Is Howard Dean screwing up as DNC chairman?

[Mr. Moto]

This subject has come up in several threads lately, and seems to deserve its own discussion.

Howard Dean has now been DNC chair for several months, and the early results don't look promising. It seems to me that he has taken a bombastic strategy designed to rile up the base, rather than efforts to build the party and its warchest.

Fundraising for the Democrats in the first quarter of this year was less than half of the Republican effort. And while Dean has been talking to labor and state party groups in an effort to shore up the base, his counterpart, Ken Mehlman, has been talking to minority groups in an effort to peel even more voters away from the Democrats.

Source for much of the above.

I realize it's still early, and that Dean could still turn things around. But he hasn't even named a political director yet, the fundraising will continue to be a problem, and Dean's rhetoric is so hot that people in the middle could easily be chased away.

Anyway, that's my entry to this discussion, and I'm curious how it looks to other folks.

[XT]

This kind of says it all IMHO and goes with my hispanic thread (which didn't really ever get off the ground):

Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, is courting black and Hispanic voters on a regular basis. Beyond the usual run of speeches, fundraisers and meetings with donors, he has visited Latino neighborhoods and historically black campuses. He has attended black-oriented receptions and ceremonies, spoken to minority chambers of commerce and raised money for Otto Banks of Harrisburg, Pa., a black city council candidate new to the GOP.

Dean, who reaches Day 100 as Democratic National Committee chairman Monday, is for the most part speaking to diehard Democrats who are the backbone of their party. He's addressed Democrats in nine states dominated by Republicans, such as Kansas and Mississippi, and in party strongholds such as California and Massachusetts. He's spoken to labor unions, gay-rights groups and state party chairs — all pillars of the party.

Bolding mine. Its a good contrast, and shows the different strategies. Which will be more effective in the long term? IMO courting minority groups (especially hispanics) and showing them that perhaps they have more in common with republicans (especially on the quasi-religious type issues) will probably pay off more in terms of voters moving over than attempting to energize your base...after all, most of them are already going to vote for you. In that respect I don't think Dean is doing the job he needs to do if the democrats expect to pick up some seats in '06.

I'm interested in seeing what some democrats have to say though...do THEY think Dean is doing a good job, thats really the question.

-XT

[Marley23]

I'm not informed enough, but I'll just point out that since the Republicans and Democrats are in rather different positions right now, it only makes sense that their chairmen are pursuing different strategies.

My general impression is that the union base has been dying a slow death for a long time, so perhaps spending a lot of energy on that is a bad use of time.

However you can see right there in xstime's post that Dean is speaking to Democrats in traditionally Republican areas, and I can tell you as somebody who regularly gets his e-mails that that's always been part of his strategy and a one of the positive signs he points to. I do think that makes sense and it's a form of outreach, not just speaking to the base.

[BobLibDem]

Money talks. Though Democrats will never be able to match the Republicans in fund raising, under Dean the Democratic National Committee raised $3.4 million in three weeks - more than double the amount raised during the same time in 2001

Nobody casts their vote based on who the chair is. But money does buy votes. And if Dean is the most effective fundraiser, then he's right for the job.

[pdx_craig]

It seems to me that Dean is not the sort of person who would be best at taking the Republican strategy. He is at his best when riling up the base. Going after republican states is probably better (for him) than focusing on swing voters that are turned off by him anyway.

There were still a lot of people who didn't vote last election. More than enough to have changed the results. What Dean is probably trying to do is give the impression that the Democrats are not Republicrats and that there is actually a choice so it's worth getting up off of your ass and voting.

Democrats where not excited about Kerry. I believe it's because he didn't provide a real alternative, he was simply "Anyone but Bush." I can't cite at the moment, but I seem to remember that likely republican voters were more enthusiastic during the last election.

[Kimstu]

Mr. Moto: Fundraising for the Democrats in the first quarter of this year was less than half of the Republican effort.

But as Bob noted, the Dems simply don't have as deep pockets as the Republicans, so that's only to be expected. We need to establish mutually agreed-upon criteria for what counts as "screwing up" before we can answer the question in the OP.

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Money talks. Though Democrats will never be able to match the Republicans in fund raising, under Dean the Democratic National Committee raised $3.4 million in three weeks - more than double the amount raised during the same time in 2001

Nobody casts their vote based on who the chair is. But money does buy votes. And if Dean is the most effective fundraiser, then he's right for the job.

