Howard Dean talks straight
 

I admit it. I like old Dr. Dean. He's getting the inside straight arm for speaking.....plainly. I think hes being politic and was amused by the rude pundit Hee hee. :)

Absolutely.

well, as long as you want to be amused and feel like a big player - THE big player - as the head of the DNC flip off the republicans then Howard Dean is your man.

unfortunately, i'd rather see someone that could draw a majority of Americans back to the middle rather than help push them into greater polarity. don't you get it? very few people really like GWB and the gang, but A LOT are more uncomfortable with the Dean brand of Democrat.

I think the pander game was played and lost. I consider myself a moderate democrat. Its time to lay the shit out, take a page out of the other guys playbook.

What's the Dean brand that is so polarizing? Politically he is extremely moderate.

Its wierd, Dean's scream gets all sampled and mocked, he's ridiculed, and when you look at what he actually fights and stands for, it is very moderate and sensible. I think the DC outsider thing will start to make people rethink and his passion will continue to be a plus. If he's reduced to sound bytes, at least he should take a bite. He should rally for polarization from the likes of DeLay.

Well, thank God Dean is talking straight as opposed to talking gay. :)

Rush Limbaugh is a centrist?

Dean the presidential candidate has a liberal extremist image. However Dean is not really the issue. And the real issue is rarely mentioned. An ideological vacuum exists inside the Democratic party. They cannot even decide if the government should make America into a Chirstian nation or oppose it. They cannot even oppose the longer term undermining of the American economy that both George Sr and Clinton rebuilt. Democrats have nothing equivalent to the propaganda machine that feeds the Rush Limbaugh, et al with talking points every day. And Democrats have nothing equivalent to the Christian fundamentalists - who are even undermining the foundations of the Catholic Church.

These are powerful forces. As UT noted, Democrats would put Casey Jr up for PA senator. OK. Maybe this time he can prove to be politically effective. But what is his message? "We will not impose Christian fundamental morality on all other people?" What kind of message is that (and not I am not suggesting Casey even thought that position)?

The Democrats do not have many intellectual equivalents to Clinton or Rove. A problem Dean must address. Its not about the next four years. Its about the next 20 and 30 years. Neocon Republicans have defined the conquest (the saving) of America using Christian morality. Even moderate Republicans (McCain, Specter, or Snow) who have problems with that message have no alternative message or agenda. The problem is not Dean. Question will always come back to whether Christian fundamentalist morality must be imposed on all other Americans - and other conquered nations. Dean does not even discuss the issue. At least we have no reason to believe he has discussed the issues. But then Dean is no longer speaking on the campaign trail. Is he doing what a former Clinton Commerce Secretary did some 15 years ago? If so, then he is doing his job.

*lookout123 searches through previous posts looking for mention of limbaugh, not finding any looks through previous 3000 posts searching for positive comment about limbaugh* nope, couldn't find any.

tw, what is your preoccupation with limbaugh? i understand he is an asshat. so is hannity. you are kind of preaching to the choir, as i don't think there are any cellarites looking to those types for talking points or answers. but to answer your question (notice how some of us actually answer questions?) no - rush limbaugh is not a centrist. he is a right wing hack. he is a failed rock disc jockey. he is a failed nfl commentator. he is a recovering drug addict. he is ablow hard who has built a media empire around his image. he is not a centrist.

now that we've covered rush limbaugh, for this thread anyway, lets move on to the actual topic at hand.

for once, i agree with tw - dean is not the problem with the democratic party. he is, however, a symptom. for some reason the D leadership doesn't recognize that after all the blustering and pandering, a majority of this country falls into the political middleground. if politics were a football field - *oversimplification alert* limbaugh and hannity would be on far right 1 yard line, GWB would be on the 20, McCain would be on the 30. on the far left you'd have franken and rhodes on the 1, dean/kennedy on the 20, hillary on the 30, etc. the problem is that the majority of americans are hanging out between the 40's wondering when a political leader will come represent them.

