Democrats Looking for Survival Strategy

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
The funniest thing about Democrats is they really believe the radical crap they spew out.

It is interesting to observe that much of the leadership, particularly Howard Dean, feel they need to control the message they are getting out. They have actually come out and said it is OK to believe this crap, they just need to make sure the voters get a different, controlled message.

What’s radical? are real american values radical? has the country been radical for the last 60 years? I think the presidents approval rate is below 50% now, so are the other 55 percent or so radical? More than half disapprove of his handling of the war, his s.s. “plan”, are they radical? Is life in a blue state radical? Was I radical when I voted for Guiliani for his liberal values? Do you have any idea, what you are talking about hedo?(so far I’m guessing no)

Is it possible that you could explain the secret radical liberal agenda that Howard Dean is hiding or how Vermont is radical?
[/quote]

many times it just seems,that the congressional representatives are either too much to the right or too much to the left.They know no middle ground,it is either or.Bill Clinton in my opinion was just right.That is why people loved him.Bush is too far to the right on many things.

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
The funniest thing about Democrats is they really believe the radical crap they spew out.

It is interesting to observe that much of the leadership, particularly Howard Dean, feel they need to control the message they are getting out. They have actually come out and said it is OK to believe this crap, they just need to make sure the voters get a different, controlled message.

What’s radical? are real american values radical? has the country been radical for the last 60 years? I think the presidents approval rate is below 50% now, so are the other 55 percent or so radical? More than half disapprove of his handling of the war, his s.s. “plan”, are they radical? Is life in a blue state radical? Was I radical when I voted for Guiliani for his liberal values? Do you have any idea, what you are talking about hedo?(so far I’m guessing no)

Is it possible that you could explain the secret radical liberal agenda that Howard Dean is hiding or how Vermont is radical?

Dean’s radical adgenda is plain to see. If you would bother reading it is readily available.

Do I know what I am talking about…please son, time to get a clue.

Perhaps you haven’t noticed virtually nobody agrees with anything you post. Why do you think that is so?

You should realize that I and many others only argue with you for the entertainment value more then anything else. The intellectual challenge just isn’t there and the arguments you make are weak at best. Silly more then anything else.

[/quote]

personal attacks instead of debate.Doesn’t look to me like entertainment at all.Than why not respond with what you think rather than with persoanl attacks.If you don’t know how to discuss things,why bother?This is basic.Doesn’t even have anything to do with being Democrat or Republican.

[quote]100meters wrote:

That aint centrism, but Bill, and Hillary actually tried to do that and Howard hasn’t ya see? (doesn’t that make him more centrist, using your own example?)
And it really doesn’t seem relevant who the Clintons wanted does it?
Stop falling for the framing![/quote]

I don’t quite get your point. Howard Dean hasn’t tried to move toward the center on issues, so that makes him more centrist?

BTW, the person doing the “positioning” is Dean himself. Have you seen his quotes lately? Stuff to the effect of “This is a fight between good and evil, and we’re the good.”

Also, small note on what I wrote before. Having certain positions that are considered “right of center” doesn’t make Dean a centrist. The man isn’t an average of his positions on different issues. On some issues he is far left, and on others – notably guns – he is slightly right of center.

One last note – 100meters isn’t Lumpy, unless Lumpy has made some changes to his overall writing style. He just shares the same email lists as news sources.

[quote]studxxx wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
The funniest thing about Democrats is they really believe the radical crap they spew out.

It is interesting to observe that much of the leadership, particularly Howard Dean, feel they need to control the message they are getting out. They have actually come out and said it is OK to believe this crap, they just need to make sure the voters get a different, controlled message.

What’s radical? are real american values radical? has the country been radical for the last 60 years? I think the presidents approval rate is below 50% now, so are the other 55 percent or so radical? More than half disapprove of his handling of the war, his s.s. “plan”, are they radical? Is life in a blue state radical? Was I radical when I voted for Guiliani for his liberal values? Do you have any idea, what you are talking about hedo?(so far I’m guessing no)

Is it possible that you could explain the secret radical liberal agenda that Howard Dean is hiding or how Vermont is radical?

Dean’s radical adgenda is plain to see. If you would bother reading it is readily available.

Do I know what I am talking about…please son, time to get a clue.

Perhaps you haven’t noticed virtually nobody agrees with anything you post. Why do you think that is so?

You should realize that I and many others only argue with you for the entertainment value more then anything else. The intellectual challenge just isn’t there and the arguments you make are weak at best. Silly more then anything else.

personal attacks instead of debate.Doesn’t look to me like entertainment at all.Than why not respond with what you think rather than with persoanl attacks.If you don’t know how to discuss things,why bother?This is basic.Doesn’t even have anything to do with being Democrat or Republican.
[/quote]

StudX

Pointing out to someone that you think the argument they are making is pointless and that they seems to argue with just about everyone is not a personal attack. It is more a statement of the obvious…in a public forum. Kind of debating with attitude which is what is done here on a frequent basis. After all it is a political forum.

A personal attack as I see it, insults a person’s character, reputation or perhaps physical characteristics.

And regardless…it is entertaining to argue with liberals.

[quote]hedo wrote:
And regardless…it is entertaining to argue with liberals.
[/quote]

I like to shove lit firecrackers up their butts and watch them run off. Oh wait - that’s a different kind of puss. Nevermind.

Interesting Article from John Hawkins:

The Idea Gap
Have you noticed the elephant in the living room that the liberals keep trying to ignore even as they lose election after election? It’s the huge “idea gap” between conservatives and liberals. While conservatives are open about what we think and our reasoning, liberals often try to obscure what they believe in or worse yet, publicly run from it. This is why – as USA Today reported – Americans think the Democratic Party is out of gas intellectually:

“A recent poll by Democrats James Carville and Stanley Greenberg found that just 44% ? scarcely anyone beyond diehard Democrats ? think the party has any ideas for addressing the nation’s problems.”

