Dean calls for end to GOP divisiveness & for Democratic party unity

Bush has divided the country and fostered hate - all to keep the GOP in power. I often ask myself how could someone who professes to be a Christian knowingly set one American against another.  St Peter is not going to be happy with Bush & Rove when they show up at the Pearly Gates

Howard Dean in Florida

Howard
BRIAN SKOLOFF
Associated Press

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Down with divisiveness was the message Wednesday delivered by Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean as he told a group of Florida business leaders that Republican policies of deceit and finger-pointing are tearing American apart.

Dean called President Bush "the most divisive president probably in our history."

"He's always talking about those people. It's always somebody else's fault. It's the gays' fault. It's the immigrants' fault. It's the liberals' fault. It's the Democrats' fault. It's Hollywood people," Dean said. "Americans are sick of that. Even if you win elections doing that, you drag down our country."

Dean spoke to about 240 business leaders in Palm Beach County at a gathering of the Democratic Professionals Forum as part of a nationwide grassroots campaign to get voters involved in politics on a local level ahead of the November elections.

The Republican agenda "is flag-burning and same-sex marriage and God knows what else," Dean said. "We need real change in this country. We're in trouble."

Dean on Nouri al-Maliki

Dean also lashed out at President Bush's Iraq policy and at allowing Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to address Congress on Wednesday, calling the foreign leader an "anti-Semite."

"We don't need to spend 200 and 300 and 500 billion dollars bringing democracy to Iraq to turn it over to people who believe that Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself and who refuse to condemn Hezbollah," he said.

Don't know if I agree with Dean on Nouri al-Maliki. I'm ambivalent.  I don't feel that I have studied the Middle East enough to have an informed opinion.  

•  Dean's right -

  The Republican agenda is like throwing a string of weenies to the guard dogs so you can break into a house.  Distraction!

  al-Maliki is blaming Israel for its behavior.  I'm not sure if that's appropriate, but certainly Israel is behaving like America - striking first, not taking no for an answer, and continuing to bomb because they feel they have the moral upper hand.

  by Jensequitur on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 01:43:22 PM PDT

•  Oh this is good

  "We don't need to spend 200 and 300 and 500 billion dollars bringing democracy to Iraq to turn it over to people who believe that Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself and who refuse to condemn Hezbollah," he said.

  How can anyone argue that, Repub or Dem? We can argue that Israel is being heavy handed now, but no one argues that they cannot defend themselves. We must always help Israel stay protected. (The problem is that that doesn't mean we have to invade their Arab neighbors.)

  by chemsmith on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 01:44:00 PM PDT

  •  I just called office and

    made my views known. Rove is brilliant. Cold day in hell when I agree with Pat Buchanan more than the Democratic Party. They've been looking at old polls instead of reading current blogs.

    by mattes on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 01:47:16 PM PDT

    •  Rove Rove Rove Rove Rove

      Stop blaming Rove. Better look at our core values and let Rove go to hell.

      The day we start arranging our behavior to outsmart Rove is the day we circle the drain and go down to defeat.

      Better to get a handle on what we really believe in and figure out if it is right (or wrong).

      Screw Rove.

      by arubyan on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 04:16:40 PM PDT

•  Holy dangling Modifiers!

  Just teasing you a bit - but the diary title makes it sound like Dean's calling for an end to party unity as well as divisiveness.

  by Mikey on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 01:46:22 PM PDT

  •  That was the title of the article.

    Probably too late but Tips please

    by Kitty on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 02:21:38 PM PDT

    •  I've updated

      the title though maybe I would have gotten more hits if I left it as is. ( * _ * )

      by Kitty on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 02:24:20 PM PDT

•  I thought that Maliki was a Semite.

  I know that bush is not a Christian.

  by Friend of the court on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 01:47:52 PM PDT

  •  The point of the statement was to

    a) help appease Jewish Democrats by standing up for Israel.
    b) appease the anti-Israel wing of the Democratic party by bashing the Iraq War.  

    by DemocraticLuntz on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 01:50:50 PM PDT

    •  'Oh, what a tangled web we weave....' n/t

      by Friend of the court on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 02:02:10 PM PDT

    •  Only I don't get 'b'

      Bashing Maliki isn't "bashing the Iraq War".  Maliki's the elected Prime Minister of the only legitimate government that country has and, while I HATE that fucking war, the fact is he got there more legimitately than any Iraqi leader has in decades.  In any case, Maliki isn't the issue in terms of the war.  It's not like he's doing anything all that wrong -- he's holding together his government as well as he can.  The issue is Bush not planning well enough to get the damn job done, lying to get us into the war, and not managing his resources well to reconstruct the place.  Maliki's left holding the burning bag of dog shit, but it's not his fault he has it.

