Daily Kos

Dean owes *us* an apology

Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 04:43:07 PM PDT

Before you all hit the comment button to flame me give me a little room to make a principled, non-mushy-DLC-type argument about why Howard Dean's loose lips are hurting the progressive/netroots cause.  Please, hear me out...

The netroots/progressive wing of the Democratic Party has over the past months been developing a narrative that the GOP leadership and elected members are corrupted by big business moneyed interests, out-of-touch with average Americans and under the control of radical Christian clerics.  It's a narrative designed to separate the GOP electeds from moderate segments of their constituency -- to illuminate the GOP agenda and its leaders as radical and divorced from the values of moderate America - so that we can move the middle to us, rather than the DLC strategy which requires us to move to them.  Let's be clear:  The strategic objective is to separate independents and moderates from the corrupt, radical GOP electeds.

Now let's look at Dean's two recent "controversial" statements: "Republicans, I guess, can do that because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives" and Republicans are "...a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party." In the rush to spin the truth of these statements as a defense of Dean we lose sight of their negative impact on the larger strategic objective.  Truth is not an adequate defense -- true or not, the both of these statements equate Republican voters with Republican electeds.  Rather than divide and separate, these statements conflate and insult. This is completely contrary to what we in the progressive netroots, who help put him in power, are trying to accomplish.

The Truth is No Defense

Dean's continuing core problem is his lack of speaking discipline. Rather than developing a set of carefully crafted talking points, designed for effect and purpose, which are repeated regardless of the question asked, Dean speaks whatever sounds right at the time. The current commotion reminds me of the infamous comment after Saddam's capture, where Dean gave a carefully crafted, major foreign policy speech that had been weeks in the making. It was to be a foundational piece of the campaign.  Dean then dropped in the comment that Saddam's capture wouldn't make us safer and that became the only news item from the speech. The truth of what he said is no defense or justification for destroying the strategic objective of that speech.

As MyDD diarist Concern Democrat notes, once again this week Dean has foolishly stepped on his own message. And he's stepped on our message too. How are we to convince independents and moderate republicans that their leaders have left them for extremists when the Chairman of our party lumps them together, calling them one and the same?

We did not elect Dean Chairman to be a truth squad. We elected him to effect a strategy of change organizationally, and to effect a strategy to grow our party and shrink support for the other party. Articulating messages that are adverse to these goals -- true or not -- are not part of his job and are not something we should defend or support.

Chairman Dean, who we in the netroots helped gain his position, has an obligation to either support and advance our strategic objective of divorcing the GOP elites from middle America or articulate an alternative strategy, devise a disciplined message and stick to it. Other than rallying the base and claiming we'll fight anywhere/everywhere I don't see any strategy at all - and he's certainly not helping our strategy.

Chairman Dean, as a supporter who wants to see you do well in your job, I plead with you: Please either develop a disciplined message and stick to it or stay off the road, out of the media and just shut up.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 135 comments

  •  inoffensive doesn't make case for change (4.00 / 10)

    Terry McAuliffe never offended moderates on TV.

    Would you consider his leadership a success?

    If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

    by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 04:44:18 PM PDT

    •  Huh? (none / 1)

      Why do you suggest we must be offensive to be effective?  I don't agree with the foundation of your argument.
      •  criticism offends, but it's necessary (none / 0)

        To make the case for change you have to criticize the status quo.

        If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

        by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 04:52:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's bomb throwing, (4.00 / 2)

          not criticism. Shit like this gives the Party a bad rep, and pisses off voters. Attack on stem cells, attack on ethics, attack on anything that isn't a person's idenity. Do you think it's fair for Mehlamn to criticze the Dems for being nothing but a pack of gays and blacks?
          •  You have a choice (4.00 / 2)

            You can criticize Republicans or you can criticize Dean.

            Your point has been made. Most here disagree with it.

            But you keep harping on it. Why?

            If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

            by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:02:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How about I criticze both? (4.00 / 2)

              Dean isn't Jesus. He ain't even Obadiah. He's a human being who does good and does bad. His 50-state strategy is good. His recent comments are bad - they're unproductive, distracting, and offensive to te mainstream. He has plenty of issues to hammer the GOP with, but he chooses to attack them for being Christian?
              •  what's your goal? (none / 0)

                What do you hope to accomplish by criticizing Dean?

                If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

                by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:14:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Whaaaaa? (none / 0)

                  Carl, have you ever heard of the term "constructive criticism?"  

                  Are you suggesting that Howard Dean is infallable, or beyond criticism?  If so, what's so special about him that sets him above every other public figure whose actions people on this site quesiton ever day of the year?

                  The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                  by DHinMI on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:36:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Actually . . . (none / 1)

                  I think Terry McAuliffe did offend the moderates on TV.  He was sleazy, he talked out of both sides of his mouth.  He was vague, he spoke in convoluted sentences.  Sort of like Kerry.  Remember when Dean said, the capture of Saddam might be good for our troops, but it did not make America safer?

                  Was he right about Saddam, in hindsight?  Was he right about the war?  Give me a leader like that.  And give me a party that has his back.

              •  Where was the attack on Christianity> (none / 1)

                Dean did not attack them for being Christian.  He pointed out that fact to illustrate the lack of diversity in the "big tent" Republican party.
                •  Dean did (none / 0)

                  offend a fair number of white Christian democrats.  I know several of them.  Iam one of them.  Some of the offense comes from a lingering hypersensitivity on the part of Christian democrats - were aren't made to feel all that welcome by cerain segments of the party who seem unable to seperate "Christian" from "fundie wingnut".

                  "There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life." Frank Zappa

                  by cclough on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:21:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And despite all evidence to the contrary (none / 0)

                    I can type correctly sometimes.  
                    chastises clumsy fingers

                    "There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life." Frank Zappa

                    by cclough on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:22:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  You were offended ? (4.00 / 2)

                    by him saying that Republicans are pretty monolithic.  That they all look the same and that they are all white and Christian.  

