose.

Oops, going AC now, I've violated groupthink...

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[DAldredge]

Both sides spend money like drunken sailors, it's just only the side not currently in power bitches about it.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[moof1138]

"I'm not saying the republicans are fiscally responsible - just that the democrats sure haven't shown they are either."

I guess you missed the Clinton administration...

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[js7a]

Has it occured to you that the Republican base supports the GOP because the bigoted, intolerant, exclusionism is compatible with their bible-belt religious beliefs?

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are millions of Republicans in California and New York too, you know.

And, believe it or not, a lot of them aren't actually religious, let alone Christian.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[ikkonoishi]

You mean the administration that rode the dot com bubble?

We knew then that the economy was overinflated and would bust. It did in late 1999.

The recession "began" on Bush's watch the same way that a ski-jumper's
flight "begins" when he leaves the jump platform. In both cases, their flailing fall was
set in motion long before.
Analogy taken from this piece.
Good read.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Grym]

But if they remade themselves as the Party of Tolerance, I think they could do a lot better. They could brand the Republicans as intolerant, exclusionist, backwards. They could make gay rights into the Civil Rights struggle of the new generation that it will inevitably be and call themselves the champions of it... Put some very charismatic, very likable gay people on TV. Have them tell their stories. "Why does President Bush hate this man? Why doesn't he deserve the right to marry someone he loves? Why does the Republican Party think they're more moral than him, when he's just trying to live his life with the hand God dealt him?" The Republicans are VERY vulnerable on this front, and the Democrats could make a lot of headway pushing at it. They could also make the world a much better place.

*psst*.... In case you haven't noticed, the media has tried this. They've tried their best to put a palatable face on homosexuality. Tell me, when is the last time you've ever seen an ugly or mean homosexual on T.V.? Prison scenes excluded (and one could make a viable case that many prisoners involved in prison rape are not homosexual), what about a violent one? In fact, that whole portrayal of the Matthew Shepard murder was almost exactly what you describe. What's more, notice how those who disagree with homosexuality are portrayed; they're violent, backwater idiots.

And yet, despite the fact that the media has attempted to shove homosexuality down our throats, most Americans remain unconvinced. Most of this generation embrace the civil rights struggle of the '60s and Women's rights movements, and see both as necessary, good things. However, gay rights movement of today isn't the same thing or of the same merit. Homosexuals can still vote. Homosexuals can and do hold office. Legally, there's nothing different from a homosexual individual than a heterosexual. In fact, because hate crime laws are only enforced for minorities, one could make the case that a homosexual has more institutional rights than a heterosexual.

The fact of the matter is that the gay rights movement of today doesn't want tolerance: they already have it. They want acceptance, which paradoxically is an ideologically intolerant position. If the democratic party centers itself around that kind of liberal fascism, they can only look forward to more losses in the future--which would be a bad thing for all of us. The system needs a viable opposition to work.

-Grym

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Pluvius]

Legally, there's nothing different from a homosexual individual than a heterosexual.

Well, besides that whole "being considered a wedded couple under the law" thing. But hey, that only determines things like being covered under your spouse's health insurance, so it's not that important, right?

Rob

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[hibiki_r]

Sure, there are millions of Republicans in those sates, but as far as elections go, they matter as much as the Democrats in Utah: pretty much nothing.

It's ironic though that those non-religious republicans that don't matter in the polls happen to be the ones that get the most economic benefit from our republican administration.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Jazu]

-1: Redundant

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[mintrepublic]

In most places, a heterosexual person can't marry a person of the same gender any more than a homosexual one can.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Lord Kano]

Gay rights are not a core Democratic issue. But they SHOULD be. Democrats are having a hard time distinguishing themselves from Republicans.

In order to win, the Democrats need to co-opt some Republican issues.

Look at the most successful Democrat president of the past generation. Bill Clinton co-opted a few Republican issues. Even though he didn't do it, he ran with a promise of a "middle class tax cut" in 1992. After he pushed the "don't ask don't tell" policy for the military in 1993, rescinded the "global gag rule" for abortion and passed the Brady Act (Nee Brady Bill)+ a gun ban in 1994 the Democrats got creamed in Congressional elections. He had to RUN back to the center, so for the 1996 election, he signed the Welfare Reform bill.

They could make gay rights into the Civil Rights struggle of the new generation that it will inevitably be and call themselves the champions of it.

If they do that, they risk losing a large portion of their Black supporters. No black person wants to see Rosie O'Donnell likened to Martin Luther King.

The Republicans are VERY vulnerable on this front, and the Democrats could make a lot of headway pushing at it.

If the Democrats are not very careful, they risk a backlash. It happened last year. When the MA Supreme Court mandated "Gay Marriage" in that state, 11 other states proposes amendments to their constitutions that really turned out the conservative base. "Gay Rights" is as much to blame for President Bush's win as anything else.

LK

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Pendersempai]

But a heterosexual person doesn't want to marry a person of the same gender.

It's just like anti-miscegenation laws. A black person couldn't marry a white person any more than a white person could marry a black person, but we still consider this horribly bigoted.

Except, in a way, it's worse. Because gay people through no fault of their own only want to marry people of the same gender, whereas straight people don't. So the law prevents one class of people from engaging in consensual and fulfilling marriage with another adult but not another. That's bigotry. It will change, and history will see it for what it was.

It's your kind of backwater, bigoted views that need to be exposed to the sunlight. Either you'd change your mind, or other people would see what a bigot you are and distance themselves from you. Humanity would win either way.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Pendersempai]

I agree -- but I think the reason Bush was able to ride bigotry to victory is that the Democrats let him get away with the sterile frame of "protecting the sanctity of marriage." Had they framed it as "denying basic human rights to some people for no reason whatsoever" they might have fared better. True, they would have to do it carefully. But I think the potential is enormous, both for partisan gain and for the improvement of the world.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[moof1138]

It's true that the dot com boom was inevitably going to slip, but Clinton pulled off a successful economy before the "bubble."

The dot com bust hurt the economy, but whether it had to get as bad as it got under Bush, and whether the Dems could have straightened things out if they were given more time are only speculative.

My speculation is that since the Clinton administration really did put fiscal discipline, principles and policy over politics a great deal, and since Bush II's & co. appear to make no decision that doesn't involve some kind of cronyism or scheming, and since the Republicans of the last 20 years have not been true to the once traditional Republican economic value of fiscal conservatism, that if the Dems. had remained in office, their more enlightened fiscal discipline could have handled the economy far better than Bush has. The handling of the economy after that event is where the Republicans were put to shame. Bush II's crew are such screwups that even my Republican friends cringe at his economic policies. The Dems. should make some political hay out of it.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[mintrepublic]

I am not a bigot; in fact, I support gay marriage and all that jazz. I was agreeing with the poster that said, "Legally, there's nothing different from a homosexual individual than a heterosexual." That's the way it should stay, why make rifts by making people legally different? Now, before you jump on me again, let me explain. This has nothing to do with gay marriage. If we made homosexuals and heterosexuals legally different, wouldn't that mean a heterosexual person couldn't marry someone of the same gender? Who decides who is and who is not a homosexual? Sheesh.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[firephreek]

Have you ever given thought to the possibility that it was the fact that Bush won the presidency that sent the economy south? Depression=lack of motivation to spend.

And your article quotes the shutdown of napster as being a major cause for the nonproliferation of broadband/telecommunication services. I can't say I really feel that napster is the reason so many small ISP's failed. But, I'm not an economice analyst. Give me a few years and a few books, I'll get back at ya.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[vwjeff]

The Republicans are VERY vulnerable on this front, and the Democrats could make a lot of headway pushing at it.

I highly doubt it. The majority of Americans oppose gay marriage but support civil unions.

I am within this majority. I believe that gay couples should have equal protection. I do not believe however that the definition of marriage should be changed.

I think Dean was a bad choice for the DNC chairman. Dean is seen as a far left person even though this may not be true. The Dems need a moderate as a leader in order to get back into power.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[antifoidulus]

But also keep in mind Clinton oozed charisma, as does GW Bush. Honestly, the more and more I look at presidential politics, the more I become convinced that personality makes or breaks candidates. Why did union members vote Reagan, one of the most anti-union presidents in history(though ironically the only president to ever actually lead a union)? Because he was "standing tall".

It's pretty much been that way since WWII. The president who is more likeable usually ends up the winner.

John Kerry and Al Gore didn't have as much charisma as Bush, but they were also not nearly as wooden as the media made them out to be. The media wanted the election to play out as a soap opera, and it did. They cast George W. Bush as the affable but dim witted Texan when really he is as New England blue blood as Kerry. They made Kerry out to be the very stuffy New England blue blood when really he was quite lively in person.

Seriously, you can do a quick study on your own. cnn.com always manages to take the worst pictures of people, ie the pictures that "capture" the emotion they want to ascribe to them(they do Dems and Reps the same dis-service). All throughout the election they chose the most wooden picture of Kerry they could find, and Bush's picture almost always seemed to show him with a dumbfounded look, but if you watch both men you will realize that Kerry isn't all that wooden and Bush isn't all that mentally vacant......

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Anonymous Coward]

It was amazing what that Republican Congress was able to do during the Clinton administration, wasn't it.

Oh, wait...

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Anonymous Coward]

But if they remade themselves as the Party of Tolerance, I think they could do a lot better. They could brand the Republicans as intolerant, exclusionist, backwards. They could make gay rights into the Civil Rights struggle of the new generation that it will inevitably be and call themselves the champions of it.

The problem is, many Republicans and independants think that while the Civil Rights movement was noble the state of it today is a joke. Listen to Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson speak for a little while and you will understand why. Plus calling it a 'new civil rights struggle' is kind of silly. Gays do not face the hardships today that african americans or women faced in the past.

They could personalize all of the anti-gay policies the GOP pushes under the sterile cover of "protecting the sanctity of marriage." Put some very charismatic, very likable gay people on TV. Have them tell their stories. "Why does President Bush hate this man? Why doesn't he deserve the right to marry someone he loves? Why does the Republican Party think they're more moral than him, when he's just trying to live his life with the hand God dealt him?"

It's unlikely that would win over people in the middle or on the right. For the religious right, they will view 'the devil' as the reason a man is gay. For the non-religious right, saying "Why does President Bush hate this man" will just turn them off as more "Bush Hatred".

The Republicans are VERY vulnerable on this front, and the Democrats could make a lot of headway pushing at it. They could also make the world a much better place.

Much like the democrats, you aren't coming at this from the right angle. The way to attack this issue is by using the republican party's own agenda and core values against it. I'm an independant conservative, and I usually vote Republican but I'll tell you the way to attack this issue for the Democrats is this:

Have Dean go on the news shows and present a simple question: "Why does the Government have any right to tell you who you can and can not marry? Aren't the Republicans for less Government? This is a free country for everyone, not just straight people.

By attacking the Republicans on one of the core issues of their party (Less Government/More Freedom) you will wedge out part of the republican party's base. Attacks like this are much better than the baseless attacks on the Iraq war that make the Democrats look like traitors.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[JavaLord]

And if they did that, then the Republicans could reincarnate Hitler and get the vast Christian majority of this country to vote him in on "moral issues."

I'm really, really sick of people associating the Republicans with Hitler. Lets take a look at Hitler's political beliefs.

He was for:

abortion (like the democrats)

censorship (like the democrats.. under the mask of being politically correct)

euthanasia (like the democrats/left)

gun control (like the democrats)

vegetarianism (like the democrats/left).

national socialism (like the democrats)

So Mr. Dragon, before you argue that Hitler would be a republican if he were reincarnated I suggest you go read up a bit about him. A Hitler/Stalin ticket would probably do really well in the primary elections for the democrats, but get crushed nationally. But hey, that isn't much different from what usually happens to you guys.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[mbrod]

You mean the administration that rode the dot com bubble?

There was much more going on in the economy in the 90's. Check all the growth we had in sectors outside of technology. If your view of the economy is so narrow minded as to focus solely on if you like the administration in the whitehouse or not why even bother.

A HUGE component of economic health and garnering foreign investment is how the deficit is looking. These deficits continue on their current pace and the economic troubles that come our way will make everyone forget the .dot boom/bust ever happened.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Jason Ford]

I'm really, really sick of people associating the Republicans with Hitler.

You are obviously justified in your anger, but your attempts to link Hitler with the Democrats are no less suspect.

From http://www.politicalcompass.org/ (where Hitler is presented as an authoritarian in the middle of the left/right divide, and so he might do well with the authoritarian elements of either party in their primaries):

'You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.'