Money does indeed talk, BobLibDem. And a party that can raise $3.4 million in three weeks won't be as effective against one that recently raised $15 million in a single night.

As to your first claim, about Democrats always having less money, weren't you one of those trumpeting the fact that the Democrats outraised the Republicans late last year?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

As to your first claim, about Democrats always having less money, weren't you one of those trumpeting the fact that the Democrats outraised the Republicans late last year?

I think the whole reason that was news was that the Republicans had a HUGE adventage going in.

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Mr. Moto: Fundraising for the Democrats in the first quarter of this year was less than half of the Republican effort.

But as Bob noted, the Dems simply don't have as deep pockets as the Republicans, so that's only to be expected. We need to establish mutually agreed-upon criteria for what counts as "screwing up" before we can answer the question in the OP.

Please note what I said about Democratic fundraising last year, which was quite good. This link demonstrates this.

And I don't know if we can come up with strict success-failure metrics until the next election, at which time things will be crystal clear. But when Howard Dean calls Republicans "evil", I see it as counterproductive to his own cause, and not the way I'd approach business. You, on the other hand, might just love it.

If you think he's doing great, just say so. I'd love to hear why.

[BobLibDem]

The Dems indeed did a fine job last fall in raising funds. But on the whole, the Republicans are going to have an edge in raising money year round.

The questions I see are:
1) Is Dean raising more money than was raised by his predecessor? Based on the first few weeks of his tenure, I'd say that's true.
2) Could anyone have done better? Hard to say. But given his proven ability to raise funds online in 2004, I don't think other Democratic contenders can come close to him in this regard.
3) Do we need a high profile guy? I think so. We need to keep the energy going. Dean's message resonates with the Democratic faithful. Keeping them on board is job 1.

[Kimstu]

Mr. Moto: But when Howard Dean calls Republicans "evil", I see it as counterproductive to his own cause, and not the way I'd approach business. You, on the other hand, might just love it.


And I thought we were so happy together, in our ideologically-adversarial-but-mutually-respectful style. Was it something I said?

[Mr. Moto]

I'm not trying to bait you, just pointing out that there can be a difference of opinion here.

I started this thread in large part to hear those other opinions.

I'm sorry if that came off poorly.

[Patty O'Furniture]

IMO courting minority groups (especially hispanics) and showing them that perhaps they have more in common with republicans (especially on the quasi-religious type issues) will probably pay off more in terms of voters moving over than attempting to energize your base...after all, most of them are already going to vote for you.

2004 post election analysis seems to be that Karl Rove felt that the swing voters did not exist - or if they did, the weren't going to be motivated enough to come out in droves. So he just kept pumping up the base.

All conventional widsom pointed to undecideds swinging towards the challenger. So, driving resources into the base seems to have worked.

[Mr. Moto]

I think that may be confusing the short term goals of a candidate and the long term strategy of a political party.

For instance, nobody thinks the Democrats can take the House next election cycle. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be working toward this eventual goal.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

And I don't know if we can come up with strict success-failure metrics until the next election, at which time things will be crystal clear. But when Howard Dean calls Republicans "evil", I see it as counterproductive to his own cause, and not the way I'd approach business. You, on the other hand, might just love it.
.

I think it's counterproductive as well. Along with adds loke the new MoveOn add with elephants charging the white house. There ar elots of moderates, republicans, democrats and independents that don't like this administration.
We need to have a realistic and respectful dialogue aimed at those people.
If ypou use the same nasty superficial tactics that your opponents use then you're no better. People tune out that kind of rhetoric and turn off to being involved.

[Calliope]

I don't think Dean's performance can fairly be measured against his Republican counterpart, but rather against his Democratic predessessor. In this regard, he's doing as best a job as can be expected this early in the game. He had a lot of damage to repair. Terry McAuliff was extremely ineffective as chairman. As has been noted, Dean is outperforming him in terms of fundraising and he is riling up the base--which had been apathetic at best before his tenure.

It's not reasonable to expect him to outperform the Republican party at this point. First he must lay the groundwork, then he can join the competition.

I think he's doing a great job, and in large part it's because his personality is a refreshing contrast from politics-as-usual Terry.