There are a number of reasons why liberals aren’t as forthright about what they believe as conservatives are. One problem for liberals is that the Democratic Party is much more evenly divided than the GOP. Sure, the libs may run the Party, but if they’re too open and up front about their agenda, they risk alienating significant numbers of moderate Democrats. Of course, given that the leftward drift of the Democratic Party has cost them much of their support in the South, perhaps the Party leadership hasn’t been secretive enough about what they believe.

But the split in the party is just a symptom of a much larger problem: that many liberal ideas have already been considered and soundly rejected by the American people. This is why judges have become so important – because activist judges are the left’s way of getting their policies implemented over the objections of the voters.

There are different ways liberals could deal with this situation. They could try to come up with new ideas, but that’s really very difficult for them to do since many liberal political convictions are almost like religious doctrine. They have their beliefs, they are what they are, and they’re not very amenable to changing them based on new evidence.

On the other hand, the left could do what the right has spent so much time doing: explaining what they believe and trying to convince the public that their ideas are sound. Unfortunately, most – but not all – liberals lack the courage to take this approach. It’s one thing to support large tax increases, reparations, abortion on demand, and the confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens, but it takes more guts to defend those ideas when they’re under fire the way conservatives stand up for their positions on pro-life issues, the war in Iraq, flattening the tax rate, and free trade.

Knee-jerk opposition to conservative policies, coming up with fantastic theories about “wars for oil,” and trying to muddy up the water about what liberal candidates really believe is always an easier road to travel…in the short term at least.

But the American public, after hearing the same tired shtick from the left year after year & gaining access to more sources of information that don’t always toe the liberal line, has wised up to the tricks & spin.

So if the left wants to make a political comeback in this country – at least to the point where Democratic candidates for President are willing to publicly admit that they’re liberals – then they’re going to have to bridge the idea gap on foreign policy, abortion, Kyoto, gun control, states rights, taxes, socialized medicine, the size and growth of government, and dozens of other issues where what they believe is either incoherent or hidden from the American people.

Until the left does that, they may still be able to win a few battles, but they are doomed to slowly but surely lose the intellectual war with the right…

John Hawkins

[quote]hedo wrote:

Dean’s radical adgenda is plain to see. If you would bother reading it is readily available.

Do I know what I am talking about…please son, time to get a clue.

Perhaps you haven’t noticed virtually nobody agrees with anything you post. Why do you think that is so?

You should realize that I and many others only argue with you for the entertainment value more then anything else. The intellectual challenge just isn’t there and the arguments you make are weak at best. Silly more then anything else.

[/quote]
Nobody agrees…so?
most people in here are fake conservatives cheering the president’s neo con agenda(which is pretty radical)
You never have factual data and you gloss over the public record constantly,
Please tell, what is howard dean’s radical agenda, and what is radical about VT?
I’ve already posted some of his views, none of them were radical. Do you have anything constructive to add? Ever?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Also, small note on what I wrote before. Having certain positions that are considered “right of center” doesn’t make Dean a centrist. The man isn’t an average of his positions on different issues. On some issues he is far left, and on others – notably guns – he is slightly right of center.

One last note – 100meters isn’t Lumpy, unless Lumpy has made some changes to his overall writing style. He just shares the same email lists as news sources.[/quote]

On what issues is he FAR-left, being against the war in Iraq? That’s a right handed view, traditionally. Please the details on how he is far left?

[quote]hedo wrote:
studxxx wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
The funniest thing about Democrats is they really believe the radical crap they spew out.

It is interesting to observe that much of the leadership, particularly Howard Dean, feel they need to control the message they are getting out. They have actually come out and said it is OK to believe this crap, they just need to make sure the voters get a different, controlled message.

What’s radical? are real american values radical? has the country been radical for the last 60 years? I think the presidents approval rate is below 50% now, so are the other 55 percent or so radical? More than half disapprove of his handling of the war, his s.s. “plan”, are they radical? Is life in a blue state radical? Was I radical when I voted for Guiliani for his liberal values? Do you have any idea, what you are talking about hedo?(so far I’m guessing no)

Is it possible that you could explain the secret radical liberal agenda that Howard Dean is hiding or how Vermont is radical?

Dean’s radical adgenda is plain to see. If you would bother reading it is readily available.

Do I know what I am talking about…please son, time to get a clue.

Perhaps you haven’t noticed virtually nobody agrees with anything you post. Why do you think that is so?

You should realize that I and many others only argue with you for the entertainment value more then anything else. The intellectual challenge just isn’t there and the arguments you make are weak at best. Silly more then anything else.

personal attacks instead of debate.Doesn’t look to me like entertainment at all.Than why not respond with what you think rather than with persoanl attacks.If you don’t know how to discuss things,why bother?This is basic.Doesn’t even have anything to do with being Democrat or Republican.

StudX

Pointing out to someone that you think the argument they are making is pointless and that they seems to argue with just about everyone is not a personal attack. It is more a statement of the obvious…in a public forum. Kind of debating with attitude which is what is done here on a frequent basis. After all it is a political forum.

A personal attack as I see it, insults a person’s character, reputation or perhaps physical characteristics.

And regardless…it is entertaining to argue with liberals.
[/quote]

I guess arguing is your M.O. because as a conservative, how could you win a debate?