      We love to make pretty speeches about democracy, but when an elected leader represents the positions of his people we attack him.  That's absurd.  Iraq has A LOT more to do with America's national interest than Israel does right now.  And I say that as someone who thinks Israel has the right to pursue threats to its sovreignty -- although they're going about it in an alienating way.

      by ChicagoDem on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 02:02:43 PM PDT

      •  I think the big issue

        is that Maliki refuses to denounce Hezbollah.  I agree that it is a problem, and Dems are being very shrewd politicians by bringing this up.  

        by andy k on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 02:05:37 PM PDT

        •  I think they're being idiotic

          What good does it do the United States to force the leader of a state with one of the biggest Shi'a populations in the Middle East to publicly denounce Hezbollah?  The civil war in Iraq is a problem that transcends this conflict in Lebanon, as well as our current election cycle -- we will be dealing with it for decades.  The Democrats shouldn't be trying to make it harder for the US-supported government there to maintain control.  I'd much rather pass up a slam at Bush's war if it helps us maintain even a little bit of control over Iraq.

          by ChicagoDem on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 02:10:21 PM PDT

          •  Sorry, but Mr. Maliki is a World Leader

            It is time that he got used to it.  The RIGHT thing to do is denounce terrorists who are, along with Israel, causing the deaths of hundreds of innocent people. Not to mention hezbollah's extremely violent past.  

            If Mr. Maliki supports Hezbollah, than Dean has a point.  Why should we consider the election of a gov't that supports terrorism as "progress" in Iraq?  Sorry, but Maliki has not done the right thing by refusing to admonish Hezbollah, his political situation aside.  Dean and other Dems are calling him on it.

            by andy k on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 02:26:27 PM PDT

            •  That's silly

              Much of Maliki's support base is made up of people the US has or would easily call "terrorists".  The relationships between different ethnic groups and political factions are much more complicated in that region than here, and to insist that he issue all of his public statements along the lines of American definitions of "terrorists" in defiance of the sentiments of his constituents is unreasonable.  It's particularly absurd when you're holding him up to the United States Senate, in which many members voted on everything from the PATRIOT Act to the war based solely on domestic political considerations.

              Just as a reminder, most liberals were outraged that Bush was asking European leaders to join the "Coalition of the Willing", precisely because he was asking them to ignore the wishes of their constituents.  Yet we're prepared to ask the same of Maliki, even when the stakes are so much higher for both him and us.

              by ChicagoDem on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 02:35:04 PM PDT

            •  Maliki is Bush's hand-picked puppet

              by arubyan on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 04:24:49 PM PDT

          •  Only Nixon could go to China.

            What good does it do the United States to force the leader of a state with one of the biggest Shi'a populations in the Middle East to publicly denounce Hezbollah?

            Once upon a time a leader could take a bold position. He could stand for right over wrong. He could take a risk. He could lead his people in a different direction.

            Should we really be surprised that Bush's hand-picked leader of Iraq is a small-minded short-sighted man?

            by arubyan on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 04:24:02 PM PDT

            •  He's a democratically elected leader

              Nixon could go to China because he had a huge influx of ex-Democrat white racists in his party ready to let him do whatever the hell he wanted on foreign policy as long as he kept the civil rights movement from getting any further than it already had.  Had China been the major focus of domestic politics at the time, Nixon almost certainly couldn't have gone.  Politics always matters, and when it comes to the issue of opposition to Israel, the vast majority of Iraqis are much closer to Hezbollah's position than the United States'.

              Yeah, the US intervened in his selection, but he WAS one of the most democratically elected Iraqi leaders in the history of the country.  And he IS still accountable to an elected Parliament.  All the Dems would do by forcing him to stand with us instead of the Iraqis is inch him closer to assasination or deposition.

              by ChicagoDem on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 04:43:42 PM PDT

      •  Whatever happened to right and wrong?

        We love to make pretty speeches about democracy, but when an elected leader represents the positions of his people we attack him.

        I most certainly do NOT support Maliki and it is because he is wrong. W-R-O-N-G.

        You might disagree, but there you are.

        BTW, according to your logic we should not attack Tom DeLay (or whomever) -- he is "an elected leader" and he "represents the positions of his people."

        Baloney.

        Whatever happened to right and wrong?

        by arubyan on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 04:21:10 PM PDT

        •  Very different things

          Attacking Tom Delay doesn't HURT us in any way, and it helps the cause of good.  Attacking Maliki just accelerates the civil war and hurts even our poor efforts to keep a lid on Iraqi violence.  Iraq has nothing to do with the conflict in Lebanon.  Maliki's government is NOT supporting Hezbollah, though he may profess ideological sympathy.  His statement has literally zero impact, other than building political support at home.  Where's the cost-benefit there?  Whether or not you think he's "W-R-O-N-G" is immaterial, it's what the Iraqi people think that matters.

          I never supported Bush's war, but I'm not rooting for the Iraqi government to fail now.  Frankly, in their calls for Maliki to reject a majority political position in his country in order to satisfy our vanity, the Dems are sacrificing our (already limited) ability to keep the lid on the violence in Iraq.  Who does that help in the long term?

          For what it's worth, many "mainstream" liberal commentators agree with me, including the folks over at The American Prospect.

          by ChicagoDem on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 04:55:52 PM PDT

          •  Part of the problem or part of the solution?

            I never supported Bush's war, but I'm not rooting for the Iraqi government to fail now....their calls for Maliki to reject a majority political position in his country in order to satisfy our vanity, the Dems are sacrificing our (already limited) ability to keep the lid on the violence in Iraq.