                    How is that the least bit offensive to any Democrat?  He did not say all white, Christians are Republicans.  (which would be offensive to white, Christian Democrats)

                    •  Mildly, yes. (none / 0)

                      57% of Democrats are white and Christian, and there is a good bit of Christian bashing in some liberal circles.  He didin't really think about how his remarks would be taken, and he has been playing this game long enough to know better.

                      Though honestly, I am more offended by people in my own party giving me the same old O'Reilly "agree or shut up" bullshit than I was by the original comment.  The original comment was just another in a long line of ill-thought-out comments from Democrats.

                      "There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life." Frank Zappa

                      by cclough on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:34:51 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I still don't get it (4.00 / 2)

                        And I don't mean to be obtuse or anything.  Dean did not say being white was a bad thing.  He did not say being Christian was a bad thing.  He happens to be both.  He said that Republicans were overwhelmingly white and Christian. (much more than 57%)

                        There may be issues with Christian bashing within the Democratic party, but I just can't see how a comment about Republicans being a non-diverse group could be part of it.

                    •  It's not what he said, (none / 1)

                      it how he said it. The man needs to learn how to put his brain in gear before he shoots off his mouth.
              •  'Dean isn't Jesus' (none / 0)

                There you go again ...

                The Great Obama might saw the lady in half, but he won't make the elephant disappear. The Confluence

                by RonK Seattle on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:28:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  stop it, he didn't attack anyone for (none / 1)

                being Christian.

                I am one, I don't fee attacked.  

                ps........most democrats are white christians too, as is Dean.  But we have more diversity.

          •  Who says it pisses off voters? (none / 1)

            How the hell would you know?

            It pisses off Republicans sure, but we're not angling for their votes -- we don't give a rats ass what they think. They can go fuck a donut for all we care. We want the folks who are sick of hearing plasticated talking heads bloviating at them out of their own damn TV. Dean was doing a good job by sticking 'em a good one, right where they were weakest, and most deserved it.

            If th' meek ever do inherit th' earth some one'll git it away from 'em before they have it an hour

            by NorthStarDemocrat on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:50:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  After the 2004 election (none / 0)

              which surprised me on every level, I made it a point to talk to folks on the street about political issues. It's mostly been Social Security and Schiavo before this, where I found public opinion mostly on our side. I'm getting mostly negative from this. (My  area is mostly moderate Dem and indy, in case you're wondering.)
              •  Then those people are idiots (none / 0)

                If they suddenly start loving Republicans because of a few overblown remarks that Dean made, if they push that onto the whole party, then they're idiots and they are probably the "moderate" kinds of Democrats who vote for Republicans as often as they can.
                •  They don't love Republicans. (none / 0)

                  And though they usually vote Democratic, they don't love us either. They're not wedded to a party.

                  They don't have to vote GOP to hurt us. They're our likely voters - they just have to stay home.  

                  •  If they're so childish and easily wounded (none / 0)

                    that they will stay home or vote GOP because big bad Dean talks about the GOP, then they aren't going to vote for Democrats anyway.
                    •  So being offended (none / 0)

                      by having aspersions cast on your race and religion is childish?

                      And once again, these are likely Dem voters. I know my home county, and when they vote, they vote Dem. But piss them off with comments like Dean's, and they won't vote.

                      •  But didn't you just say they were swing voters? (none / 0)

                        You said that they were moderate Democrats but they could vote for Republicans. Now you're saying they will just stay home. If they are this easily manipulated, then why should you expect them to vote for a Democrat anyway? I know people like this. I know a so-called independent minded voter who voted for Bush because she thought John Kerry was a war criminal. Really, these people will do what they are told. They will stay home or vote GOP no matter what Dean says.

                        And anyone who is offended by this is just idiotic, if you ask me. I am a white, Christian male. My father is a white, Christian male. We both understood what Dean was saying immediately, even if he did not use the best phrasing. We aren't MENSA members. We just have common sense. Anyone with common sense or with a mind of their own understands what his point was.

                        •  I never said they were swing voters. (none / 0)

                          I also never said that they're likely to vote for Republicans. I said they usually vote Democratic. Which is true. The last time we voted for a Repubican for president was 1984. Before that, 1928.

                          But even if they mostly vote Democratic, they may just vote in smaller nunbers. Low turnout kills.

                          And no one's asking.

        •  Reread what I wrote (none / 1)

          Look, I have no problem giving the GOP leadership complete offensive hell. My point is that we should be pulling average people away from the GOP leadership.  We should be driving a wedge, and Dean's comments hurt that effort.
      •  Let's Take It Really Slowly Kid (4.00 / 3)

        Are you old enough to remember Newt Gingrich before he was speaker of the house, back when the Dems were the majority party? No? Oh, go google his name then and get back to us.
        •  That's a Perfect Example Against Dean (4.00 / 2)

          Hardly any voters knew Newt Gingrich in 1994.  By 1996, in Michigan we were running phone banks in Republican-held state legislative districts delivering the message that the incumbent Republican had taken PAC donations from Newt Gingrich.  It's largely because he became so damn toxic that he got bounced from the Speaker's chair in 1998.

          I am in no way equating Dean to Gingrich, but your argument that there's no penalty for regularly delivered ill-considered remarks is contradicted by the example of Newt Gingrich.

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by DHinMI on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:39:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Neither Did Ron Brown and Don Fowler (none / 1)

      The Chair doesn't need to be a personal lightning rod for Dem candidates to perfrom well.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by DHinMI on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:33:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nobody gave a rat's ass what Terry had to say... (none / 0)

      I can guarantee you he's said a lot of stupider stuff.  

      Dean already has the unfair reputation as a "gaffe machine".

      Hell, Orin Hatch just called Dean a "blitering idiot".  If Dean called Mehlman that it'd be frontpage news.

  •  Off base. (4.00 / 3)

    We elected him to effect a strategy of change organizationally, and to effect a strategy to grow our party and shrink support for the other party. Articulating messages that are adverse to these goals -- true or not -- are not part of his job and are not something we should defend or support.