[Kimstu]

Mr. Moto: I'm sorry if that came off poorly.

No problem, I obviously just misunderstood you. My apologies. Carry on.

[Kimstu]

cosmosdan: Along with adds loke the new MoveOn add with elephants charging the white house. There ar elots of moderates, republicans, democrats and independents that don't like this administration.

To be fair, that ad did explicitly praise the "courageous Republicans" who were said to be standing up to the radical ones represented by the charging elephants. A lot of people reacted to that image as a sweeping criticism of all Republicans, but that wasn't what the ad was actually saying.

[rjung]

Congressional Democrats appear to be growing a spine recently, most notably facing down Bush on Social Security and DeLay's "nuclear option" filibuster-busting plans. Can those successes be attributed to Dean, as well?

[Mr. Moto]

I don't think so, and neither would I pin any Republican legislative successes on Ken Mehlman directly. Far more credit would go to the party leadership in the House and Senate, of whichever party you're talking about.

The head of the DNC (or RNC) would be far more concerned with fundraising, party building, party organization, and candidate recruitment.

[elucidator]

He's doing OK. The only reason he's getting so much attention is that he's Howard Dean. His position is almost irrelevent. Were he not DNC, he would still be making speeches and raising money/conciousness, and the Tighty Righty would still be howling with outrage at all the outrage, etc. etc. (Cue "The Scream"). After all, Ward Churchill can only be inflated so far, eventually they have to talk about something else. Ain't gonna be our glorious success in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's for sure.

The momentum is shifting, but not because of Dr. Dean, but Dr. Dobson, Dr. Frist, and thier merry band of rabid slugs.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

Fundraising for the Democrats in the first quarter of this year was less than half of the Republican effort.

Wasn't it pretty much the same in 2004, when the Dems were energized and going all gangbusters? Problem is, the Pubs will always raise more money than the Dems so long as their base is richer than the Dem base. Don't compare Dem fundraising under Dean's leadership to the Pubs' fundraising, compare it to Dem fundraising under previous party leaders.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Well, I'm disappointed in the OP. Very much so. I disabused you of some of this nonsense only this morning with this post here. It appears that it may have even prompted this very thread, at least in part. However, you continue to spout much the same nonsense.

As others may read in the link, Howard Dean is setting records for off-year fundraising. Comparisons between fundraising now and last year, during the run up to a presidential election, are completely inappropriate in terms of estimating relative performance.

The link I gave you also shows Gallup poll numbers that show Dean's approval rating among the general population going up over time, not down. So it is hard to support an argument that his "hot rhetoric" is chasing anyone away.

But you knew all of this already, and still you created this OP? Wow.

Further, as I said in the link, it's great to have money, sure, but it doesn't seem to be helping the Republicans very much, since not only are they falling on their ass repeatedly as if they were trying to run on ice in terms of their own agenda (Schiavo, filibuster, Social Security) but they are also falling like stones in terms of public polling. I realize you said that you don't put stock in polls, but you should put stock in the actual effectiveness of your party, right? Love to tell you that they are presently eating a big shit sandwich. At least they have a bunch of money to pay for dessert.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by pdx_craig

What Dean is probably trying to do is give the impression that the Democrats are not Republicrats . . .

Which, unfortunately, is not true, and changing that is probably beyond Dean's power.

[elucidator]

But not beyond ours.

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

Well, I'm disappointed in the OP. Very much so. I disabused you of some of this nonsense only this morning with this post here. It appears that it may have even prompted this very thread, at least in part. However, you continue to spout much the same nonsense.

I just felt the subject was coming up enough to warrant its own thread. How you handle your disappointment is your own business - although, as a Democrat, you should have had lots of practice by now.

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

As others may read in the link, Howard Dean is setting records for off-year fundraising. Comparisons between fundraising now and last year, during the run up to a presidential election, are completely inappropriate in terms of estimating relative performance.

And I just reported in this thread that it is actually Ken Mehlman that is setting records in off-year fundraising, and big records at that.

Now, an apples-to-apples comparison is handy at times, 'tis true, but sometimes you have to compare that apple to other things, Can't be helped. And if you want to state that Dean is doing better than any Democrat before on that score, that's fine. I can, though, ask if that's enough.

