Given the trajectory of the current Republican Party, I’m inclined to be glad it’s Dean.
Not entirely sure what kind of chair he will be but at least it’s not likely to be a La-Z-Boy.
I like some of his politics. The point is that I don’t think the statement affects his ability to be effective, nor do I think you can say he’s likely to do more harm than good based on a few comments he made before he even got the job.
name me a Rep who doesn’t hold Dems in contempt? They may not come out and say it–but having been demonized in the press for the last 4 years, I can’t think of solid, Bush approved Rep who doesn’t look at the Dems askance.
With Dean, you know what you’re getting and you know where he stands. God knows what the Dem party needs is clarity of vision and some solidarity.
Works for me. Time will tell.
But that’s the point: no one knows anything about Gillespie’s politics, and he doesn’t do much in the way of publicly promoting specific programs- he runs below the radar.
Dean, by contrast, is attached in the public mind to some very specific viewpoints (most notably, being completely against the Iraq war and in favor of immediate pull-out) and it raises the question as to whether he’ll run below the radar (focusing on raising money and upgrading the infrastructure) or whether he’ll publicly attach himself- and by extenstion, the Democratic Party- to certain causes.
If you can’t tell the difference between “look at the Dems askance” and “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for”, I suggest you take a couple of steps back and try to refocus.
The way I look at it: Dean is a bomb-thrower akin to Newt Gingrich. Gingrich showed that a shrewd and organized bomb thrower could turn the political world upside down and catapult a minority party into power. Gingrich also showed that, once said bomb thrower was given the reins of power, he tended to do more harm to his party than good.
I guess Democrats are hoping they’re going to be on the path of “bomb thrower gets a minority party into power” rather than “bomb thrower makes lots of leadership mistakes and verbal gaffes because he’s a bomb thrower, not a leader, and therefore sabotages his own party” path.
Running below the radar is not a comforting thought, frankly. Especially from a party that cries Freedom and Patriotism as much (ad nauseam) as the GOP. Gillespie better hold to the party platform, no? Or is that type of tranparency distasteful to Reps?
Re: the “bomb throwing”–well, that’s your guess. To me, alot of current politics comes down to how much you trust or distrust the various pols. I trust Dean much more than any neo-con, because I can follow his thinking and he doesn’t seem to need to wrap his speeches in flag waving rhetorical nonsense. You disagree (apparently)–fair enough. However, I have no real beef with moderate Reps–I just wish there were some in power or at least had the ear of the Leader of the Free World. The GOP has been overtaken by the conservative wing, to it’s and the country’s detriment.
My “askance” comment was me being tactful–I meant that I have never seen such vituperation. To give examples: being accused of treason, of being unpatriotic and smearing a vet’s record etc by the GOP is hardly being looked at askance, I was just being polite. The Reps have done and do do a good job of marginalizing/demonizing the opposition. Strange how they cry foul when it is done to them.
Long term, grinding the opposition down is not a good strategy, IMO. USA works best with moderate leadership and open debate–not demonizing and manipulation of the press to the extent that we see today.
Believe me, I live in a predominantly GOP area–and the nonsense spewed about liberals and Dems would be funny, if it weren’t so sad. Apparently, I am one step above a sociopath for holding different POV’s and for daring to critize the great god, W.
I see no reason to apologize for strong feelings–and the cries of “you’d better watch who you pick as DNC chair, it could bite you in the ass” are just so disingenous–none of us can say what will occur if Dean is picked.
Sorry if I am using you to vent my frustrations on the ignorance of my friends and neighbors.
It’s not a question of whether bomb throwing is a good idea or not. It’s a question of where to throw the bombs FROM. The DNC chair is not the right place.
