Democrats found their voice

This Josh Marshall piece, while excellent as is usually the case with his work, contains this particularly good nugget:

I've gotten a number of emails over the last few days from Republicans asking, with a genuine disbelief and incomprehension, how it is that the questions about President Bush's military service record are coming up now after they were 'dealt with' in 2000 [...]

But there is something different here. And the difference is that the Democrats have decided to go on the offensive -- and this is a version of preemption that Dems may, and should, warm to. After Clark had some stumbles with the issue, Kerry has been hitting it for a couple weeks. And the recent round of coverage on it would never have emerged had Terry McAullife not forced it into the news cycle over the weekend.

McAuliffe has tried in the past to "force" this sort of thing into the news cycle, but all the forcing in the world ain't worth squat unless our elected Democrats don't follow along. It may be a shock to many of you, but no one gives a damn what McAuliffe thinks. It's a whole different matter with Hillary, Daschle, Pelosi, Harold Ford, any of the top presidential candidates, and -- at the local level -- every Democratic congresscritter and senator.  

McAuliffe wouldn't have gotten the sort of traction on this issue if Kerry, Clark, Dean and the others hadn't picked up on the issue. The problems we have faced as a party have, in most part, stemmed from elected officials to scared of their own shadow to present an effective opposition to the GOoPers.

Dean is headed for almost certain defeat (though no one will be glader than me if I'm wrong). But he did serve one critical role -- he helped the party find its voice again. It was lost. Now it's back. I cringe at what might've been had Dean not entered the race. For that, every Democrat should be grateful, even the ABD crowd.

Me, I'll sit back and enjoy this newfound feistiness from our elected Dems. Investigations abound, and we're not settling for sacrificial lambs anymore. Nothing less than indictments will suffice. The Senate hacking scandal. 9-11 commission. Iraq intelligence "failures". Plame Affair. Investigations of Cheney's Halliburton. Cheney's energy task force. And so on.

The dam is sprouting leaks, and they're scrambling to plug the holes. They will whitewash most of these investigations, but the dam won't hold for long. Something will get through and bring the whole thing down.

My money is on the Plame Affair.

•  This is good.

  While I haven't chosen a candidate yet (though I'm leaning to Clark, and err. is it Edwards... err, Dean.. err, Kerry?), I really think whoever the candidate that wins the primary is, the good doctor should be given a lot of credit for what he has done.  I really wonder if the high voter turnouts would have been this large if Dean had not entered the race and made noise.

  After '02, I think many of us wanted our candidates to have some fire in the belly.

  by wells on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:27:16 AM PDT

  •  Absolutely

    Dean deserves world-historical credit for waking the country up, or at least the Democrats (and the independents and moderate Repubs are coming around).

    It is hard to remember how hard it seemed to speak truth to power (a phrase I generally hate, but so appropriate in this context) around the time, last May, that I saw Dean here in Austin ... his fire was, and is, liberating.

    Some tout him for HHS but I would kind of like to see him pushing national health insurance as surgeon general ... or in some other post where crusading is allowed.

    And I say all this as someone who spent the fall arguing other candidates merits vs Dean ... I still think others would be better presidents, but Dean stepped up when someone had to, and made us all better for it, and I'll always be grateful.

    by Ottoe on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 03:18:16 AM PDT

    •  Amen to that!

      Dean gave the party a much-needed spinal transplant and so far the operation seems to have been a success.  I'm sad that his election seems out of the question now, but he's a true hero in my book.  The Democratic party should never, ever, ever, EVER let his campaign be forgotten.

      by Chibi on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 04:20:35 AM PDT

      •  Clark and Dean might win the election for us

        Even if neither is on the ticket. Dean made the party get balls, and Clark has made it impossible to do the usual Republican "Oh well they just don't know what the hell they're talking about when it comes to manly things like the military."

        I think Clark would be best for veep, but after all the attacks that would be blatantly unfair at any time other than an election cycle I doubt he'll want to do it.

        I still think the Breck girl brings more liability than benefits to the table.

        by Windowdog on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 10:37:14 AM PDT

        •  Mega Ditto!

          Dean is a hero. For years Democrats have been like some guy with two black eyes, a missing tooth and a broken nose trying desperately to pretend he's not in a bar fight. Of the presidential candidates, Dean was  the first to grab a stool and give others the will to fight back. I've gone back to being a Kerry man but Dean deserves all the credit in the world for reminding us that there's lots of good attached to being a Democrat. Our faults are all too often real but, compared to the Republicans, we're the good guys.

          Joe McCarthy, Ricahrd Nixon, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney. There can be no doubt that the Republicans are the great asshole party of American politics.

          Now, if only Al Sharpton would make good his threat and become one.

          by Hieronymus Braintree on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 12:05:21 PM PDT

          •  a huge thanks to dean and his supporters

            i didn't think the guy could get elected prez ... but am very thankful for his getting in the race and all the efforts of his supporters. you cats rock. i really hope the democratic establishment recognizes his contribution and makes him the next head of the DLC. this is just the first chapter of howard dean and his effect on america.

            by huracanA on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 12:58:59 PM PDT

            •  Re: a huge thanks to dean and his supporters

              "i really hope the democratic establishment recognizes his contribution and makes him the next head of the DLC."

              this is exactly where he should go.  he'll have to learn to play well with others, but i think it would be good for him and good for the Party.

              by Petey on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 01:01:01 PM PDT

              •  asdf

                Why would the DLC let him be their head?

                Are you two sure you don't mean DNC?

                by TealVeal on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:29:31 PM PDT

    •  Dean's contributors deserve credit, too.

      The huge amount of money Dean was able to raise--and the crowds he was able to draw--made the establishment Democrats sit up and take notice.

      So, thank you, fellow Deaniacs. We've helped turn the tide. I believe the "tipping point" has been reached on Bush/Cheney.

      Let's keep up the pressure -- on Democrats Republicans, media -- through November.

      by coral on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 03:53:39 PM PDT

      •  I am really afraid

        that if Dean drops out, the rest of democrats go back to the business-as-usual life, and lose the spine again.  Dean was a trailblazer, and he made it OK to fight.  In that sense, he is a LEADER. Except Clark to some extent, I don't know who else can fulfill that role.  A lot of others look around and join the chorus, but they are afraid to lead.  

        I think Dean is also responsible for a large portion of the drop in Bush's popularity.  Since democrats were too afraid to criticize Bush, people didn't see anything wrong with him.  They were timid if they raised an objection, and people thought they were whining.

        Someone like Dean is needed from now till election time.  I don't know whether his voice be heard once he is not running.

        by ghost2 on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 07:14:22 PM PDT

•  Unfortunately

  Once the finally get rid of Dean, it will be back to milqtoast land in 5 seconds. You don't really think they intend to abandon their half of the big money constituency, any more than the Reps would drop theirs?

  by ElitistJohn on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:27:27 AM PDT

  •  Maybe not

    but I don't expect them to stop throwing punches.  I also don't expect Dean to stop speaking out, really.  Not as a candidate, but possibly as a pundit/guest or something.

    by wells on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:29:13 AM PDT

    •  Oh sure

      I totally agree, they'll ape the mannerisms as they already have. But actual change? I'm more likely to see Bush starring La Cage Aux Folles.

      by ElitistJohn on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:30:47 AM PDT

      •  The Real Battle

        Getting Bush out is a different battle from taking back politics from big money and special interests. Before, as in back in 2000, lots of people did not participate in the process because they didn't think it made any difference. Now we have discovered just how much of a difference it can make, and lots of people are getting mad and getting involved.