the average american wants a leader who looks and sounds like them. someone they may disagree with on certain issues,but who they believe will do the best they can. the average american is sick of being a part of a D party that looks and sounds like T Kennedy and Daschle - two men who ooze false sincerety. to be fair they are also sick of being a part of a party that looks and sounds like Delay, limbaugh, and hannity. i still believe that is why bush really won - he looks like an average guy and sounds like one too. nevermind that he is obscenely wealthy and went through the ivy league - he looks and sounds like one of us.

ah, whatever - i guess the point is that most of us who refuse to join a party are dieing for someone to step forward to represent us. Howard Dean isn't that guy. it doesn't matter what he really thinks, it is how he presents himself. we are @3.5 years from the next election and he is already sounding like a firebrand. that isn't what average americans are looking for.

The latter is a classic example of literally a 'piss poor' politician. He had no underlying strategic objective. He was a peace maker at all cost - even supporting the president on an unjustified war in Iraq. He even blindly believed propaganda that contradicted underlying facts. But more damning, Daschle only sought compromise even at the expense of a strategic objective. In doing so, he abandoned fundamental principles that made America work and that made the Democratic Party so successful. I would not be surprised to learn Daschle thought Saddam attacked the WTC, Pentagon, and field in PA. Daschle had no grasp of issues. He only wanted the safe and easiest solution rather than first identifying what was and was not needed.

A benchmark example is the debt. Both George Sr and Clinton solved debt problems - literally confronting the various stock market meltdowns, the S&L crisis, the 1990 near banking disasters that almost bankrupt CitiBank, the hedge fund disaster (especially Long Term Capital Management) and numerous other financial and economic problems. In some cases these two men did so by following the advice of their subordinates rather than follow their own feelings. Both men also had competent subordinates.

But now we have the same problem all over again. And what was Daschle's response? Let them do it. Pick and choose the battles rather than pick and choose which principles that Democratic Party stood for. Make decisions based upon political expediency rather than upon facts.

The current Social Security debate is a classic example. A well lead Democratic Party would be making bumper crops over the scandalous way that Social Security is being run into the ground and will be undermined by the Repulican agenda. Any money removed by the Treasury to pay government bills is replaced with a Treasury Bond. Entire SS (highway trust fund, and FAA trust fund) problems solved. But Democrats instead cry as if SS was only some third rail. Even Democrats are playing politics rather than addressing issues.

Another issue being left for a 'graveyard' mentality is identity theft. Until it gets so massive as to threaten most everyone, the Democrats are just sitting on their asses - letting Republicans instead pass laws to empower government (ie Patriot Act) rather than let the consumer protect himself. Don't worry. The government will give you papers so that government can monitor you. And government will prosecute the identity theif AFTER he has done the damage. Meanwhile, the problem with identity theft - a defective system based upon driver's licenses and SS numbers - remains in place with no solution.

Perfect example of a strategic objective that a responsible Democratic party could campaign on. A system so that you - and not the government - can prove who you are, and so that you can protect your identity. Functions also necessary to protect personal freedoms are ignored even by the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, Republicans advocate a system equivalent to the Nazi version of "Show me your identity papers". Passports with electronic data so that government can protect itself first; the people second.

Is there anyone in the Democratic Party who could campaign for the personal freedoms such as identity protection and who could campaign for a return to economic prosperity (currently stifled by massive government deficient spending)? No. Not one. Clinton understood a strategic objective when he said, "It’s the economy stupid". Clinton targeted problems of that time. Currently few Democratic leaders do that today.

a horrifying thought just came to me. tw - are you Bill Clinton?

if so, is the cellar just a cog in your plan to ensure that the american public is aware of the greatness they had in you?

if not, get off the guy's crank already. he was a decent president, personal choices aside. he didn't screw too much up, but he didn't accomplish anything spectacular, either. why exactly are you so in love with old Bill?

I wasn't a big fan of Bill Clinton's but he looks plenty super-hero compared to what we got now.

The Democrats need to stop playing the game. They should not answer any silly talking head questions about what is wrong with their party or why they hate America. Instead every chance they get they need to counter with what the current administration is doing wrong. If they don't get invited on the show I'm sure some other network would be glad to be the only source of democrat appearences and high ratings (being the republicans would be split between multiple stations).