[quote]hedo wrote:
Interesting Article from John Hawkins:

The Idea Gap
Have you noticed the elephant in the living room that the liberals keep trying to ignore even as they lose election after election? It’s the huge “idea gap” between conservatives and liberals. While conservatives are open about what we think and our reasoning, liberals often try to obscure what they believe in or worse yet, publicly run from it. This is why – as USA Today reported – Americans think the Democratic Party is out of gas intellectually:

“A recent poll by Democrats James Carville and Stanley Greenberg found that just 44% ? scarcely anyone beyond diehard Democrats ? think the party has any ideas for addressing the nation’s problems.”

There are a number of reasons why liberals aren’t as forthright about what they believe as conservatives are. One problem for liberals is that the Democratic Party is much more evenly divided than the GOP. Sure, the libs may run the Party, but if they’re too open and up front about their agenda, they risk alienating significant numbers of moderate Democrats. Of course, given that the leftward drift of the Democratic Party has cost them much of their support in the South, perhaps the Party leadership hasn’t been secretive enough about what they believe.

But the split in the party is just a symptom of a much larger problem: that many liberal ideas have already been considered and soundly rejected by the American people. This is why judges have become so important – because activist judges are the left’s way of getting their policies implemented over the objections of the voters.

There are different ways liberals could deal with this situation. They could try to come up with new ideas, but that’s really very difficult for them to do since many liberal political convictions are almost like religious doctrine. They have their beliefs, they are what they are, and they’re not very amenable to changing them based on new evidence.

On the other hand, the left could do what the right has spent so much time doing: explaining what they believe and trying to convince the public that their ideas are sound. Unfortunately, most – but not all – liberals lack the courage to take this approach. It’s one thing to support large tax increases, reparations, abortion on demand, and the confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens, but it takes more guts to defend those ideas when they’re under fire the way conservatives stand up for their positions on pro-life issues, the war in Iraq, flattening the tax rate, and free trade.

Knee-jerk opposition to conservative policies, coming up with fantastic theories about “wars for oil,” and trying to muddy up the water about what liberal candidates really believe is always an easier road to travel…in the short term at least.

But the American public, after hearing the same tired shtick from the left year after year & gaining access to more sources of information that don’t always toe the liberal line, has wised up to the tricks & spin.

So if the left wants to make a political comeback in this country – at least to the point where Democratic candidates for President are willing to publicly admit that they’re liberals – then they’re going to have to bridge the idea gap on foreign policy, abortion, Kyoto, gun control, states rights, taxes, socialized medicine, the size and growth of government, and dozens of other issues where what they believe is either incoherent or hidden from the American people.

Until the left does that, they may still be able to win a few battles, but they are doomed to slowly but surely lose the intellectual war with the right…

John Hawkins [/quote]
Hilarious! especially this crap:
support large tax increases, reparations, abortion on demand, and the confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens:

Nope, republicans never support large tax increases Dole,Reagan,Bush,Bush,Graham,etc.etc.etc. the largest tax increase ever, and no republicans are pro-choice (whoops, actually alot of them are) and the firearm quip is just stupid.
Golly, only about half of americans voted for the “most liberal senator” that happens to look just like herman munster and has zero charisma! How could that be?

lets see is america liberal?
Washington Post poll: 67 percent of Americans believe the Bush Administration favors large corporations over the middle class

2002 Wp poll:88 percent of Americans distrust corporate executives, 90 percent want new corporate regulations/tougher enforcement of existing laws and more than half think the Bush Administration is ?not tough enough? in fighting corporate crime
Spitzer killing Pataki in polls

2004 CBS News poll: 72 percent of Americans say they have either not been affected by the Bush tax cuts or that their taxes have actually gone up

2003 WP national poll:almost two-thirds of Americans say they prefer a universal healthcare system ?that?s run by the government and financed by taxpayers? as opposed to the current private, for-profit system.

March 2004 AP poll:two-thirds of Americans favor making it ?easier for people to buy prescription drugs from Canada or other countries at lower cost.

My God, are liberals out of touch!

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:

Dean’s radical adgenda is plain to see. If you would bother reading it is readily available.

Do I know what I am talking about…please son, time to get a clue.

Perhaps you haven’t noticed virtually nobody agrees with anything you post. Why do you think that is so?

You should realize that I and many others only argue with you for the entertainment value more then anything else. The intellectual challenge just isn’t there and the arguments you make are weak at best. Silly more then anything else.

Nobody agrees…so?
most people in here are fake conservatives cheering the president’s neo con agenda(which is pretty radical)
You never have factual data and you gloss over the public record constantly,
Please tell, what is howard dean’s radical agenda, and what is radical about VT?
I’ve already posted some of his views, none of them were radical. Do you have anything constructive to add? Ever?

[/quote]

You are a fringe player 100 at best. More likely you are a troll. Read some of the posts I have made over the last two years…on other sections of this site as well as this one. As opposed to your 1 or 2 months, under the moniker 100 meters.

Take this for what it is worth. You…are not worth my time.

As to being real conservatives. I have voted that way since Reagan. He was the guy who was president about the time you were born or mayber before.

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Interesting Article from John Hawkins:

The Idea Gap
Have you noticed the elephant in the living room that the liberals keep trying to ignore even as they lose election after election? It’s the huge “idea gap” between conservatives and liberals. While conservatives are open about what we think and our reasoning, liberals often try to obscure what they believe in or worse yet, publicly run from it. This is why – as USA Today reported – Americans think the Democratic Party is out of gas intellectually:

“A recent poll by Democrats James Carville and Stanley Greenberg found that just 44% ? scarcely anyone beyond diehard Democrats ? think the party has any ideas for addressing the nation’s problems.”

There are a number of reasons why liberals aren’t as forthright about what they believe as conservatives are. One problem for liberals is that the Democratic Party is much more evenly divided than the GOP. Sure, the libs may run the Party, but if they’re too open and up front about their agenda, they risk alienating significant numbers of moderate Democrats. Of course, given that the leftward drift of the Democratic Party has cost them much of their support in the South, perhaps the Party leadership hasn’t been secretive enough about what they believe.

