I support Simon Rosenberg for chair.

[justy329]

Howard Dean has been branded by the media as a left-wing crackpot who is weak on defense.

We do not need a household name for chair. Ken, the GOP chair, is unknown. Why should we put Dean out there as the face of our party when his campaign imploded. During this time of instability in our world, we can not have someone seen as "weak" being our party's leader.

Therefore, I must eliminate Dean from the running. Of the remaining six, I think Simon Rosenberg is the best. He has a proven track record of results. He does have the passion. Look at this piece he made: http://www.newdem.org/media_library/rap/rap_2004/promise_trailer.html
It just shows me that he understand why it is so important for Democrats to win. When I look at Tim Roehmer, I don't feel he understands how Democrats make life for Americans better. Because he is pro-life and voted for Bush's tax cuts and voted against Clinton's '93 economic package, I question his resolve for fighting for our issues.
I do not support Frost mainly for photogenic reasons. I am afraid that Frost comes across as dorky and aging. While I personally am not one to judge by looks, I know that the American people are a very shallow bunch and they might be turned off by his baldness and his nerdy math teacher look. Also, I have read reports that he is the type that loves the centrist wing.
Rosenberg has been working for years for our party and he clearly wants to do well at this job.

I invite you to do the research on your own. I have concluded, for myself, that Rosenberg is the best choice. In terms of second choice, I would say Wellington Webb. He was a strong mayor and has served as vice-chair of the DNC, so he also knows what he's doing.

[newsguyatl]

1. you've convinced me!

simon "i love the war" rosenberg's our guy :eyes:



btw, welcome to du

[justy329]

2. thanks n/t

[madfloridian]

3. "The war was a good thing..." Simon Rosenberg

[MaineDem]

46. Where and when was this said? (nt)

[yinkaafrica]

4. I appreciate Dean more and more as time goes by

Dean as DNC chair would be a damn good start.

[BornaDem]

24. Me too! And I liked him from the beginning of the campaign...

The more I see of him and listen to him, the better I like him.

[Eloriel]

31. Weak

During this time of instability in our world, we can not have someone seen as "weak" being our party's leader.

Oh, baby. The LAST thing people will think about Dean is that he is weak, once they get to hear him.

But, yes, let's let the media spin select our leaders for us -- nevermidn what the TRUTH is (such as: Dean is anything but WEAK, on any subject you can name), let's just pander and kowtow and crumble in the face of inaccurate public perceptions created by our enemies. That'll work WONDERS for the party -- not to mention the country.

Blech. :puke:

[eg101]

5. I don't support Rosenberg: he's a neoliberal working for corporate power

I do not support neoliberals like Rosenberg.

[w13rd0]

6. Rosenberg...

...has done a good job of campaigning for the position without resorting to slamming on everyone else. I clicked the thread because I thought someone who supported him might do the same, presenting positive reasons to agree with their choice. Furthermore, you say that the chair need not be known, but then diss Frost as dorky, aging and unphotogenic.

I'll continue to watch Rosenbergs campaign for chair, but if you do support him, posts like this do his candidacy no favors.

[Old and In the Way]

7. No sale.

Simon would be OK.....Howard would be great.

Who cares what the media thinks? They'll distort whoever the person is that's elected to the DNC chair.

Howard has the pulse on the Party. He knows electoral politics. He knows governing. He's pragmatic and right on issues of importance. He was effective in grassroots organizing and fundraising. He knows the value of the internet for communicating, raising money, and mobilizing. He represents a fighting image and that'll be important in firing up the base.

I think he's perfect to lead the Party into the 2006 midterms..

[justy329]

8. I don't get why y'all are so ga-ga over Dean?!

He's no liberal for crying outloud.
As governor, he was as DLC as they get! He worked to balance the budget at the expense of social programs. He strongly supported the 1996 welfare reform. He supported the death penalty. While I personally don't feel those positions matter as we look at who can best lead our party, if you are going to defend Dean because of his liberal positions, the facts speak differently.