Also wtf is with all the liberals being called whiners? Everybody whines when it comes to politics it seems. Ann Coulter took a whole column to whine about Bill Moyers. The right whines about liberals and gays every chance they get? What makes them think they arent whining?

Because he screwed Monica whereas W is screwing me. :(

Because the children whine, the parents make the rules. The extreme Republicans consider themselves our parents, here to guide us and protect us from ourselves--just like the extreme liberals would if they were in power.

sorry bruce, that doesn't work. having a new leader who is distasteful to you does not equate to the previous leader being a great one.

clinton didn't eff anything major up. unless you're anti-nafta. or pro a strong, well trained military. or... it doesn't matter, every person has different ideas of what good and bad policies are. we all judge the leaders by our personal ideals. judge clinton against your ideals (rather than his successor) and then tell me why exactly he is revered by so many. being better than GWB doesn't automatically make one great.

Now that statement I completely agree with on so many levels.

Now that statement I completely agree with on so many levels. I really think that GWB will be remembered as one of the worst presidents of the 21st century.

well, there are LBJ and Carter to contend with. but sure, i'll go along with "one of".

The hypocrisy is enough to make me cry. These are the same who complain about the nanny state when they are taxed too much. You are right though, both sides are ultimately after what they think is best for us whether it is or isn't. I'd much prefer a more diverse political realm where nothing gets done.

No he won't. They're 20'th century.

ouch, you got me there HM. i wasn't even thinking about the 20th/21st century bit.

I actually spent a lot of time on that issue. I took a look at the US presidents at the turn of the 20th century.

We started off with McKinley, who started the Spanish-American war based on 'bad intelligence' about the destruction of the Maine. We may have him to thank for Hawaii being a US state and for many US almost-states like Puerto Rico, but he did so by fighting Spain and conquering the local populations, some of whom fought against us for independence.

Harding was basically a marshmallow who let himself be led.

From here

Coolidge was a least honest, although he didn't stop the Great Depression, although it is thought that he saw it coming.

Hoover inherited Coolidges mess. He also pushed volunteerism, which may be where GWB is getting his faith-based intiative ideas from.

Of course, Hoover was one of the first presidents to publicly screw over veterans, who had been promised money by Congress. The debt would not be paid until FDR's administration and over his objection that the priority should be the Depresssion.

Certainly a mixed bag of flawed men and policies. Both Roosevelts rose out of these men's mistakes. T. Roosevelt gained a lot of his reputation from McKinley's war and FDR picked up from Hoovers (really Coolidges) Depression.

So the public does learn from it's mistakes and choose a real leader after a series of mediocre seatwarmers.

I have a real hope for the 21st century. GWB has all three houses and all of the cards and still the country has an expensive war, rising debt, and the only plan to save Social Security contains a provision that would sap it's funding.

A lot of the true moderates and independents who gave him his slim margin on election day are smacking themselves in the head right now. Still, the Democrats might drop the ball by not giving the public the best man for the job. The Republicans might drop the ball for choosing another bitter partisan, or, worst case, Jeb Bush in hopes of a 3-man 6-term dynasty.

We live in interesting times. G-d help us.

You heard it here first, folks. Randall Terry is now the official representative of the Republican base. :mg:

So with the Schaivo affair and the low malpractice caps, the new Republican base is someone who will keep someone on life support indefinitely while letting the doctor who put them there off the hook.

no, randall terry is an asshat. an asshat without an elected position. he believes that he represents florida republicans. the voters will get to decide if they want his brand of asshattery in office.

Referencing back to the beginning of this thread ... McCain seems to be in a bit of trouble for skipping moderate and going hell bent to the left ...

The lowdown from the arizona conservative.

I have no idea if there's been any follow up on this ... It's been nuts at the nuthouse lately.

So ... because he's doing what he thinks is best for the country, regardless of which side the Republican party says he SHOULD be on, and because he does't mind working with Democrats instead of bitching at them, they are basically saying, "You can't be a Republican anymore"?