But the split in the party is just a symptom of a much larger problem: that many liberal ideas have already been considered and soundly rejected by the American people. This is why judges have become so important – because activist judges are the left’s way of getting their policies implemented over the objections of the voters.

There are different ways liberals could deal with this situation. They could try to come up with new ideas, but that’s really very difficult for them to do since many liberal political convictions are almost like religious doctrine. They have their beliefs, they are what they are, and they’re not very amenable to changing them based on new evidence.

On the other hand, the left could do what the right has spent so much time doing: explaining what they believe and trying to convince the public that their ideas are sound. Unfortunately, most – but not all – liberals lack the courage to take this approach. It’s one thing to support large tax increases, reparations, abortion on demand, and the confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens, but it takes more guts to defend those ideas when they’re under fire the way conservatives stand up for their positions on pro-life issues, the war in Iraq, flattening the tax rate, and free trade.

Knee-jerk opposition to conservative policies, coming up with fantastic theories about “wars for oil,” and trying to muddy up the water about what liberal candidates really believe is always an easier road to travel…in the short term at least.

But the American public, after hearing the same tired shtick from the left year after year & gaining access to more sources of information that don’t always toe the liberal line, has wised up to the tricks & spin.

So if the left wants to make a political comeback in this country – at least to the point where Democratic candidates for President are willing to publicly admit that they’re liberals – then they’re going to have to bridge the idea gap on foreign policy, abortion, Kyoto, gun control, states rights, taxes, socialized medicine, the size and growth of government, and dozens of other issues where what they believe is either incoherent or hidden from the American people.

Until the left does that, they may still be able to win a few battles, but they are doomed to slowly but surely lose the intellectual war with the right…

John Hawkins
Hilarious! especially this crap:
support large tax increases, reparations, abortion on demand, and the confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens:

Nope, republicans never support large tax increases Dole,Reagan,Bush,Bush,Graham,etc.etc.etc. the largest tax increase ever, and no republicans are pro-choice (whoops, actually alot of them are) and the firearm quip is just stupid.
Golly, only about half of americans voted for the “most liberal senator” that happens to look just like herman munster and has zero charisma! How could that be?

lets see is america liberal?
Washington Post poll: 67 percent of Americans believe the Bush Administration favors large corporations over the middle class

2002 Wp poll:88 percent of Americans distrust corporate executives, 90 percent want new corporate regulations/tougher enforcement of existing laws and more than half think the Bush Administration is ?not tough enough? in fighting corporate crime
Spitzer killing Pataki in polls

2004 CBS News poll: 72 percent of Americans say they have either not been affected by the Bush tax cuts or that their taxes have actually gone up

2003 WP national poll:almost two-thirds of Americans say they prefer a universal healthcare system ?that?s run by the government and financed by taxpayers? as opposed to the current private, for-profit system.

March 2004 AP poll:two-thirds of Americans favor making it ?easier for people to buy prescription drugs from Canada or other countries at lower cost.

My God, are liberals out of touch![/quote]

News Flash!

100 meters disagrees with a conservative commentary.

Truth hurts.

I hope the libs keep ignoring the steamroller that is crushing them. In about 2012 they will be considered a fringe party at this rate.

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
studxxx wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
The funniest thing about Democrats is they really believe the radical crap they spew out.

It is interesting to observe that much of the leadership, particularly Howard Dean, feel they need to control the message they are getting out. They have actually come out and said it is OK to believe this crap, they just need to make sure the voters get a different, controlled message.

What’s radical? are real american values radical? has the country been radical for the last 60 years? I think the presidents approval rate is below 50% now, so are the other 55 percent or so radical? More than half disapprove of his handling of the war, his s.s. “plan”, are they radical? Is life in a blue state radical? Was I radical when I voted for Guiliani for his liberal values? Do you have any idea, what you are talking about hedo?(so far I’m guessing no)

Is it possible that you could explain the secret radical liberal agenda that Howard Dean is hiding or how Vermont is radical?

Dean’s radical adgenda is plain to see. If you would bother reading it is readily available.

Do I know what I am talking about…please son, time to get a clue.

Perhaps you haven’t noticed virtually nobody agrees with anything you post. Why do you think that is so?

You should realize that I and many others only argue with you for the entertainment value more then anything else. The intellectual challenge just isn’t there and the arguments you make are weak at best. Silly more then anything else.

personal attacks instead of debate.Doesn’t look to me like entertainment at all.Than why not respond with what you think rather than with persoanl attacks.If you don’t know how to discuss things,why bother?This is basic.Doesn’t even have anything to do with being Democrat or Republican.

StudX

Pointing out to someone that you think the argument they are making is pointless and that they seems to argue with just about everyone is not a personal attack. It is more a statement of the obvious…in a public forum. Kind of debating with attitude which is what is done here on a frequent basis. After all it is a political forum.

A personal attack as I see it, insults a person’s character, reputation or perhaps physical characteristics.

And regardless…it is entertaining to argue with liberals.

I guess arguing is your M.O. because as a conservative, how could you win a debate?
[/quote]

Apparently pretty easy…read some of our exchanges.

[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Also, small note on what I wrote before. Having certain positions that are considered “right of center” doesn’t make Dean a centrist. The man isn’t an average of his positions on different issues. On some issues he is far left, and on others – notably guns – he is slightly right of center.

One last note – 100meters isn’t Lumpy, unless Lumpy has made some changes to his overall writing style. He just shares the same email lists as news sources.