And it’s not the right place to outline a new vision of what Democrats stand for. Even if successful, it’s counter-productive. The reason people like Bush is because they know (or think) that BUSH stands for something, that his decisions come from his values and convictions, not what the Republican party chair tells him what he should stand for this week or even this term. Someone like Obama can speak with true conviction about what it means to be a Democrat because he’s speaking for himself. Dean thinks it’s his job to speak for Democrats. But getting to sign fundraising letters, having lots of federal money to play with in campaigns, and having DNC letterhead doesn’t make you King of Democrats. Most elected politicians will balk if they get told that they should start opposing the war in their red state districts. If you want to make policy, what you do, see, is you FIRST GET ELECTED TO SOMETHING. And sorry, but getting elected in a race that doesn’t include Republicans doesn’t count.
I don’t think he’d have gotten the amount of support he has in this race if he hadn’t managed to persuade party leaders and insiders that he’s not going to be out of control and take over the party himself.
Apos -I don’t think that Dean wants to be King of anything. I think he believes in the Dem platform and as Chair, he is in the best place to help the party.
I have no doubt that what you are saying will also be said by the neo-cons and the GOP. They will spin this toward the negative and replay that damned speech (out of context etc) again and again: that is their job–to discredit all Dems. They are good at it. Never mind things like truth and decency etc.
There was a time when I believed that people(pols) could have differing opinions and still respect one another and treat their opponents with civility. The neo-cons changed the tone in Washington (more ironic words were never spoken by Bush) and now we have politics at its worst.
I think that those opposing Dean will be on the pounce for any and all perceived weaknesses etc. And I think he’s ready for 'em. I doubt that he’ll be throwing many (if any) bombs. That is not the focus (or should not be) of the Dem party right now. If I had my way, I would let the neo-cons overplay their hands and watch them be hoist by their own petards, but that’s just me. Dunno what course Dean will steer.
But in what way? His ideas seem to include quite a lot of stuff that I don’t think really fits very well with the actual position. A celebrity DNC chair is a potentially very bad idea, no matter who it is that sits there.
Well, this is sheer speculation on my part, but IMO he will function somewhat as a figurehead–a coalescing point, as it were.
I dont’ see where he radically differs from the party platform, frankly.
I also don’t know just how much attention is paid to a party’s official platforms by the people who profess to be of either party. I know plenty of Reps who are pro-choice, for instance.
It’s out of our hands; all we can do is sit back and watch things unfold–I am sure that there will be plenty to comment on! 
Could you expound on that? What ideas don’t fit? And why do you think a “celebrity” DNC chair is potentially bad? Is there an example from the past you are using, or is it just an opinion (based on ???)?
The neocons fear him. Not “true” conservatives, or “moderates”, or so-called “swing voters” - the neocons. He’s not a “loony leftist”, or even particularly liberal, by current US standards. For example, check out his ratings by Cato. When he was Gov. of Vt., he faced the wrath of the more left-leaning constituency, on numerous occasions, for that very reason. Because he’s not a left v. right ideologue.
And that is why the neocons fear him, because they are not left v. right ideologues either. He’s someone who can fight them on their terms.
And, right now, that is where the battle is. Not left v. right. All this talk about “moving left” or “moving right” or “appealing to the center” is bullshit. The danger lies with the rise of the neocons, and their plans for an imperialist, proto-fascist govt. The battle is authoritarian v. populist.
The neocons couldn’t care less about “moral values” voters. There is no moral value in the neocon philosophy. Sure, they’ll use the “moral values” voters and the “religious right” when it serves their purposes, but left on their own, they engage in “insect” politics. Ends justify the means, period.
I think Dean understands this. IMO, Dean is the best candidate available at this time to deal with them. It’s not about party politics. The stakes are much higher now. Time for something different, even if it defies the tradition of what a DNC chair should be.
As someone who finds the Republicans more representative of my priorities, the following answer from Dean makes me rub my hands together in evil glee:
“But we will not win by being “Republican-lite” – Democrats must have the courage of our convictions. Every chance we get, Democrats need to stand up for what we believe in, frame the debate, and call for reform. Each time that we do this we drive home the point that our progressive agenda is right where the majority of Americans are.”