    Chairman Dean, who we in the netroots helped gain his position, has an obligation to either support and advance our strategic objective of divorcing the GOP elites from middle America or articulate an alternative strategy, devise a disciplined message and stick to it. Other than rallying the base and claiming we'll fight anywhere/everywhere I don't see any strategy at all - and he's certainly not helping our strategy.

    So you don't see this strategy.  Well, it's all he's been doing, really.  If you don't see it you haven't been paying attention.

    Hand me down my walking cane, hand me down my hat...

    by Cheez Whiz on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 04:46:12 PM PDT

  •  If the rest of the Dems had Dean's back (none / 0)

    there would be no apology necessary.  If Biden and Edwards had tried to clarify Dean's remarks to indicate that he was referring to the leaders of the Republican party and not the rank and file voter, we would still be pushing the message you describe.  
    •  That's not their job. (none / 0)

      Dean made the remarks. Why is it up to other people to explain what he really meant?
      •  So why do they fall for the trap? (none / 1)

        Does Dean have to coach Biden and Edwards on changing the subject and avoiding questions?

        If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

        by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 04:51:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Once again, this problem (none / 0)

          is not of their creation.  Do we have to teach our Chairman how not to piss of voters and give the Party an "intemperate asshole" image to go along with "weak flip-flopper?"
          •  Let's go slowly (4.00 / 2)

            The republicans have picked this as their distraction of the week.  They do not want to talk about coingate, nor certain about the infamous minutes.  Soo, their favorite whipping boy (after Hillary) is Dean.  And all they have to do is follow him around and they have a sound bite taken out of a speech that they can twist and funnel to all their lapdog press.

            And so they are talking about it.  This is a manufactured tempest, out of factory of Rove-spin.

            You drank republicans koolaid.  

          •  who is responsible? (none / 0)

            Biden or Edwards flubbing a question in his interview is his problem.

            If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

            by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:16:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Because that is what a successful party does (4.00 / 2)

        When a Republican says something over the line, the immediate reaction of other Republicans is to cover for him.  Biden and Edwards reaction was to throw Dean under the bus.
        •  Indeed. (4.00 / 2)

          If they aren't able to comment on the remarks, they should have frickin' said so: "since I am not familiar with the remark and haven't read the context, I'm afraid I'll have to postpone comment."  Of course, this means that the next time you are interviewed and asked, you have to have a response.

          If they are familiar with the remarks, they should have said something like, "I think what Dean was trying to say is...<insert Dem talking point on the issue here>".

          You can still present a united front on the issue without criticising other Democrats. Rather use the airtime the issue has given you as an opportunity to GET THE DEM MESSAGE OUT.  This is not that complicated.  

          •  But... (none / 0)

            Then they might stop getting bonuses for access to the fat cats, and keep fundraisers (can you say percentage cut?) happy.

            Sheesh. You must think this is about doing the right thing, instead of one's own ambition and interest.

      •  its called (none / 0)

        unity and/or loyalty when another of your party is working to rebuild the party and you support them.

        Its called self centered when you believe you can do a better job of it and publicly berate the person doing the reconstruction based on what the MSN has said he said.


        The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

        by nupstateny on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:01:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So being vocally upset (none / 1)

          by something a politician says is only okay if it is a Republican?  I don't accept that Deomcrats are right all of the time, and I won't shut up if one of them says something I found to be rather dumb and absolutely nonproductive.

          I reserve the right to criticize any politician.  As a voter and a citizen, that's my right to do.

          "There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life." Frank Zappa

          by cclough on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:25:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yes it is (none / 0)

            I will also respectfully say to please take the message to the right address.  Did you email him about it?

            I agree you have every right to tell a politician how you feel but believe it or not, they are people to and deserve respect when you tell them how you feel.  I might gently point out however, that telling them they are "dumb" and "nonproductive" won't be the best way to put it.  Telling them why what they said made you upset will make your message easier to hear.  

            Downthread I mentioned I was elected to office.  Believe me, you would be shocked at some of the phone calls I'd get at 7am on a Sunday morning yelling at me.  It got to the point that I got a separate line for personal calls and only answered the published line during business hours M-F.  I had an answering machine and screened my calls.  I did pride myself, however, on calling people back.

            I believe, Dean would listen to your concerns.  He strikes me as that kind of politician.

            The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held... -Bertrand Russell

            by glynis on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:41:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, I emailed him. (none / 0)

              And I didn't call ANYBODY dumb or nonproductive.  I called REMARKS dumb and nonproductive.  There is something of a difference.

              "There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life." Frank Zappa

              by cclough on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:45:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  well okay (none / 0)

                calling remarks dumb and nonproductive are not much different from my POV.

                As an example,  if is said to you, your remarks are assinine and ridiculous, would you take that any differently than if is said you are assinine and ridiculous?  I know I wouldn't.  (and as an aside I don't think either you or your remarks are assinie or ridiculous)

                And as I reread my subject line from my previous post, I meant that yes it is your right as a citizen and voter to criticize any politician.  

                The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held... -Bertrand Russell

                by glynis on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:56:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  This rambles a bit, I've taken benadryl today... (none / 0)

                  I caught the subject line, yes.  I didn't feel you were personally attacking me at all.  I say less than well thought out things all the time, and am rather glad when someone calls me on it.  Happened in an immigration debate thread the other day.

                  I am disturbed by the trend that seems to be growing - I've always been publicly critical when I think a politician does something stupid.  I grew up in Texas, and have been dealing with Rove and Co. for a long time - I've spent a lot of time hoarse from bitching so much.  But I'll bitch just as loudly when someone on the left screws up.  I bitched when Clinton lied, not because I cared a whit that he fooled around with an intern, but because it was such an easy lie to get caught out in.  It was a dumb thing to do for a public politician.  Doesn't mean Clinton is dumb (far, far from it).  But lately, if I disagree or an unhappy with a Democrat, I get a bunch of Democrats telling me to be quiet and toe the line.  I think that is exactly the way the moderates lost the Republican party.  They were quiet too often, and then it was too late.