Oh, and for the record, political correctness is not censorship, Hitler was NOT a vegetarian (except maybe occasionally, because he suffered from severe gastrointestinal problems, but not for moral reasons), and Democrats do not seek national socialism.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[geoffrobinson]

Are you talking about when the Republican Congress forced the Clinton administration to balance the budget? The current Democrats claiming they support fiscal responsibility but freaking out about any cuts? Or are you referring to the budget Clinton proposed in 1995? That's the one that never, ever even considered balancing the budget. And that was after the 1993 tax increases.

One last thing, for the record: tax revenues increased 6.1% last year (the horrors of tax cuts! It's draining the treasury!). Unfortunately, Congress spent 10.5% more last year as well. This reduced the annual deficit by about 150 billion dollars to about 360 something.

We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[JavaLord]

You are obviously justified in your anger, but your attempts to link Hitler with the Democrats are no less suspect.

Linking him with either party in America is silly, but I was proving a point. His political beliefs were in line with some on the left (perhaps more-so than the right).

From http://www.politicalcompass.org/ (where Hitler is presented as an authoritarian in the middle of the left/right divide, and so he might do well with the authoritarian elements of either party in their primaries):

I don't see "politicalcompass.org" as a valid source. Their test by the very nature of the questions is biased.

Oh, and for the record, political correctness is not censorship,

Yes it is. I guess it depends on your point of view but to me anything that limits free speech is censorship.

Hitler was NOT a vegetarian (except maybe occasionally, because he suffered from severe gastrointestinal problems, but not for moral reasons)

Hitler followed a strict vegetarian diet , because he did suffer from gastrointestinal problems but he also championed this position saying he "Didn't think any healthy man should eat meat". He did occasionally cheat on his vegetarian diet, usually for German sausage (Put in your hitler/gay theory here).

and Democrats do not seek national socialism.

Perhaps just socialism, since nationalism isn't something they are very good at. :)

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Jason Ford]

You are correct that many of Hitler's social policies were leftist or left-leaning. For instance, Hitler enforced anti-smoking and anti-pollution legislation.

However, although I still contend that Hitler was not a strict vegetarian (and I'm a vegan, so I know this means never consuming any animals or animal products, such as cow's milk or chicken's eggs), it doesn't matter unless he was a vegetarian for leftist moral reasons. As a leftist vegan, I object to the consumption of animals because of the violence required to sustain a non-vegetarian diet. Hitler obviously did not object to violence.

(A good number of right-wing moral vegetarians exist in the Matthew Scully mold.)

I don't see "politicalcompass.org" as a valid source.

Fair enough.

anything that limits free speech is censorship

What would you like to say that political correctness prevents you from saying?

Perhaps just socialism

The Democrats are not socialists. Compare and contrast the Democratic Party platform with the Socialist Party platform. (Well, who isn't against police brutality?)

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Anonymous Coward]

However, although I still contend that Hitler was not a strict vegetarian (and I'm a vegan, so I know this means never consuming any animals or animal products, such as cow's milk or chicken's eggs), it doesn't matter unless he was a vegetarian for leftist moral reasons.

Hitler probably wasn't as strict as you were, nor was he doing it for the same reasons. He was however an advocate, and he tried to follow a meat-free diet to avoid his stomach problems.

As a leftist vegan, I object to the consumption of animals because of the violence required to sustain a non-vegetarian diet. Hitler obviously did not object to violence.

Maybe he was a PETA guy. He did have a dog he was very fond of. Maybe he really loved Animals and just didn't like Humans.

(A good number of right-wing moral vegetarians exist in the Matthew Scully mold.)

I have no doubt that their are vegetarians on both sides of the aisle.

What would you like to say that political correctness prevents you from saying?

Nothing stops me, I think a lot of politicians hold back on issues or change their stance in the name of political correctness. Since we are on the topic, look at Dr. Deans stance on affermative action now compared to what it used to be.

The Democrats are not socialists.

From the link you provided:


Against War
Sounds like the democrats..

For a Living Wage and Full Employment

Sounds like something I hear the democrats saying from time to time. Is this like "Two Americas"

For Healthcare for All

Hillarycare!

Against Police Brutality

As you mentioned, aren't we all?

For Childcare for All

Ok, I haven't heard this one from the dems yet, but it wouldn't suprise me. After all, it takes a villiage!

For Free Post Secondary Education

Haven't heard this one from either party

Against Neo-Liberalism and Pro-Capitalist "Free-Trade"
Neither party is against this.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Pluvius]

Somehow I knew you were going to say that, despite the fact that it would be completely absurd to say something like "Blacks shouldn't be able to marry blacks, but that's not racist because whites shouldn't be able to marry blacks either."

Or if you're one of those people that ignores logic and common sense, believing that being a homosexual is a choice, replace "whites" with "Christians" and "blacks" with "Jews."

Rob

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Pluvius]

I was agreeing with the poster that said, "Legally, there's nothing different from a homosexual individual than a heterosexual."

And the difference is that heterosexuals, in general, are allowed to marry who they want to marry.

Rob

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Planesdragon]

So Mr. Dragon, before you argue that Hitler would be a republican if he were reincarnated

I didn't. I said that, if the Democrats did swing hard-left and make gay rights a platfrorm issue, the Republicans could literally elect ANYONE THEY CHOOSE.

(And you forgot that Hilter was also for Expansionist warfighting and discrimination based on religion -- two things that made him a villian, and either of which are Democratic [or really Republican] issues.)

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[mintrepublic]

The argument is over the right to marry. Homosexuals do have the same rights as heterosexuals to marry who they want, as long as it is someone of a different gender. Once this is changed, the rights of both will still be the same in that both homosexuals and heterosexuals would be able to marry people of the same gender. While homosexuals want to marry people of the same gender, heterosexuals don't have that right either.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[alan_dershowitz]

Republicans controlled congress for the first time in almost half a century, and Clinton had to co-opt the republican party platform (including a balanced budget) to keep his popularity up. No one even disputes this.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[ikkonoishi]

If your view of the economy is so narrow minded as to focus solely on if you like the administration in the whitehouse or not why even bother.

My point exactly.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[alan_dershowitz]

Neither the majority of democrats nor american citizens as a whole support gay marriage, and frankly, pissing people off spouting highly tenuous positions such as "republicans hate gays" and "God made people gay" will not make the world a better place.

I am a conservative. I support gay marriage because it's supposed to be a free country. I am under no illusions that social change doesn't have to take a long time, and you shouldn't be either. Do what you can to support what you believe in, but please don't do things that will only piss people off, and don't undertake actions that rely on popular support you simply don't have, either in your party or with the american public.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[yourmom16]

It's the fact that Congress and the President couldn't agree on things, that helped the economy; It wasn't the Rebublican congress(and it wasn't Clinton either.)

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Jason Ford]

Maybe he really loved Animals and just didn't like Humans.

Hmmm, maybe Hitler and I have more in common than I previously thought.

Against War
Sounds like the democrats..

It sounds like the Democrats now. The Democrats voted in favor of the War in Iraq. They are just hoping to use the war to politically embarass the Republicans. The Socialists are categorically against war.

This point: 0.5/1.0
Running total: 0.5/1.0

For a Living Wage and Full Employment

Sounds like something I hear the democrats saying from time to time. Is this like "Two Americas"

Well, I'll give you one out of two. Would you say that the Republicans are opposed to Full Employment?

This point: 1.0/2.0
Running total: 1.5/3.0

For Healthcare for All

Hillarycare!

The rhetoric is very similar, but I think you know how committed Democrats are to this idea. Hmmm, half a point for the Democrats' half-assed committment.

This point: 0.5/1.0
Running total: 2.0/4.0

Against Police Brutality

As you mentioned, aren't we all?

I'd like to add a point and subtract a point, as this is an issue everyone can get behind.

This point: 0.5/1.0
Running total: 2.0/4.0

For Childcare for All

Ok, I haven't heard this one from the dems yet, but it wouldn't suprise me. After all, it takes a villiage!

Good one. =) However leftist this idea might seem, though, those "nutty, leftist Democrats" haven't picked up on it yet.

This point: 0.0/1.0
Running total: 2.0/5.0

For Free Post Secondary Education

Haven't heard this one from either party

This point: 0.0/1.0
Running total: 2.0/6.0

Against Neo-Liberalism and Pro-Capitalist "Free-Trade"

Neither party is against this.

This point: 0.0/1.0
Running total: 2.0/7.0

Of course, I'm being pretty silly with my numbering system. My point is simply that the Democrats are more like the Socialists than the Republicans, but that they are not similar enough to the Socialists to substantiate the claim that they are Socialists. Further, we must also examine the Democratic Party platform for non-Socialist ideas. (Good luck trying to find an official bulleted list of the Democrats' platform.)

Regardless of my objections, I think one could argue that the Democrats have Socialistic tendencies.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Lehk228]

discrimination based on religion

That is incorrect Hitler was not out to eliminate Judism, but rather the entire Jewish race including non-religious Jews or Jews who had converted to other religions. Nazism as a whole was set out to eliminate all religion and replace it with a "worship" of the state and only the state. No totalitarian regime will allow religion for long, as accepting a higher power means accepting somehting as demanding loyalty above loyalty to the state.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would vote for Hitler, so long as he kept his promise to eliminate all the Jews.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Lehk228]

We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.
however since government is fundamentally incapable of real spending cuts (it's hard enough to "cut" the size of a spending increase) it is infact a revenue problem, revenue isn't growing enough

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Lehk228]

you are an idiot, the economy went south because it grew too fast during the bubble and had to adjust itself to the realities of the marketplace. As for depression over Bush winning doing it, as i just stated, you are an idiot.considering that the nature of polotics keeps both sides bouncing within about +- 0-5% of an even split there is no reason to think that depression of the losing side would be more severe with one candidate or the other, unless of course you want to imply (i'm not saying it, just can be implied by your claim) that the left are a bunch of overly emotional twits

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not even going to touch your scoring system, it was very funny though.

It sounds like the Democrats now. The Democrats voted in favor of the War in Iraq. They are just hoping to use the war to politically embarass the Republicans. The Socialists are categorically against war.

I think you are right about what the democrats are trying to do, and I don't think the republicans would be above doing the same thing.

Well, I'll give you one out of two. Would you say that the Republicans are opposed to Full Employment?

That depends how cheap the labor is.

The rhetoric is very similar, but I think you know how committed Democrats are to this idea. Hmmm, half a point for the Democrats' half-assed committment.

I have no doubt the democrats want this, like the republicans want private social security. It's just that the democrats aren't going to bring it up again until they are in power. It doesn't make sense for the parties to champion their more cluster-fuck like ideas when they are out of power.

Good one. =) However leftist this idea might seem, though, those "nutty, leftist Democrats" haven't picked up on it yet.

They are just using the Schools to subsidize this. It's only a matter of time until the public schools turn into full time daycare.

Of course, I'm being pretty silly with my numbering system. My point is simply that the Democrats are more like the Socialists than the Republicans, but that they are not similar enough to the Socialists to substantiate the claim that they are Socialists.

I'd argue that there is a wing of the democratic party that have the same ideas of the socialists but latch on to the democrats because they see that as their best chance to attain power. The Republicans have similar factions.

Regardless of my objections, I think one could argue that the Democrats have Socialistic tendencies.

I think some in the party do, and that the democrats have been catoring way too much to them. Note that the Republicans don't cater to their extremist wing they usually just threaten to throw them out (ie Pat Buchanan).

My original point stands, it's silly to call people in the Republican party 'Hitler' when the Democrats have more in common with Hitler politically than the Republicans do. I also mentioned that it is silly to call democrats 'Hitler' as well, they aren't bent on wiping anyone out. (or they just haven't found a way to kill all those pesky white men yet).

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont...

[palutke]

Are you talking about when the Republican Congress forced the Clinton administration to balance the budget?

Too bad the Republican Congress can't force Bush to balance the budget . . .

DNC for Presidential ...

[rkcallaghan]

... As long as I can't realistically vote libertarian in a presidential election, this is the lesser of the major evils. I like Dean, too. Sure would have preferred him, but I digress.

But, if you lean that LP way, and alot on /. I imagine do, you should try and vote libertarian in your local and even congressional elections.

What Libertarians actually support.

Go LP!

~Rebecca

Re:DNC for Presidential ...

[GimmeFuel]

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still an endorsement of that evil.

The candidate who gets the "lesser evil" votes doesn't have a party at campaign HQ celebrating the fact that he's less evil. He sees every vote, regardless of why it was cast, as an endorsement of his policies. Vote for the D, he sees it as you voting for the welfare state, affirmative action and all the other un-libertarian Democrat policies. Vote for the R, you're voting for the War in Iraq, the War on Drugs, and all the other un-libertarian Republican policies.