        The key thing to do once Bush is gone is to keep those people engaged by organizing and staying on the offensive. I agree that you can't count on the Democratic Party to that for you, necessarily. But if you do it yourself, or under the aegis of some other organization, the Democrats will have no choice but to pay attention to you.
        

        --MLK

        by Melissa O on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:46:47 AM PDT

        •  Turnout hasn't changed

          Unless this year is different, and by all accounts it may well be for once, then turnout numbers are static or down for the past decade. More people aren't getting interested in politics. Once Iraq goes away and the economy gets better we'll go back to being a fat apathetic undereducated nation.

          Kinda amazing our system runs as well as is does given how little attnention people give to it.

          by Windowdog on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 10:44:16 AM PDT

      •  LOL

        I think we are more likely to see Bush star in La Cage (but I have my own theories there) ..

        by wilderness wench on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:49:15 AM PDT

      •  Monseur Bush dan la cage

        "I'm more likely to see Bush starring La Cage Aux Folles. "

        Whose character -- Nathan Lane's or Robin Williams'?

        Or how about in the Hank Azarra role?

        by Hieronymus Braintree on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 12:11:03 PM PDT

  •  I wonder...

    If Dean's still out there...

    Assume Prez Kerry takes office.

    It's not going to be a pretty four years, no matter who gets it.  The bill and the butcher's bill from the Chimp's party is coming due... and it's not going to be a happy time.

    It'll take someone with great skills to get through that--and another set of great communication skills to get it through to the electorate that the hangover's a hangover and we can only do so much about it... hang in there....

    That may make a sitting president vulnerable (if only potentially) to a progressive challenge.  

    If Dean's still out there, sitting on a big pile of money designed specifically to run for the office, he's going to be a threat.  Which means that long before that, he'll be political pressure (if only by reaction to his statements and views). The menace of a funded revolt from the radical center will remain a very significant force.

    Hitting the snooze button will only be asking for it to erupt all over.

    by ogre on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 05:57:08 AM PDT

  •  Agree with you

    If theres any doubting they're still the empty, phony issue Washington manipulators, just look what they chose to stand up to George Bush about:  the "cheap gotcha," to quote another distinguished dkos-poster, of unproven, unprovable charges about the George Bush of 30 years ago.  When that flops, as it will, they'll bring up those cocaine rumors.  

    Edwards wasn't my candidate but I can't wait to get to the John Edwards generation of politicians and clear the bitter, everyone-but-us-is-a-bum, chip on the shoulder Vietnam Vets way, way off the stage.  

    by Lois on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 10:04:04 AM PDT

    •  Totally provable

      Look at document 30 - grounding.gif.

      Military records of George Walker Bush
      http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/document.htm

      http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif

      George W Bush was trained as a pilot and was assigned to an Interceptor Squadron that would have had the responsibility to shoot down planes headed for NYC if Sept 11 had happened in 1972 but instead refused to take a flight physical, apparently because he was afraid to pee in a cup due to the newly instated random drug tests.  Which removed him from the only military duty for which he had been trained.  And you think this won't resonate?

      We spell aWol with a capital letter for a reason.

      by Bruce Webb on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 11:58:57 AM PDT

      •  What you don't understand

        What you don't understand is that its all irrelevant.  Bush got an honorable discharge, which in and of itself certifies he complete his obligations.  If he didn't meet his obligations, it was the responsibility of his commanding officers to discipline him and not certify that he had earned an honorable discharge.

        Thats the way the military works.  Its not like commission sales or any kind of free-agenting.  Your commanding officers are responsible to see to it you meet the requirements.  

        Unless you're thinking its a big conspiracy and thousands of people should be called in to give sworn testimony that all of them are absolutely certain they never saw George Bush on those bases and they absolutely remember everyone they saw.  

        by Lois on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 12:28:08 AM PDT

        •  Lois you know nothing about the military

          And it shows.  Bush got an honorable discharge because his commanders did not do their jobs.  It is not like there is any evidence of some kind of comprehensive review.  We had a guy that removed himself from flight duty and so was useless to the Air Force anyway, and no officer gets his ticket punched by putting a Congressman's son up on charges.  They just let it slide.  Like just about everything else in Bush's career.

          I had a friend on my ship that just gave up.  He was an artist and totally unsuited to the military, a fact that became clear to everyone.  On night he was on watch on the bridge wing while we were about halfway to Hawaii.  He put down his binoculars, went down to the berthing area, changed into civilian clothes, and laid down on his rack.  When his absense was noted the Captain, who happened to be on the Bridge at the time, sent the Bosun Mate down to get him to come face the music.  His reply "If the Captain wants to talk to me, he can come down".  Now you have to understand that a Captain of a Naval vessel at sea has essentially unlimited power.  While there is no flogging, Scott could have been sent to Portsmouth Naval Prison forever if anyone had chosen to press charges.  Instead they just discharged him, probably not with an Honorable, but anything less than a Good would have required some sort of Captain's Mast or Court Martial and I know for a fact they didn't do either.  It was just easier to let him go.

          Bush got preferential treatment from his first moment in the military, going to the top of the waiting list, getting sent for flight training despite scoring 25% on the pilot aptitude test, the lowest score eligible, being fast tracked to 1st Lt despite meeting none of the qualifications, and allowed to make up time so he could petition for an early release, which - despite his less than stellar performance, was granted.

          Lois maybe you have a DD-214 showing 20 years of service, but somehow I doubt it.

          by Bruce Webb on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 11:31:45 AM PDT

          •  Bruce- Read this through

            This is a post from the comments section at Calpundit:
            As a former reservist and current active duty JAG, this is surreal to read and it is hard to believe it is even an issue 30 years later. I will try to be direct and not too longwinded.

            1. First, non-observed fitreps or evaluations are common and not indication of anything negative. If you are not observed in your particular job, it is hard to be analyzed thus CO's often use this language. I have many "non-observed' fitreps due to either lack of interaction with my CO, or doing a different assignment. It surely has no reflection on whether I showed up or not. And, I have never been charged with AWOL. In fact, it indicates, GWB did show up as if you do not show up, there is no eval.
            2.  Gratutious Points. In the Military reserves or National Guard, it is EXPECTED you will miss many drills due to conflicts with civilian work. You are a weekend warriors. You make them up, or the potential is that you will not get a "good year" for retirement. Meaning, the goal of most reservists is not to simply work 1-2 days a month, but rather to get a good year for retirement purposes. Nice little pension. The gratuitious points are given by the Reservists to help the members get a good year despite missing some drills. To be blunt, drilling is not even necessary if he got permission to miss. If he didn't care about the "good year" points, he could have missed all his drills if his chain of command didn't care. I missed plenty of drills, made up some, not because a committment but to get a GOOD YEAR for retirement purposes.
            3. Records in the military particularly the Reserves are horrible. Not an accurate reflection of his service.  (And remember these are pre-computer records.  - Lois note)
            4. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER would this type of activity ever see the light of day with regards to disciplinary action.
            5. GWB volunteered to go on a 3 month TAD to Vietnam, and he was "denied" due to lack of experience. He was in fact inexperienced, but it certainly shows his willingness to go.
            6. My experience in the reserves is that attendance is spotty, very lax, because of the weekend warrior mentality. However, if his CO did really believe GWB had crossed a line regarding attendance, he has a ABSOLUTE DUTY to take disciplinary measures. He did not. His former CO who now says he wasn't on the base much himself (duh), and didn't see GWB much (duh) is an idiot. If he was so concerned with a certain junior officer's attendance, a phone call to 1st LT Bush would have GWB running back to the unit with his pants in his hands. Shows the sloppy leadership the CO exhibited.
            7. I used to have an uptodate flight physical to allow me to fly on Navy aircraft. I allowed it to lapse. Why? I would not be flying as a passenger anymore on jet aircraft over water. I was warned that I would not longer be eligible to fly if any good deals came up, if I didn't keep it up. It is a pain in the ass to keep up, LITERALLY, if you know what I mean. If you don't need to have a current flight physical, there is no reason to keep it up I let it go. GWB probably did as well as it became apparent the 102 was being phased out, and he would not be flying much anymore. And he was a dot in the distance.