If the Democrats lose more ground in 2006, will you be satisfied that at least the fundraising had improved, and keep going forward with the same game plan? If not, why wouldn't an examination of that plan before the election be wise?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

I just felt the subject was coming up enough to warrant its own thread.

And isn't that in and of itself an interesting observation. Why is this subject coming up? Why are Novak and Drudge and Mr. Moto raising a charge (based on dubious interpretations of the data) repeatedly about Howard Dean at this point?

And I just reported in this thread that it is actually Ken Mehlman that is setting records in off-year fundraising, and big records at that.

Now, an apples-to-apples comparison is handy at times, 'tis true, but sometimes you have to compare that apple to other things, Can't be helped. And if you want to state that Dean is doing better than any Democrat before on that score, that's fine. I can, though, ask if that's enough.

But your point, originally, was that fund-raising under Dean "has completely fallen apart." You've softend that here to "the results don't look promising." How so? Because we aren't outpacing RNC efforts? Okay, show me when we have in the past, and tell me why I should be so disappointed with record breaking numbers?

If the Democrats lose more ground in 2006, will you be satisfied that at least the fundraising had improved, and keep going forward with the same game plan? If not, why wouldn't an examination of that plan before the election be wise?

I continue to be mystified by conservatives memories and faith in the persistence of their political success, as if it is somehow independent of real world events. I presume, but don't know, that RNC fundraising efforts outpaced DNC efforts in 1992 and 1996, but the results were Democratic victories. I presume, but don't know, that Democrats have had less money than Republicans for quite some time, yet their congressional domination has been for a scant decade.

Will you be pleased with having more money in 2006 but losing seats?

[Psycho Pirate]

Well, I will admit that I am a hard-line conservative and thus have a biased view of Dean, but it seems to me that he is doing rather poorly. I can point to several statements in his Meet the Press appearance last Sunday as examples of this.

Originally Posted by Howard Dean on Meet the Press

He [Bush] basically wants to turn over Social Security to the same kind of people who gave us Enron. Privatization is something the America people don't support by a very large margin.

The first sentence is simply emotionally charged political spin. The second sentence is either true or false depending on who you ask and on what polls you are using to back up the statement. I can go out on the web now and find vastly different results for "supporting privatization". It's too facile to sum it up in the way Dean does here. Later, he goes on to say that the Democratic agenda for Social Security is "leaving Social Security alone, except for the tweaks that may be needed to fix it." Huh? His main beef about Bush's fix for Social Security is that Bush "wants to privatize it." He never mentions the fact that people have a choice on where to put their money, and that many of the other retirement accounts on Capitol Hill are similarly privatized, but here my bias is showing quite clearly, so I will desist.

I'll not quote all of his "argument" against the constitutional/nuclear option of changing the filibuster rules, but he basically said that he supported up or down votes ("So then what's the problem, Mr. Chairman?" I would like to know.), and that the Democrats are basically doing the same thing the Republicans did when they were in the minority (except that the Republicans bottled the nominations in committee as opposed to filibustering). So, on closer review, he had no argument.

He made a huge blunder when he confused Saddam Hussein for Osama Bin Laden, stating

Originally Posted by Howard Dean on Meet the Press

"But the thing that really bothered me the most, which the 9-11 Commission said also wasn't true, is the insinuation that the president continues to make to this day that Osama bin Laden had something to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States. That is false."

Bush would have been crucified for a similar mistake, but I have not even seen it mentioned from any source other than the conservative blogs.

He went on to refuse to apologize for saying that Tom Delay should "serve his jail sentence", but never addressed Russert's salient point that Dean earlier (circa 2004) said that we shouldn't pre-judge Bin Laden. He just waffled. Not that I'm surprised. He is, after all, a politician. Further, he refused to apologize for mocking Limbaugh's drug addiction. I am no fan of Rush, and there is certainly plenty of things to make fun of him for. But...the leader of the DNC? I just don't think it's wise. And he's still saying it.

He went on to say other "brilliant" things, including "Our [Democrats] moral values, in contradiction to the Republicans', is we don't think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night." Yes, Dean. You have crystallized it. Republicans think kids should go to bed hungry at night. There aren't enough rolleyes in the world.

His view of African Americans in the Democratic party is one I can almost get behind.