On what issues is he FAR-left, being against the war in Iraq? That’s a right handed view, traditionally. Please the details on how he is far left?
[/quote]

I went back to the Dean for America campaign site, but unfortunately the archive had links that were supposed to take you to his positions on various issues but no longer worked.

So I hope you’ll permit me to dig into my National Review archives (specifically the December 22, 2003 issue) to get this article, in which the editor argued what a good thing it would be for Bush were Dean to be the Democratic nominee. Let’s just say Dean doesn’t represent a force for centrist compromise.

The Hot, Hot, Hot Candidate
The anger, popularity, and prospects of Howard Dean

RICHARD LOWRY

Des Moines

Howard Dean is unveiling his early-childhood agenda before a dozen workers in the child-development center at the Des Moines Area Community College. The workers ? mostly very sensible-looking older women ? sit at tables facing Dean, sporting bright yellow “Child Advocate” stickers and earnestly taking notes. With actor/activist Rob Reiner at his side, Dean touts his “Welcome Baby” and “Dr. Dynasaur” early-childhood initiatives from Vermont, and explains his $110 billion plan for federal funding of similar programs. His audience is respectful, but not over-enthused. It’s not until the question-and-answer period that Dean will close the deal, in a fashion utterly typical of his candidacy.

One of the workers raises his hand and says they’ve heard similar sentiments about the importance of early childhood from other politicians in the past, including Bill Clinton. What makes Dean different? Reiner begins to pipe up, but Dean slyly hushes him by patting his hand. Dean is eager to answer this question himself.

“Look what we’ve done in Vermont,” he says. “Every time I put out the budget, I said to legislators, ?You’re gonna support health insurance for kids, you’re gonna support early childhood. If you touch one hair on the head of any of those programs, you’ll never see another road grader in your district again.'” The audience laughs and applauds at the sheer SOB-ness of it. Dean adds, “My reputation for toughness and bluntness sometimes was justified. I was very tough with the legislature.” When someone raises the prospect of Dean’s having to work with a Republican Congress to pass his plans, he explains his idea of “working with”: “If they don’t do any of these things, then the next election in 2006 is gonna be a referendum on the behavior of Congress. It worked very well for Harry Truman.”

Dean has won over this small crowd, not composed of partisan firebrands, with his promise to give 'em hell. In Primary Colors, the Bill Clinton character performs in a similar setting, wowing an adult-literacy class with a heart-wrenching, fabricated story about his illiterate uncle designed to show Clinton’s deep sympathy with the struggles of his audience. Clinton bonded by emoting; Dean bonds by bristling. If Clinton pledged to feel our pain, Dean promises to inflict some ? on those alleged malefactors who have seized control of the country so they can neglect children, the environment, and workers, and trample democracy.

Dean has been the Democratic candidate of the moment for some time now. It may be that rather than a flash-in-the-pan, Dean is the presidential candidate who simply best represents the contemporary Democratic party: not just its angry mood, but its principles and priorities. He famously captured the party’s wholesale opposition to the Iraq war and its unyielding anti-Bushism sooner than his major rivals. But he also effectively expresses the party’s hyper-multilateralist foreign policy and allergy to the use of force, its old-school big-government economics, and its liberalism on cultural issues. Clinton tried, intermittently, to mitigate all these positions and tendencies. Dean represents the return of the repressed ? a repressed liberalism that is fed up and not going to take it anymore.

If Dean is the anti-Clinton, as has often been noted, he has parallels with another insurgent presidential candidate, the John McCain of 2000. Both Dean and McCain are tough, blunt-spoken, and anti-corporate, and both pioneered Internet networking and fundraising. Both suffuse their crowds with a sense that politics matters again, and champion a reformist patriotism: McCain wanted to fight special interests to make politics worthy of the country again; Dean wants to “take back the country,” to restore its image abroad and vindicate small-d democratic politics. Both have been works in progress, as McCain evolved away from his former rock-ribbed conservatism and Dean has shed his relative moderation from Vermont.

There are big differences, of course. Most important, McCain ran against his party’s establishment and its base. Dean is running against his party establishment, with the fervent support of its base. This is why he has an excellent chance to win the Democratic nomination, and represents a formidable political force.

A MAN AND HIS PEOPLE
It is impossible to understand Dean without realizing that his supporters sincerely think that Bush has soiled the country. Dean talks of restoring “the honor and dignity of the United States.” That’s an echo of Bush’s right-hand-in-the-air pledge every day on the campaign trail in 2000 to clean up after Bill Clinton.

In introducing Dean at a rally at his Des Moines headquarters, Rob Reiner captures the sentiment. Reiner, of course, is the liberal actor who played Archie Bunker’s son-in-law, not-so-affectionately called “Meathead” by Archie. (“Can you look at him and not think ?Meathead’?” one reporter whispers to another. “I’ve been thinking it all day,” replies his colleague.) Balding and paunchy with a goatee, Reiner now looks like an aging-but-still-striving-to-be-with-it high-school teacher. His warm-up for Dean is an anti-Bush rant: “George Bush said he would be a uniter, not a divider. He lied. George Bush said that he would leave no child behind. He lied. George Bush said that we had to go into Iraq because it had weapons of mass destruction. He lied. I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of it. I’m tired of being lied to!”

Reiner loves Dean for his supposed counter-Bush qualities. “This man looks you in the eye,” Reiner tells the crowd, “talks straightforwardly, and tells you the truth and you can count on him. You can trust this man. I’m sick and tired of being lied to and I want a leader who we can trust.” And who can stick it to Bush. Reiner later tells a reporter, by way of explaining his endorsement: “He is a fighter. People in this country are very angry.”