If you're a Libertarian, please vote for Libertarian candidates or stay home. Anything else is harmful to the Libertarian movement.

Re:DNC for Presidential ...

[rkcallaghan]

This issue is often a source of heated debates among Libertarians. I admit, its a hard one to struggle with. You're correct, both parties offer major "evils" when viewed in libertarian terms.

Unfortunately, voting in the USA right now has major flaws when more than two parties participate.

Taking the most recent election for example, with the split being so close. In the previous election, the independant vote was decidedly on the "Left" side of center. Those voting Libertarian, Independant, or others, were still voting "against Bush". I phrase it in that way because it really felt to me like the last election was never "for Kerry" but only "for/against" Bush Jr.

In 1992, the independant vote was decidedly on the "Right" side of center. Ross Perot's vote was taken mostly from those that would have otherwise voted for Bush Sr.

How do you know which is which? Well I'm sure there is a socio-political scientist out there that can fund a study and take 10 years to come up with the answer. Truthfully, you just have to know the climate. When you have an election that offers no second choice or rating system, and 2 parties are virtually guarenteed to recieve 50/50 +/- 5% of the vote, voting outside of those two is likely to have unintended side effects.

I'm libertarian because I actually support most (I think at last count 22 of 24 major issues?) of their platforms. I put my money where my mouth is with donations, and I throw my support when I can. But if we have another election similar to 2004, voting Libertarian for President is a fast track to insuring I don't get to vote again.

~Rebecca

Re:DNC for Presidential ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't understand that we live in a winner-takes-all voting system.

If you're a Libertarian, please vote for Libertarian candidates or stay home. Anything else is harmful to the Libertarian movement.

No, this is what you do in a parliamentary democracy. We do not live in a parliamentary democracy. Take Poli Sci again.

In the kind of system we have, different "interest groups" have to make coalitions to influence one of two dominant, mediocre political parties. Whether or not you think this is stupid (and you may have an argument there) this is how the system works. There are other systems, such as those with runoff voting or proportional representation in which the thinking you express would make more sense. I'm not defending the system we have (heaven forbid) but this is just how it works, which is helpful to know if you want your ideas to succeed in our system.

Re:DNC for Presidential ...

[GimmeFuel]

All the Libertarian Party has to do is the same thing the Socialist Party did.

Long, long ago, Democrats believed in limited government. Then the Socialist Party came along and started running candidates with the strategy of taking votes away from Democratic candidates. The Democrats had to start catering to Socialist interests in order to stop losing votes. I wish I had my copy of Lever Action on hand so I could quote the example given there: the 1932 platform of the Democratic Party called for limited government. The Socialist Party platform of the same year called for everything the Democratic Party stands for now: heavily progressive income tax, higher minimum wage, welfare state, more regulation of business, etc. The Democratic Party has become the Socialist Party in all but name.

Libertarians are in an even better position than the Socialists were, because we're capable of taking votes away from both the left and the right. Paleoconservatives who oppose preemptive war and "compassionate conservative" welfare programs are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the neocons who now run the Republican Party. At the same time, anti-war liberals don't like how much the Democrats support Bush's War in Iraq. The Libertarian Party can siphon off votes from both of these factions.

For example, the 2004 gubernatorial race in my home state of WA was decided by 127 votes. The Democrat, Gregoire, beat the Republican, Rossi, only after two recounts. The Libertarian candidate, Ruth Bennett, is openly lesbian and ran a campaign focused on gay rights, with the specific strategy of taking votes away from Gregoire. It worked. Bennett got 63,000+ votes. Remember that the margin of victory was only 127 votes. If even 1% of the Bennett supporters had voted for Gregoire instead, she would have won outright, without the need for two recounts.

You are correct that in the long run, the Libertarian Party will need to compromise with one or both of the major parties. However, the major parties won't compromise with us unless they have to. The only way to make them realize that they need to deal with us is by taking away their voters until they realize we are a force to be reckoned with. To that end, in the short run Libertarians MUST vote Libertarian instead of Democrat or Republican, and encourage any Libertarian-leaning friends or acquaintances to do the same. We'll either force them to compromise with us, as the Socialist Party did, or we'll supplant them entirely, in much the same way the Republican Party came to power over the Whigs.

Re:DNC for Presidential ...

[Pendersempai]

No! Voting for the lesser of two evils is GOOD! Less evil is better than more evil! In a plurality election as we have, no one will ever find a perfect match in a primary candidate. So you vote for the one who is closest. It's only the nutjobs that take your third-party all-or-nothing hardline stance. When your tiny coalition stands in a country of almost 300 million people and screams "All or nothing!", the people are going to give you nothing.

If libertarians were more willing to vote for primary candidates, the primary candidates might actually try to accommodate libertarian voters. As long as they throw their votes away on all-or-nothing, politicians can continue to ignore them completely. After all, what possible incentive can there be for a Democratic or Republican candidate to adopt libertarian precepts if the libertarians won't vote for him anyway?

Re:DNC for Presidential ...

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who voted Libertarian in the last election, I'm not saying that I want 'all-or-nothing'. I would be willing to vote for a party that moves us in the Libertarian direction. But that's not the Republicans or the Democrats. Both of those parties are only increasing spending. I won't vote for someone who wants to make the government bigger.

Re:DNC for Presidential ...

[GimmeFuel]

Read my reply to the AC above for the reasons that won't work.

Voting for candidates and then expecting them to cater to you won't work, because they already have what they want: your vote. You have to convince them that they need your vote, which means showing them what happens when they don't get your vote.

What you have to do is get people to vote for the third-party, then talk to the major party candidate you want to compromise with you, vote totals in hand as proof of your faction's clout. If you have enough votes, you may not even need to approach the candidate; he'll start appealing to your voters of his own accord.

Re:DNC for Presidential ...

[Anonymous Coward]

you should try and vote libertarian

"try to vote".

Re:DNC for Presidential ...

[js7a]

If you're a Libertarian, please vote for Libertarian candidates or stay home. Anything else is harmful to the Libertarian movement.

What nonsense. The U.S. first-past-the-post elections suffer from the "spoiler effect," because of which most third-party voters are effectivly voting for the opposite of what they want.

If you really care about your third party, or accuracy in any "spoiled" election (i.e., with any third party participant), then support instant runoff voting (IRV) with all of your political might, because any voting you do in a U.S. election before IRV is implemented is usually a vote for the other side.

Re:DNC for Presidential ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Great post, mate.

If there's one thing I can add, it's that libertarians should also push for a more fine-grained approach to policy decisions. First, it's good for the country no matter what your politics are, since it allows government to be more flexible, adaptive and responsive, and we have all the technological abilities to do so. But it's especially good for libertarians because it encourages major parties to make compromises on a variety of issues, to mix (during whatever regime) some moderate views in that will moderate some freedom-opposing views held by whichever party's in power.

Re:DNC for Presidential ...

[randall_burns]

I think you are correct about the logical strategy for third parties-and I would include Reform and Green in the list here. However, I think you miss what happened with the Socialist Party. There was _one_ important issue from the 1932 Socialis platform the Dems did not adopt:
Land Value Taxation-- a policy that some Libertarian sympathizers like Milton Friedman have kinder things to say about than many of the other policies.

Democrats like Huey Long did adopt policies like a tax on concentrated wealth-but over extreme hostility to the Democratic party bosses.

Another way the LP can get a voice would be to move the US towards proportional Representation-which is something that could be done on a state/local level.

Re:DNC for Presidential ...

[randall_burns]

I would also suggest that the LP is _way_ ouf of step with the American public on the issue of immigration-though there are some folks like Libertarian Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Re:DNC for Presidential ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. You have to show a willingness to vote for EITHER a libertarian or a major party candidate. If you always vote libertarian, you're always going to end up with the greater-of-two-evils candidate in office. And that helps no one.

Look at what happened to the Green party in 2000 (if you want to argue via single examples): they really showed the Democratic party they were serious, didn't they? And where did it get them? Did the Democratic party have to cater to them to get their votes?

No, it didn't. It was not like the Socialist party example you gave (if true). We ended up with a person in office so abhorrent to the Green party that none of them really cared what they had to compromise to get him out. Both the Green and Democratic parties ended up severely damaged (to say the least) and the Democratic party certainly did not change its ideals more to be more compatible with those of the Green party. If anything the political field changed as a result so that the Democratic party *seemed* more compatible in contrast to everything else out there. This is not what I'd call an optimal political strategy.

Re:DNC for Presidential ...

[Lord Kano]

If you're a Libertarian, please vote for Libertarian candidates or stay home. Anything else is harmful to the Libertarian movement.

I respect your position, but I disagree.

Let's look at it this way for a moment.

If you're a Libertarian, you know that you don't have the votes to win the White House so you can choose to vote for the LP candidate and have no effect on the race. You can choose to stay home and have no effect on the race. You can compromise and vote vote for one of the two candidates that has a chance to win.

Your individual vote doesn't matter much, but a few hundred of you can shift the balance like Florida in 2000.

If you and a few hundred like you stay home or vote for the third party candidate, you increase the chances of the person whom you dislike more winning.

In the end, you have to decide for yourself if it's more important to you to cast a principled vote or a practical one.

LK

Re:DNC for Presidential ...

[4of12]

so I could quote the example given there: the 1932 platform

There's a year to remember.

A few more years of the current environment of cutting taxes, increasing spending, cheap borrowing and there will be a few more reminders of that era.

The 2004 data showing CPI about 1% higher than the growth in wages is indicative of what's to come as the Asian central bankers are willing to pay for $80/bbl oil using $ 1.5 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds.

Re:DNC for Presidential ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No! Voting for the lesser of two evils is GOOD! Less evil is better than more evil!

You know, I would have hoped that this line of reasoning would have been stamped out after the last two elections, but it looks like it's still going strong. Hundreds of thousands of people who would have liked to vote for Nader or Badnarik voted Kerry instead, on the logic that otherwise their vote was "wasted." But which is a worse waste: a vote in support for a candidate that you agree with who doesn't win, or a vote for a candidate that you dislike who doesn't win?

Re:DNC for Presidential ...

[Lehk228]

Why the fuck would you want LESS Evil?

Guess Who I Voted For..... (hint he is pissed and will now eat your face)

Re:DNC for Presidential ...

[Lonath]

On the Daily Kos, he wrote this a couple of days ago wrt Republicans not backing faith-based charity enough:

I don't expect Religious Right voters to ever grasp how fully they are used by Republicans. The GOP is more interested in Wall Street than in their religious supporters. Hence, their priorities will be things like privatizing social security and capping tort awards against crooked corporations.

Gay marriage? Abortion? Those won't be important until mid 2006, when Republicans talk the talk to gain those votes. But when it comes time to walk the walk? Their priorities are elsewhere.

Read as : Governor Dean becomes Chair of DNRC

[tod_miller]

... and I wondered how the heck he became the chair of dilberts new ruling class....!!!

OK, off topic, but funny, but on a sibling note to dilbert, what is up with get fuzzy's contact artist page?

Shit, why waste mod points ;-) might as well tag one more OT piece in here: Unrelated, I admit, but check out the funniest engadget comment (The last one, long), I read it just now, and I think it is good to see 'weblogs inc' which really is pushing down signal/noise IMHO, getting some of thier own trolling.

Re:Read as : Governor Dean becomes Chair of DNRC

[Anonymous Coward]

it's DOGbert's new ruling class, you insipid fool.

Oh behalf of the Republican Party....

[kajoob]

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Re:Oh behalf of the Republican Party....

[Anonymous Coward]

however, it doesn't really matter, that is not since the GOP corrupted and sold out america

overly affluent americans are traitors

Re:Oh behalf of the Republican Party....

[learn fast]

Oh, you think someone could do worse than the outgoing Dem leadership?

Re:Oh behalf of the Republican Party....

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL! Keep whistling past the graveyard.

Re:Oh behalf of the Republican Party....

[Anonymous Coward]

its pretty sad how the parent is considered insightful on slashdot.

have all the adults left?

Re:Oh behalf of the Republican Party....

[Grym]

>> however, it doesn't really matter, that is not since the GOP corrupted and sold out america... overly affluent americans are traitors

its pretty sad how the parent is considered insightful on slashdot. have all the adults left?

No, because of moderation abuse by the liberal majority here on Slashdot, nearly all of the conservatives and moderates have left.

The politics section has become an echo chamber of malcontent liberalism--the epitome of what's wrong with the Democratic party. With them, there's no room for legitimate disagreement. They're right and George Bush and everyone who voted for him are wrong and evil (or, at the very least, stupid).