            BRUCE, you make my point.  It was the responsibility of his commanding officers to certify he met the requirements.  You know what this is really like?  Going through somebody's college courses and nitpicking whether he should have gotten a passing grade in an effort to say he didn't earn the degree. Its a silly, dishonest effort and very surprising that Democrats at such high levels are raising it personally.  If they're saying it disqualifies him from being President, how come they weren't introducing a bill to impeach him?
            

            by Lois on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 12:02:01 PM PDT

            •  Come on Lois

              Bush volunteered when he had 300 hours of flying experience and the job required 500.  Think he didn't know that?

              by Bruce Webb on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 01:45:40 PM PDT

              •  the nub of it

                Are you trying to say he wasn't Audi Murphy?  

                My brother was in the military in those years, enlisted in 1969, the same year Bill Clinton got the 2 draft notices and got out of being inducted with some high level political influence finagling.  

                My brother enlisted for 4 years because he had no way out of going if he got drafted, no political influence.  My father was a truckdriver and my mother worked in a nursing home, so there we didn't know anyone who could help.  My brother went to the recruiting office and they showed him a program of going to language school for Italian (which he never spoke or read very well, making me wonder why they don't just hire people who already speak Italian, easy enough to find).  Then he was sent to Asmara, Ethiopia - I guess it was for about 18 months. Then to Laurel, MD doing work a chimpanzee could have been trained to do for a year and then they gave him an honorable discharge a year early.  He even got to collect unemployment benefits.

                Thats a pretty ordinary story for the period.  Anyone who was a college grad or even had "some" college could enlist and get into a program that avoided Vietnam.  

                The whole thing does add up to an attempt at "character assassination," IMO:  making specious charges that cannot be proven in an effort to smear.  Which makes you wonder about the character  of those making it a big issue.

                by Lois on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 02:34:46 PM PDT

                •  No comment

                  "got out of being inducted with some high level political influence finagling"

                  Or you could read Salon
                  http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/05/national_guard/index.html

                  If you don't have Premium, watch an ad.
                  

                  by Bruce Webb on Sun Feb 08, 2004 at 07:35:28 AM PDT

    •  John Edwards *generation*?

      The man's 50. Doesn't look it, but he is. Is five-ten years difference that big a deal?

      Top 4:
      Edwards, b. Jun 1953, age 50
      Dean, b. Nov 1948, age 55
      Clark, b. Dec 1944, age 59
      Kerry, b. Dec 1943, age 60

      Besides, the Vietnam war isn't going to be a dead issue in the US any time soon. It was never resolved into an agreed-upon storyline, so it's going to continue to fester for generations. Hey, you guys haven't even gotten over your civil war yet.

      by Canadian Reader on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 12:10:38 PM PDT

      •  It'll be a dead issue

        Military conscription ended in the early 70's (72, I think???) and the draft lottery was 1970, I think,  so anyone who became 18 after 1970 couldn't be asked about how he got out of doing military service.  So the 5 years matters.  

        Edwards was old enough that he could have enlisted at 18 and gone to Vietnam; we were there until '75.  But notice how he isn't even asked about it because its just accepted that he didn't need to do anything sneaky to get out of military service.  

        Its a stupid issue; it was a stupid issue against Clinton, except for his disturbing bold faced lies (He said he forgot he ever got a draft notice when he got 2 and no one ever forgot the Greetings! letter.).  Stupid issue but we're stuck with it because Vietnam Vets want to act like they and only they suffered and were mistreated and all of them were.  Its schizophrenic, "I'm proud of my service" but "We're victims."

        by Lois on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 12:43:40 AM PDT

        •  I get your point

          Yes, the specific question of "What did you do in the Vietnam War, Mister Politician?" is going to gradually become obsolete as time passes.

          Though, in a larger sense... The US is basically split down the middle in how it accounted for Vietnam.

          One half remembers it as "Stupid war, started because our government mistook local nationalism for a Cold War proxy fight, continued because they wouldn't admit their mistake, the entire loss of life on both sides was a tragic, colossal waste."

          The other half remembers, "Our brave boys fought and died for freedom, the only reason we had to pull out is those damn hippie traitors undermined public support for our troops, called them babykillers."

          That 50% split, by and large, survives as a major psychological underpinning for today's red/blue divide. In that sense Vietnam is not going away any time soon, because it is being transmitted generation to generation. And both sides have been treating the Iraq war as Vietnam redux. People lined up to support or oppose the invasion of Iraq... I would bet there's an extremely high correlation between their view of this war, and what they think happened in Vietnam.

          by Canadian Reader on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 05:26:08 PM PDT

•  Good article

  by Tom Englehardt

  Daddy's Boys

  by Jeff Simpson on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:27:59 AM PDT

•  You're right...

  Dean is headed for almost certain defeat (though no one will be glader than me if I'm wrong). But he did serve one critical role -- he helped the party find its voice again. It was lost. Now it's back. I cringe at what might've been had Dean not entered the race. For that, every Democrat should be grateful, even the ABD crowd.

  Me, I'll sit back and enjoy this newfound feistiness from our elected Dems. Investigations abound, and we're not settling for sacrificial lambs anymore. Nothing less than indictments will suffice. The Senate hacking scandal. 9-11 commission. Iraq intelligence "failures". Plame Affair. Investigations of Cheney's Halliburton. Cheney's energy task force. And so on.

  But kos, how likely do you think it is that this will continue?  I mean the "ABD crowd" are the winners here.  Their whole criticism of Dean was his aggressivenss, remember?  What makes you think that the Democrats won't suddenly lose their voices again after Dean's gone and nobody's putting pressure on them to speak up again?
  

  by ChicagoDem on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:28:00 AM PDT

  •  If Dean crashes in Wisconsin...

    then Clark is the remaining banner-carrier for the insurgents and the anti-war crowd who could actually take out Kerry if we band together... and that has got to happen.  Democrats can't lose their voice if Clark is still in it.  And maybe my ticket will then come through....Clark/Dean!  I do think it's our only chance against 'business as usual.'

    by oldpro on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:34:17 AM PDT

    •  You're Not Getting It

      If you sit there waiting for a savior, all you're going to get is a shepherd.

      The only people who can change the system are the people themselves.

      by Anton Sirius on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 03:00:23 AM PDT

  •  Winners

    I mean the "ABD crowd" are the winners here.

    So are the ABB crowd.  So are the ABK crowd.

    I am a green.  I campaigned my ass off for Ralph Nader in 2000.  We were fighting a corrupt two-party system then.  Now we're fighting illegitimate, megalomaniacal one-party rule.  Four years just to get back to where we were four years before.  It's about survival.

    by Jeff Simpson on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:44:01 AM PDT

    •  And why are we fighting one-party rule?