Shout it from the mountaintop, Howard.
My emphasis. Precisely my point.
Evil One is just parroting the approved GOP talking point for Dean.
Because the Democratic platform is where the majority of Americans are.
See, they’ve got to convince everyone otherwise - to convince everyone to vote against their own principles. In this past election (assuming the irregularities weren’t a factor - a big assumption, but I’m going with it for now), the majority of Americans did just that - they voted against their own interests.
Dean is the best chance of changing that. And they know it.
Don’t fall for the bullshit.
Dean is a conundrum. On the one hand, I disagree about as much as its possible to without being an Objectivist with his ideals, policies, and goals. On the other, I consider him one of the few high-profile democrats that have ideals anymore. I have a sneaking suspicion he’s as honest a man as you’ll find in government (not the only mind you, but an honest man), but he’s an oddball. Fortunately, he doesn’t have to be a spokesmen, and I admit I have a certain admiration for someone as forthright and outspoken about what he believes in. He reminds of Bush. Yes, I know you consider it an insult. Dean with it. (groan)
From a purely tactical view, I imagine that he may lay the groundwork for a democrat revival, but it won’t happen in his term. He’s too contraversial, and he’ll pull the party even further left and alienate more voters. Thus, he’d be good for my side. Being outspoken about your beliefs is a good idea. But I think Dean is fundamentally too unwilling to compromise to be a good chairman.
Dean is a conundrum. On the one hand, I disagree about as much as its possible to without being an Objectivist with his ideals, policies, and goals. On the other, I consider him one of the few high-profile democrats that have ideals anymore. I have a sneaking suspicion he’s as honest a man as you’ll find in government (not the only mind you, but an honest man), but he’s an oddball. Fortunately, he doesn’t have to be a spokesmen, and I admit I have a certain admiration for someone as forthright and outspoken about what he believes in. He reminds of Bush. Yes, I know you consider it an insult. Dean with it. (groan)
From a purely tactical view, I imagine that he may lay the groundwork for a democrat revival, but it won’t happen in his term. He’s too contraversial, and he’ll pull the party even further left and alienate more voters. Thus, he’d be good for my side. Being outspoken about your beliefs is a good idea. But I think Dean is fundamentally too unwilling to compromise to be a good chairman.
So your accusing us a grand conspiracy? Dean couldn’t even get his own party’s moderates behind him. How was he ever going to get America?
If a majority of Americans favored the progressive agenda, the Republicans would not control both houses of congress, the White House and the majority of Governorships. Moving left will be political suicide for the Democratic party.
Unless you’ve got a substantive reply, the smiley will suffice for now…
I agree with Evil One. And his reply was the truth: the Republicans do have control of the majority of the government, and will retain it for the foreseeable future.
Here is another GOP talking point for you (it also happens to be true):
The Democrats are woefully out of touch because of their clusters of support in mainly urban centers. Added to this, they have no clear base, but instead are trying to get by appealing to a conglomeration (with emphasis on the glom) of several minority groups with conflicting priorities and values. Thus, Dean’s typical daily schedule will be:
0900: Attend African American church service, claim support for their values (majority are pro-life and not exactly tolerant of homosexuals)
1100: Attend NARAL meeting, claim support for their values (pro-choice)
1300: Attend GLAAD meeting, claim support for their values (not exactly intolerant of homosexuals)
1500: Attend Move-On sponsored anti-war rally, claim support (Anti-war, among many other things)
1700: Attend a Retired Veteran’s benefit (majority are pro war)
Not to mention trying to appease both unionized construction workers (pro-city-growth) and environmental activists (pro-tree-growth).
Good luck, Dean. You will really, REALLY, REALLY need it.
Nice strawman. But I’ve got a creative imagination too…
Show me a cite: re: what the majority of Americans want or believe in and we’ll talk. Until then, it’s just more GOP talking point bullshit…