-Grym

Re:Oh behalf of the Republican Party....

[Jazu]

Do jokes that are way way too obvious to be funny count as Redundant? Really, I've only heard that joke on about 15% of every single internet political argument ever.

Re:Oh behalf of the Republican Party....

[Anonymous Coward]

Buddy. I don't know what you're talking about. Here on Slashdot, there are plenty of conservatives and Bush supporters. I see their posts all the time, and as a liberal they generally get me angry. Often, they are modded up.

Maybe you're seeing the same thing reversed. You notice the liberal posts, and they get you angry. I notice the conservative ones, and they get me angry. You notice what you don't agree with, and it riles you up.

With that being said... I try not to take Slashdot political discussions (or slashdot ANYTHING discussions) too seriously. If some guy likes George Bush and hates what I stand for, good for them. If they support their argument using misrepresentations of the facts, good for them! I hope they have long and happy lives. In the mean time: I don't care. I'm not going to let it bother me excessively, and I'm certainly not going to give even a moment's thought to the mere possibility of "bias" of the moderators. Why? Because the "moderators" are just schmucks like you, me, or anybody else. They have their opinions and I don't have to care about them. You have your own opinions, and they should be more important than any stupid Slashdot moderation.

Because honestly, my friend... It's only Slashdot! It's not some political conspiracy, it's more like a bunch of monkeys at a bunch of typewriters. So take it easy. Breathe deep. The slashdot liberals are not out to crucify you. And if they are, then fuck, that's their problem, not yours.

Re:Oh behalf of the Republican Party....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about time we get upset, we've been "legitimately disagreeing" with Republicans for ages, and look what it's got us.

Re:Oh behalf of the Republican Party....

[TwistedSquare]

The politics section has become an echo chamber of malcontent liberalism--the epitome of what's wrong with the Democratic party. With them, there's no room for legitimate disagreement. They're right and George Bush and everyone who voted for him are wrong and evil (or, at the very least, stupid).

My theory on this would be that a lot of slashdot readers are not from America, and it seems to me that a great deal of people from outside America really can't understand why any Americans voted for Bush (myself included). It would be like us voting in Kilroy-Silk (bit of a UK-only reference there, but the best example that came to mind). The rest of the world would be sitting there scratching their heads, wondering why the hell we had done it. And with good reason, I might add.

This is great news!

[damiangerous]

For the GOP. Dean set all sorts of fundraising records, yet only got a pathetic 18% of the vote. He had no problem getting his message out....and no one cared. His acceptance speech boiled down to "I'm going to keep doing what I've ben doing." Why would the DNC choose as their leader a man who's vowed to push the party into the extreme fringes of liberalism and alienate most of their core? Nancy Pelosi. She's carried a pathetic grudge against Martin Frost, a very viable opponent to Dean, for challenging her for Minority leader job two years ago and she's the one clearing the way for Dean.

Re:This is great news!

[TheOnlyCoolTim]

Dean really isn't very liberal at all. Read about how he ran Vermont.

Tim

Re:This is great news!

[damiangerous]

He's fiscally conservative about many things, I'll give him that, and that's the reason Vermonters call him "the Republican governor" (apparently they forget what he did with state health care). His drug policy is a bizarre mix of some legalization and more Federal money. But his views on things like health care, welfare, social security, environmental policy, tax reform and foreign policy range from the standard liberal platform to extremism.

Re:This is great news!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please give an example of where his views on any of these issues are extreme. You just stated that they did, so it should be easy. Thank you. (I really am interested, btw.)

Re:This is great news!

[manyoso]

I love this! LOL

"But his views on things like health care, welfare, social security, environmental policy, tax reform and foreign policy range from the standard liberal platform to extremism."

Here is a translation for those people who don't speak extreme wingnuttian...

Dean's Views on:

1. Health care? People should be able to afford it. EXTREME!
   
2. Welfare? We should take care of our poor. EXTREME!
   
3. Social Security? We should keep it and protect it. EXTREME!
   
4. Environmental policy? We should take care of it for us and for our kids. EXTREME!
   
5. Tax Reform? People should pay according to their means more or less. EXTREME!
   
6. Foreign Policy? We should work with allies, promote democracy and rationality, not lie to the American people to promote wars of aggression. EXTREME!
   

Google really should develop a language tool for extreme wingnuttian.

Re:This is great news!

[I Be Hatin']

Dean's Views on:

1. Health care? People should be able to afford it. EXTREME!
2. Welfare? We should take care of our poor. EXTREME!
3. Social Security? We should keep it and protect it. EXTREME!
4. Environmental policy? We should take care of it for us and for our kids. EXTREME!
5. Tax Reform? People should pay according to their means more or less. EXTREME!
6. Foreign Policy? We should work with allies, promote democracy and rationality, not lie to the American people to promote wars of aggression. EXTREME!

Strangely enough, this holds in reverse if you sed s/Dean/Bush/.

Re:This is great news!

[damiangerous]

How about health care? He created a half-ass, jury-rigged monstrosity and then claimed "health care for 96.4% of Vermont." Now that he's gone the cost is spiralling out of control. Such is the Dean legacy for Vermont.

Re:This is great news!

[manyoso]

Well, only if you follow the "watch what I say, not what I do" rule.

Bush isn't particularly interested in making Health Care more affordable unless by that you mean, "don't allow class action lawsuits across state boundaries".

Likewise, he isn't for (in the sense of watching what he does) helping the poor or making sure our environment is taken care of. He's atrocious on all levels here.

I doubt very much that Bush would be willing to stipulate Tax Reform should be based on a "People should pay according to their means more or less" policy. He's more like, "the richer you are the less you should pay" policy.

As for a foreign policy that doesn't promote lying to the people to foster support for wars of aggression... Seriously, try to say Bush is for that without laughing.

Re:This is great news!

[manyoso]

You mean, kinda like Bush's medicaid budget? A half-ass, Big Pharm rigged monstrosity who's cost is spiraling out of control?

Re:This is great news!

[damiangerous]

Yes. Despite promising to cut Medicaid by 2009 he's already created a huge expansion. Sadly all the cuts are really just cuts in the rate of growth. Ironically one of the better Medicaid proposals is coming from the Democrat Governor of Tennessee.
Remember, Slashbots, disliking a given Democrat (or Republican) != supporting the "other" Republican (or Democrat). I didn't vote for Bush or Kerry.

Re:This is great news!

[Dachannien]

Sure, all that stuff sounds great when you leave out the "how".

Re:This is great news!

[I Be Hatin']

Well, only if you follow the "watch what I say, not what I do" rule.

Wow... you completely missed my point, didn't you? You're so blinded by your own paradigm that you fail to even concede that someone else might have a different point of view than yours.

Re:This is great news!

[Anonymous Coward]

"I doubt very much that Bush would be willing to stipulate Tax Reform should be based on a "People should pay according to their means more or less" policy. He's more like, "the richer you are the less you should pay" policy."

Explain to me, in any way possible, how there exists an inverse relationship between income and taxes paid?

Do people with high incomes pay a smaller percentage than people without high incomes? No.

Do people with high incomes pay less in dollar amounts than people with low incomes? No.

Here's something the white house budget director said recently.

The White House budget director Josh Bolten on Monday bragged to reporters how the nation most-wealthy will see an increase in tax burden under Bush's new budget.

"If you look at the president's tax cuts as a totality, the income tax, those at the upper end of the spectrum are now paying a larger share of the income tax than they were before," Bolten explained.

"An example, the top 5 percent in income in this country -- that's people making above about $140,000 -- without the president's tax cuts that top 5 percent would be paying about less than 52 percent of our total income tax revenue.

"After the president's tax cut that group is paying more than 54 percent of our total tax revenue. So the notion that the president's tax cuts have somehow made the code less progressive is wrong. The president's tax cuts have made the tax code more progressive."

So get your facts straight and fuck off.

Re:This is great news!

[/dev/trash]

Health care? People should be able to afford it. EXTREME!

Who can't afford it? The poor? Well you just answered that problem with the next point.

Welfare? We should take care of our poor. EXTREME!

For how long? I know people who have been on welfare for their entire ADULT lives. That's not helping.

Social Security? We should keep it and protect it. EXTREME!

Sure. Why not. I saw a plan by the IBEW that said that if TAXES were raised, everyone's taxes that is, SS could be saved.

Environmental policy? We should take care of it for us and for our kids. EXTREME!

Try visiting Yellowstone.

Tax Reform? People should pay according to their means more or less. EXTREME! I agree, but wait Social Security needs to stick around, everyone will have to contribute.

Foreign Policy? We should work with allies, promote democracy and rationality, not lie to the American people to promote wars of aggression. EXTREME!
Yes, lying is what causes our enemies to attack us. That's it exactly.

Re:This is great news!

[/dev/trash]

You do know that even if a rich person pays 10% of his income in taxes he's still paying more than someone who is poor and pays 11%?

Re:This is great news!

[Just Some Guy]

4. Environmental policy? We should take care of it for us and for our kids. EXTREME!

And yet, I have no doubt that you want to scream every time you hear a Republican propose a new law to "protect the children." Well, guess what: that works both ways. Do not use "for our kids" as a justification for increased regulation. It doesn't solidify support from those who agree with you, and it disgusts people who don't.

5. Tax Reform? People should pay according to their means more or less. EXTREME!

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!"
- Karl Marx

Whether you intend it or not, whenever liberals mention progressive taxes, conservatives hear Marx. Seriously. If you ever want to win over a single conservative, then drop this meme like a hot potato. It's one of the biggest turnoffs possible to the average Republican voter.

Re:This is great news!

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you accomplish 1-5? Force someone esle to pay for it.

Re:This is great news!

[Anonymous Coward]

Force? Yes. Because if you don't pay for the great benefits this country affords you, you're not welcome here. America: love it or leave it. Love it? Then help pay to maintain it. Don't want to help? Screw you.

Re:This is great news!

[whereizben]

As some who lived in Vermont the whole time Dean was governor, and has actually followed what he stands for, I can tell you that he actually is not at all pushing for the fringes of liberalism, unless you think it is crazy and extreme for government to look out for the individuals (read POOR ones)...

And Democrats Think...?

[MBCook]

I'm a republican and I tend to avoid the politics section as I know I am in the minority here. That said, I would really like to know what Democrats think of this.

As a Republican, I think this is good. I think he'll lead the party in the wrong direction and will onlly make my party's life easier.

I see him as what is wrong the with the Democratic party. Full of venom, hate, and far to the left. I think he'll move the party even more to the left than they already are (which, in my opinion, is why they lost the elections recently, they are too far from center). I know other Republicans who share this view.

But this post isn't about why I think he is bad, or that I think he is bad (I think Zell Miller would have been a great choice but I know how well THAT suggestion would have gone over ;). What I would like to ask of the Democrats here on /. is... what do you think? Do you think this is a good thing? Is there anything about him that worries you? Are there any specific traits that you think will make him do a better job than Terry McCauluf (probably spelled wrong)? The only thing I see good about him is that he is good at fundraising and organizing the far left (but I really don't know much about the guy).

So what do you Dems think of this decision? Good, bad, indifferent, and why?

PS: He wasn't the Clinton's pick, from what I understand. I bet they are NOT happy about this. But that's another discussion entirely.

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[kevin lyda]

"I see him as what is wrong the with the Democratic party. Full of venom, hate, and far to the left. I think he'll move the party even more to the left than they already are (which, in my opinion, is why they lost the elections recently, they are too far from center). I know other Republicans who share this view."

governor dean governed the state of vermont for a number of years. feel free to look over his record during that time and explain what part of it is "far to the left."

while you're at it, please let us know what his position on gun control is, his rating from the nra is and what his position on the death penalty is.

thanks.

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see him as what is wrong the with the Democratic party. Full of venom, hate, and far to the left.

Funny, I see the Republican Party as being full of venom, hate, and far to the right.

I think he'll move the party even more to the left than they already are (which, in my opinion, is why they lost the elections recently, they are too far from center).

Al Gore lost the 2000 election because he was too close to the center. The left wing defected from the party and voted for Nader. I hope they've learned their lesson.

What I would like to ask of the Democrats here on /. is... what do you think? Do you think this is a good thing?

Yes. The other chairs wanted to make the DNC a "Republican-lite" party and Dean was the only candidate that wanted the DNC to be a clear alternative from the RNC. But maybe "alternative" is the wrong word to use here, since Democrats share the same views as most Americans on the issues.

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[tres]

The chairman's job is to coordinate and get candidates elected. Dean proved that he's very good at doing this. Dean's Internet fundraising and the Democracy for America organization proves just how well suited Dean is for the position.