      Thanks, Ralph.

      by veganpa on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 10:27:49 AM PDT

      •  oy vey

        First of all, Gore won.  Nader didn't stop the recount.  That was Florida election officials.

        Nader didn't disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of poor, minority voters in florida.  That was Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, and a commpany called Choice Point.

        Nader didn't pressure Gore to concede.  That was high ranking Dems.

        Nobody knows how many votes Nader got in Florida.  This 97,000 figure that is waved around was well within the 4% margin of error in the Florida election.

        Nader didn't sign the Telecommunications Act into law which drastically raised the cap on mass media control allowing the rise of Clear Channel and total right-wing dominance in the media.  That was Clinton.

        Get off it already.

        by Jeff Simpson on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:36:13 PM PDT

    •  Progress from Nader '00

      I think Dean had a lot of apeal for some of those who voted for Nader in '00 because he represented another chance to change the satus quo. That this year the champion of the "anti-business as usual" crowd was a major contendor in a serious party (be real, people: change is a gradual process) speaks volumes about the growing pro-change sentiment among voters. I think eventually we will be able to "take our country back."

      by L Schoen on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 10:40:38 AM PDT

  •  Well, not exactly...

    "...Their whole criticism of Dean was his aggressivenss, remember?  ..."

    Who are you referring to here? The DLC? If so, that is one crowd. But there are a lot of folks out there, who are as outraged as you are about the DLC scumbags, who had other general concerns about Dean and you should be careful about lumping everyone in together with the DLC, including Kerry.

    Not everyone who doubts Dean's viability is a rapid, Dean-hating DLCer and that seems to be the message coming from the Deaniacs. It is really frustrating, to tell you the truth. And this comes from someone who has given $200 to the Dean campaign because I believed in what it was doing, win or lose...

    I think your concerns is a bit overblown. None of the candidates are going to back away from Bush with Dean out of the race. It's too late for that. Dean for America set the tone for the campaign, and for that, we should all be thankful. But take a look at the past two weeks.

    As Dean has skidded toward around 10% of the DEM electorate (and thus, not a real threat), all of the candidates, particularly Kerry have gotten more anti-Bush, not less. This, I think, is a good sign of things to come....

    by Volvo Liberal on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 03:09:55 AM PDT

  •  I wound't worry...

    ...all that much about Democrats losing their voice. What you guys need to remember is that the reason Democrats lost it was because they because they let themselves get intellectually lazy almost to tghe point of decadence (intellectual, not sexual which I personally approve of). And snotty. Don't forget snotty. During the 1980s liberal Democrats exudes great wafting stenches of moral and intellectual superiorty and decided that if you quibbled with the received wisdom it was because you were an ignorant homophobic racist who secretly hated women -- thus proving that there is no philosophy so enlightened that it can't be ruined if placed in the hands of jerks. Don't forget that the term political correctness was actually coined by liberals who were sick of dealing with it but too meek to fight back. By the time Rush Limbaugh showed up it really didn't take all that much to throw the liberal/left into confusion. Hell, we'd pretty much done at least half his work for him.

    Damn Republicans all you like but, like Dr. Dean, we owe them a debt of thanks for reminding us why it's good to be Democrats.

    by Hieronymus Braintree on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 12:35:11 PM PDT

  •  You're right . . .

    But kos, how likely do you think it is that this will continue?  I mean the "ABD crowd" are the winners here.  Their whole criticism of Dean was his aggressivenss, remember?  What makes you think that the Democrats won't suddenly lose their voices again after Dean's gone and nobody's putting pressure on them to speak up again?

    Maybe this screed from a typical cynical right-wing prick might motivate my fellow Democrats to stay on the attack.

    How about we show this guy: "Crumble this, M-F-!"

    by Ivan on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 06:31:32 PM PDT

•  Who can influence the debate

  It's a whole different matter with Hillary, Daschle, Pelosi, Harold Ford, any of the top presidential candidates, and -- at the local level -- every Democratic congresscritter and senator.

  Agreed. Especially at the local level. Our newspapers in Seattle talked about the Joe Willson event that Inslee held for weeks afterward. Inslee is definately a suburban moderate, but even in the weeks and months after 9/11 he'd take it to the administration when he felt they were wrong. And he's more popular than ever here. And in much of the country the seats are so jerrymandered that it will cost the local elected official nothing, or hardly anything, but they've been so cowed. Here's hoping we find traction.

  by Carl Ballard on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:31:52 AM PDT

  •  Oh, yeah....

    ...so why did he endorse Kerry, for God's sake?

    by oldpro on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:36:54 AM PDT

    •  Kerry's a good guy

      Who'se found his voice. How does the Kerry endorsement change anything I said?

      by Carl Ballard on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:57:12 AM PDT

      •  He's a guy...

        who found Dean's voice.

        by ogre on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 06:00:05 AM PDT

•  Just wait until Dean drops out...

  They'll all go back into their holes... that's my guess.  Why, just look at John Kerry today denouncing the Mass Supreme Court ruling.  He was scared shitless of the ruling and was positively bonkers trying to distance himself from it.  With Dean gone I'll bet Kerry once again begins to hear the whispers of Boogeyman Rove while he drifts off to sleep.

  I mean people give Andrew Sullivan a hard time about supporting Bush with his support FMA, but Kerry?  "I'm against Gay Marriage, the Bush people better not come after me for it as Dick Cheney believes the same."  Tell me again how this fearful pandering is going to win us the election?  How is it going to energize Dem voters?  This is civil rights folks.  One of the most important issues imaginable, but we can't expect dear Kerry to do anything but play the politics of calculation.

  by manyoso on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:32:31 AM PDT

  •  Yep

    If the modern Democratic Party was around in the 60's, guys like Kerry would be explaining why they don't support non-segregated drinking fountains.  

    by ElitistJohn on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:34:28 AM PDT

    •  Revisionist history in spades

      If the modern Democratic Party was around in the 60's, guys like Kerry would be explaining why they don't support non-segregated drinking fountains.

      If you think that the Civil Rights Movement was as successful as it was in the 1960's because the Democratic politicians got behind it, then you need to go back and read some history.

      Try to find statements by successful politicians of either Party supporting integration and civil rights. They simply weren't there. It was the subject none of them wanted to go near -- real "third rail of politics" stuff. The problem was that the issue wouldn't go away. It was somnething that politicans had to deal with in office, but for damned sure didn't want to campaign for. [Campaigning against civil rights and integration was another matter, of course.]

      What is the first duty of a politician? To get elected to where he CAN do something, of course. What is the second duty of a politician? To get reelected, of course. Same reason.

      Sound immoral? Guess what? The Morals belong to the voters, not their tools.

      by Rick B on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 08:49:17 AM PDT

      •  Re: Revisionist history in spades

        "If you think that the Civil Rights Movement was as successful as it was in the 1960's because the Democratic politicians got behind it, then you need to go back and read some history."

        i agree with most of your post, but not all.

        politicians and political parties are supposed to build up political capital.  they are also supposed to spend that capital wisely, using it where they can make the most difference - in other words, pick your battles wisely.

        my political hero is LBJ (despite the insanity of Vietnam) because he spent political capital on Civil Rights and Voting Rights knowing full well what the fallout was going to be.  he used that political capital effectively (he demolished the opposition and chose the right legislation), and he spent it wisely to solve an issue that had insoluably plagued the country since its founding.

        by Petey on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 09:05:02 AM PDT

  •  Re: Just wait until Dean drops out...