                  I had deep reservations about Dean during the primaries for much the same reason (the Christian comment, not the Clinton circus).  I think we need passionate leaders, but also leaders who can think of what the ramifications of what they are about to say could be before they say it.

                  "There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life." Frank Zappa

                  by cclough on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 06:07:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I agree with your last sentence (none / 0)

                    We can all do a better job of thinking about the ramifications of what we say before we say it.

                    I'm not sure that Dean doesn't do that but again, in this political climate with the MSM we have, I still don't think there's any way to be careful enough to avoid the twisting of words and manufacturing of controversy.

                    I think we should point out when we disagree with a politician but for me I'll spend my time critizicing positions and votes rather than words trumpeted in a media story mostly because I just don't believe most of what I read in the media.

                    The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held... -Bertrand Russell

                    by glynis on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 06:19:29 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  It's their job to keep their mouth shut... (none / 0)

        And not bash other Democrats.  If they have issues what Dean is saying they should call his office up on the phone and air them in private.

        Did you ever hear any Republicans bash Newt?

        •  Sounds familiar (none / 1)

          From Bill O'Reilly - "it is the duty of every American to shut up once the fighting starts.  They can disagree in private, but publivly they need to shut up."

          Um, fuck that.

          I'm not mad at you, I'm mad about the resistance to public disagreement.

          "There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life." Frank Zappa

          by cclough on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:47:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There is a difference (none / 0)

            between the general public and politicians.  I don't have a problem with you and others criticizing Dean.  I do have a problem with Democratic politicians saying things that hurt the Democratic party.  And I think that Biden and Edwards fell into that category.
            •  Indeed. (none / 0)

              I don't disagree with you that Biden and Edwards screwed the pooch as well.  I also think Dean should have slowed down before he put the comment about the "white christian party" in his speech.  He should understand the nature of the media soundbite by now.  He put a lot of the people around here who vote Democrat off a bit with it - it was one of those comments that made people stop and ask "what exactly did he mean by that?".  I think it hurt us some.  Not for long, and not majorly, but I don't think it was the most politically savvy thing to say.

              "There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life." Frank Zappa

              by cclough on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 06:26:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  No (none / 0)

      If Dean's remarks didn't need clarifying then we'd be on message.  Blaming others for not cleaning up the pile of poo doesn't absolve Dean from dropping these piles.
      •  That is a good point (none / 1)

        Dean did make the remarks and bears responsibility for them.  But you cannot absolve the rest of the Dems who could have put out the fire but chose to do nothing or worse, to fan the flames.  Biden and Edwards did not avoid vleaning up Dean's mess.  They spread it all over the place and they deserve as much, if not more, blame for the fact that we are off message.  
        •  Exactly (none / 1)

          Biden and Edwards did far more to hurt the party than Dean has. Republicans never temper themselves when one of their speakers is out of line, even to the point of threatening judges on the Senate floor. Why should Dean have to apologize for a few rah-rah remarks at a fundraiser? Why should any Democrat have to apologize or even offer comment?

          Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass. - Barry Goldwater, 1981

          by Doug in SF on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:00:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  What made Dean's marks "controversial"? (none / 1)

          The headlines I read was because other Dems were criticizing him for them. What I think the Repubs do so well is they defuse the criticism by amplifying the message while not criticizing the messenger.  When will we ever learn to do that?

          The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held... -Bertrand Russell

          by glynis on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:02:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  marks I meant remarks n/t (none / 0)

            The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held... -Bertrand Russell

            by glynis on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:03:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  White and Christian = bad. (2.33 / 3)

            Okay, I'll remember that that's what the Democratic Party thinks. And so will every other person who sees that clip on the news.
            •  more like republican = white and chrisitan (none / 1)

              Is what Dean said and it was what he meant.  Here is a more full quote:

              Republicans are "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party." "The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people," Dean said Monday, responding to a question about diversity during a forum with minority leaders and journalists. "We're more welcoming to different folks, because that's the type of people we are. But that's not enough. We do have to deliver on things: jobs and housing and business opportunities."  

              •  Have we completely forgotten this history (none / 1)

                of television news?

                He handed them a soundbite. He presented a dichotomy with white, Christian, Republican on the negative side. Which do you think a reporter is going to run with? "Dean reaches out to minorities" or "Dean attacks 'white, Christian' Republicans."

                •  i accept the media will not be accurate (none / 1)

                  but what is your excuse?  Why are you pushing the meme that he has somehow offended thousands of potential Democrats by misrepresenting what he said?  How are you helping the cause in any way?
                  •  Because he has offended potential Democrats (none / 1)

                    I've been talking to people here in Pennsylvania about this, trying to get their opinions. Very few people are happy about it. I'm in a Democratic -leaning country in W. Pa., the folks aren't happy.

                    And what he said was offensive. Whether deliberately or not (I doubt the former) he created a dichotomy with white, Christian, Republican on one side and everyone else, Democratic on the other.

                    •  How? (none / 0)

                      Please tell me how these comments are offensive to you, as either a white man or a Christian.

                      I've heard a lot about being offended but no explanation of the offense.

                      Pray tell.

                      John McCain a/k/a John Sidney "Grampy McSame"

                      by MRL on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:38:54 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  My feelings aren't important. (none / 0)

                        I'm a Democrat and staying that way. You can say whatever the fuck you want about me, I don't get riled easily.

                        What I'm worried about are the voters. I'll try to exaplain how they see this with a diagram.

                        White         |     Different folks
                        Christian     |     Democratic
                        Republican    |

                        It's a rehetorical device that politicians use as routinely as they breathe, which is probably how it came to be. "My opponent does this, but I do this. I support this propsal, but my opponent does not." It's designed to create a negative contrast between you and your opponent. You want people to think well of you and badly of the guy.

                        But for very good reasons, people don't use this device with identity anymore. Nobody gives a speech anymore about how their opponent is black or white or Catholic or Protestant. Inviting a negative contrast between your opponent's idenity, unlike with politics, policies, behavior, experience, etc., almost always backfires. Even if it's innocently meant to show how inclusive and tolerant you are.