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[Hard_Code]

"I see him as what is wrong the with the Democratic party. Full of venom, hate, and far to the left."

I can see how you have this impression. Not only is it gleefully pushed by the right, but it was also pushed by the other Democratic nominees in the running because they were afraid of not looking "strong on War" and desperately needed to differentiate themselves from Dean. But in fact, if you actually listen to what the man was saying through his whole campaign, he was saying that the democratic party needed to UNITE the cultural north/south liberal/conservative division (at least within the party). Although he sort of put his foot in his mouth, he was actually trying to reach out a hand to southerners when he made his "confederate flag" remark. That wasn't a hateful remark. He meant that southerners and northerners alike had a common interest in better health care, better education, etc., and he was in fact chiding his fellow Democrats presumably for stereotypes they may be holding. Now, you can by his line or not, but he was at least TRYING to bridge this rift. Why else would he continually pump his NRA creds, when most of the Democratic base is anti-NRA? If you think Dean is "full of venom" what can you possibly think of Zell "I challenge you to a duel sir" Miller. Dean gained lots of grassroot support in the start specifically because he was honest and straightforward, and he made the ultimate mistake of being honest and straightforward, trying to cheer up his campaign workers that had worn themselves out in Iowa to disappointed results, when the media was there to twist it all out of proportion.

Now you may think the man is completely wrong on policy, but whatever you think, at least believe he was TRYING to bridge a cultural divide, unlike his milquetoast competitors, and by doing so, touched a third rail and got shocked for merely bringing up the issue.

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

The thing is, it doesn't really matter if he's crazy. Neither of us know how to spell the outgoing chairman's name. If the Dems had a candidate you liked, why would you vote against that candidate just because the chairman's a loon? His personal angry attidute will forever prevent him from being president, but as a chairman what matters is his organizing and fundraising skills, and perhaps his willingness to think outside establishment terms. The man has good ideas, he's just completely inappropriate for the public eye.

He may be overly antagonistic, but the Republicans managed to succeed despite having twice as much hate and venom as the Democrats--and at least Leftist hate is just anger at another point of view, not Ann Coulter-style racism. It was Kerry and the party establishment's attempt to seem moderate that doomed the campaign. Besides, if you were willing to go with Zell Miller, you've got no right to talk about venom.

It's good that he's a fiscal conservative. We might expect a lot of former Republicans (like myself--I voted for Bush in 2000) to realize their party no longer cares about fiscal conservatism--it's just big government for the sake of big business. The medical overhaul Bush insisted on is a great example of that--he has promised to veto any attempt to limit the windfall to drug companies. As politics switches its focus to domestic issues, Dean could end up looking like a moderate.

The promising thing about Dean is that he knows its not about moving to the center--Americans won't respect someone who capitulates for political convenience. But he also understands that strategic retreats are necessary on certain lost cause issues--like gun control.

The worrying thing about Dean and the Democratic party in general is that they've misunderstood the power of the internet and decentralized organization. They see it in terms of collecting money and volunteers to send to campaign in other states. But that's a foolish plan--people are alienated by out of staters coming to convince them to change their minds, as Dean should have learned in Iowa and Kerry should have learned in Ohio. Instead, internet resources should be aimed at getting people engaged in their own communities--whether its just getting people to volunteer in their own neighborhoods or even encourage people to run for local offices.

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[semafour]

Dean is not actually very far left. He is liberal, to be sure, but not in a bleeding heart, knee-jerk kind of way. He was painted with a far left brush based solely on the fact that he opposed the Iraq war from the beginning.

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as your comments on "venom, hate" coming from the left, maybe you should go to a doctor to get that rightwing bs removed from your colon before it gives you cancer.

Other than that, I'm glad. I may me a poor teen from Minnesota, but I've had 2 close relatives run for major office on both sides of the political divide, and I think that I can say that Dean could relate to me far more than Kerry, and lightyears more than the bastard^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPresident.
As far as Dean dragging the party left goes, you're a little off. Over the years, the Dems have tried to go center, but they couldn't quite do it, and consiquently, they look like morons. And you're incorrect in saying he mobilized the Far Left, that's FUD spread by the republicans in an attempt to villify him. What he did was mobilize damn near half the party.
If he plays his cards right, he could be up there with Wellstone.
It's not going to be a major politician who will take the Democrats Left, it's the children of the baby boomers who are just entering adulthood. Lots of us have parents who sold out for a nice house in the 'burbs, and we're pretty pissed about that.

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends what you think Americans' views are, I suppose.

• Do you value the largest budget deficits in our nation's history?
• Do you value shifting the tax burden from the wealthiest individuals to the middle class, while health care and education costs skyrocket?
• Do you value people who state that the cost of their prescription drug plan will cost about $300 million, when in reality it will cost over $1 trillion?
• Do you value stating that Social Security will start paying out more than it brings in 2018, and then putting forward a plan that will change that date to 2012?
• Do you value the criminalization of abortion, or do you value a policy that seeks to make abortions rare, safe, and legal? (hint: the latter policy results in less babies dying)

Abortions go up under Republicans. Business does better under Democrats. Pass it on.

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[learn fast]

My only thought: Well, could he possibly be worse than the current Dem leadership?

(As for your other suppositions, it may interest you to know that there are many channels on your television other than Fox News. Try them. Or just try the "off" button.)

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[learn fast]

BTW, interesting that you like Zell Miller but thought Dean is too "full of venom and hate." I'm starting to doubt that's not a rationalization.

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[Planesdragon]

As a Republican, I think this is good. I think he'll lead the party in the wrong direction and will onlly make my party's life easier.

He won't. He'll lead the democrats into being a viable and strong non-Republican major party. Which, i'm sure you'll agree, will keep the Republicans honest and ensure that if they do stay in power, they're there with the will of the people.

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[DAldredge]

"I think he'll lead the party in the wrong direction and will onlly make my party's life easier."

Kind of like 2.5 Trillion (+Iraq +Prescription Drug costs I lied about) Bush is doing?

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[Brother Grifter]

Since you're implying that "far to the left" is a *bad* thing, would you consider the right-wing paramilitaries in Nicaragua who introduced the term Death-Squad to our vocabulary, a *good* thing.

Letting gays have rights similar to those that married doesn't create thousands of dead bodies. Invading a country for money in every sense, from military contracts, cheap oil, new free trades zone, cheap labor, etc.., kills thousands as we are witness to it in Iraq. Don't forget, we didn't find WMD, or ties to Al Queda. And yes, those who pay attention to the news know it was Karl Rove's way to sell the war, but that implies there was no imminent danger and the war required selling for people to buy into it. Unlike World War 2.

If you need to sell to a war to your people, its either because they lacked so information that they can't make the decision on what they know, which could be case with our poor news media in the U.S., or its not altruistic as they made it seem. Bush has already shifted his democratic vision of Iraq to an Iraq with a democracy but it'll be influence by religion and a majority with no intentions to protect the minority, which is opposite to what we were hearing when there was no WMD. Flippity-Floppity.

Your party has good ideals, like smaller government, like lower taxes. It may have attempted to serve those ideals honesty in the past but it does not today. What future do you see in the Republican party? It's bleak. One of the primary reasons for government expansion in the Bush administration is more administrative positions introduced to the government. These are positions for political supporters of the Bush administration and Republican party. So when you party falls back on one of your primary ideals you would still support your party? Not only that, these positions cost us more tax money, so instead of letting people keep their money or invest it in working people in this country we're giving to away to political supports. How patriotic!

I'm not saying that because I'm a Democrat, but because I'm an American and I think the best potential of success we can try to give to all Americans is more important that Democrat/Republican party lines. You seem to toe your party line because you think its giving you something in return, when its not.

The Republicans have made college tuition more expensive by lowering taxes for rich people, and depriving states of more funding. Ok, I got a tax cut too, $300 bucks. So I can choose between two pairs of sneakers, or I can give up my tax cut, and thousands more Americans go to 4 year universities, that earn degrees, that invent more technology, or participate in the invention of new technology. More jobs are created, more tax revenues go the government and if we're lucky we can do it again for another generation. We could also help businesses of all sizes control health care costs while we try to fix the problem of expensive health care while relieve the burden and not stifle businesses or jeopardize our countrymen's health.

This is what Democrats want. What are the Republicans answer to these problems? They cut taxes, people suffer, business saves, and they're solutions are never solvent since they do make any honest attempt of helping the average American.

Howard Dean isn't a demi-god, and he may not have any good ideas (I think he does and I think he will be an excellent DNC char), but what he does do is appeal to young people, who will find their own direction in politics. Young people who find there way through the Democratic party don't get on TV and suggest we should nuke Canada except Vancouver (since they have nice shopping malls) as Ann Coulter has suggested. She was a Young Republican.

I'm eager to see the Democrat party grow in the next few years. For all the nay-sayers about the Democrats, listen to the Republicans delve into nostalgic musings about how they were small and insignificant.

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does cutting taxes make tuition costs rise? Are you saying that decreasing taxes puts more money in people's pockets so that more people choose to invest in their educations, thus increasing the demand for education? And that's a bad thing?

Here's the idea behind tax cuts: You know how to spend your money better than the government does. If you want to take your $300 and donate it to a college fund for the poor then that's your choice. How is taking $300 from me at gun point and distributing it to college students moral?

None of your arguments make any sense, it's just more Bush / Republican bashing.

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Zell Miller would have been a great choice

Gimme a freakin' break. You want to talk about filled with venom, hate, and vitriol, start with Zell Miller. How could anyone take your question seriously when you say that you think Zell Miller would be a good choice for this position? That's patently absurd.

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[ezeri]

Do you value the largest budget deficits in our nation's history?

As a percentage of GDP, not even close.

Do you value shifting the tax burden from the wealthiest individuals to the middle class, while health care and education costs skyrocket?

The welthiest are now paying a higher percentage of the total than they were before the cuts.

Do you value people who state that the cost of their prescription drug plan will cost about $300 million, when in reality it will cost over $1 trillion?

I'm not sure what your point is here, this is an issue that Bush sided more closely with the Democrats on

Do you value stating that Social Security will start paying out more than it brings in 2018, and then putting forward a plan that will change that date to 2012?

Benifits are also going to be cut anyway, there is no other option, this private investment accounts are a small fraction of the total payments, and they will only effect younger americans, anyone close to retirement won't be effected at all, while those of us in younger generations will actualy get something from the system when benifits are massively cut decades from now.

Do you value the criminalization of abortion, or do you value a policy that seeks to make abortions rare, safe, and legal? (hint: the latter policy results in less babies dying)

Yes, and so do most americans.

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[Anonymous Coward]

So much for "give to Bush what is Bush's", or however that Bible passage goes. It's fun to see the Part of God ignore the Son of God so much.

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[Brother Grifter]

Cutting taxes deprives state funding for the various programs they have, like education. (The Fed does give public universities lots of money you know.) I was directly addressing college education. So tuition is increased to make up for the lack of federal funds. Pretty simple.

Taking your money from you at gun point? Nice hyperbole. I never said it was moral, I said it was the intelligent thing to do. Educating people is the only way you're going to strengthen your country and its economy.

Every time college tuitions rise 1000 dollars, 4% of all would-be students in highschool don't go to college. 4% compounds pretty quickly, especially when college tuition is rising faster than inflation.

Its not a matter of morality. If you want a stupid country than Bush is your man. If you don't want a stupid country just look to any other Republican (maybe...) or a Democrat.

Do you think India would be taking so many jobs from the U.S. if English was spoken widely, but they were as dumb as a rock? No they wouldn't.

You can consider this Bush bashing, but Bush isn't an intellectual and doesn't appreciate the consequence of educating people. He thinks people spending that $300 bucks at Wallmart is good for America. When we have to invent the next world-changing WMD for America, who's going do it? Are we going to outsource it or let another country get it first?

You're a Republican, strong defense is one of your primary platforms. Please explain how we're going keep our defenses up when the country isn't doing anything to keep young people interested in science, and not doing anything to continue to encourage people, through lower tuitions, scholarships, grants, to become educated in these areas?

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[mcc]

I see him as what is wrong the with the Democratic party. Full of venom, hate, and far to the left.

In other words, the only thing that's wrong with the Democratic party is that it still, if only barely, contain members who don't just idly stand by while the Republicans do whatever they want?