Originally Posted by Howard Dean

African-Americans are annoyed with the Democratic Party because we ask them for their votes four weeks before the election instead of being in the community now and that's a mistake I'm trying to fix," he said. "There's a new generation of African-American leaders and a new generation of African-Americans. We can't go out and say could you vote for us because we were so helpful during the civil rights era.

Almost. He is certainly right about the way the Democrats abuse the African American vote, claiming they will fight for them and then just ignoring them. The only point of disagreement I have is with the "we were so helpful during the civil rights era". I don't really view weak support and barely voting for the civil rights bill as "being helpful", but to each his own. Biased source, but facts are facts

I could go on, but I won't. Suffice to say, I'm just glad he's not the chairman of my party.

[XT]

Er...I'm unsure why you think that most of your points about Dean would be considered bad by Democrats Psycho Pirate...who would be the ones to judge how Dean is or isn't doing. I seriously doubt that the majority of the points you made would be ones that Democrats would consider 'bad'.

I agree that it seems Dean is a more effective fund raiser than those who came before him in the job...but fund raising isn't everything. If Dean is indeed not going after the minorities agressively (especially this theoretical 'latino' group I keep hearing about) but ceeding that to the republicans, then I don't think he's doing a good job. To me the proof will be in the pudding...we'll see in '06 how the Democrats rebound from this last election and if they make any additional gains, or if the Republicans continue to advance. Personally I feel there is a lot of amunition out there for the Dems to us against the Pubs...but WILL they use it, and how effective will they use it? I don't know. To me it looks like the Republicans are screwing up by the numbers...but that the Democrats don't seem to be able to do anything about it.

Where is a nice strong third party when you need one?

-XT

[Ravenman]

Let's get real here, folks. Complaining about how the Chairman of a political party is doing is like complaining about how poorly an executive producer may have done in his work on some movie. In the end, no voter cares about what the hell Lee Atwater, Ron Brown, Howard Dean, or Haley Barbour said or did.

Candidates win and lose elections, not party chairmen. I maintain that you could have put a sickly chimpanzee in as head of the RNC in 2003, and Bush's devistating attacks on Kerry in the spring of 2004 still would have won the election for him.

Whether or not Dean is doing a "good" job is about as important to politics as whether Paul Bearer was a "good" manager for the Undertaker in WWF wrestling.

[DoctorJ]

Bush would have been crucified for a similar mistake, but I have not even seen it mentioned from any source other than the conservative blogs.

On the contrary, Bush has confused Hussein and bin Laden more than once in the past, most notably in the first Presidential debate against Kerry. There were some rolled eyes, but he was hardly crucified, as evidenced by the fact that you don't even remember it. That's because it was a pretty obvious slip of the tongue, as it was for Dean.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Psycho Pirate

Suffice to say, I'm just glad he's not the chairman of my party.

I'm glad he's not the chairman of your party too, Psycho.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by DoctorJ

... but he was hardly crucified, as evidenced by the fact that you don't even remember it. ....

Well, now, hold on, Doc. We ought to give friend Moto's suggestion a fair examination. I probably would be entirely satisfied with resignation in disgrace, Nixon-style, but I would be willing to consider more extreme sanctions. As an example to the younger generation.

[JohnBckWLD]

(Conservative National Review Editor) Richard Lowry's spin on Dean's May 22nd appearance on Meet The Press: Just Another Dean Disaster - Nastier & More Shaky On The Facts Compared To The Disasterous 6/2003 Russert Interview

• Dean, reading from a list of DeLay's crimes, "I'm not judging him...there's a reasonable chance this may end up in jail...but we're not going to stoop to the kind of divisiveness (of the GOP)...We ought not lecture each other about ethical shortcomings"
• WMD in Iraq: "I thought there probably were..." but "we (including Kerry) were told that by the president" (even though Kerry was on the record talking about Iraqi WMD prior to Bush's election)
• "I don't know anybody who thinks abortion is a good thing" and "I'd prefer to see medical practice boards around the country, state by state--because people do believe different things about this in different states. I'd prefer to see medical practice boards around the country set ethical guidelines for abortion" (Which would require the overturn of Roe v Wade)
• He was off by $5000 on the SSI tax cap
• "...The president continues to make to this day that Osama bin Laden had something to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States. That is false." (Oops, he mean Saddam).
• "Abortion has gone up 25% since GWB took office" (Unsubstantiated - no data to back-up the claim)

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

And isn't that in and of itself an interesting observation. Why is this subject coming up? Why are Novak and Drudge and Mr. Moto raising a charge (based on dubious interpretations of the data) repeatedly about Howard Dean at this point?