                        •  Missed it completely (none / 0)

                          Are you completely missing the fact that Dean is a White Christian?

                          He's not criticising White Christians.  He's criticising a monolithic and dangererously radical viewpoint.

                          The quote was about how they are all the same.  It has virtually nothing to do with being white or Christian.

                          If the Republican party was full of fundamentalist muslims who were ruining the country, his point would be about a monolithic fundamentalist muslims party.

                          To make "White" and "Christian" evil ignores the obvious -- DEAN IS WHITE AND CHRISTIAN!

                          John McCain a/k/a John Sidney "Grampy McSame"

                          by MRL on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 06:37:53 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Good point. (none / 0)

                            I'm a man, and I've never criticized another man. Never. Not once.

                            Once again, I'm not saying that this was deliberate. Dean tried to draw a comparison regarding inclusiveness, and it backfired.

                            The substance of those sentences were that the Democratic Party is better off for not being primarily white and Christian. There's are two sides to that - that inclusivess and tolerance are virtues. True. Also, that there's something wrong with being white and Christian. False, and not what he meant to say.

                            •  Backfired? (none / 0)

                              Why? Why did it backfire?

                              This, IMHO ("Also, that there's something wrong with being white and Christian") was not at all part of what he said.

                              If you can find it in there of what he said (other than just including those words), please show me.

                              Until then, allowing the RWNM to crank this up beyond a big non-issue, is pathetic.

                              P.S.  Your retort (for about the sixth time) misses the point.  Of course men can critique other men.  And, of course, Christians can critique other Christians.  But Dean did neither.

                              Reply if you want, but I'm done here.  We are not hearing each other.

                              John McCain a/k/a John Sidney "Grampy McSame"

                              by MRL on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 06:51:17 PM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                        •  Nobody? (none / 0)

                            Nobody gives a speech anymore about how their opponent is black or white or Catholic or Protestant.
                            No Republicans just routinely give speeches where they talk about "family values" and "the culture of life" and "the homosexual agenda" Nothing identity politics about that.  They regularly intimate that anyone who is not a born-again-Christian is actually on the side of Satan.  And you're getting upset by these remarks?? This is political warfare get used to it.  

                          Bush - the New Hoover. He really sucks.

                          by slick riddles on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 08:42:26 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  Don't be obtuse. It's obvious. (3.00 / 2)

                        Things get taken out of context.

                        What did his statement, the whole thing, accomplish?

                        It didn't enlarge the democratic tent to include republicans with authentic christian values, such as those that say one should help those less fortunate, don't kill, don't lie, etc.

                        It just criticized republicans as being monolithic.  What's the up side?  

                        We've all seen the down side, which is perfectly obvious.

                        •  How do you know? (none / 0)

                          That this did not bring Republicans into the fold.  Or that it won't have that result if it is repeated ad nauseum over the next months and years?  Criticism of Republicans as a monolithic beast has immense value to Democrats.  Especially if we can show that it is even more monolithic than the average Republican thinks.  And unlike the "liberal elite" meme the Republicans use for the same reason, ours has the advantage of being completely true.
                        •  Accomplish? (none / 0)

                          IMHO, it begins the frame of Rs being out-of-touch fat cats.

                          He makes one "contrversial" statement.  It gets repeated frequently.  It takes on a life of its own.

                          Its negative connotations to the Rs deters an identity with them.

                          Kinda like "elite" and liberal.  You think that just rolled off of the tongue of the first mega-millionaire republican who uttered it?

                          John McCain a/k/a John Sidney "Grampy McSame"

                          by MRL on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 06:39:39 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  Troll Rate Me (none / 1)

                  I can't take this. You are going to have to troll rate me, but you are a moron.

                  The comment was incidentally about whitenes and Christianity.  It was primarily about being monolithic.

                  You need to get over your own issues about being a Christian and a democrat.

                  You are clearly projecting something that ain't there.

                  Or have you missed the incredibly fucking obvious point that someone else is white and Christian?

                  <cough> Howard Fucking Dean!? </cough>

                  John McCain a/k/a John Sidney "Grampy McSame"

                  by MRL on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:36:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  whitines = "whiteness" <eom> (none / 0)

                    John McCain a/k/a John Sidney "Grampy McSame"

                    by MRL on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:39:49 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I didn't say it was deliberate (none / 0)

                    and I doubt that it was in deliberate. But whether intentional or not, the damage is done.

                    When you create a dichotomy with white and Christian on the negative side, you've offended a shitload of people.

                    •  That dichotomy is all in your head (none / 1)

                      If you thought about the fact that Howard Dean is a White Christian, it is pretty obvious that he is not lumping all White Christians as bad.  
                      •  It's in a lot of people's heads (none / 1)

                        not just mine.

                        I'm not offended by the pie ad. Does that mean nobody is offended?

                        It's good to know that no white Christian can slight another. Someobdy should go back to the 16th century and let Europe know.

                        •  If you aren't offended by the pie ad . . (none / 0)

                          why do you give a shit if others are?  isn't it, in your worldview, perfectly OK?

                          So why do you care that you believe that others are offended?

                          Let them be offended and explain to us why they are.

                          Despite being called "obtuse" I'm still not seeing what is offensive about anything Dean said.

                          The "spin" on what he said or implied might be offensive, but that's spin and not a Dean issue.

                          John McCain a/k/a John Sidney "Grampy McSame"

                          by MRL on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 06:42:06 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

      •  As I see it, no matter what Dean (4.00 / 2)

        or any other Democrat says, the Repubs and MSM will parse the words and find something to criticize.

        The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held... -Bertrand Russell

        by glynis on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:05:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Precisely why... (3.00 / 2)

          ...disciplined messaging is required. Develop a structured message, stick to it, don't deviate and then there's nothing to parse.
          •  that's a nice thought (none / 1)

            I still think however that they would parse away.  We've seen how far they'll go, putting together words from different sentences with their ...'s, twisting things totally out of context.  