    "I mean people give Andrew Sullivan a hard time about supporting Bush with his support FMA, but Kerry?  "I'm against Gay Marriage, the Bush people better not come after me for it as Dick Cheney believes the same."  Tell me again how this fearful pandering is going to win us the election?"

    and this position is different from Howard Dean's in what way?

    i'm glad to see Dean lose mainly because i really want to win this election.  but one nice side effect is to see all the intellectual dishonesty coming out of Burlington get its proper reward.

    by Petey on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:42:40 AM PDT

    •  Compare

      Kerry and Dean's reaction when asked about the Mass Supreme Court ruling:

      Kerry, (paraphrase) "I oppose Gay marriage and disagree with the ruling of the Mass Supreme Court.  My views are the same as Dick Cheneys."

      Dean, "... As Governor of Vermont, I was proud to sign the nation's first law establishing civil unions for same-sex couples. Today's decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court represents a different approach to the same goal. One way or another, states should afford same-sex couples equal treatment under law in areas such as health insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance rights.

      "Some in Washington will use this decision to justify the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This would be the first constitutional amendment to authorize discrimination, and I oppose it. Marriage is a matter of state law, and gay bashing has no place in the
       Constitution."

      That is a stark difference.  What was that about intellectual honesty Petey?

      by manyoso on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:52:11 AM PDT

      •  Stark?

        Kerry is on record as supporting civil unions.  He has said many times that he supports total legal parity regardless of orientation.  The Repugs are trying to use the issue as a wedge and Kerry is wisely splitting hairs.

        by Jeff Simpson on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:57:30 AM PDT

        •  Kerry is also more vulnerable

          Since he actually voted against DOMA, one of 15 senators to do so.

          But to me what stands out is the way Dean turns the tables. Now the idea that the FMA is "putting gay-bashing in the constitution" and the GOP has to defend against being the party of gay-bashing.

          Truly, Kerry's and Dean's positions are the same. Everyone knows this. Even more truly, the president has exactly zero direct influence on this. Either states will decide for themselves, or the FMA will pass or fail without the needing the president on board. But we would like to have someone up there not just defending against GOP onslaughts but defining the debate. Kerry worries me on this count. It's not so much that I think he's acting in bad faith. I just worry about his skill in this domain. But maybe he'll surprise us.

          --MLK

          by Melissa O on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 03:06:01 AM PDT

        •  "I oppose gay marriage"

          That says it all to me -- and the rest of the estimated ten million gay and lesbian voters.

          One meme I'm promoting in "my" community: the days when candidates can oppose gay anything and still expect to get our support are over.

          Does he really think there are ten million homophobes who will vote for him thanks to this mealy-mouthed statement?

          by matt n nyc on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 03:08:19 AM PDT

          •  Hey, I understand your outrage

            It's a disgusting thing to watch.  But I know more than a few in the LGBT community who already voted and campaigned for Kerry.  Everyone who's not brain-addled from the group-think around the Dean camp can see very clearly that Kerry is the most progressive of the frontrunners, and if not for Kucinich, the most progressive period.

            by Jeff Simpson on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 03:25:36 AM PDT

            •  Kerry

              Everyone who's not brain-addled from the group-think around the Dean camp can see very clearly that Kerry is the most progressive of the frontrunners, and if not for Kucinich, the most progressive period.

              No, I think Kerry is an American liberal, not a progressive.  There's a difference.  Progressives are like Dean; they challenge the status-quo, they bring new ideas forward, they frame the terms of the debate.  Liberals may have similar views, but tend not to stand as far out on a limb.

              Just my $0.002

              by AaronInSanDiego on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 03:50:22 AM PDT

          •  10 million??

            Where did you get that one from? Last I heard, the 2000 elections had 4 million gay voters. If America had 10 million gay voters, our state legislatures and Congress would not be full of homophobic nutjobs.

            Do any of your friends ever ask you why you are so busy telling people to oppose candidates who are not totally pro-gay that you wind up giving more power to a President who funds ex-gay groups, who endorses an amendment designed to take away all your legal rights, who caters to groups who want gays and lesbians quarantined or killed, etc.?

            by JamesB3 on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 07:29:15 AM PDT

      •  Re: Compare

        "That is a stark difference.  What was that about intellectual honesty Petey?"

        Howard Dean is also opposed to quote/unquote Gay Marriage, of course.

        And, of course, in discussing political courage, after trying to derail the civil unions bill in Vermont, Dean signed it only behind closed doors without any press.

        ---

        Kerry's and Dean's positions are different how?

        They're different because I like Howard!

        by Petey on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:59:54 AM PDT

        •  BUT he signed it

          He didn't have to. He could have just let it become law without signing it.

          And he had to wear a f&^%ing Kevlar vest for months after he did so.

          by matt n nyc on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 03:13:35 AM PDT

        •  a better messenger makes for a better message

          Kerry's and Dean's positions are different how?

          They're different in how they're presented to the electorate. Kerry says "I oppose the court's decision," while Dean says "it's not what I did as Governor, but all Americans are deserving of equal treatment under the law." Even when taking the same position, Dean takes the better position.

          by buddhistMonkey on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 03:30:47 AM PDT

          •  And

            And, Dean doesn't say that he disagrees with the Mass Court's decision. He's said over and over again that the states can decide for themselves which avenue to use to achieve parity under the law and has explicitly said that 'gay marriage' is a possible avenue. Not what they did in Vermont, but a different choice that he's fine with.

            It's different from what Kerry said.

            To all of you married folks without kids, by the way, Kerry believes that purpose of marriage is procreation -- even though he married a post-menopausal woman in the 90s. Paragon of ethical consistency, ain't he?

            by J from VJ on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 09:15:01 AM PDT

        •  Dems

          Dems to gay civil/equal rights under law:

          Let this cup pass from me.  

          by Lois on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 10:34:39 AM PDT

        •  asdf

          You haven't listened before, you won't listen now.

          by TealVeal on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:34:08 PM PDT

      •  But Adam

        How do you protect the right to inherit a partner's Social Security and Pension benefits with civil unions?  The concept of "civil unions" is no more than cosmetic and when I really think about it, its manipulative.  

        by Lois on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 10:29:44 AM PDT

    •  Too right

      Dean's position for "civil unions" and that of the other major Dems has always been disingenuous.  They all know that full equal rights cannot be protected with individual states passing civil union laws.  

      by Lois on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 10:25:51 AM PDT

  •  Well yeah,

    It's no good.  But the basic fact is that a lot more people are motivated to vote against the Democrat if he's seen as too pro-gay than there are people who will vote for him for supporting gay marriage.  The civil rights struggle hurt the Democrats politically in the south, but at least then the northern part of the country was pretty unified in favor of civil rights, so it didn't really hurt the Northern wing of the party at all (at least until busing started).  This is going to hurt, and everywhere, and with a lot of people who are otherwise solidly Democratic (my dad has never voted for a Republican for president in his life, and supports Dean, and he's astoundingly bigoted about gay marriage, for instance).

    I agree that it's craven, but this is something that could really kill us, and we should be aware of that.  Billmon has a good post on this.  I'd add that Howard Dean's position on civil union/gay marriage is hardly different from Kerry's, as far as I am aware.

    by John Kenney on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:56:00 AM PDT

    •  Cool

      I'll tell them to draft the revocation of the Civil Rights Act tomorrow. Then we can really WIN!

