The more exercised the righties are about Dean, it seems to me, the better the job he’s doing. Didn’t see too many posts recommending that we better get rid of Terry McAuliffe, or proposing that he is doing a bad job.
Keep it up, Howard Dean. You’ve got the blowhards a-blowin’.
I know this was partly in jest, but the problem is, this has already happened in many races, and it makes no difference. Take Virginia. There’s a Democratic Lt. Gov who has no plans to take guns away from anyone. But, he happens to think that the gunshow loophole should be closed and that the limit on only being able to buy one handgun a month is a reasonable way to stop gun stockpiling and trafficing. That’s pretty much the extent of his “evil” gun control agenda. Plus he’s the leader of an immensely successful and popular program called project exile which was basically a one-strike and yer out law where if you used a gun in a crime, you got hard hard time. The NRA loved it. And yet, when it comes time for statewide election, to the NRA and Republican activists, he’s portrayed as being no better than Barbara Striesand. In short, there’s no catching a break from these guys. Reality doesn’t factor into it.
Pretty much, Democrats already HAVE caved on gun control. But to hear the NRA and Republicans tell it, your hunting shotgun has NEVER been more in danger!
Take Virginia indeed, as that state was the one I used in my last example. In the governor’s race between Republican Mark Earley and Democrat Mark Warner, the NRA was officially neutral. Warner won, in large part because the NRA wasn’t mobilized to defeat him.
If there’s a race where one candidate figures better on gun rights than the other, the NRA will endorse that candidate. This really shouldn’t surprise anyone.
If one of the candidates was a city mayor who used city funds to send anti-gun activists to the Million Mom March, the NRA will likely oppose that person, and for good reason. I’d like for you to explain why you believe this opinion to be unfairly held, Apos.
Yes, here’s hoping they do.
That’s definitely better than them feeling as you do, because then they’d have to wipe their asses with the Bill of Rights. Did you actually have something to contribute to this thread?
I think you must have accidentally posted in the wrong thread. This one is about Howard Dean, not Ann Coulter, and on a side note, even though she does have that huge Adam’s apple, I don’t think she’s a “him.”
No, it’s Dean all right.
Although your analogy of “Dean as the Coulter of the Democratic party” is not too far off.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually, yes. I thought it might be considered a hijack, so I refrained from commenting further.
The Democratic party is at a crossroads at the moment. This is a subject that has been discussed in numerous other threads. Dean represents what I would call the “loud and proud” faction. The other side would be the ones leaning toward moderation and away from the special interest constituencies.
I believe that “loud and proud” is the wrong choice for the Democrats. I’m sure that you and others are absolutely passionate and committed to your principles. However, you are numerically outnumbered. And the further left you go, the more of a problem that becomes.
The path back to a competitive status on a national level for the democrats involves stepping away from socialism and special interest pandering and toward fiscal and national security responsibility. People are not going to vote for a party that they think can’t protect them and wants to spend their money like water through a firehose.
I happen to think that every time Dean opens his mouth for another “red meat” comment for the faithful, a moderate voter walking toward the Democratic tent hears it and turns away.
I’ve pointed this out several times, but only Mr. Moto has attempted to answer it, and then only weakly. If the Democrats are at a crossroad, they seemed to have finally turned the right way. Since Dean took over, along with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the Republicans have not only been falling in the polls (both Bush’s numbers and the opinion of the public regarding congressional Republicans) but the Republicans have been suffering a series of significant defeats (Bush’s primary focus, his shadowy Social Security plan, has been a huge albatross around their necks, the Schiavo matter, the filibuster, the Bolton nomination…), and it looks possible that Bush may be forced for the first time to veto a bill, a politically popular bill overturning his own ban on stem cell research.
Dean’s approval numbers (polling the general population) have even climbed slightly, and his fundraising is going like gang-busters.
This idea that he is causing damage to the Democrats is really only a conservative fantasy. If you have any means to support the assertion, please let’s take a look at it.
The only real results will come in November of next year, Hentor. Anything before that will have partisans on both sides playing up victories and minimizing defeats. Since the Republicans are in charge, it’s easy to see anything that doesn’t go completely their way as a “defeat” for them…but the only way that fortunes will change for the Democrats is to reverse the trend in the House and Senate.
If the Democrats do not make gains in either house, will you concede that things are not going well for the Democrats these days?
Hentor,
Specifically regarding Dean, if he is such a beacon of hope, then why did Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano not embrace him when he visited Arizona a couple of weeks ago?
The answer, of course, is that she did not want to chase away moderates in a state where Democrats have trouble getting elected.
I await your spin.
Could be. Maybe she just doesn’t like him. Universal approval is not a deal breaker for the job. Or perhaps its just as you suggest, a strategic maneuver in a largely conservative state, which, nonetheless, appears to have elected a Dem to be governor. Dr. Dean might even have approved.
Fine. As long as you are admitting that your observations above were nothing more than partisan ramblings with no basis in fact, and in contrast to reasonable measures of the current state of things.
The Conservative fantasy is that Howard Dean remains DNC Chairman. If you hear the words “Go Dean Go” it doesn’t mean we want him to leave, it means keep up the good work. He has bi-partisan support on his current efforts.
He needs to clear some brush. That’s what he needs to do, get out there, put on some virile, manly work gloves and clear some brush. Too bad he’s not in a position to bullshit us into a war, darn the luck!
Partisan ramblings are in the eye of the beholder, Hentor. Remember it’s “ideology uber alles”. Some of us just can’t admit it.
Well, at least you admit you can’t admit it. First steps, very important.
Don’t be obtuse, luci…
This is great debates. I’ve pointed to the DNC fundraising: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/8/15236/84353
I’ve pointed to polling numbers, which say that:
people want Democrats in control of congress
Bush’s job approval ratings are spiraling downwards
and I’ve pointed to political realities regarding Bush’s and the Republican’s agendas.
I say again, if you have any other metric by which to judge Howard Dean’s performance, or any evidence in the above categories that supports the assertion of the OP, please present it. Otherwise, you are just looking foolish. Present your evidence or shut the fuck up.
But that’s just it, isn’t it? Dr. Dean’s performance is so bad, the major damage inflicted upon the Bushiviks is inflicted by Bushiviks! Admittedly, that sets the bar pretty darn high, but still…
If your last post was addressed to me, Hentor, it appears that you have found some data that gives you hope. We’ll see in about a year and a half.
As far as the OP goes, the question is “Is Howard Dean screwing up as DNC Chairman?”. I think with his inability to avoid inflammatory rhetoric, the answer is yes.
If your standard is off year fundraising, then he appears to be doing well. It remains to be seen if it is well enough. To me, the following questions are at the crux of the matter:
Does Dean attract more people than he drives away?
Will he say something off the cuff that will be problematic for the eventual Democratic nominee?
Can he keep the money rolling in?
At this point, as someone who is ideologically opposed to Dean, I am still happy to see him in charge of the DNC.