            The beauty that is Dean is that he speaks his mind. He isn't worried about what the Repubs or media will do. He does take responsibility for his own words.  I think that's what plagues many many politicians.  Trying not to offend someone so you water down what you say.  We have to stop doing that and we have to point out to other politicians when they do it.  

            I bristle at the suggestion that "we in the netroots helped gain his position" and he "owes" us.  Isn't that exactly what the lobbyists think?

            I have a biased view here I will admit b/c I've run for office and was elected.  What I think a politician owes his/her constituents is honesty about where they stand on issues and why they think the way they do.  There is no way a politician can please everyone and they shouldn't even try.  One hopes that their positions match the majority of voters and that's why they get elected.  Oh yes, I've been told by political colleagues that view doesn't get you re-elected.  My response always was, 'then I won't get re-elected'.  They were right.  But I had my integrity which was far more important to me.  I admit I was feeling pretty jaded about politics after I lost and had to take a break because my idealism was crushed.  

            People yell about not having honest politicians but then when you're faced with one you don't elect / re-elect them or, in Dean's case, you want them to step aside.

            The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held... -Bertrand Russell

            by glynis on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:32:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yep (none / 0)

            It's worked so well the last 15 years. Why Gore did that, so they found his suit colors to insult. Kerry did that, and they tarred him a traitor.

            What was that about the "definition of insanity"?

      •  Yah, But.. (none / 0)

        Republicans will also manfacture "shit piles" weekly anyway.  The shit piles will also come fast and furious regardless.  

        All Democracts need to role up their sleeves and get good and cleaning up the shit.

    •  Edwards DID get Dean's Back (none / 0)

      Kos posted Edward's comments that he and Dean are talking about the same issues.

      Senator Dodd was on CNN at approx 4:15pm EDT today taking Dana Bash to task for worrying about Dean's choice of words when Dean was talkin about what American people want.  

      Politics is a contact sport.  Democrats just have been playing "touch" football for so long they're getting freaked out by tackles.  Don't get scared off so quickly.

    •  Not defending Biden et al (none / 0)

      Just to be clear, nothing I wrote should be interpreted as a defense of Biden and others failure to defend/support Dean. Publically we all must put our best face forward and it's their obligation to do that or say nothing.

      However, IMO here on this board it's entirely appropriate to question tactics and strategy, and to critique, tweak, refine, correct them. A public defense of Dean's back should not preclude a more reflective analysis here.

    •  I strongly agree with you. What if (none / 1)

      our elected Dems refused to diss DEan and did not fall for the taunting? What if they stopped putting their personal ambitions over that of the Party and the country? What if they actually banded together and strongly supported Dean? What would the press do and what would the Republican bobble heads do if our supposed spokes people STOPPED shooting us in the foot while they were talking?

      Republicans don't stab others in the back until they see they are going down--then they are first to put in the knives. The Democrats listen to Republicans talk about Democrats and then stab the Democrats the Republicans hate the most.

      Let me tell you something. The Republicans made an issue of Bill Clinton for eight years. What did they succeed in doing? Dividing and weakening the Democratic Party. Now they hate Howard Dean who is another strong, charismatic figure. So what do they do--they decide to isolate Dean.

  •  The Truth (none / 0)

    "The truth of what he said is no defense or justification for destroying the strategic objective of that speech."

    It's only bad strategy because Democrats have the guts to tell the truth so rarely. If Dean's comments were more common among the Democrats it'd be the new meme and you'd be applauding the strategy. Anyway, I'm not giving up on the actual God's honest truth as fast as some seem willing to.

    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses | Buy M.I.A.'s Kala! (No, really. Please!)

    by Addison on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 04:54:40 PM PDT

  •  Well, I don't really agree with your (none / 1)

    analysis of what the strategic objective of Dems is/should be--peeling off the independents/ moderates has been the goal the last few elections, and doesn't work.  The goal--and a much more viable one, in my opinion, is to amplify the progressive position, reframe the debate, and politicize the grassroots from the bottom up, bringing in those who've been disconnected from politics altogether.  Capturing the "undecideds" of past elections is a chimera--Dean is going for a paradigm shift, and his remarks are strategic.

    ...the White House will be adorned by a downright moron...H.L. Mencken

    by bibble on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 04:54:57 PM PDT

  •  Media script (4.00 / 3)

    They already have the script for Dean and they're not going to give it up.

    I'm afraid every story about him is going to allude to what the script says, which is that he can't speak without saying things that will be taken as wacko.

    I like Howard, supported him blah blah blah, but he doesn't come across well on TV, and especially when they go after him for entertainment value and not news.

    Anderson Cooper played the Iowa scream clip two or three times a couple nights ago. It makes me sick, and I wrote to CNN about it (big help that is), but this is what it's going to be.

    •  So right (none / 0)

      They've already painted him as a crazy with the "scream"; now everything he says - no matter how innocent or valid - is going to be picked apart for possible dead agenting.

      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

      by Phoenix Rising on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:06:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  yes, I agree (none / 0)

      I also think we weren't under any allusions.  We knew that would happen.  We all need to be ready with a retort to them doing that.  Whether it's a retort to MSM or to someone we talk to who "reminds" us of that clip.

      And if you think about it, the Iowa clip, that's all they got?  Pretty lame.  All old news and debunked at that.  

      The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held... -Bertrand Russell

      by glynis on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:09:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Buck Up, Don't Suck Up (4.00 / 3)

      Quit feigning indignation.  Every last one of you.  The Susan Estriches, the Jeanne Shaheens, the Bob Shrums, the Liebermans, the Tweetys, the Garry Souths (there are some real winners).  Washington feigns indignation all the time, and real Americans are sick of it.  That is why Clinton's approval rating was 70% the day of impeachment.