My impression was that a lot of these articles were being written because the "first 100 days" benchmark had been reached.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

But when Howard Dean calls Republicans "evil", I see it as counterproductive to his own cause, and not the way I'd approach business.

Not to change the subject, but leading Republicans routinely refer to Democrats as evil. Why is that OK for them, but it's bad for Dean to do it?

Is there some sort of dynamic I should be aware of here, or is this just another IOKIYAR bit?

[rjung]

Iokiardi.

[Plan B]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Not to change the subject, but leading Republicans routinely refer to Democrats as evil.

cite? especially the routine part.

[SpartanDC]

Originally Posted by Psycho Pirate

His view of African Americans in the Democratic party is one I can almost get behind.
Almost. He is certainly right about the way the Democrats abuse the African American vote, claiming they will fight for them and then just ignoring them. The only point of disagreement I have is with the "we were so helpful during the civil rights era". I don't really view weak support and barely voting for the civil rights bill as "being helpful", but to each his own. Biased source, but facts are facts

First of all, Psycho Pirate, let me say that I agree with you fully that Dean bombed on "Meet The Press." I like Dean quite a bit, and I could not have been more annoyed with his non-answers and fumbling.

But that has no bearing on his abilities as a DNC Chairman. None. The only standards a party chairman can ever be judged upon are fundraising and winning elections. The party chairman is usually not "the message guy." Leave that to the leaders in Congress or, if a party is so blessed, the president.

Dean is beating his predecessor, who was a money-raising machine, in the fundraising arena. I would also guess, and I admit this is waaaay early in the game, that the Democrats will make gains in the House, though there's no way they'll win it before the next round of redistricting. Is this due to Dean? I don't know. With Social Security and Schiavo, the Republicans aren't exactly helping themselves out right now in the eyes of the public.

As for your "facts" from a biased source, you know as well as I do that many of the Democrats who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act would be Republicans today. In fact, some of them became Republicans. At that point, Strom and the boys were DINOs -- Democrats In Name Only.

[DMC]

This is one of the most disingenuous OPs I've seen in a while. Mr. Moto, you could give a flying fuck about helping the Democrats win elections, you just want them to become more like Republicans so that when the country eventually realizes how stupid they've been, you won't be faced with true liberal. Aren't we expected to debate honestly in this forum?

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

Consider that Dean was a moderate, pro-gun, pro-business governor. The Democrats need far more folks like him running the show.

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

Just a suggestion, but you Democrats might want to have your preeminent national event more tightly scripted.

This would avoid disasters like Teresa Heinz's speech, and really present an opportunity to sell your candidate.

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

For liberals to win again, and do so past a protest vote against George Bush, they'll have to regain credibility on those issues of basic security. The trouble is, they aren't even making an effort to do so, preferring instead to concentrate on issues of justice and equality that fall more within their comfort zone.

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

I believe, though, the Democratic party would fare better in presidential elections (and in other races, where they've been losing ground) by nominating moderates instead of dogmatic liberals like Kerry and the 2000 incarnation of Gore.

You know what? We don't need your advice. Hell, I can tell you exactly how the Democrats could win every election for the next 10 years. We simply stick with our current platform, except we come down hard against the gays. The Dems would probably have enough seats to override a filibuster if we did that.

There's just one problem. That would suck. Unlike the Republican leadership, who like to pretend that they don't know that they're appealling to the most racist members of this country, I'd rather lose every election in every state before I'd use bigotry to win elections.

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

I'm not an idiot, you know. If I vote for John Kerry, and he gets in, he's going to do things I don't like. I'll avoid this problem by not voting for the man in the first place.

Here's the meat of it all (and finally some honesty). It doesn't make one whit of a difference what the Democratic Party does, how they do it, or who they do it with. You want them to lose.

[Mr. Moto]

Look, if you think Dean is doing fine, just say so. Or not. I'd love to hear your opinion one way or the other.

