Daily Kos

View Story | 185 comments

  •  You essentially made the point ... (none / 0)

    ... I was raising about the inability of our party to speak with one voice. You feel that the DNC speaks for you, especially on the Dean selection, whereas I see them as apparachiks removed from the grassroots. How else can you explain the selection of a person as Chair of DNC who was, less than a year before, rejected by every primary voter constituency except DC and Vermont? Sounds pretty unrepresentative to me, and that's why I stopped giving to the Democratic Party as a party. I now give only to candidates.

    by Roosevelt Democrat on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 01:42:13 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Apples and oranges (none / 0)

      DNC chair isn't the same as Democratic nominee for president. The two jobs require different skill sets.

      John McCain's Straight Talk Express runs on fossil fuels.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 01:50:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So why did we choose a failed ... (none / 0)

        ... presidential candidate for DNC chair if that is so?

        by Roosevelt Democrat on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 01:51:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I suspect you don't like Dean, period (none / 1)

          That's certainly your prerogative, but I'm at a loss to understand why his performance in the 2004 primaries has any relevance to how well he's doing his current job as DNC chair.

          John McCain's Straight Talk Express runs on fossil fuels.

          by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 01:56:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Dean seems like a nice chap ... (none / 0)

            ... personally but I just thought he presented the wrong image to take on the Bush White House as spokesperson for the Democratic Party since he has no credibility as a national security and defense expert, and has no record of command experience, and he was not even preferred by a majority of Democratic voters when they had a chance to express themselves in the primary. It didn't take an expert to see that Iraq would be the Achilles heel of the Bush admninistration after November 2004, and I felt it would have been prefereable to have someone as party spokesperson who could attack on Iraq with credibility. Obviously the party apparachiks at DNC did not see it that way and selected Dean for other reasons. Since that selection, I have felt left out of the party. I'm just biding time until I see who we select as the nominee in 2008, and helping local candidates for 2006.

            by Roosevelt Democrat on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 02:08:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  just an aside (none / 0)

              Pretty much anyone who thought the Iraq war was a bad, bad idea is more of an expert on national security and defense than those republican clowns.

              Had a chat with a special forces lt. who was convinced the real reason for iraq was to use a crap country no one cared about to "take on the islamic fundamentalists" and contain them in a conflict there.  Two billion dollars and several thousands lives later we're doing an excellent job training terrorists in modern warfare.

              by voltayre on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 02:33:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  wrong argument (none / 0)

              Arguing about which personality gets to be the national spokesperson is the wrong argument when you haven't even got a coherent message or any way to get elected representatives to support it.

              The national party doesn't control candidates' money or media visibility any more, so all it offers candidates is a convenient label for liberal to moderate politicians that doesn't mean much or require much from them in return.

              It's a total waste of time to get caught up in the usual inside-the Beltway hissing match over who gets to be the chosen personality in front of the cameras to represent this amorphous party label. That fight just feeds individual politician's egos and doesn't help the bigger need of the party.

              The Democratic party first needs to develop a coherent message and find a way to ensure that our elected Democratic representatives support it and reinforce it. It also needs to find candidates who support the party's core positions on central issues. Once it has a coherent message and some semblance of message discipline among elected members, then who speaks for the party on various issues matters less.

              by cdmc2 on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 02:56:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Dean didn't fail (none / 0)

          by popular vote of the people.  The ususal party regulars (I don't really know who they are, do you?) did it.

          Example:  What about Paul Hackett.  Who did that?  Seems it was Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Senator Waxman.  They don't have the right to make those decisions in my opinion.

          by victoria2dc on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 02:59:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hackett was forced out by ... (none / 0)

            ... national party leaders. Dean in 2003-2004, on the other hand, had the endorsement of the former presidential nominee and nominal party leader Al Gore and a number of other party leaders, had his name on all ballots in every primary, and had free access to the electorate in every state. The people of Iowa had more opportunity to see and hear and consider Dean than any other candidate (didn't Dean visit every county in Iowa, some many times). So, to claim that Dean failed in Iowa and the other primaries because he was not given a fair chance is just ludicrous. Going into Iowa, he had more endorsements from party bogwigs, more endorsements from union officials, more money to spend, and more media coverage than any other candidate. The simple reason he came in third is that the people of Iowa got a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very good look at Dean ... and chose someone else. One thing that would greatly help the Democratic Party is if everyone would acknowledge that Dean lost it fair and square, and then we all could stop pretending that something else happened!  

            by Roosevelt Democrat on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 03:15:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Remember the media-doctored "scream"? (none / 0)

              Where Dean spoke at a reasonable volume to be heard over the crowd, and Big Media doctored the recording to remove the crowd noise, making him appear to be screaming unreasonably, and then attacked him for it?

              Dean was trashed totally unfairly.  He was never likely to win Iowa, but his loss in New Hampshire was primarily due to the media libelling him nonstop.

              -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

              by neroden on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 11:15:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Which Roosevelt? (none / 0)

      Are you a Theodore Roosevelt Democrat, perhaps?

      You sound like the people who call C-Span on the Democratic Line, and then start by saying "I used to be a Democrat, but..."

      Follow where your heart leads you.

      What you see is what you get, but what you don't see is what ends up getting you.

      by Existentialist on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 04:32:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dean has been much more a (none / 0)

      boon than a bane to the Deomcratic party, but the results of his efforts have yet to bear fruit.
      In the meantime, let the Rightwingers laugh at him because of some things he's said off the cuff. His strategy of geting funds back to state and local Dems will reap rewards later, IMO.

      Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Well, come on, doesn't anybody know!?!?

      by Erik the Red on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 12:16:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

View Story | 185 comments