Like Republicans always do, you are judging events within the Democratic party-- whether you want to admit it to yourself or not-- on the basis of whether or not it is good for you. Dean becoming DNC chairman-- or anything which takes power away from the weak, disinterested self-promoting "democrats" like John Kerry who have enabled the RNC to do absolutely whatever it wants since the moment Newt Gingrinch entered office-- is indeed bad for you. What you don't understand is that the entire point of the DNC is to be bad for you. The DNC does not exist to promote the interests of the Republican Party, and it has existed to promote the interests of the Republican Party for too long. The John Kerrys of the DNC have had their turn, and shown themselves unable to succeed at anything.

You say opposition to the RNC is "venom" and "hate". I say "venom" and "hate" is what allows the RNC to survive on a platform with little more substance than attacking gays at home and muslims in foreign countries. I also say failure to differentiate itself from the Republican Party is the sole reason the Democrat Party keeps losing elections. Well, that's beginning to change. It is time for the Democrat Party to stand for something again. This likely will not be a good thing from your perspective. Too bad.

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[Jason Ford]

Great post!

You might be interested to know, as I was, that WWII did require selling to the American public. Howard Zinn covered this very topic in his chapter on "A People's War?" in his "A People's History of the United States."

By certain evidence, it [WWII] was the most popular war in which the United States had ever fought. Never had a greater proportion of the country participated in a war: 18 million served in the armed forces, 10 million overseas; 25 million workers gave of their pay envelope regularly for war bonds. But could this be considered a manufactured support, since all the power of the nation -- not only of the government, but the press, the church, and even the chief radical organizations -- was behind the calls for all-out war? Was there an undercurrent of reluctance; were there unpublicized signs of resistance?

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Well, as a Democrat, I remember a time when the Democrats were in control of both the White House and Congress, and I was feeling very optimistic and warm'n'fuzzy about my party, and a lot of Republicans were talking about the devastation of their party and how they had to compromise and accomodate themselves to the new political realities ... and all of a sudden the most visible Republican politician in the country was this screaming firebrand, who was stereotyped as a far right-winger (he wasn't, really, but both his supporters and his opponents seemed to like to paint him that way) who had A Master Plan to lead his party back to power.

And as a Democrat, I was rubbing my hands with glee. This guy is a nutcase, I thought. He'll take the Republicans down into permanent ruin. They're finished. I can't believe they let this guy get this much power. Heh heh heh.

That politician's name was Newt Gingrich.

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you're implying that "far to the left" is a *bad* thing, would you consider the right-wing paramilitaries in Nicaragua who introduced the term Death-Squad to our vocabulary, a *good* thing.

Most people realize either extreme isn't good

Letting gays have rights similar to those that married doesn't create thousands of dead bodies.

Promoting a homosexual lifestyle for males could argueably cause "thousands of dead bodies". If you don't believe me, google it. The average lifespan for a homosexual man is 45 years. I don't think they should be denied gay marrage on this account, but your comparison to the Iraq war is baseless.

Invading a country for money in every sense, from military contracts, cheap oil, new free trades zone, cheap labor, etc.., kills thousands as we are witness to it in Iraq.

You have to face facts, most Americans agree that it was a good idea to go into iraq. You can spout off your Bush went just for money and Oil consperecy theories but mainstream America doesn't buy it.

Don't forget, we didn't find WMD, or ties to Al Queda. And yes, those who pay attention to the news know it was Karl Rove's way to sell the war, but that implies there was no imminent danger and the war required selling for people to buy into it. Unlike World War 2.

It's still shaky to say that there was imminent danger from Germany in WW2. And there was imminent danger from Iraq.

If you need to sell to a war to your people, its either because they lacked so information that they can't make the decision on what they know, which could be case with our poor news media in the U.S., or its not altruistic as they made it seem.

Every war where the US is not attacked has to be sold to the Public. WW2 was.

Bush has already shifted his democratic vision of Iraq to an Iraq with a democracy but it'll be influence by religion and a majority with no intentions to protect the minority, which is opposite to what we were hearing when there was no WMD. Flippity-Floppity.

Huh? I suggest you go read up on the elections that just took place in Iraq. The council was weighted so the majority couldn't take advantage of the minority. I guess leaving Saddam in power is what you wanted...until he managed to attack the US, then you would have cried that Bush was inept.

Your party has good ideals, like smaller government, like lower taxes. It may have attempted to serve those ideals honesty in the past but it does not today.
Bush has cut everything but miliitary spending, the problem is we are at war and a government at war needs to spend more money. I know you democrats missed out on 9/11, but we are trying to reshape the middle east to prevent it from happening again.

What future do you see in the Republican party? It's bleak. One of the primary reasons for government expansion in the Bush administration is more administrative positions introduced to the government. These are positions for political supporters of the Bush administration and Republican party.

Cockboat left wing garbage. The expansion of government in the Bush administration has mostly to do with the fact that we are at war.

So when you party falls back on one of your primary ideals you would still support your party? Not only that, these positions cost us more tax money, so instead of letting people keep their money or invest it in working people in this country we're giving to away to political supports. How patriotic!

You are in left wing loony la la land.

I'm not saying that because I'm a Democrat, but because I'm an American and I think the best potential of success we can try to give to all Americans is more important that Democrat/Republican party lines. You seem to toe your party line because you think its giving you something in return, when its no

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[Damek]

The worrying thing about Dean and the Democratic party in general is that they've misunderstood the power of the internet and decentralized organization. They see it in terms of collecting money and volunteers to send to campaign in other states. But that's a foolish plan--people are alienated by out of staters coming to convince them to change their minds, as Dean should have learned in Iowa and Kerry should have learned in Ohio. Instead, internet resources should be aimed at getting people engaged in their own communities--whether its just getting people to volunteer in their own neighborhoods or even encourage people to run for local offices.

Hmm... haven't noticed DFA, have you? Because that's exactly what they're doing.

Re:And Democrats Think...?

[CrimsonAvenger]

do you value a policy that seeks to make abortions rare, safe, and legal?

Of course, this is disingenuous, since the Dems only support the "safe" and "legal" parts. They don't have any interest in "rare".

If they wanted abortions to be "safe, legal, and rare", then they'd support regulating the industry the way any other industriy is regulated. For instance, my daughter has to get parental permission to get her ears pierced. Or to go on a Field Trip to a Museum. For that matter, her Doctor is required to let her parents know about any care she gets...

Except for an abortion. That she can get without parental input. A prescription cough syrup requires parental notification, an abortion not only doesn't require it but doesn't even ALLOW the Doctor to tell the parents.

congrats governor dean!

[kevin lyda]

now to reform the democratic party!

Re:congrats governor dean!

[ConceptJunkie]

...and keep the Republicans in power for another generation or more.

Not such a bad thing

[viniosity]

I haven't been following this very closely, but frankly I'm pleased that the Dems put him in. People keep arguing that the media is liberal and whatnot but as far as I see it, the entire conversation has been shifted far to the right. So far that those moderate Dems are now considered left wing radicals. The Democrats could have easily buckled into that and put somebody more conservative in this position. That, in effect, would be a victory in itself for the right.

Fall of the Democratic party

[mattbatten]

The democratic party is sliding to oblivion. It has to compete with deep pockets in the republican party, and with the libertarian party that pulls people from the more conservative of the democratic party supporters. It keeps losing to the neocons because it refuses to get its hands dirty in the same way the republicans do and doesn't bring an alternative way to fight them to the table. Dean offers a bit more punch to fight the republicans, but can he bring the KO?

Dean=Good Thing

[Lally Singh]

What I can't believe is how far to the right this country's shifted so quickly. What was the center in 2000 is now the 'extreme left' today. Dean's a proper left-leaning democrat, not a republican-wannabe apologist.

The right's gotten a strong wind recently, and we need to fight back accordingly, not start letting go of core values. And it's well-needed, even with such a poor candidate as Kerry, we still got 48%* of the electorate. Kerry ignored most of the issues at hand and only attacked Bush's strongpoints. I don't think Dean will let our newer candidates make the same mistakes.

Maybe I'm an old romantic, but I don't think homophobia (gay rights), subordination of women (abortion), warmongering (iraq), and the extortion of the lower classes (taxes, social security) are American values.

--
* debates over the remnants of fair voting aside

Re:Dean=Good Thing

[Lance Petersen]

Well, you'll definitely find this Economist article a good read. The pull? "Americans seem to believe that they and their politics have got more conservative; but perhaps they haven't."

Re:Dean=Good Thing

[DAldredge]

How is abortion subordination of women?

Re:Dean=Good Thing

[Lally Singh]

By refusing them the right to choose themselves whether or not they must carry a child for 9 months.

Re:Dean=Good Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Is not letting me smother my toddler with a pillow "subordinating" me by refusing me the right to choose whether or not to support a child for 18 years?
To "pro-lifers" this is not about refusing someone their "right to choose", it's about believing that an unborn child is human life. I don't think there's any argument that a baby the day before birth is any less a human than a baby at birth, so is a baby any less a week before...a month before? When does a baby start being human? That's the question. It's not about "choice", it's about an earnest belief not only that taking human life is wrong (because we can assume that's a view that basically everyone shares), but also that an unborn baby is a human life.

Re:Dean=Good Thing

[BCW2]

Do a bit of research, the original feminist movement was against abortion. The move for abortion was started by men, and fought by the feminist movement in the first half of the twentieth century.

Of course this has gotten twisted and manipulated into something else by the media. They just report what they want and very little in the way of fact. Objective journalism is an oxymoron these days for either side. It's probably better being relegated to a philosophy class than journalism.

Re:Dean=Good Thing

[DAldredge]

I have. The racist background of some of the female founders of the movement are also very interesting as they had very little use for black people and even less use for black babies...

Re:Dean=Good Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

extortion of the lower classes (taxes, social security)

How do taxes exploit the lower classes? The top 50% of income earners pay 96% of all taxes. The lower classes pay essentially no taxes. How is this exploitation?

The only way I can think of Social Security exploting anyone is the fact that it is a collosal scam. If it were a privately run institution, people would be in jail. I don't see this exploitation as being limited to only lower classes.

Re:Dean=Good Thing

[Ironsides]

and the extortion of the lower classes (taxes, social security) are American values.

Please clarify this. I see SS as extortion in that I am required by law to provide money to a pension plan that I want no part ot. As for the taxes, I also see that the progressive tax system we have is extortion but only for those who make more. Why not just ahve a flat tax of something like 25% (for starters) and adjust it from there? That way everyone is paying the same amount proportional to their income. And eliminate all deductions along with that 25%.

Re:Dean=Good Thing

[Lally Singh]

Flat tax would be nice. Current tax law pushes most of the burden onto the lower and middle classes. Higher classes get most of their incomes from different areas, like capital gains, which do not pay their due burden for our government. The higher tax brackets they're supposed to have for those higher incomes are rarely effective, as so few make money in traditional ways.

Remember that SS was put into place because most Americans weren't putting any (or enough) money away for retirement. History has shown time and time again that people don't learn from history, so if we were to remove it, most Americans would likely be in the same poor state as before at retirement.

The current SS reform idea is little more than a smoke and mirrors game to cut out the benefits, without reducing the tax load.

Those who know how to invest well enough to make money in this scheme can do well with 401(k)s, and likely won't depend so much on social security (although they will receive their fair share). However, the rest of America (which, history keeps telling us, is the majority) will likely blow it and are left with even less money to retire with than SS provides now.

Re:Dean=Good Thing

[Lally Singh]

For good coverage on the truth to social security, check out this article, which I of course found 15 seconds after finishing my long post.

Re:Dean=Good Thing

[Ironsides]

Interesting that one of the solutions proposed for SS is to raise taxes. Even more reason to eliminate it. (Or get out of it).

Higher classes get most of their incomes from different areas, like capital gains, which do not pay their due burden for our government. As for the poor and middle class being more burdened, fewer people are paying any income tax now. http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/zerotaxfilers.html A flat rate, with no deductions, on all whould tax everyone equally. It would also prevent a need for moving around the brackets as wages move up.

Solution: Eliminate corporate income tax (otherwise it is a double tax on the divedends) and count divedends under income. Flat tax on all income including that which is currently defined as captitol gains.

Remember that SS was put into place because most Americans weren't putting any (or enough) money away for retirement.

So some should be penalized for the idiocy of others? It wasn't meant to be the wealth redistribution scheme it has become. Also SS was not originally supposed to be under federal control. Also, there are several states that have their own pension plans in place of SS that give much better returns (http://dcexaminer.com/articles/2005/02/08/opinion /editorial/01aaedit.txt. that 3% figure that they give in the article you have should be more like 2% from what I have read. (sorry, can't find that link, though this may help http://www.heritage.org/research/features/socialse curity/)

Re:Dean=Good Thing

[BCW2]

Which is no different than 90% of the white people throughout the country before 1940. WWII exposed average American troops to people of all races, like the Gurkha's, Philipinos, Chinese, and many others that were as good of troops as any white unit. That started the changed thinking that helped the civil rights movement to take hold in the late 50's.