Dean would scare off a big chunk of our base, the Jewish vote, with his rhetoric about how Hamas may not be such a bad thing and his questionable support for Israel in the face of terrorists.

If we let the GOP become the pro-Israel party, we will lose one of our most important and historical voting blocs. Bush has made some troubling ground among Jews, despite the fact that Kerry won 74% of the Jewish vote.

[sherilocks]

10. I strongly disagree with your assertions

1. I support Dean for DNC chair because he opposed the Iraq invasion. Rosenberg says the "war is a good thing." Only 40% of Americans now regard the war as a good thing, and most of them are diehard repugs and bushbots. See the latest NBC poll.

2. I support Dean, not because he is a liberal, moderate, or any other label you care to use, but because he will not knuckle under and run with his tail between his legs from a little pressure from the repugs.

3. The only thing that will scare away the Jewish vote from the Democratic party is the ultra-left wing of the party, some who post here at DU, that believe that anything that Israel does is wrong and anything that the Palestinians do is right. Dean takes a balanced and reasonable approach to both sides. (Check out the I/P forum, I can't elaborate more because of DU rules)

Just an anecdotal observation. When I went to the anti-repug convention in NYC, the NCPJ was handing out signs to the protestors. There were A.N.S.W.E.R. signs and NCPJ signs getting passed out. I watched as almost every protestor searched through the signs to get the ones WITHOUT ANSWER on them, including me. Don't underestimate the intelligence of Democrats in general, and Jews in particular.

[catbert836]

26. Dean's wife and children are Jewish.

So there.

[justy329]

27. He could be a self-loathing jew. n/t

[catbert836]

28. You mean like the Jewish Authority in the Ghettos

during World War 2?

[justy329]

29. what do you mean? n/t

[catbert836]

30. You said that Dean could be a self-loathing Jew

Even though he isn't Jewish. I responded that self-loathing Jews were like the ones the Nazis got to rule over their own people in the Warsaw ghettos.

[Eloriel]

33. Hard to do if you're not a Jew to start with

Isn't it?

[AntiCoup2K4]

39. The only Jewish votes Junior got were the hard right Zionist types

...who are in favor of America fighting Israel's wars for them. Those Jews aren't going to come back to the Democrats (if they ever were Democrats to begin with) just because the chairman is named "Rosenberg".

Besides, Rosenberg has said in the past that he is NOT Jewish, despite the name. I believe he actually said once that his family was the "only Rosenbergs in town with a Christmas tree".

So don't be counting on Simon the DLC'er to save the Jewish vote. Or any other vote for that matter.

[justy329]

41. That may be true.

And, don't forget the orthodox vote who are very, very pro-life.

[mitchtv]

49. cause Dean has a set, that's why

I hate republicans, and everthing they stand for, too.

[imenja]

9. photogenic reasons?

You will not support Frost for photogenic reasons, because he is he is "dorky and aging"? I find that rationale disturbing. When we choose or eliminate candidates based on superficial reasons, we can expect very poor quality service. The current occupant of the White House is a prime example. With that as a basis for decisions, we get the leaders we deserve.

[blondeatlast]

12. Indeed. McCauliffe isn't ready for Hollywood, neither is Mehlman,

for that matter.

I don't give a damn what they look like; they shouldn't be in the public eye anyway, IMHO.

[blondeatlast]

11. There's a very good reason the RNC keeps Mehleman under wraps.

They can't let their worshipful followers find out the truth about him.

[H2O Man]

13. Show us.

Show us how much you support Simon. We know that Simon supports the Bush invasion in Iraq. I think that all of Simon's supporters should be going to the local recruiters, and volunteering to fight in Iraq. I think Simon should be putting his campaign on hold, and joining the National Guard. Prove just how strong on defense he is.

[genius]

14. Okay. Where does he stand on the issues. That's what's important.

I'm serious. Show me where he stands on the environment, the war, the death penalty, universal-single-payer health care, or any information you have on his positions and I may be interested. How about a phone number for his office where I can check him out directly? I'm not the follower-type.