            I don't give two craps about Maliki -- any "leader" who doesn't lead is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

            I don't care if 99% of the people support Maliki.

            Even to a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.

            by arubyan on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 06:54:07 PM PDT

    •  I think (b) is more...

      bashing our massive amounts of spending going down the drain on the Iraq war, and to highlight the Bush hypocrisy of spreading democracy, when it looks like we instead spread out a new Islamofascist regime.

      by BruinKid on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 03:43:27 PM PDT

•  Dean calls for an end to BUSH's divisiveness

  The dairy title is slightly off...it is Bush's divisiveness that Dean is objecting to, rightfully so.  Dems have differences, but that isn't the point of the dairy.

  Bush won elections among other ways, by emphasizing the scare tactics and meanness and fear and divisiveness that are out there to be exploited.  Rove, his cheif advisor and the smear specialists have done a bang up job.

   And in the process they have brought the credit and standing of politicians to as low as its been since Tammany Hall and the worst of the graft corruption years in the 19th  century.  When you have to go back 120 years or more to find another low point like this, you realize what a miserable wretch Bush and his clique of liars and thieves really are.

  by Pete Rock on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 01:51:32 PM PDT

•  Dean Drinks the AIPAC Koolaid

  Apparently Nancy Pelosi finally got the electrodes attached to his tender bits and Dr. Dean saw the light.

  by greenskeeper on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 02:17:30 PM PDT

  •  Dean & Party Unity

    is not running for any office.  You can't assume that the statement is his personal view.  He is the spokesman for  Democratic Party. He may be just practicing "Party Unity"

    by Kitty on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 02:29:11 PM PDT

    •  This Isn't Likud

      ....and the "Israel Right or Wrong" engine isn't at the head of the Democratic Unity Express.

      by greenskeeper on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 02:38:06 PM PDT

      •  Wise up, pal

        Likud ain't what it used to be, and invoking their name doesn't mean what you think it does.

        by arubyan on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 04:26:27 PM PDT

        •  Listen Bub

          I'm not sitting at the back of the bus just because Chuck Schumer and his shabbos goy Pelosi wanna ride up front and tell the driver where to turn right and take the whole damn thing off a cliff.

          by greenskeeper on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 04:37:51 PM PDT

  •  It's all about politics, smart politics, may i sy

    by firestorm on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 02:30:30 PM PDT

  •  So it's Maliki over Dean?

    Amazing, simply amazing.

    I'm...speechless.

    by arubyan on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 04:57:12 PM PDT

    •  False Choice

      If you believe that's the choice at hand, you need to think about it rather more carefully while you're speechless.

      by greenskeeper on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 05:15:53 PM PDT

      •  Please tell me more

        I'm stunned to find that a guy with 90% approval rating at dKos has been tossed under the bus by (wait for it) the pro-Maliki wing of the Democratic party.

        Please tell me more.

        by arubyan on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 06:45:48 PM PDT

        •  You're Just Making Shit Up

          There's no "tossed under the bus."

          I figure that with any luck, he'll metabolize whatever was in that Koolaid in 24 hours.

          There's no "pro-Maliki wing."

          I do plead guilty to being a card-carrying member of the "please extend typical meaningless diplomatic courtesies to a visiting head of a puppet regime and leave the ritual AIPAC pandering out of it" wing.

          Apparently that nuance escaped you.

          by greenskeeper on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 07:00:46 PM PDT

•  Gone bonkers..

  What is going on with all this support for one side...Two soldiers were taken and they destroy a country and thats alright....Have they all gone off the deep end..Israel is just as evil as Hiz...I usually agree with dean but not on this...

  by bayside on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 02:36:48 PM PDT

•  Just as evil?

  I think the difference some of us see is this:  Israel does not want to destroy every Arab, every Muslim, every enemy of any stripe...while their enemies have been heard to say their goal is the same as the Nazis...eliminate every Jew from the face of the earth, the most important focus of which is the state of Israel.

  Because of their history, most recently WWII, many of us now understand when Jews say, "Never again."  Never again will they be in a situation where their very survival is threatened as a people.  Never again will they ignore reality and hope for the best, only to end up in concentration camps and ovens.  Never again will they do as they're told and trust others to save them.  They know they must save themselves.  They are the ultimate realists.  What, I wonder, would we do in their place?

  Survival brings out basic human elements we seldom confront except when we perceive that the chips are down.  Remember "Alive?"  "The Donner Party?"  What does it take to be a survivor?  That question comes into play when I consider actions I do not agree with by the state of Israel.  I have not 'walked in their moccasins' so I cannot be so sure what the 'right answer,' the 'unevil answer,' is in every situation.

  by oldpro on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 03:21:24 PM PDT

  •  Oops....meant to respond to Bayside...n/t

    by oldpro on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 03:22:20 PM PDT

•  And yet, according to Drudge

  He made a comparison between Catherine Harris and Stalin and also referred to the Iraqi PM as an anti-Semite.

  Really guys, if this is what Dean did, don't you think it turns off the middle?  Aren't his comments a bit devisive?

  Best regards,

  by USAFguy on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 06:01:10 PM PDT