At least the people at Dean rallies are. The anger comes pulsing off Dean crowds. At an afternoon rally in New York City, part of a nationwide union tour, the candidate tries to be uplifting. He launches into a riff about the progress made in the civil-rights revolution, despite awful setbacks. Dean recalls how we “lost” Martin Luther King and “lost” Robert Kennedy, but before he can finish with a burst of inspiring rhetoric, a voice rings out from the back of the hall: “Let’s ?lose’ George Bush!” Even when the Vermont governor tries to inspire, he provokes from his audience a call ? by implication ? for the assassination of the President of the United States.

The New York union rally doesn’t represent a typical Dean audience, at least not up to this point. Dean’s momentum has just won him the endorsements of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Heretofore, Dean rallies have had the demographic of a Phish concert: young, white liberals. The crowd in the hall of New York’s SEIU Local 32BJ skews, by contrast, older, and black and Hispanic. In this crowd, a young pale white girl wearing a pink backpack with a button for the feminist antiwar group “Code Pink” looks positively out of place.

But Dean rage is an equal-opportunity phenomenon. The poster of Dean that people wave in the hall has a picture of him, not smiling like most politicians, but looking belligerent and irritated, like he’s just been asked a hostile question. When he comes on stage, with the sleeves of his white dress shirt rolled up, he seems like he’s spoiling for a fight. Dean is small, just 5’9’', but there is something about his thick, stubby build that suggests coiled energy.

AFSCME head Gerald McEntee ? chewing gum and decked out all in AFSCME green, a kind of angry union version of Will Ferrell’s oversized elf ? makes a hoarse denunciation of Bush as “that anti-worker, anti-family, anti-democracy president,” eliciting peals of delight from the crowd. Dean takes it from there. He says Bush has given $3 trillion to Enron and Ken Lay. He compares Bush’s record on jobs to Herbert Hoover’s, and complains that the $87 billion in Iraq could better be spent on “investing” in roads, bridges, mass transit, renewable energy, and schools here.

It seems a standard-issue Democratic performance ? until the end of his speech, when Dean tells the crowd, “Power to change the country is in your hands, not mine.” Then he begins a chant: “You have the power!” He points with both hands out into the crowd each time he says it, a conductor working his orchestra into a smashing finale. “You have the power!” The crowd roars with every Dean shout, and for the moment ? placards and flags waving in the noisy, packed union hall ? it seems Dean is indeed the leader of a movement that is sweeping all before it.

But, for all that, there is ultimately a rent-a-crowd feel to the event (one advantage of union support, after all, is that they can rent crowds). When Dean ends his speech, he backs off from the microphones to join the New York elected officials standing behind him. Dean locks hands with them and they all raise their arms in a triumphant champion-prizefighter pose for the crowd. But most of the audience is already heading out the door, even as a union official bellows into the microphones, “We can do it! We can do it!”

Outside the hall, a member of the painters union who had announced from the stage, “The painters are behind you 100 percent” explains that he was a last-minute stand-in: “I don’t know much about Dean, but the people backstage said he’s pulling ahead.” The painter says he used to be a Republican, “but look at this country.” He waves his hand, gesturing toward what is a perfectly fine-looking section of downtown Manhattan. “There’s no money to paint the Brooklyn Bridge,” he complains, “because we’re spending all that money over in Iraq.”

The Des Moines rally headlined by Rob Reiner is a more typical Dean crowd, young white families and college kids milling about and drinking hot chocolate from large Dr Pepper cups. But what gets the Des Moines crowd going is the same thing that excited the union rally ? Dean’s “power to the people” finish, this time rendered in even more manic fashion: “YOU HAVE THE POWER! TO TAKE THE COUNTRY BACK! YOU-HAVE-THE-POWER-TO-TAKE-THE-COUNTRY-BACK-FROM-RUSH-LIMBAUGH-AND-JERRY-FALWELL-TO-TAKE-THE-WHITE-HOUSE-BACK-IN-2004-AND-THAT’S-EXACTLY-WHAT-WE’RE-GONNA-DO!!!”

SELLIN’ ATTITUDE
These Dean riffs resonate, and have genuinely moved people. Riding in the van with reporters to a Des Moines debate is a young Dean aide. Pretty and blonde, she moved from a trendy downtown Manhattan neighborhood, giving up a job in the financial industry, to work in Dean’s Iowa field operation. How many people have done that for John Kerry? She explains that she was “energized by this movement that Dean has created.”

What exactly is “this movement”? It’s hard to tell. Dean does not specialize in substance, and besides his health-care plan doesn’t have much in the way of fleshed-out policy. Dean is mostly selling an attitude. From the bitter cocktail of the 2000 Florida fiasco, the disappointment in the 2002 mid-term elections, and the opposition to the Iraq war has emerged a Democratic mood of anger and yearning that Dean has uniquely captured. Eventually the mood will pass, and then all the “Deaniacs” might have trouble explaining what so inspired them. But the mood is here now, and in politics, as in so much of life, timing is everything.

The rest of the field is playing Dean catch-up. In the Des Moines debate, John Kerry and Dick Gephardt join forces to beat up on Dean for budget cuts during his time as Vermont governor, portraying him as practically a heartless Republican. The Kerry and Gephardt campaigns distribute a flurry of press releases. “DEAN TOOK MONEY FROM TEACHERS’ FUND, PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.” “DEAN BALANCED BUDGET ON BACKS OF ELDERLY AND POOR.” Kerry badgers Dean about his former statements supporting Medicare savings, asking him repeatedly whether he would restrain the rate of growth of Medicare spending in an accusatory tone, as if he’s asking him if he is now, or ever has been, a Communist.