[itzamirakul]

15. Rosenberg is just another "do-nothing" centrist

who will behave in exactly the same way as the DLC has for the past decade. Rosenberg WAS a member of the DLC until he had an argument with Al From so he pulled out and formed his own DLC, giving it the name NDN. Same shit...different day...

[H2O Man]

16. I think he's far worse

than a "do nothing" bump on a log. He's a supporter of the aggressive military policies of the Bush administration. He supports the war in Iraq, and so one can ask the serious question if he supports further military aggression? Does he think that Bush should engage in an attack on Iran? Bomb specific sites consider likely to hold nuclear weapons production facilities?

I'd hope that anyone on DU who is going to advocate that Rosenberg serve as DNC Chair address the war in Iraq and US policy in Iran. And if they are in line with Simon on Iraq, then they should all do what Simon says: put on that uniform and show us that you are serious. But don't ask us to support a candidate that wants his economic class to be exempt from the hell of war. Because we're likely to think that a person like that is more concerned with financial interests, including perhaps some indirect profits from the war in Iraq.

The Bush administration are a pack of jackals, but at least we know their nature. But we often are confused by another type of animal, the vulture. I don't think that democratic vultures are any more attractive than republican vultures. Vultures and jackals are supporting the war in Iraq. And they are promoting war in Iran.

And if any candidate that supports the war in Iraq wants to say, "No, not me. I'm no vulture!" then let them prove it. Not with fine words. Put on that uniform and head over to Iraq.

[itzamirakul]

17. I agree totally with your post and especially

your assessment of those who wear the Democratic label but who support the corporate policies of the right wing. They are the most confusing to me, which quite naturally leads me to conclude in the end that they are mostly Republican plants in leadershit positions, leading the party to a completely non-effective posture in the past decade.

[H2O Man]

18. Well said.

Very well said, indeed. Those "democrats" in leadership positions who support this republican war in Iraq remind me of that old saying that a person can't be a little bit pregnant. Well, in my opinion, a rich democratic "leader" who is advocating sending the poor and middle class youth to kill and die in Iraq are trying to pass themselves off as being a little bit pregnant.

If Iraq is a patriotic war, and in the best interests of this country, then rich folk are behaving very unpatrioticly. They are behaving in an un-American manner.

But if it's not a patriotic war, and it is instead an economic war -- and in fact a religious war -- than their behavior makes perfect sense. They don't want to fight this war, because the entire reason they started it was for financial gain, to spread their own christian empire.

And this christian empireonly benefits rich folks, no matter if they pretend to be a democrat, or are honest enough to be identified as a republican.

[welshTerrier2]

19. "Put on that uniform and head over to Iraq."

Mr. Rosenberg has stated that "the war in Iraq is good" and he has very recently stated that bush's invasion of Iraq was "well intentioned" ...

I couldn't agree more with those who oppose Mr. Rosenberg's candidacy because of these ill-conceived views ...

but then we get down to the advice of "put on the uniform and head to Iraq" ... is this a fair criticism for those who think the "war" is such a good idea? perhaps it is ...

but then, perhaps that standard should be applied not just to those who supported the invasion in the first place ... perhaps it should be extended to those who believe we must stay there to finish the job ... and if that's the right standard, it would include every single candidate for the DNC Chair position ... while they may not be at fault for starting this whole mess, they now condone it as our national mission ... if they believe we should be there, why shouldn't they have an obligation to serve? after all, many soldiers currently in Iraq didn't approve of the invasion either ... why should their obligation be any greater than the obligation of those who think we should remain there?

it is appalling to me that so few elected officials and other "leaders" in the Democratic Party continue to support the idea of a military solution ... i'm especially disappointed in Dr. Dean who I hoped would allow his position to evolve now that it's clear the military mission has failed ... i remain very hopeful that he, more than most of the others, is the best chance we have for a new direction and a call for withdrawal ... i'm waiting ... and hoping ...

does anyone know whether DFA itself takes a position on continued military operations in Iraq ??