      I saw Dean on Meet the Press a couple weeks ago. (I'm Catholic, thank you, I go to Mass on Sunday evening)  My mom and uncle both saw him too.  They are Democrats, but don't pay that much attention to Politics, and certain don't watch Anderson Cooper, Tweety Matthews or any of that crap.  They watch E!, ESPN, TNT and network TV.  And by the way, they're white and Christian.  They get a paycheck, not a dividend check.  They get a wage; they don't get a salary.

      They absolutely loved what Dean had to say.  Dean painted Republicans as meddlesome in the personal lives of Americans.  He painted them as corrupt.  He parried Russert's bullshit gotcha quotes and talked as one who asked no quarter and wanted none given.  In other words, Dean did not talk like he was from Washington.  He wasn't sleazy.  He didn't try to sugar coat everything.  He didn't try to talk out of both sides of his mouth.  He didn't speak French.  He spoke in plain, declarative sentences with action verbs.  And you know what?  I think many more more people saw that than watched Anderson Cooper.  I would rather have Dean on TV any day of the week.  He is not going to be anybody's bitch.

  •  No Apology Required! (none / 0)

    Keep fighting Chairman Dean! We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

    Any party that would lie to start a war would also steal an election.

    by landrew on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 04:58:36 PM PDT

  •  And I plead with you... (none / 1)

    pull your head out.
  •  What a crock (none / 1)

    I wonder how many times we have seen Republican politicans come out in the past critisizing something another Republican politician said, no matter how outrageous. Can you cite me some examples? There is a reason it is called a party. Discourse is widely encouraged and it's great, but if they don't like what he says, they should tell him that privately.

    Mikhail Khaimov San Francisco, CA

    by Tsarrio on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:04:12 PM PDT

  •  When is this going to die? (none / 1)

    You should read this diary.

    McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist

    by sgilman on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:06:19 PM PDT

  •  Troll Ratings (2.60 / 5)

    I haven't troll rated anyone here at my tenure as a poster on Daily Kos, but these mutha fuckers, excuse my language, bashing on Dean, are pissing me off. So while I am a die-hard believer in free-speech, I am now excercsing my right to free speech and "Troll rating" any of these muther fucker who make these counter productive statements like "Dean has to go". Dean is the heart of our party, do you dean haters want it to go back to 2002 to where our party is just a softer image of the republican party? I sure fucking don't!

    Go ahead and troll rate me, because you think we need to be more politcal savvy, but I'm not going to play politics on a message board where we are supposed to on the same page.

  •  I am not mad at you Steve in Sacto. (4.00 / 3)

    I understand the point you are making. I have to rant for a few minutes because I am so upset about all of this.

    What I really feel is that Biden, Edwards, Richardson, and the other business-as-usual Democrats are STILL FAILING US. Some group of Democrats got together and decided it was more important to undercut Howard Dean than to take stalk of where the country is going.

    What does this mean to me? There is a core group of elected Democrats who feel no affinity or loyalty to the Democratic base. I am so offended by this I could spit.

    They don't know us. They don't bother to try to know us. They internalize the negative stereotypes about us. WE would be their greatest defenders if THEY had guts. But they can't be bothered to get to know us. They are comfortable and lazy, and they accept the conventional wisdom about what is going on.

    And truly, if this is the way they fell about the Democratic base and our concerns, then fuck them. This is how they treated us about the Iraq war, and they continue to do it. Three years later almost and they still have no GUTS. They are still involved with dissing Howard Dean, which means they DO NOT TAKE PEOPLE LIKE US SERIOUSLY.

    We have no representation, except by those Democrats who have the guts to stand up and say what is really happening. I would do anything for those people. But I will not lift a finger or give a dime to a Democratic Party that is dissing its Chairman and neglecting its base.

    I am so disgusted. Do they actually think that passionate and intelligent people like thousands of people in this community would have an iota of interest in the Democratic Party if it weren't for Howard Dean having the guts to call Bush out on his lies? They are sorely deluding themselves. If there is any enthusiasm about the democratic party it is because of Dean, Conyers, Boxer, McDermott, Kennedy, Feingold, Slaughter and the Congressional Black Caucas in general. (I am sure there are some good Dems I have forgotten but I include them as well even if they are not named here.)

    Biden and Richardson do not make me want to commit to the Democratic Party. If all we can expect out of them is exercises in impression management, they are absolutely useless and clearly, clearly they haven't got a clue about the serious trouble we are in as a country.

    It is really a case of Nero fiddling and Rome burning. These self-centered, self-promoting, wimps.

    The completely, unmitigatedly corrupt administration which has fascist tendencies, is the problem and not Howard Dean.

  •  Dean's crime (none / 1)

    Howard Dean's crime, according to the elitists in the media and his own party, is that he is making character attacks on Republicans.

    As if this never worked... Since like 1968 Republicans and conservatives have been impugning the integrity of good, honest Democrats (and some not so honest). Look what it got them! Time was, conservatives like Newt Gingrich was also unacceptable to the elitists in the media and their own party. Now look where they are!

    We've been playing nice. We've been pressing the issues. Where did it get us? The media already doesn't respect us. The Democrats that the media doesn't criticize have names like Lieberman and From.

    Dean is bomb throwing. Dean is name calling. Dean is doing his best to make Republicans seem like bad people...

    IT'S ABOUT GODDAMNED TIME!!!

  •  Actually... (none / 1)

    ...my bet is that it is you who will be owing Howard Dean an apology...come November 2006.
  •  Jesus Fucking Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!` (4.00 / 2)

    Have none of you diarying motherfuckers bothered to go back and read the six gajillion diaries of several months ago about George Lackoff?

    Cannot you not see that this is the beginnign of a fucking frame?

    Talking about "truth" is so fucking besides the point.  Its nice that it is true, but its irrelevant!

    Dean is creating his own fucking truth.

    Please. Wake. The. Fuck. Up!

    John McCain a/k/a John Sidney "Grampy McSame"

    by MRL on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:30:57 PM PDT

  •  Good for Dean (4.00 / 2)

    In the rush to spin the truth of these statements as a defense of Dean we lose sight of their negative impact on the larger strategic objective.  Truth is not an adequate defense --

    Dean is not the one spinning to explain himself. It is lilly-livered  DINOs who are well trained to  roll over like submissive dogs to a calculated repug-media barrage against Dean.