Dean emerges mostly unscathed, partly because he keeps his anger down, an effort that seems almost physical, something between choking down an unpleasant drink and keeping his head from popping off. He bounces into the scrum of reporters in “spin alley” after the debate to insist immediately: “Medicare is off the table.” His opponents are unlikely to convince anyone that Dean is an enemy of the poor. But there is a chance Dean can be portrayed as a phony. The fact is that Dean governed, in Vermont terms, as a budget-balancing moderate. He could easily have run for the nomination as a Joe Lieberman centrist. Instead, the running room was to the left, especially with all the credible candidates on the record in support of the Iraq war resolution.

So Dean ran left. Very little in his campaign would have seemed a natural fit two or three years ago. He spent his career fighting the angry, shaggy Left in Vermont, exactly the constituency he is attracting nationally. He was a free-trader, but now tells the labor unions, “When I am president, we won’t be talking about free trade in the Americas.” He was pro-business, but now rails against corporations. He drove Vermont environmentalists batty with his flexible approach to regulation, but now seeks a comprehensive “re-regulation” of American business. To top it off, he was a computer illiterate who knew nothing about the Internet that has become an indispensable organizing tool for his campaign.
But having been branded so strongly as the fiery insurgent willing to speak truth to power, Dean probably is secure in his image. And, although much can still happen, he has to be regarded as the presumptive Democratic nominee. Then what?

NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME
The Dean camp is comforting itself with the liberal electoral myths that Bill Clinton had seemingly vanquished, relics of the wilderness years in the 1980s. That swing voters don’t matter. That the Democratic party doesn’t have a weak image on national security. That southern voters can be won over on economic issues. That a 100 percent high-octane liberalism will entice new voters into politics, changing all electoral equations. The last myth has been given new life by Dean’s Internet fundraising, but the importance of this tactic shouldn’t be overestimated. George McGovern, after all, pioneered direct-mail fundraising, then a radical new way to tap into small donations from ideologically motivated activists. It didn’t make him any more electable.

Dean supporters also tell themselves that the candidate will eventually be able to reposition himself to the center, tapping back into his Vermont moderation. But Dean is a long way from Montpelier. Consider: Carol Moseley Braun, who says she couldn’t reject the $87 billion in Iraq funding while the troops are still there, has a more responsible position on the issue than Dean. In the Des Moines debate, Dean won applause by praising Dennis Kucinich’s position on the war. Even Kucinich, however, can’t live up to Dean’s standard of anti-Bush purity; Kucinich voted for Bush’s education bill, the No Child Left Behind Act, which Dean routinely trashes.

The biggest wild card next year will be Iraq. The occupation could still prove a full-blown fiasco. Short of that, it’s hard to see how Dean translates his Iraq-war rejectionism into a winning posture on national security. A political party can certainly neutralize one of the other party’s best issues. It happens by either capitulating, as Clinton did in 1996 on welfare, or advancing a substantive alternative, as Bush did in 2000 on education. Dean so far shows no sign of doing either. Next year, he would have to clear a hurdle no candidate has faced since the end of the Cold War, and one that will be particularly daunting for a liberal candidate who governed a state of 600,000: Can you imagine him as commander in chief?

Then, there is Dean’s cultural problem. With a few exceptions, Dean perfectly embodies the “blue state” half of the blue state/red state cultural split in the country. That the nation is so evenly divided culturally probably ensures that Dean won’t suffer a McGovern-like blowout. But his cultural makeup will be a drag in the Midwest and eliminate any chances of competing in the South. Dean, as secular as presidential aspirants come, left the Episcopal Church in a dispute over a bike path in Burlington. He signed the first gay civil-unions law in the country, and even seems ready to re-fight some of the hoary cultural issues of 1980s, criticizing the high rates of imprisonment in the U.S. These cultural signatures will be more important to Dean’s national image than how he handled the Vermont budget.

All that said, Dean’s primary run has been dazzling. His current posture as a liberal firebrand, even if a product of circumstance, has enabled him to tap into the quality that people admire most in a politician: saying what he believes, and believing what he says. After the Manhattan union rally, a 71-year-old black man wearing a union jacket and with an iron-grip handshake that lasts a good minute says what he likes about the candidate: “Dean is like my handshake. It comes from the soul.” That is certainly true of Dean’s combative temperament, which is utterly genuine. He is no Al Gore, who had to consult his advisers on whether he would be a fighter or not and switched personas from debate to debate. Dean’s rolled-up-sleeves toughness is refreshing, and suits the no-nonsense post-9/11 environment.

In this connection, it’s almost painful to watch Dean do the obligatory reading-to-children routine prior to his early-childhood talk in Des Moines. He seems so out of place. The group of five-year-olds is perhaps the least pissed-off group of people Dean has addressed in a year. He perches atop a tiny one-foot-high chair and reads the story Pizza Pat to the kids. It is a performance shorn of Dean’s animosities ? except for anchovies. (“Have you heard of anchovies?” Dean asks. “They’re very salty.”) But even in this setting, Dean emphasizes his fighting spirit. He tells a few reporters that his campaign staff doesn’t want him to wear “Save the Children” ties because the ties ? flashy-colored, with childish depictions of kids ? don’t look presidential. Dean, who owns about 30 of them, says he led a “revolt” and now insists on wearing the ties. He has one on today. His aides were right.

One more little gem on Dean:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_03_20-2005_03_26.shtml#1111523649

Governor Dean, Listen to This Guy!