      Just don't ask what we're winning for. I'm sure one of our present day establishment lovers will come up with some rationalization.

      by ElitistJohn on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 03:07:48 AM PDT

      •  Sigh...

        you know I'm not suggesting this, and you know I'm not saying that this is glorious.  But the basic fact is that no president actually has any control at all over gay marriage.  And that Kerry was one of only very few senators to vote against DOMA.  Should we really destroy our chances to win the election by having our presidential candidate take an unpopular but right stand on something he doesn't actually have any control over?

        by John Kenney on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 05:31:49 AM PDT

        •  No Control?

          That was mostly true--until these deranged folk decided that the way to get what they wanted was to write it into the Constitution (since it and other constitutional law is against them...).

          Bush coming out in support of that is very much throwing the president's support and approval behind such a measure.  That's a form of control over the issue.

          Refusing to support it, rejecting it, making it clear that there will be repurcussions for those who seek to put it forward... that would be negative control.

          by ogre on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 06:04:38 AM PDT

          •  Don't hold your breath

            We had a poster here named Mitch Gore who laid out how the law has to work.  Under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, a marriage in one state has to be recognized as a marriage in any of the states.  The Defense of Marriage Act that Clinton signed is unconstitutional for that reason and will eventually be struck down.  

            So, there it is:  either there's a Constitutional Amendment PROHIBITING states from recognizing gay marriages or gay marriages have to be recognized across all states if they are recognized in even one.

            In Massachusetts, they're going to have to pass an amendment to the state constitution in order to prohibit gay marriages.  Can they do that?  Do they have the votes in their state legislature or whatever are the rules in MA for state constitutional amendments?   And, gee, look at the rationale for such an amendment:  ONLY to deprive gays of full equal rights.  

            by Lois on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 10:42:04 AM PDT

            •  Absolutely

              I laid out that line of reasoning here in CA, in a letter to the editor, during the run-up to the CA election where they passed the infamous Prop 22 (pointing out specifically that while Prop 22's supporters claim it would put the marriage=man+woman+wedding formula into the state constitution, it was fashioned by morons in need of remedial English.  The text does not say what they thought it did.  It actually provides (equally unconstitutionally) that the only legal contract in CA between a man and a woman is that of marriage.  Thus, while I can marry my wife legally, I cannot legally be employed by her.)

              DOMA is wet tissue paper.  It's offensive, but was unconstitutional from the get-go, an attempt to legislate a hole into the Constitution, which is inherently defective. And the GOP knows it....

              by ogre on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 01:44:18 PM PDT

              •  asdf

                ogre can you put up some links for that?  That's hilariously sad.

                by TealVeal on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:35:28 PM PDT

                •  asdf

                  I found it,  "Only marriage between a man and a women is valid or recognized in California"
                  

                  by TealVeal on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:37:54 PM PDT

                  •  I had a charming...

                    interchange of letters with a local Christian school teacher over this--in the paper.  I'll summarize.

                    ogre: Prop 22 does not do what its supporters believe.  They are inordinately proud of its 14 words' simplicity, believing that they say what they intended--that it will be illegal for two people of the same sex to marry in California, or two people of the same sex, married out of state, to be recognized as married (because of DOMA).  I propose mandatory remedial English for the authors, since what the words actually say is that no man and woman may have no legal contracts between them in California other than that of marriage.  Only men may employ men, only women may sell cars to women.

                    (afterthought: ye gods, and I thought that the religious right had similarities to Taliban thought already...)

                    teacher: (Offended tone) Nonsense. Everyone knows what the proposition means, and although that is, unfortunately, not quite what the words say, any court will enforce them as intended.

                    ogre: I'm delighted that you agree with my observation about the grammatical skills of the authors of this legislation and their inability to write a clear, simple sentence.  However, you are incorrect about the courts.  They are courts of law, not courts of opinion.  They regularly rule on what the law says, and not what they believe that the authors and supporters of a given law intended it to mean.  To do otherwise would create chaos.  The law is what the law says.  I recommend you pay attention in Civics.

                    Further, Prop 22 is fundamentally pointless and unconstitutional in intent.  It is a waste of time and money.  It serves no purpose.  The minute that any state legalizes same-sex marriage, California will be obliged by the Constitution to recognize this by the full faith and credit clause. This will be objected to on the grounds that DOMA authorizes states to ignore that clause. In court, any competent judge will observe that the Constitution trumps legislation, not vice-versa, and that DOMA is unconstitutional and void.  Therefore, Prop 22 is void, since it is in conflict with the Constitition's full faith clause, and because federal law (and particularly the Constitution) trumps state law and state constitutions.  

                    Game, set, match.

                    About a week later, I was informed that an article appeared in the paper in San Jose making precisely the same points.

                    The teacher didn't write back.  Nor did anyone attempt to refute the argument, despite the fact that this is a mindlessly conservative area, full of unreconstructed Birch Society Neanderthals.

                    It was quite satisfying.  They did, of course, pass this bit of garbage into law, but... it was delightful informing them that it served no purpose, and would only achieve the waste of public money in court, and was doomed in the end.  Of course, it was even more fun pointing out that the authors couldn't write a simple sentence and get it right.

                    (Since she was a teacher at a Christian school, and we homeschool, I had the wicked pleasure of observing that this was a basic skill that I was confident almost any homeschooled child could tutor them in--which of course had a particularly serrated edge since these folks believe that they are the one true voice of homeschoolers as well)

                    by ogre on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 10:45:06 PM PDT

•  Dean's aggressiveness

  Some goofballs I wasn't listening to criticized Dean as aggressive; people like Josh Marshall and Ruy Texeira, to whom I was listening, didn't want Dean as the nominee because he was the governor of a small liberal state  and had no military or foreign policy experience. As far as I can tell almost all of the latter group either celebrated, or emulated, Dean's tenacity and his fire; that tenacity and that fire are now paying off, and even the most beholden to special interests of the other likely nominees (i.e. Kerry) certainly wants to win. I agree with Kos: the Dean campaign has shown us how a Dem can win, how to go on the offensive and succeed (even if that Dem isn't the doctor himself). I'd love to see him on talk shows. I bet it happens (unless he wins Wisconsin, in which case all bets are off).

  by pangolin on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:35:06 AM PDT

  •  Winning means nothing

    What you do when you win means everything. I think some Dems are so tired of losing they've forgotten that crucial point. If winning is all that matters, let's just nominate George W. Bush and be happy.

    by ElitistJohn on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:39:59 AM PDT

    •  You are correct, EJ

      That is why you should keep on fighting, even after this election is over.  If Kerry is the nominee, we have to hold his feet to the fire if he tries to triangulate every issue before coming to a nice "nuanced" position.  We have to keep working at the local level.  Taking back the country is not a battle that can be won in one election.  Even if Dean somehow wins, the battle isn't over.  It has only just begun.  And we've been getting beat for so long that I just can't help but believe that the tide is just beginning to turn and that in a few years down the road, we'll be riding a real nice wave.

      That's my hope at least.  But whatever happens, we cannot quit fighting.  Ever.

      by Chibi on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 04:35:22 AM PDT

•  Yes, thank you Gov Dean

  for teaching us about what a Democrat is supposed to stand for, showing us how to stand up to bullies and liars, and demonstrating that little people will actually contribute to a DEM candidate if you ask them nicely.  Thank you so much for all your help.  Would you please leave your computers and supporter lists with the DNC and let us get on with running OUR Party as you return to VT to hang out with your latte drinking friends and odd little wife.