But please leave my motivations for starting this thread out of it. Really, all I was after was a good discussion and some more insight into Howard Dean's support.

I have a healthy interest in a strong Democratic Party, even though I am a Republican. If you had researched my posts further, you would have known that this is an opinion I have held for some time.

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto, 4/22/04

The Democratic Party is in terrible condition, nationwide. Where once they dominated the statehouses and governors' mansions, today they have lost tremendous ground to the Republicans. They used to hold power perennially in Congress, now they don't. They may get it back, true, but they won't hold it for a generation ever again.

A true liberal Democrat hasn't been elected to the White House since 1976, and his presidency was a miserable failure. Both of Bill Clinton's victories were achieved with a major spoiler candidate running, and by co-opting many Republican issues. John Kerry is not pursuing this last strategy.

This should be a signal that many Democratic positions aren't ones that Americans in general share. If these questions are laid to rest as essentially settled issues in American politics, I believe there would be a resurgence in the fortunes of the Democrats, and a more healthy debate on national issues.

...If this point ever came, I probably still wouldn't vote Democratic, because of honest policy differences. But I wouldn't fear for my country if an election were to not go my way once in a while.

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto, 11/19/04

Please understand me. I concede that I'm a quite partisan Republican and a generally conservative guy. But I have a great interest in a strong Democratic Party, one in touch with the voters [i]across the country[i], and genuinely responsive to the country's needs.

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto, 1/4/05

I believe a healthy two-party system has generally served America well, moderating our politics and stabilizing our political system greatly.

Right now the Democrats are in bad shape, a state largely self-inflicted. I'm not so blindly partisan that I see Republican electoral strength as a given, nor do I welcome Democratic weakness. And being from the Pittsburgh area, I'm well acquainted with lots of honorable Democrats, many of whom are to some degree alienated from the national party.

I think your selective quoting of me is the disingenuous action here.

Perhaps my proposed solutions aren't ones you want to implement. That's fair. But accusing me of arguing in bad faith is another thing entirely, and I promise I haven't been doing that.

[pdx_craig]

{b]DMC[/b],
You know just before this was posted, I had posted in a different thread how I would like to see a "How's Dean doing so far" kind of thread. Granted " Is Howard Dean screwing up as DNC chairman?" is a little more loaded way to phrase it, but I think it's something many of us are curious about. I don't think it's too late for this thread to have some interesting content regardless of Mr.Moto's alleged motivations.

[elucidator]

Well, he could be trying to undermine the monolithic unity of the left.

[DMC]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

Look, if you think Dean is doing fine, just say so. Or not. I'd love to hear your opinion one way or the other.

It's way too soon to tell how he's doing, in my opinion.

But please leave my motivations for starting this thread out of it. Really, all I was after was a good discussion and some more insight into Howard Dean's support.

I'd happily do that, if your motivations weren't so patently obvious. Even in the threads which you yourself cite, your main thrust is still the same. You basically repeat over and over again that the Democratic party would be better, if only they would become more like the Republican party.

I have a healthy interest in a strong Democratic Party, even though I am a Republican. If you had researched my posts further, you would have known that this is an opinion I have held for some time.

No, you've wanted a Republican Party-Lite that names itself the Democratic Party, so that no matter who wins an election, you'll have your way on the issues. When you start telling us that we need more pro-gun, pro-business, pro-defense types who focus on homeland security, you're not trying to "strengthen" the Democratic Party.

I have a healthy interest in a strong Republican Party, even though I am a Democrat. The difference between us is that I want the Republican party to actually return to its roots (smaller federal government, state's rights, etc.), not become more like the Democratic party.

I think your selective quoting of me is the disingenuous action here.

Hell, even the quotes you selected demonstrate what I'm saying, so I'm not being disingenuous at all. Are you selectively quoting yourself to look bad? You want us to be more like you, and tell us that we'll be a better Democratic party if we are. If you truly want to play this card, I'll happily go find more posts, and post them fully, so context can be appreciated, if you wish, but you're doing a fine job without my help.

Perhaps my proposed solutions aren't ones you want to implement. That's fair. But accusing me of arguing in bad faith is another thing entirely, and I promise I haven't been doing that.