A blogger writes ( Moment, Linger On: The ones that aren't stupid... ):

"Howard Dean, on why we lose elections to Republicans in spite of our undeniably superior positions:

    [i]One major reason his party lost the 2004 race to the "brain-dead" Republicans is that it has a "tendency to explain every issue in half an hour of detail," [Howard] Dean told the semi-annual meeting of Democrats Abroad, which brought about 150 members from Canada and 30 other countries to the Toronto for two days.[/i]

Conservative law supporter (and contributor to the Bush campaigns to the tune of several thousand dollars) Eugene Volokh's response:

   [i] Hey, how's this for another possible major reason: Might politicians who assume their adversaries -- and tens of millions of voters -- aren't just mistaken but "brain-dead" not be very effective politicians?[/i]

He has a point there. Dean ignores the fact that many of the Republican voters are not stupid, but rather completely corrupt and utterly lacking in common decency. I'm not sure what political strategy I would advocate, if any, to appeal to them, though."

What a helpful perspective – yes, Governor Dean, that would be a really great way to frame your political plans. Trust me on this one: Just say that, the Republicans are “brain-dead, completely corrupt, and utterly lacking in common decency” – or if you think that’s impolitic, just think it hard; no-one will ever know that this is your view. You’ll be sure to win lots of elections against us awful Republicans if you do that. At the very least, if this approach doesn’t persuade Republicans to treat them this way, it will surely persuade the center. Centrist voters just love it when one party condemns adherents of the other this way.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
One more little gem on Dean:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_03_20-2005_03_26.shtml#1111523649

Governor Dean, Listen to This Guy!

A blogger writes ( Moment, Linger On: The ones that aren't stupid... ):

"Howard Dean, on why we lose elections to Republicans in spite of our undeniably superior positions:

    [i]One major reason his party lost the 2004 race to the "brain-dead" Republicans is that it has a "tendency to explain every issue in half an hour of detail," [Howard] Dean told the semi-annual meeting of Democrats Abroad, which brought about 150 members from Canada and 30 other countries to the Toronto for two days.[/i]

Conservative law supporter (and contributor to the Bush campaigns to the tune of several thousand dollars) Eugene Volokh's response:

   [i] Hey, how's this for another possible major reason: Might politicians who assume their adversaries -- and tens of millions of voters -- aren't just mistaken but "brain-dead" not be very effective politicians?[/i]

He has a point there. Dean ignores the fact that many of the Republican voters are not stupid, but rather completely corrupt and utterly lacking in common decency. I'm not sure what political strategy I would advocate, if any, to appeal to them, though."

What a helpful perspective – yes, Governor Dean, that would be a really great way to frame your political plans. Trust me on this one: Just say that, the Republicans are “brain-dead, completely corrupt, and utterly lacking in common decency” – or if you think that’s impolitic, just think it hard; no-one will ever know that this is your view. You’ll be sure to win lots of elections against us awful Republicans if you do that. At the very least, if this approach doesn’t persuade Republicans to treat them this way, it will surely persuade the center. Centrist voters just love it when one party condemns adherents of the other this way.[/quote]

These are still framing articles, the rights attempt to paint a picture of a guy as a radical just to scare a few dems away who wouldn’t otherwise realize that they probably feel exactly like howard dean does. Hannity does this almost every night with the “Guess what Howard said today…shit” as hapless Colmes rolls his eyes knowing he’ll have to correct Hannity for the millionth time to no avail. Exhausting.

[quote]100meters wrote:

These are still framing articles, the rights attempt to paint a picture of a guy as a radical just to scare a few dems away who wouldn’t otherwise realize that they probably feel exactly like howard dean does. Hannity does this almost every night with the “Guess what Howard said today…shit” as hapless Colmes rolls his eyes knowing he’ll have to correct Hannity for the millionth time to no avail. Exhausting.[/quote]

If you mean that both quote Dean and he is “framed” as an ideologue, then I agree – but it’s a frame of his own construction. Howard Dean has created his own persona, and it’s mad, confrontational, ideologically extreme and uncompromising, and not going to win.

I’m sorry for Howard that he had the whole “Yarrrgh!” thing – but trust me, there wasn’t a conservative political consultant out there who wouldn’t rather have had Dean as a candidate than Kerry.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
If you mean that both quote Dean and he is “framed” as an ideologue, then I agree – but it’s a frame of his own construction. Howard Dean has created his own persona, and it’s mad, confrontational, ideologically extreme and uncompromising, and not going to win.
[/quote]

you did it again here:
“ideologically extreme and uncompromising”
The ideas are not extreme:
supported Newt’s spending cuts in medicare.
“pro-gun”
Thrifty. Balanced budgets and tax cuts.
Had opportunity to legalize gay marriage, but didn’t.
The reality is Howard Dean is as left of center as the Clintons. The thing about Dean is that he had the ability to appeal to those on the far-left even when those on the far-left (GREEN PARTY) didn’t agree with him on many issues.
The obvious strategy for the GOP is to marginalize a canidate like this by painting him a far-left radical (“just look at his supporters”) and repeat ad nausem.

I would also argue that Dean didn’t “create” the persona you described, it was created for him by the right, and perhaps confirmed by certain Deaniac events, like yarghhhh! but hey, that’s his own damn fault.

ok I’m done with Dean now(I don’t even like Dean).

I question the entire premise of this thread! The democrats are not looking for a survival strategy. You only look for a survival strategy when there is some sort of hope for your team. Since they have lost both houses of Congress and the White House, I think they are pretty much defeated. You know you have no hope left when your best candidate is hillary clinton Whahahaha

I wonder if the whigs had “survival strategy”?

I do not like any one party controlling Congress and the White House. It makes me uncomfortable.

The Democrats have to stop letting the lunatic fringe steer their party, much like the Republicans have already stopped the Moral Majority assholes from steering their party.

BTW, Dean wasn’t nearly as leftist as HE made himself to be. He made a hard left turn during the campaign to raise money from the far left. He suddenly found that himself relevant. He will continue with this as long as it works for HIM.

Most politicians don’t have strong core beliefs. They do what they have to do to keep themselves in office.