Politicians are worried that people are beginning to see behind the curtain.The curtain of partisanship. So they have to try and remind people that they are supposed to stay polarized.

or they are pissed that McCain runs on certain ideas, but after the election he supports a program they believe to be amnesty.

[pa voice]Paging mrnoodle, mrnoodle, please report to the Howard Dean thread[/pa voice] Cause I'd like to hear his take on the McCain censure by the ARA. Seriously, his crime was working with other senators whose square on the seating chart was a different color? *shakes head in disbelief and sad wonder*

Ooh, soul mates! People take this stuff seriously?
Illiterates, plus air quotes. It sort of diminishes the effect of the flowery WHEREAS-style writing.

I just read about Karl Rove's (Whitehouse deputy chief of staff, AKA Bush's brain) public comments about the supposed "liberal" response to 9/11. He was talking to New York Republicans. I wonder what the liberals, the Democrats in New York who were counting their dead feel about this...let alone the rest of the country.

That is some ugly shit, meant to demonize all liberals as unwilling to defend the nation. To mock any analysis of the situation as pansy ass and whoop up the polarization. He's a master.
He's ugly.

Hmm - this one is stupid and wrong, and pretty transparently so... I think the master has fallen, I think this one will have some legs.

Hope springs eternal...

I don't think so. Its not like Rove holds an elective office and lets face it Republicans do believe that Democrats are unAmerican. Hillary vs Rove? That's business as usual. I don't think the mushy middle voters will vote on this issue next go around. They'll be too busy getting lead around by the media on some other non-issue by then.

I agree with Griff. As an official flunkie, Rove is free to get his hands dirty, as long as his boss doesn't get sucked into endorsing his opinion.

I don't think he does anything by accident. The fact that he picked himself as point man to make such an inflammatory statement reflects the fact that he is very worried at Bush's dismal performance and is trying to spin 9/11 back into the news however he can. If the only way he can do so is by making lame and unsupported statements that will get hammered in the press, he will do it. This was not a stupid act, this was a desperate one. Karl is taking one for the team.

Not that I think they are smart enough to pick up the ball, but all the Dems have to say is 'We took 9/11 seriously enough that we backed the President's invasion of Iraq on his word as Commander in Chief that there was an imminent threat to the United States. If we had acted with more restraint, we would have saved thousands of additional lives and hundreds of billions of dollars being poured into Iraq'.

wow, rove's lost the plot.
I'd still prefer a shallow grave in the desert but public implosion will do.

Ya know how Jag hates America/Americans? Well, I'm finding myself agreeing with him more and more these days.

I have no doubt that Rove's statement was strategic. It whoops the polarization, bring back 9/11, and basically challenges everyone who does not blindly follow the hammer-neocon agenda to prove him "wrong", show their toughness by restating their war support. The subtlties of Afghanistan war vs Iraq war are lost, again...
When things in Iraq are redirected, as it seems they must be, he can plead that it was all the liberals fault, and has a ready hammer for whatever new strategy or shift is laid out. Its setting up the blame. You're with us or against America. and a wimp. He's counting on the American regard for muscle over brains and ignoring the reality that we need both.

You know, the phrase "unjustified war against Iraq" drives me to wrath. Recall that Iraq was a tyranny, and that it now shows considerable hope of becoming a representative democracy. Any war conducted against a tyranny to replace it with a more liberal form of government is justified by that fact alone. The only people moved to object to assaults on tyranny are tyrants and tyrants' lackeys.

Do any such exist here? -- and how would you like your impalement? Regular, hot-poker, or Vlad Tepes style?

Well, Warch, what are we to make of Islamoterrorism's close relationship with Islamotyrannies -- and of certain Americans' reluctance to raise the sword against tyrannies? Sounds to me like the damned dorks want us to lose -- to the likes of Osama?! Where are their heads?!

I'm a Libertarian; tyrannies must go. Whether with blood spilled neck deep or not at all, tyrannies must go if you want a good world.

No, you are a liberventionist, someone who doesn't trust people in other countries to sort out their own messes.

Bush has provided the first step in driving a somewhat secular country into the arms of islamic tyranny. Your position gives aid and comfort to the enemies of freedom.

So we are now obligated to take out the governments of half the third world?