Re:Dean=Good Thing

[wannabgeek]

Why not just ahve a flat tax of something like 25% (for starters) and adjust it from there?

I thought this is such an old, stupid idea and has been killed, but I guess you're a new kid in the world of taxes. In progressive tax system, everyone is paying according to their priorities. A guy who is making just 5 bucks a day - has much less stake in keeping this system running, than a guy who is making 100 bucks a day. If I have just 5 bucks, my priority would be my basic needs - food, clothing, shelter. Security, roads, infrastructure come much less. I would definitely not want to pay 25% for that stuff. Where as when I make 10 grand every month, I have much higher interest in keeping the society and the current system. My basic needs are satisfied with much less proportion of my income and I would be willing to shell out more for other needs.

on dean and the scream

[edward.virtually@pob]

nice summary. of course, it omits both the real reason his campaign failed, namely the endless pushing of the infamous scream by the corporate media and related commentary, and the key bit of truth most of the sheep still don't know, namely that the scream never really happened and was fabricated to discredit dean. click on the link. oh, and be sure to print it out before the brownshirts have it deleted. one of the many reasons anyone who uses the phrase "liberal media" is either a liar or a fool.

Re:on dean and the scream

[joemayne]

I completely agree. Dean was destroyed by the media after his scream, because they really didn't like him. He didn't know how to baby them. My personal opinion is that the quality that his supporters loved the most, his candor, made the journalists work too hard. They were used to covering the same stump-speech at every stop.

Anyway, the scream wasn't really the reason Dean lost. Dean lost because he was running as a long-shot even though he was ahead in the polls and had a huge war chest. A good read on this topic is from Dean's capaign manager, Joe Trippi, called The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. (Which also discusses why the internet will lead to the overflow of everything.) Dean like the other candidates put all of his money into Iowa. They all new that whoever won there was going to be tough to beat. Dean's presence in Iowa consisted primarily of political newbies or were invigorated by his message. Had Dean's approach mixed vigor with experience, he'd likely be are new Commander in Chief.

One thing the scream and its subsequent coverage did do though was prevent any kind of miracle comeback. Despite his ultimate failure, anyone who studied the Democratic transformation through the primary knows that Howard Dean was the ultimate martyr for his party. If it hadn't been for his message, which Kerry essentially adopted, there would have been no contest, and the public displeasure for the war would have remained the ignored fodor of lowly political blogs.

Surprise

[XBL]

My prediction is the Dean will surprise all his critics over the next 4 years as a calm, rational, focused, and successful leader. Why? Because he is a calm, rational, focused, and successful person.

The reason why Dean exploded the way he did is because the media turned against him because he was "unelectable". It was a bunch of bullshit because he was not your typical "say only what you want to hear" politician. I think people in this country would have been smart enough to see that, and it would not have been a landslide win for Bush like the media said it would be. Unfortuntly the media has a lot of effect on the primary elections.

I gave $100 to the Dean campaign, and I do not regret it. That money indirectly helped him become the chair of the DNC, and I am very happy to see it.

BTW, at the Iowa Caucus (I was there) Dean had at least 3x as many people there as Kerry. To be honest, I am still a little amazed how quickly things fell apart.

Yessssss

[MerryGoByeBye]

It's hard to imagine a better development than this! Excellent! Terry McAuliffe had brought the party to its knees with his Republican-Lite approach to leading the DNC. Screw that. Dean is the man!

Few things are as amusing as watching people get all worked up into a lather denouncing the choice. What, exactly, is wrong with having an intelligent, passionate leader? America has become such a country of clucking chickens that we not only accept the degradations to our liberties performed by the current monkey admin, but now even the dissenters are afraid of having a leader with a voice. Grow some balls, people.

The old idea of being Not-As-Evil-As-Our-Opponents is dead. It's time to pick up the populist trail where we left it years ago.

Oh, and PS weirdo rightist fascists - Dean is not a 'leftie'. He's left-of-center, certainly, but he's barely moderate, let alone "far-left". Readjust that sociopathically-slanted political spectrum you've got before you slide into the abyss of fascism. Just a friendly tip.

Uh bullshit...

[cbqwinner]

The scream never happened? Is this like the plane that didn't hit the pentagon?

All the link says is that he had a handheld mic that filtered out the crowd. The crowd was going wild with him and he was yelling.

"And what about the scream as we all heard it? In the room, the so-called scream couldn't really be heard at all. Again, he was yelling along with the crowd."

Christ, is it such a bad thing for a politician to show some emotion and not be a stick in the mud?

Re:Uh bullshit...

[edward.virtually@pob]

Christ, is it such a bad thing for a politician to show some emotion and not be a stick in the mud?

well, i don't think so. fwiw, i also have a video of the event that also shows while he did yell, it sounded nothing like the audio pushed on the news, talk shows, etc. and used as "proof" of dean's "excessive emotionalism".

Re:Uh bullshit...

[DAldredge]

Understand that the people who say the scream never happend are the same people who claim that when Gore said "I took the Initiative in CREATING THE INTERNET" he wasn't claiming to have CREATED THE INTERNET...

Re:Uh bullshit...

[yelvington]

Same people? Maybe.

But if you think Gore did NOT play a major role in creating the Internet, then you've bought into a big lie circulated by right-wing politicians starting with Dick Armey, who originally misquoted Gore.

Gore was discussing his legislative record. Anyone who looks into that record can easily see that Gore was a leader in the 1980s of a faction called the "Atari Democrats," who believed the industrial base of the United States had to shift from heavy industry to technology.

When DARPA pulled back from funding non-military uses of the fledgling TCP/IP network, Gore was instrumental in getting the National Science Foundation both the funding and the jurisdiction to create NSFNet, which became the core of the public Internet.

It is conservative economic dogma that private enterprise will make everything just peachy if we just keep the government from intervening.

But private enterprise had no incentive to create a public Internet; on the contrary, private enterprise had an incentive to create instead a series of private networks (generally running proprietary protocols).

By declaring that the nation needed an "information superhighway" for the new era and throwing government support and funding behind an open network standard, Gore was instrumental in breaking that logjam and -- yes -- creating the Internet.

It is hard these days for simple things like facts and public records to compete with the drumbeat of spin, misinformation and outright lies that has come to characterize "political discourse." Both the mischaracterization of Gore's statement about the Internet and the miscasting of the pragmatic moderate Vermont Governor Howard Dean as a screaming "ultra-liberal on social issues who is out of the mainstream and wrong for America" are examples.

Re:Uh bullshit...

[DAldredge]

It is impossible for Gore to have had a Major role in creating the Internet as it was around for over 10 years before he did anything. He did help it grow into its present form but that is a long way away from creating it.

For example a school teacher teaches a child and helps that child grow, that doesn't mean that said teacher created that child. She only helped it grow. For a politician to lay claim to something that other did, even thought it happens all the time, is wrong and people should call them one it.

Al Gore was a Teacher not a Parent.

Thankyous from the GOP

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

I really enjoy this. The GOP had nothing of substance against Dean. No attack actually was based on his record as Governor of Vermont, only on word games of rhetoric. The Dems would have that problem with anyone, so having someone with Dean's record is a plus. He is a fiscally restrained populist and while he may not make a great candidate, now he doesn't have to.

So to all the GOP supporters jumping for joy, I'm jumping with you. If you're going to be this easy to distract, it will make it a lot easier to combat the intellectual disease coming from the right. Between this and all the cycles GOP supporters burn thinking about Hillary Clinton, I can't wait to see the pathetic defense of the GOP's record in the 2006 elections.

Yes, keep thinking these moves are this dumb. It will be nice to see the GOP fall prey to the complacency that lost the Dems the 2000 election.

Oscillations of the political pendulum

[shanen]

Well, I don't see anything about it so far (or it's moderated below my visibility), but the obvious comment is that Dean's rise is a natural part of the swinging pendulum. The most important factor in the long-term success of the American political system has been moderation. Or perhaps you prefer to call it balance? From separation of powers to checks and balances to the independent judiciary to campaigns directed at the "undecided" moderate voters, the whole system has usually oscillated around central positions and the result has mostly worked very well for most of the people.

Dean is clearly on the left side of the spectrum, but BushCo is much more clearly on the *FAR* right side. The rightwingers have become so dominant that the system is falling out of balance, and there are basically only two outcomes now. One possible outcome is a swing back to the left, and Dean is of course going to be pushing for that. The stronger the swing to the right, the stronger the counterswing will have to be.

The other possible outcome would be bankruptcy and collapse. The United States has already lasted far longer than the average government, and it's showing plenty of symptoms of the kind of senility that often appears before a government collapses.

Re:Oscillations of the political pendulum

[Anonymous Coward]

You claim that Bush is on the "FAR right side" of the spectrum, but flashback to November 2nd... who got the most votes again??

I don't know where you'd put John Kerry on the spectrum, but it would have to be more left of center than Bush's rightness of center. People wouldn't have voted Bush if they didn't think he represented their values and ideas. Given that you believe Bush to be on the far right side of the spectrum, and given the fact that the majority of voters chose Bush, I conclude that you are out of touch with mainstream America.

Re:Oscillations of the political pendulum

[dosguru]

If you look this nation has already had for sure one, possilby 2 government 'collapes' in it's history. The first was as result of civil war. The Federal government was vastly different in 1870 than it was in 1860. The other that is harder to trace was the result of the 1932 election. The post depression/war federal government was very differnt than the 1920s. I think this helps shows the true genius of our founding fathers. The constitution is so strong as to prevent collapse, yet fexible enough to survive these massive convulsions of history. Remember, just becuase we still have more or less the same constiution as in the 1790s, does mean that we don't change how we interpret it.

Re:Dean says ...

[solafide]

You know I still have the parody music from his YEAAAH! speech on my computer? Very invigorating. Amazing what happens when you use Realplayer and it.

Too bad they didn't elect McGovern... The quintessential gey-rightist.

Re:Dean says ...

[masterOfTheObivous]

While I still laughed, the reason he "screamed" is still largely misunderstood. While many think that it was due only to his overenthusiasm, this is in fact not the case.

As might be imagined, the roar of the crowd at the event must have been deafening. This is a definite problem for those who want to use a microphone to speak- a balance must be struck between sensitivity and volume. However, what is instead used is a noise-cancelling microphone that reinforces the speaker's voice and blocks out background noises. Listen to any newscast in an area with lots of ambient noise, and you'll notice that the background seems "blocked out" whenever the reporter starts speaking.

Apparently, Howard Dean was so overwhelmed with the noise of the crowd that he felt the need to raise his voice in order for them to hear him. What came out was that mangled cry that he is now famous for. That unearthly sound may very well have cost him the Democratic nomination- all becuase of a microphone.

For those unbelievers out there, a few people were standing right near the stage taping the event on camcorders. They claim that Dean was absolutely impossible to hear over the roar of the crowd, and that only later did they realize he had screamed- when they came home to trun on the news. They never would have known otherwise.

Re:Dean says ...

[heinousjay]

Obivously.

why non americans think the US is crazy

[fiddlesticks]

example direct quotes:

* Why Libertarians Support
Equal Rights for America's Gun Owners

* End Welfare

* The Libertarian Party: Working to slash your taxes!

* Do you remember when the standard of living in America was the best in the world?

+++++++

I mean, really, this is all just nuts

Re:why non americans think the US is crazy

[DAldredge]

And what is wrong with cutting taxes and equal rights for gun owners?

Re:why non americans think the US is crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

So people who don't own guns should be given special rights that gun owners don't have? You think the government knows how to spend my money better than I do, so you want to increase taxes? You want to pay able-bodied people to sit at home all day doing nothing, producing nothing, leeching off the system? Sounds like socialism to me.

Kind of off-topic, but has anyone seen "Million Dollar Baby" yet? I've never seen a film more damning of the welfare entitlement system. Some think the movie is anti-conservative because of the ending, but I think it's just the opposite. Not just for the fat a$$ welfare fraud heartless beyotch, but also for the ending. It's like the priest character said, if Eastwood did it he'd be lost forever. And that's what happened, he was lost forever, he couldn't even go back to his old life because he couldn't be reminded of what he had done. Sorry, but that is not a pro-assisted suicide message.

Re:why non americans think the US is crazy

[brpr]

So people who don't own guns should be given special rights that gun owners don't have?

The point is that gun owners in America already have the same rights as everyone else, so it's a stupid slogan. A bit like, say, "equal rights for people with two vowels in their names!".