Unless you truly believe this country needs two parties, the Republican Party, and the Republican Party, Jr., then yes, I think you're arguing in bad faith. Hell, it would be like me telling you that the Republican Party would be stronger if only they'd be pro-choice, anti-death penalty, consumer protecting, socialized medicine advocating peaceniks. Wouldn't you find me disingenuous if I proposed such a thing?

[DMC]

Originally Posted by pdx_craig

You know just before this was posted, I had posted in a different thread how I would like to see a "How's Dean doing so far" kind of thread. Granted " Is Howard Dean screwing up as DNC chairman?" is a little more loaded way to phrase it, but I think it's something many of us are curious about. I don't think it's too late for this thread to have some interesting content regardless of Mr.Moto's alleged motivations.

I too would be happy to participate in such a thread, and either we can steer this one back that way, or start another one, but the OP has repeatedly tried to explain to us what is wrong with our party, and he's repeatedly been wrong. It was time to call him on it.

To try and get back to the topic, as I noted above, I think it's too soon to tell for me. What's your take, and what do you base it on?

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by DMC

No, you've wanted a Republican Party-Lite that names itself the Democratic Party, so that no matter who wins an election, you'll have your way on the issues. When you start telling us that we need more pro-gun, pro-business, pro-defense types who focus on homeland security, you're not trying to "strengthen" the Democratic Party.

I have a healthy interest in a strong Republican Party, even though I am a Democrat. The difference between us is that I want the Republican party to actually return to its roots (smaller federal government, state's rights, etc.), not become more like the Democratic party.

Actually, when I call for the Democrats to become more pro-gun, pro-business and pro-defense, this is a call for the Democrats to return to their roots.

[XT]

This doesn't really relate to the thread much, but since it involved Dean I figured I'd toss it in:

Originally Posted by The Biography of a Bad Statistic

Finally, as recently as May 24, 2005 , Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean also asserted on NBC News' Meet the Press:

Dean:You know that abortions have gone up 25 percent since George Bush was President ?

Dean's "statistic" went unchallenged by moderator Tim Russert, so millions of viewers probably got the impression that Dean's very specific 25 percent figure was correct. But Dean was wrong -- and by a wide margin.

It really shows how easy it is to manipulate people (especially politicians) with bad statistics if it says what they want it to say. It will be interesting to see if any Dopers start a thread about how abortion has risen under Bush...and how that thread progresses.

Anyway, sorry for the hijack. Carry on.

-XT

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by DMC

This is one of the most disingenuous OPs I've seen in a while. Mr. Moto, you could give a flying fuck about helping the Democrats win elections, you just want them to become more like Republicans so that when the country eventually realizes how stupid they've been, you won't be faced with true liberal. Aren't we expected to debate honestly in this forum?

Wow, tears of laughter over that post. Someone defending John Dean by calling the opposing party stupid.

John Dean simply reminds potential donors that someone as socially challenged as himself made it to the Democratic Primaries. Not exactly money well spent. He’s been shooting his mouth off from day one, which just makes it worse. His job is to raise money for the Democratic cause and as such he sets the tone.

James Carville would have been a much better choice for the job. He can ramble on indefinitely without screaming incoherently or reverting to name calling and he always maintains a high level of energy. He’s even mellowed a little over the years. Plus he cooks up a good omelet when called upon.

I’m on record as saying Dean was the wrong person for the job but if the powers-that-be want him I’m in full support of it.

[squeegee]

John Dean? How Fruedian. :wally

[DMC]

Originally Posted by Magiver

Wow, tears of laughter over that post. Someone defending John Dean by calling the opposing party stupid.

Feel free to point out where I defended Dean in that statement. Otherwise, you're just tossing punches at a strawman. I also didn't call Republicans stupid. I was referring to people who put Bush in office, which is a group that includes Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, etc. I do apologize for making that "stupid" statement, however, as it is not really germane to the topic at hand, and is also too broad of a generalization to be completely accurate.

John Dean simply reminds potential donors that someone as socially challenged as himself made it to the Democratic Primaries. Not exactly money well spent.

Socially challenged? Want to give us specifics?

I’m on record as saying Dean was the wrong person for the job but if the powers-that-be want him I’m in full support of it.

Well, considering that you think that Bill Clinton was a socialist, I'm guessing we're not going to be attempting to court your vote, but we'll keep your opinion on Dean under advisement nonetheless.