Not obligated, I think he meant morally permitted.

Quite.

After all, is there a more easily discernible evil on Earth's face than that of tyranny, totalitarianism, and all their variations and degrees of oppression? Ever notice just how much of the world's garbage happens in places that aren't democracies, but are democracy's opposite?

Remove the lot!

And it'll take more than calm, reasoned explanation of why representative democracy is really better all around to shift these buggers. That's human nature: people will fight like mad dogs to attain or retain power. You want freedom? -- be prepared to shoot mad dogs, and don't just confine yourself to shooting. You know they'd just as soon bomb you; be prepared to bomb.

When the last dictator is hanged on the guts of the last national chief of secret police, how much of the world's misery will have fled?

It's not that I don't trust them. It's that I recognize the value of military effort by the free peoples in removing the obstacles presented by anti-libertarian states. This can be very difficult to achieve by internal rebellion only. Indeed, it is usually not the case that these succeed. It was certainly not the case with the Revolutionary War.

You, Griff, have either told me at least one lie in that post, or you suffer from muddy thinking. You can do better.

No, I can't.:) We agree on a lot but not this one.

I don't see a difference when it comes to war.

Holy cow! You must scare the crap out of those tyrants. You sure scare the crap out of me. :worried:

hmm, an interventionist with Radar's passion. :worried:

Well, Bruce, I've been part of the shooting-at-tyranny, in my country's uniform. The experience of nine years of doing this convinced me of the necessity of being willing and able to give tyrannies the chop. This is what the freedom people, and the free peoples, should be doing, and doing a lot more of it. Certainly the tyrannies won't.

If you govern by arbitrary decree and not by a constitution, if the populace is not the source of all the political power, what you are is a target.

Dictatorships primarily exist to oppress, in a greater or lesser degree -- but oppression is what they do, in the last analysis, either by pogroms or by partiality. This is widely understood to be a bad thing.

I'm with you man but if the result is a civil war there's a chance you could just wind up with another tyranny. Doing it right is a wonderful thing. Doing it wrong...

On the TV news today (CNN) they made the statement that "The adinistration concedes Iraq will probably have a low-grade civil war when we leave." WTF? Low-grade? They didn't name a source. :mg:

UG, if you take a hard line, "Because I'm the Mommy" stance they leave home and never call or send you birthday cards. :headshake

Sounds like they expect this level of pointless blowings-up to continue for a time -- to total futility. The anti-liberty Rump Saddamite faction continues being unable to change anything but the bodycount. The Ba'athists, having spent a generation mismanaging things and wasting their nation's time and substance in oppression and repression, aren't coming back; the rest of Iraq isn't going to let them.

In my opinion, they should quit wasting their explosives. They've made it perfectly clear that all they have to offer is death -- and death in the aid of the evil of totalitarianism, yet. I see the rest of Iraq offering a collective "No, Thanks!" in reply. The rest of the Iraqis are also tougher than you guys -- they are pushing on. All the Rump Saddamites are doing is bending up a lot of car parts.

Work has sucked, I worked a double last night because someone called in vomiting an hour before their shift was to start and I've been behind on my news watching and reading ... someone at work today mentioned that the draft Iraqi Constitution is preparing them to set up an Islamic Theocracy ... comments/confirmation?

If so, the oppressed class will go from "enemies of Saddam" to "women and anyone who is viewed as less devout than the ruling clergy".

This would come as a surprise?

1) It could give Bush and his religious right nut-job buddies a class in how to run things

2) We only really have the power to bomb people, not change their thinking

3) Our leaders don't really care how it turns out so long as the oil and votes keeps flowing

I don't know about you all but the oil is hardly flowing here in Ohio. Two-thirtyeight/gallon is not exactly what we all expected after "winning" the war.

But it's there, so it is flowing. It's $2.38 because the profits are flowing too. ;)

Thats why the war is a failure from two different points of view.

Liberals hate the entire idea of a 'blood for oil' war.

Neo-Cons hate the idea of a failed 'blood for oil' war which will cost $300 billion, hasn't resulted in any significant oil exports, and where we actually have to give the country back.