? You think the government knows how to spend my money better than I do, so you want to increase taxes?

Frankly, yes I do.

You want to pay able-bodied people to sit at home all day doing nothing, producing nothing, leeching off the system?

Many people on welfare are bringing up children, but that's beside the point. The point is that unless we're willing to allow people to starve to death, we need a welfare system. It's pretty cost effective, when you consider how much crime there would be without it.

Sounds like socialism to me.

No, taxes and basic welfare have nothing to do with Socialism. Even Adam Smith and Milton Friedman support taxation and basic welfare.

Try to stop being a parody of yourself.

Lib's and Neo-Con's just wear different clothes.

[readpunk]

Step 1: Divert topic to meta analysis of american politics.

Step 2: Discuss failure of the "average American".

Step 3: Talk shit about George Bush.

Step 4: Talk some more shit about the "average American".

Step 5: Talk some more shit about GWB.

Step 6: NEVER WAKE UP TO THE FACT THAT THOSE IN POWER ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE DESIRE WAR AND GREED AND ARE PART OF THE REASON THE "average American" IS SOCIALIZED TO BE A FUCKING MORON.

When a group of pro-war capitalists control a nation, why is it surprising that the entire nation is socialized to be absolute morons?

And more to the point and to be less US-centric when a group of pro-hierachy oligarchs/autocrats (I'm looking at you non-industrialized countries) control a nation, why is it surprising that the entire nation is socialized to be absolute morons?

How are any of you on /. superior to anyone who voted for GWB? Just because you broke the rightest/christian dogma and resocialized yourself you actually think you are better? Well good work, you traded one shit bag of backward logic for another shitbag of backward logic, except your new shitbag looks prettier.

MOD PARENT DOWN!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent is a known troll. Mod him down!

MOD PARENT DOWN!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent is a widely-known troll. Mod him down!

Why Dean isn't going to help the Democrats

[randall_burns]

Dean just plain hasn't got the right mix to make a viable party in the two party system.
He's hanging with the GOP on unpopular issues like immigration(where he basically endorses Bush's Open Borders policy) and failing to properly handle the social issues like Gun Control, Gay Rights,Drugs, Abortion(which constitutionally should all be state issues.

I've noticed three things....

[Anonymous Coward]

"E Pluribus Enum" isn't as prominent on the coinage as "In God We Trust"

This is because politicians are whores.

People love whores.

Re:I've noticed three things....

[MBraynard]

No, this is because you are a typical /. retard - pontificating from behind your keyboard repeating only what the Democrat Underground tells you.

The statement on the coinage is because that is really in whom the currency's value lies. It was added after the the US was taken off the gold standard. As the currency was nothing but fiat, it's value depended on the continuence of the government -and that is dependent on God - according to the consensus of the elected government.

Hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

You're citing a Bush Administration economic report and telling someone else to get their facts straight and fuck off? Get back to me when you can explain how the inheritance tax cut never happened.

Re:Hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again, get your facts straight and fuck off.

http://washtimes.com/national/20050210-114755-67 88 r.htm

Go ahead, dispute the facts with your facts. I bet you can't find any.

Re:Hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

"Get back to me when you can explain how the inheritance tax cut never happened."

Explain to me how poor people still have to pay inheritance taxes while rich people don't.

Flip it

[Mike Hawk]

There's nothing good to say about Dean. He runs a tiny state with a singular constituency (96% white, $40,000 average income). Quite the resume. The MAYOR of the CITY I live in is better qualified for national office. She answers to a larger, more diverse population, with issues that a state full of rich white people just don't have to deal with. Good times.

Look in the funhouse mirror, bub

[ianscot]

Full of venom, hate, and far to the left... (I think Zell Miller would have been a great choice but I know how well THAT suggestion would have gone over ;).

Let's see -- you think Howie Dean was "full of venom and hate" but you're a supporter of Zell Miller's. How do you ever live with that sort of cognitive dissonance?

Zell Miller gave a speech at the convention this year in which he contrasted unamerican "agitators" -- pronounced with glowering eyes, foaming mouth, and around 18 syllables -- with our shining clean-cut soldiers, saying in so many words that our nation is about our proud military and not about inconsequential stuff like, oh, freedom of speech. Watching that speech I was taken aback by how openly the Republicans have declared ruthless war on not just those who dissent with them, but on the actual idea of dissent within our political system.

Zell Miller's the dying gasp of the "Dixiecrats." The Republican party's so-called "southern strategy" since Nixon has been to alienate Southern voters from the Dems, who in the 1960s actually came to terms with race (God forbid) and have been dealing with the issue with a measure of moral courage since. The strategy has played very well to the fears of my Oklahoma relations, who are frankly scared to death of anyone who doesn't look like them. All the old "Solid South" political figures, like Miller, have slowly turned from one party to the other.

Personally I don't think this country's going to avoid a truly evil course unless the south somehow, miraculously, comes to terms with the actual history of the Civil War. Politicians like Miller represent the determined derangement of that history, an ongoing denial of it.

It was political terrorism that ended reconstruction, and since then Lincoln's party has steadily forsaken everything he stood for. At the end of that chain, you get crossover figures like Miller -- stepping from a past evil into a present one, with eyes glaring up from lowered brows like a Stanley Kubrick character's. And you think this is moral courage, or something like. Because he rants about "agitators."

In all seriousness, God help you.

All I have to say is...

[signingis]

Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

Someone had to do it... really... :)

Want to show the DNC that you support Dean

[stomv]

as the new Chairman?

Head to We've got Howard's Back and donate some money. Some folks are of the opinion that if enough money is donated right from the get-go, it will remind the Democratic National Committee to listen to the people and not the consultants all the time.

Load of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

the real reason his campaign failed, namely the endless pushing of the infamous scream by the corporate media and related commentary

This is a perversion of the truth. Dean benefitted considerably from media coverage. Think back to Q3-Q4 of 2003. You know. When nobody was thinking about the primaries. Dean declared his candidacy and raised a pile of money from bloggers on the Internet. Because he was the only one making noise and the only one raising any real money, he got all the media coverage. The media annointed him Democratic presidential nominee because there was nobody else. He was winning all the polls because nobody was running yet and he was the only one getting any media coverage.

What happened next? Well, in January 2004, the primary officially started for the rest of the party and in the Iowa caucuses, Dean got his ass handed to him in Iowa by Kerry and Edwards. Dean was nothing more than a distant third--an also-ran. The true ranks of the Democratic party were in for primary season and they told Howard Dean to go fuck off.

So Dean goes back to Dean camp land and gives a "concession" speech to John Kerry for winning the caucuses. This "concession" speech, the "Scream Speech" as it were, was the most rediculous, pissant, someone stole my lunch money, crybaby, and totally unstatesmanlike speech I have ever heard. And I'm talking about the version recorded from the crowd without the noise-cancellation. Why couldn't he just get up and say, "Congratulations, Senator Kerry. You fought a good race here in Iowa." Hell, I think he could have even said, "We still do disagree on several issues... See you in New Hampsire, old friend," and still have been fine. But that's not what happened. He gave his weenie speech. Well, that may be fine when you're tattling on the big kid who stole your lunch money, but that doesn't work in a presidential race.

I'm not sure it would have even mattered, though. Dean was the darling of bloggers everywhere, but little else. I'm not sure any blogless person actually liked him. Personally, I couldn't stand him. And that was long before the screem speech.

He did well when nobody except the bloggers was looking. As soon ad the Democrats came out in masse, he got clobbered. All the screaming just made for good entertainment.

Dean + Kos + Slashdot = $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

So Dean gets elected and almost immediately the amount of political anti-Bush posts on Slashdot increases 10 fold... AND his story gets posted on politics. Whereas Condoleeza Rice's nomination get bypassed without nary a mention.

Now Dean made his big inroads by going through the internet. With alot through Kos. Who's friends with the Slashdot editors... Who, around the same time, decided a politics secton was necessary on an international website that only caters to US politics.

So is Slashdot intimately tied into the Democratic party... nee even getting some funding? I'd say that's likely...

I still say

[the_skywise]

(As a Republican) that the "scream" was an overplayed "attack" on Dean from other Democratic party members. It makes absolutely 0 sense that in 24 hours Dean goes from being the revolutionary leading candidate of the Democratic Party to the whack-job has been who screams insanely.

Sure he had just lost the Iowa Caucus but he still had a lot of political momentum built up... But that disappeared almost immediately as the scream kept getting played and replayed and replayed... so much so that it became an incident in and of itself and the Iowa caucus' were quickly forgotten.

Especially when the "scream" was obviously just an emotional moment in a campaign. And there are plenty of those that happen that never get covered. But this one was... to death. Coincidence? I think not.

Re:I still say

[superpulpsicle]

It doesn't matter. The whole thing is wrigged. Bush will win everything by default.

This could work

[FleaPlus]

I'm skeptical about how much Dean will be able to do, but he can't possibly be worse for the Democrats than Terry McAuliffe.

The Boston Globe had some bits to say regarding Dean:

"I'll pretty much be living in red states in the South and West for quite a while," Dean told reporters after he was elected to the post on a voice vote. "The way to get people not to be skeptical about you is to show up and say what you think." ...

"If we want to win nationally, we have to start by winning locally," said Dean, who repeated his pledge to rebuild party organizations in each state. "We can't run an 18-state strategy and expect to win. This party's strength does not come from consultants down, it comes from the grass roots up." ...

In a news conference after his speech, Dean said he planned to reach out to evangelicals, a bloc of voters that forms the core of Republican support. "We are definitely going to do religious outreach," said Dean, whose recent speeches routinely cite an example of a conservative evangelical who now supports him because of his support for expanded healthcare.

If I understand correctly the attention to local politics is a significant shift in DNC policy, which has in the past decade had a tendency to almost completely ignore local and state campaigns, focusing almost entirely on failed bids for the presidency. I have my fingers crossed that the Democrats will take up the nigh-forgotten banner of "States' Rights," which the Republicans seem to have dropped like a lead brick (particularly when it comes to things like gay marriage, euthanasia, abortion, and medical marijuana).

Also, I'm curious to see if Dean's grassroots approach can actually manage to reach beyond those who are already True Believers. Before, it just seemed to basically be Dean supporters (including myself) telling each other how much they hated Bush, which would get them riled up, which would have the end result of them telling each other how much they hated Bush.

Say what?

[zippthorne]

I thougth dean's campaign failed because Kerry mortgaged his wife's house to fund an all-out campaign in Iowa, thereby cementing his status as the "electable" candidate for all the primaries from then on.

No one votes for DNC chairman

[zippthorne]

People vote for Presidents, representatives, school board members.

Who cares if it's Howard Dean or Martha Stewart? The people who were actually elected to office control the "direction" of the party. The principle job of the DNC chairman therefore is to run the conventions.

Come to think of it, this seems like it would be a job at which Martha Stewart would excel!

THE DEAN SCREAM

[Aeron65432]

His support failed to materialize. But nobody mentioned how his support collapsed after? YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGGGG! "I have a Scream"

rightwing propaganda machine ,moved America right

[Cryofan]

The reason that economic leftism cannot find a place in the American psyche is because rich people and corporations have spent many billions over decades to convince/persuade/brainwash Americans that economic leftism is bad and has bad effects.

But the facts are obvious from looking at the effects of economic leftism on countries like Sweden, Norway, France, Denmark, etc. THose countries have the highest standards of living in the world. And they are economic leftist countries: high progressive taxation, high social spending. THe proof is in the pudding.

But Americans are propagandized/hipmotized by the boob tube/talk radio/newspapers, which over the decades have been subject to a steady bombardment of pro-economic rightism.

See my sig for more details...

Re:rightwing propaganda machine ,moved America rig

[jadavis]

I consider leftism to work much better on a smaller scale. The countries you mentioned are small (with the exception of France, regarding which some might disagree about your claim of a higher standard of living).

I don't think leftism works on a large scale because governments are naturally heirarchical, and that model does not extend well to large numbers (or so I claim). The reason is that individuals have more information about any situation than a far-away government, so they tend to make better decisions. So, it's good for the economy to give them economic freedom. There are limits, of course. You must prevent stealing, extortion, etc.

So, be wary of the E.U. taking over, because it could destroy those countries.

I think there's a natural tendency to call any large group of people who disagree with you "brainwashed". I just don't think that's the case.

More foreign people enter the U.S. each year than any other country, so we're doing something right. Something tells me that even if one of those countries had an open-immigration policy, there wouldn't be nearly the influx there. I bet you could even discount Mexican immigration and it would still be more immigration here.