[H2O Man]

20. Well, I think

that people like Simon Rosenberg, if they really are sincere in thinking that the Bush military aggression in Iraq is a good thing, have two choices: {1} they can show us how sincere they are by putting on that uniform; or {2} they can show us how hypocritical they are by wanting other people to put their life on the line and fight this war for them.

Who has a larger stake in this war? Mr. Rosenberg or some 18-year old fresh out of high school? Who has a larger investment? A man worth a lot of money, living a life of luxury, or that 18-year old that is having a "bonus" waived in front of his nose if he signs up?

Yeah, I think it's a fair question. More, I think it's a question we need to focus on. We just had Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. I know that Martin said that as a leader, he would never ask anyone to do something that he was unwilling to do himself. That's a good policy, but it appears to be something that Simon and others of a like mind think an "unfair question."

[welshTerrier2]

21. and my other question?

just to clarify, i also think it's a fair question ...

i was hoping to hear your thoughts on my second point ...

is it fair to ask U.S. troops to remain in Iraq, even if you opposed the invasion, if you now believe the U.S. military must "finish the job" but are unwilling to serve there yourself?

[H2O Man]

22. I believe my

answer to the first question answers the second question as well. (grin)

We must keep two things in mind: This war was presented to the American public as necessary, because of the grave threat posed to our country by the Iraqi WMDs. The only possible justification for invading another country that has not engaged in hostilities against the United States is if it is a preventative measure. That's the only way that presidents are allowed to invade other countries.

Even this raises serious constitutional questions. The single best book that addresses the historical examples is Arthur Schlesinger's "The Imperial Presidency." And he raises the problems with this very issue: many presidents have abused the issue by using military force in very questionable circumstances.

Allowing a president to invade countries for other reasons, which could include for United Fruit's investments in Central America to the oil industries' interests in the Middle East, can create a Revolutionary Presidency. And a Revolutionary Presidency will always pose a substantial threat to our constitutional democracy. Those threats have included the Iran-Contra scandal(s) and the Bush2's Middle East policy.

Now, that is the context in which all conversations about the US involvement in Iraq should be discussed. We must avoid the efforts of the administration to blur the truth by telling lies, such as, "Oh, WMDs were only one of many reasons we invaded. But democracy was always on the table as equally important." Baloney: we can not create democracy in Iraq by destroying it in the USA.

Now, one must ask: has our military brought good to Iraq? And not "some good." Not a tiny bit here and here. Has our military aggression brought stability there? Are the estimated 100,000 dead living better lives today?

If not, then what is the magic number of Iraqi's that the USA has to kill, before the Muslim people in the Middle East see the wisdom and kindness of our way? If we kill 200,000, can we think that more Islamic people will embrace the Bush doctrine? Perhaps turn to the west to pray? I don't think so.

The first step towards bringing any peace to Iraq is the withdrawal of all US troops. And while I think sincere democrats may differ on the exact time-table, and the best way to repair the damage the US has done, we need to start getting out.

[PATRICK]

23. I see no one better than Dean

and the litmus test test is as basic as human reason and principle. Any pragmatism or redshift at this point is plain murder and a dedication to ruin of anything good, rational and decent. Some things can never be compromised. Now even the law itself and democracy is compromised and crossing the line with the villains is NOT the Democratic Party but a mere shadow of usurping madness.

Furthermore to move grimly after the Bush wars is to move away from all people everywhere however intimidated the party is by the raw power of the war media machine.

I am not now nor ever was a Deaniac, but I only see Dean trustworthy so far among a pitiful field of non-leaders promising greater defeat and more shameful surrender and corruption. And just just who votes to cloak the Democratic party with a stealth chairman as it plots pitifully in the shadow of GOP mummery? Who chooses these candidates ultimately? The tea and cookies crowd from the DLC infrastructure? The wine and cheese Illuminati and donors from various establishments? The legendary seats of Labor and Civil Rights organizations? The shrinking besieged ranks of local politicians? It is more mysterious to the average Democrat than the the Academy Awards and less democratic.

If the substitutes for Dean are the BEST that the party can come up with I say give to Dean and start the whole mess from scratch with the real base of active Democrats.