  My guess is that the DC DEMs are like those who go on a crash diet -- fabulous and dramatic results -- they can't stop talking about this miracle cure and wonder why they didn't go on it years ago.  But like crash diets the results are only temporary because no real change took place and the end result is usually a five pound gain from the pre-diet weight.  

  by Marie on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:35:21 AM PDT

•  This is Bullshit

  As quickly as the Dems found their voice, with Dean gone the dems will slowly loose it and go back to the spineless hacks we were seeing not that long ago.

  by ECH on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:35:25 AM PDT

  •  No...

    I don't think so. They've caught Dean by emulating his attacks on the Repubs (if not his style...); Dean showed that that is where the votes - and cash - are.

    by tis on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:43:45 AM PDT

  •  Re: This is Bullshit

    "As quickly as the Dems found their voice, with Dean gone the dems will slowly loose it and go back to the spineless hacks we were seeing not that long ago."

    Spineless like a certain candidate was at his draft induction physical?  Oh.  Never miind.  You must have meant 'spineless' some other way.

    by Petey on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:44:39 AM PDT

    •  Yep

      Like John "Which way is the wind blowing today, so I can figure out my principles" Kerry.

      by ElitistJohn on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:48:52 AM PDT

    •  stop it

      Petey, look. Dean. Is. Going. To. Lose. Which breaks my heart, but I was almost sure of this after New Hampshire and these polls clinch it. Barring a miracle, in which case he's way more electable than any of us think. I think most fairminded people would agree he did the Democratic party a world of good. Evem of you don't think so, what purpose do comments like this serve? I cannot for the life of me understand it.

      by KatherineR on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 04:31:38 AM PDT

      •  Re: stop it

        "I think most fairminded people would agree he did the Democratic party a world of good. Evem of you don't think so, what purpose do comments like this serve? I cannot for the life of me understand it."

        well, considering the circumstances of Dean's and Kerry's Vietnam experiences, i've always thought "spineless" to be a particularly unfortunate slur for Dean's supporters to be issuing.

        ---

        as far as the larger issue goes, i think Dean's impact upon the Party was rather mixed.

        while he did show the Party a new form of fundraising, i believe that will be exploited as well by the Republicans as it has been by the Democrats.

        and i believe the amount of new members Dean has brought into the Party to be far, far lower than commonly thought around these parts.

        these benfits are outweighed in my mind by the constant attacks on "Washington Democrats", which lowers the larger appeal of the Party name, as well as sowing the seeds of vicious and destructive Party internal fights down the line.

        ---

        i feel your pain, Katherine.  my candidate's prospects are also looking pretty dim, although perhaps slightly brighter than yours, and it doesn't make me happy either.

        but i personally cannot understand the constant slurring of the Party by disappointed Dean supporters.

        by Petey on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 06:17:18 AM PDT

        •  In other words

          Dean's achievement is solely developing a tool so the Trust Fund Kiddies have a nice shiny new ATM to fund their egos. And that's just fab! Too bad he gave those stinky commoners the idea they could have a say along with it.

          And you wonder why people have come to loathe the party establishment?

          by ElitistJohn on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 11:58:36 AM PDT

          •  Re: In other words

            "And you wonder why people have come to loathe the party establishment?"

            given the election results, it seems like the Party establishment is pretty damn popular with voters.  it's just the snotty activists who have some irrational problems with it.

            Vote Dean!  Self-esteem for activists!

            by Petey on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 12:08:26 PM PDT

    •  C'mon

      Petey, sometimes you can make sense, but when you lose it over Dean you just destroy your own credibility.  Why should I listen to you when you post flamebait like this?

      by lefty skeptic on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 01:43:39 PM PDT

  •  Dean changed everything

    Dean changed the Democrats.  Dean changed Kerry.  Dean changed fundraising.  Dean changed internet political action.

    Dean is being followed around by the media and that gives him power.  Every word he says is being recorded and broadcast.  Dean may not be winning votes, but he has captured the media's attention.  And he is helping the Democrats bring down Bush.

    If the Democratic nominee is elected, and if it isn't Dean, whoever it is will triangulate to appese the Dean supporters if they have any political wisdom.  No Democrat wants the feistiness of the Dean machine turned against them.

    I support Clark.  But I don't want to see Dean bow out until the media loses interest.  And when the media attention wanes, I want Dean to have a bit of a shouting speech to bring them back.  Anything that keeps the Bush team on the defensive is good.  Dean helps that battle.  Go Dean, raise money bash Bush, keep your troops charged up.  Smoke is pouring out of the Bush administration, and I don't want to see any let up or pause by the Democrats.  The long primary marathon keeps the pressure on Bush, hogs the airwaves, and delays the smears from Rove.  Let them choke on it.  Go DEAN.

    by volcanic on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 05:29:31 AM PDT

•  Re: Democrats found their voice

  "But he did serve one critical role -- he helped the party find its voice again. It was lost. Now it's back. I cringe at what might've been had Dean not entered the race. For that, every Democrat should be grateful, even the ABD crowd."

  look.  no hardcore Dean supporter enjoyed his "red meat" attacks on Bush more than i did.  but i have issues with the emerging conventional wisdom in these parts that Dean is responsible for the Party finding its voice.

  i think it would have happened much the same way if the good doctor had spent the last year attending to patients in Vermont.

  does anybody remember Tom Dashale attacking the war on the eve of the bombing?  and then getting slapped down for his efforts?

  as the war fervor (and 9/11 fervor) naturally died down, and as common sense rushed back in, Democrats naturally would have "found their voice".

  i understand the need for Dean supporters to try to rationalize their investment of time, money, and emotion over the last year.  but i think all they've really accomplished has been to guarantee the nomination of Kerry without much scrutiny, as the Party rushed to find the safest alternative to Howard Dean.

  by Petey on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:37:06 AM PDT

  •  Heh...

    Look, I'm sympathetic to arguments that Dean wasn't responsible for the Dems' renewed aggressiveness.  Believe me, I'd love to believe that the party will sustain this.

    But to argue that they were some huge reservoir of principled opposition before 9/11 is a position that has no resemblance to reality.  The Dems have been cringing and avoiding fights since 2000.  Even with the majority, they behaved like a tiny minority.  They didn't protest all sorts of horrible abuses of power when they should have.

    I mean even look at your example.  Our major fight of that year-- probably the biggest single political issue of Bush's Presidency-- should be the subject of a long and determined debate.  Especially when so many Democratic voters were against it.  Instead we got a few scattered meekly voiced disagreements (except from Hollings of course).  And we're supposed to feel comforted by that?  Sorry, it's not working here.

    by ChicagoDem on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:42:52 AM PDT

    •  Re: Heh...

      "I mean even look at your example.  Our major fight of that year-- probably the biggest single political issue of Bush's Presidency-- should be the subject of a long and determined debate."

      it's hard to do that when the other side has 51 votes.

      elect more Democrats, and watch the tenor of debate in Washington change.

      by Petey on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:48:43 AM PDT

      •  Indeed

        One set of Ivy League trust fund kiddies will leave, and a different set will move in. The new set will insure that the children of the wealthy continue to live in privilege, but will be much nicer about it.

        by ElitistJohn on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:51:27 AM PDT

      •  we were in the majority...

        Remember Jim Jeffords?

        by ChicagoDem on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 03:07:24 AM PDT

        •  Re: we were in the majority...