    The repugs recognize the threat that Dean presents to them. That is why they have the US corporate media focused on message to turn  any Dean statement into an "scandal" (I swear I must have heard that same Dean  "White Christian Party" audio snippet played accros Fox/NPR/CNN/MS-GE/CBS/ABC 30 times between noon and 6 pm today. If that is not organized repetition/drum-beating intended to create a perception that Dean said something "terrible"  I don't know what is.) [Funny how none of the US corporate media tools played up the really  terrible  news that >6 US troops were killed and ~8 more were wounded today]

    Dean was one of the very few Dem that said it straight up that Bush was lying to Americans about taking America to war.  And the Repug-media and DINOs were deriding him back then for it too. Shows you the quality of their judgement.

    I don't think anything  the DINOs disapprovingly say now against Dean is worth taking seriously.

    And by this point, no thinking Dem should take the Repug-cotrolled US corporate media seriously on anything of a political, economic or foreign policy  nature.

  •  the tunesmith ground (none / 0)

    sorry to find the middle ground that isn't really the middle ground again, but the way I see it is this:

    If you look at what Dean really said, it was nothing.

    The impact of Dean's words are hurting, in some ways.

    Those seem to be the two things there.  I think that there are too many people claiming "no damage!"  I also think there are too many people claiming that Dean's doing damage.

    The problem here is that the media and the GOP (and some Dem consultants) are deliberately spinning Dean's words, and the spin is doing damage.  We shouldn't pretend they aren't scoring some hits here.  But it's also wrong that this is Dean's fault.  I do think this is worth discussing and being alarmed about, because we should be rallying to find more ways to hit the people back that are actually causing the problem.

    Dean does do some stuff that bothers me.  I didn't mind these last two things, but I was really bugged to hear about him mimicking Rush doing drugs.

    •  The damage is self-inflicted... (none / 0)

      And it's causing a circular firing squad.

      This is no issue without Biden's hairbrained comments.

      I don't think anyone on this blog will disagree that a lot of the Republican Leadership hasn't put in a honest day's work in their life.  Dean could have stuck in an extra word.

      The quote about Republicans being primarily white and christian is a FACT.  Look up any poll in the last few years.

      •  Biden (none / 1)

        Dean's words were being shopped around.  It was already an issue - if it hasn't been, Biden wouldn't have been asked.  I think both Biden and Edwards were probably surprised to see those particular excerpts of their many daily words being excerpted all over the media and the net.  Biden didn't cause this problem.  Neither did Dean.
        •  I think that is a great point (none / 0)

          Democrat politicians never get so much corporate media coverage as when they say something that can reflect badly on themselves, or upon a fellow Democrat.

          It is entirely possible that the barrage of "negative reactions" from Edwards, Richardson, Biden were simply unguarded off-the cuff responses to something that was posed as an off-hand informal question in the midst of a totally different setting/context.

          I did not see any of the videos of the above's allegedly "disapproving" reactions given (just text quotes) on today's barrage of  corporate media  "Dean's outrageous" stories to see what the context was in which they were given.  Could be they were media set-ups too.

    •  You have hit the piano key on the head (none / 0)

      or something like that. As far as I am concerned I am sick of the Dems pussyfooting around. I love Dean's bluntness and I also happen to think he                   is telling the truth, but they will not let him get away with anything.

      Marc Racicot used to lie continuously and now Kenny Boy Mehlman has taken up the baton in his place. They sit there like the programmed, inauthentic bullshiters and liars they are and get away with one long continuous string of lies. Then Howard says something blunt but true and we have Democrats at each other's throats.

      This is exactly what the Republicans want.

    •  Good points (none / 0)

      But in a sense all this is new, which is good.  Yes, the media has already pigeonholed Dean into a screamer, beyond the pale, and we know how much the media loves to find a frame and stick with it.

      But he's shaking them up by actually pressing hot buttons, and somehow I think that new Democratic party unpredictability will prove advantageous by forcing the media onto new terrain.

      So yeah, for now it all sounds kind of pug ugly.  But I don't think Dean is stupid, though the media wants to think so.  (And after all, actual stupidity hasn't hurt you know who.)

      So maybe let the Dean-bashing rope-a-dope continue for a while and see what happens.

  •  "Truth is not an adequate defense"???? (none / 0)

    I can't believe you actually wrote that.  

    I can't believe anyone wrote that.

    That sounds like something Donald Rumsfeld would say.  

    Sorry, pal.  All I want is the truth.  If you can't handle it, switch parties.  

    "Letting a Republican govern is like letting a pedophile babysit"

    by Nordic on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:41:30 PM PDT

  •  Don't agree (none / 0)

    I think Dean has been doing a fantastic job, raising tons of money, helping Dems organize in the reddest of red states, and exposing the neo-con Bush Repubs as the lying, corrupt scum they are. And it's working! The money flows in, Bush's ratings are plummeting and Republican corruption is slowly being exposed, starting with DeLay and moving on to Oxley, the Blunts and Burns.

    The Republicans are scared. They know Dean is starting to turn the tide. And they have no way of stopping their problems except by attacking the Dems. And since Dean is being so successful, he becomes their main target. And, of COURSE, the Republican lap-dog media just goes along with it.

    Well go Dean! I for one will continue to fight and contribute thanks to Dean finally standing up to the corrupt neo-Con liars.

  •  I disagree with yor premise, matey. (none / 1)

    THe goal is NOT to "separate" moderates from the GOP. THere are no Republican Moderates, They are known as "Independents", and they outnumber both the Republicans and us. And in reality, registered Democrats as a whole are probably more "moderate" than the Independents, because today, registered Democrats are very often legacy Dems, working class midwesterners, and black people. I think there's a more eclectic mix there. Most "Independents" are "Independent" because they have strong opinions that fluctuate easily when someone comes up with a pr