          "we were in the majority.  Remember Jim Jeffords?

          i know.  but the other side had many more than 51 solid votes for war authorization.  we couldn't even get Biden/Lugar passed, fergawdsakes.  don't forget about all the Zell Millers and Max Baucuses of the world.

          it's hard to force a real debate when you clearly don't have the votes.

          if you've got a long memory, when Reagan came into office, the Dems had a solid House majority.  but Reagan had a working House majority between Republicans and Southern conservative Democrats.  the Dems weren't able to force a real debate about Reagan's economic programs then either.

          you need to have the votes.  it's the downside of democracy.

          by Petey on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 03:15:02 AM PDT

          •  Well, but...

            You can still say whatever you want.  And you can still vote however you want.  You don't have to say "well we're going to lose anyway, so let's all be for it".

            I mean come on, Petey, don't you remember "taking the issue off the table" for the midterm elections?  What was that?  You can't tell me that was just a big principled stand...

            by ChicagoDem on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 03:53:56 AM PDT

            •  Exactly

              Yeah, Gephardt and Daschle, they really led the fight against the war and against all of Dubya's other bad policies, didn't they?

              Before Dean came along, these guys were a bunch of clueless monkeys trying to play nice as to not upset their campaign contributors too much, but sqawking a little bit to appease their constituents.  Dean laid it out in plain English in a way that was considered outrageous at the time by many in the media.  But it made good sound bites and quotes and there was a very receptive audience to what he was saying.  I can't necessarily go along with the theory that the Dems would have found their voice eventually.  And regardless,  Dean is the one who actually did find it for them.  So come on Petey, show the doctor some love!

              by Chibi on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 04:47:03 AM PDT

              •  Re: Exactly

                "Yeah, Gephardt and Daschle, they really led the fight against the war and against all of Dubya's other bad policies, didn't they?"

                i think Tom Daschle led a pretty courageous effort to limit Bush's war authority while the issue was still in front of Congress and 5 months before Howard Dean realized that there was an opening to the left in the Presidential race and first decided to speak out against the war.

                "Before Dean came along, these guys were a bunch of clueless monkeys..."

                as this campaign season has rather brutally shown, Howard Dean is the original clueless monkey.

                by Petey on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 06:54:14 AM PDT

            •  Re: Well, but...

              "I mean come on, Petey, don't you remember "taking the issue off the table" for the midterm elections?  What was that?  You can't tell me that was just a big principled stand..."

              i believe there were many Democrats who for principled reasons supported a credible threat of force to get the weapons inspectors back in.

              i also believe there were many Democrats who, once they knew they didn't have the votes, decided to try to take the issue off the table for the midterm elections.

              i have sympathy for that second group.  i believe if the Democrats had staged an all-out fight, they still wouldn't have stopped the war, and the midterm elections would have had a far worse outcome.

              by the way, which of those two groups does Dean fall into?  since he didn't come out against the war until 5 months after the war resolution vote, is he unprincipled?

              by Petey on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 06:33:46 AM PDT

            •  Every Dem who voted for the war resolution

              Every Dem who voted for the war resolution knew:

              The war was definite; there was a timetable for it to start on or about March 30.

              The enterprise would cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

              It would require American occupation of Iraq for years to come.  

              by Lois on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 10:48:49 AM PDT

      •  The Whole Point of an Opposition

        is to oppose the things it is against. To do so loud and long and with courage and to keep the hammer down and to make sure that even if they are going to lose the vote every time, that the government is forced to justify itself every step of the way so that the record can be thrown back in their faces when it turns to shit.

        If all you look at is the vote count then why bother to turn up at all, even if everyone is there we lose, better slink off.

        THAT's the crap the Dems have handed out for too long, and their craven caving in after 911 is worst of all.

        What the hell happened to "when the going gets tough"? When the going gets tough America lashes out against the weakest enemy and its internal conscience, the opposition in the house, hides in fear and shits its pants.

        See, its not how things go on the best days that matters, its what you do on the worst days. And for the last decade that has been to draw a big wide yellow streak down the Dem back where the spine should have been.

        by Deep Dark on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 03:38:55 AM PDT

      •  Oh, give it up...

        There's not a monolithic GOP.

        There's a vast difference between folks like Helms and McCain, for example.

        51 votes is a marginal majority.  An intelligent, hard-pushing Democratic leadership could have, and should have, sought to create a majority of interest by appealing to moderate Republicans.  Not simply have rolled over and generally supported Bush's demands.

        by ogre on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 06:17:11 AM PDT

        •  Re: Oh, give it up...

          "An intelligent, hard-pushing Democratic leadership could have, and should have, sought to create a majority of interest by appealing to moderate Republicans."

          if you think there was any way to an "intelligent, hard-pushing Democratic leadership" to have stopped the war resolution, you're really not the shapest knife in the drawer.

          by Petey on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 06:42:23 AM PDT

          •  I didn't say that

            I thought that the leadership had shown spine, intelligence or fire.

            But they could have provided a stark, partisan divide, and faced the GOP and the nation with the obvious message.  The nation is going to war because one party is doing so.  That it's Mr. Bush's War.

            Believing that the intel was flawed, they could have left the GOP facing the possibility of terminal political exile.  I wonder if they'd have voted for war in that situation.  A clear partisan split rather than national support?  

            by ogre on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 01:48:13 PM PDT

    •  Since 2000?

      The core of the so-called Democratic leadership has been avoiding fights since 1980.  I expect the same thing from Kerry, but will continue to hope that he is somehow transformed back into the man he was years ago.

      by James Earl on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 02:49:16 AM PDT

  •  Joe-blivion

    as the war fervor (and 9/11 fervor) naturally died down, and as common sense rushed back in, Democrats naturally would have "found their voice".

    You're right Petey...the problem is that voice would have sounded like Joe Lieberman.

    I'm glad it sounds like Dean instead, even a pale imitation of Dean is better than the Dems who've been unable to frame the debate since the 2000 race. Some of us are tired of getting our asses kicked by bullies while the Dems cower and negotiate and appease on perpetual defense.

    Show me what any of the others have done to oppose the right-wing takeover of our government. Half-hearted aquiescence (like Daschle agreeing to limit the scope of any 9-11 investigation - a perfect example) doesn't cut it. Senators passing the Patriot Act without reading the f*cking thing. A blank check to invade Iraq, not knowing how much it would cost, how long it would take, and how we'd get out. Round after round of tax cuts for the rich.  

    The Democrats have been enablers of this right-wing neocon garbage for three years and it's been like watching a train wreck in slo-mo.

    I'm a Democrat because of Howard Dean. Don't diss those people out there who joined this party because he refused to play it safe, earning our respect in the process. When he says he does what's right, not what's politically expedient (like writing blank checks to let Bushco go to war), I believe him. He's got the record to prove it. Most of the others haven't show me jack sh*t when it counted, back when they actually had the ability to oppose the right-wing, and maybe prevent them from f*cking things up so badly.

    by edverb on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 03:21:11 AM PDT

  •  This...

    Is a well-formed, but utterly specious set of arguments.

    You think... but have no real basis for the idea that the other Dems would have found Dean's pitchforks and torches message.  But you're confident that they would have.  Despite no substantial evidence in the last four years of Democratic spine or gutsy rhetoric.

    As common sense rushed back in... < snort >.  Common sense doesn't do that.  Nor is it common.  It has to be dragged into the marketplace and people have to be brought to see it.

    I think the last sentence may well be true.  But not in the sense you meant it.  "Safe" indeed.  That's the safety that Franklin warned us about--giving up essential liberty for safety... and deserving neither.  IMO.
    

    by ogre on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 06:14:13 AM PDT

    •  Re: This...

      "Is a well-formed, but utterly specious set of arguments."

      it's much easier to make your arguments well-formed when y