[genius]

45. Specifics. Not fluffy attacks. We need specifics for intelligent

conversation. Where does he stand on labor, trade, the environment?

[bigwillq]

25. I support Howard Dean for chair

:)

[Adelante]

32. Nah

Howard Dean has shown me since his primary loss that he is serious about reforming the party and the party sure as hell needs it. When I look at what he has done with DFA and making change at the local level, I see it is what we need done throughout, bottom to top. I think he pulls the grassroots weight and that is what will give him the credibility - the regulars won't want him, but they must know at some level they are standing on a precipice, and something's got to give if the party is ever to thrive again. If it were another time, I might not feel so strongly, but we're in a disaster zone with this party and the time is now to turn it around. Perhaps somebody very different, yet proven, like Martin Frost, as vice-chair, might be a good idea. I hadn't thought of it before, but maybe such a team would pull factions closer.

[autorank]

34. Please answer one question.

I've heard good things about Rosenberg in terms of organization and operations. However, I've heard he supported the Iraq war. This is totally insane since it will blow up and we're toast. Additionally, support for this was indicates massive bad judgment, inexcusable.

Therefore my question is, why should we support someone with massive bad judgment? Not just a mistake, this war is a nightmare, it weakened our country and all the problems manifesting how were known before hand.

How can we support a skilled operations person who has such massive bad judgment?

With regard to Dean, he is very popular with our base and will energize it. He got the endorsement of the good old boy head of the FL Democratic Party. His positions are largely vindicated and will be completely vindicated when the implosion of Iraq is finally documented to America.

I think you post is completely flawed, with all due respect. Operations guys should do operations. Visionaries and inspiring leaders should do that.

DEAN FOR DNC CHAIRMAN

CLARK IN 2008

[justy329]

35. There was a right way to disarm Saddam...

and a wrong way. The president chose the wrong way.

Rosenberg supported the idea that Saddam be removed from power. He did not the support the war as fought by Bush, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Condi, etc.

You are basing your support for Dean on the idea that he is progressive. He is not. He was a centrist governor. He only ran as a liberal in order to make himself stand out.

And, Dean has only a 25% favorability rating with Dems (source: Capitol Gang).

HOWARD DEAN WOULD BE A DISASTER.

[autorank]

36. Thanks for the answer. Welcome to DU.

I think that there will be an awful price to pay for anyone associated with the Iraq fiasco. Very intelligent people, left, right, middle, pointed out every single thing that would happen if we invaded. In addition, there was th obvious: all our energies needed to be placed on Al Queda. That was Dean's position, it was the same as Clark's. To have chosen otherwise was simply wrong. Massive bad judgment. Iraq is Hell, it's taxing our soldiers in obscene ways, and the world thinks we're crazy.

Dean is not a leftist, I agree. I think that's just fine. He is a fighter and he does know that we have to be a national party and stop giving up major sections of the country. He's walking the walk by appearing at various deep south locations as we speak. This pays dividends. See the FL DEM endorsement of Dean:

http://www.fladems.com/PressReleases.php

If Rosenberg gets it, fine. I wish him the best and will support him (not Roamer however, he's a ringer). Lets see what he does and I wish him the best. If Dean gets it, it will not be a disaster and I hope you support him and judge him on what happens. A word of advise, Capitol Gang, as an information source, sucks. It's no different than HardBall, CrossFire, or all the rest...the generally accepted pap.

[justy329]

38. I would accept Dean as chair.

I would be furious if Roemer gets it. Not only is he pro-life but he voted for Bush tax cuts and against Clinton's recover plan in '95.

I don't understand why someone who who disagrees so much with our party WANTS TO LEAD IT.

[autorank]

42. It gets worse with Roemer.

He's associated with a right-wing think tank heavily funded by Scaife and Scaife-types called the Merkatus Institute at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA (very good school and diverse politically).
He's on the teaching faculty. This is affiliated with GMU, not part of it but they teach new leaders, i.e., right wing. Roemer is now known to have invited key congressional Democrats to some of the great seminars on f'ing over Social Security, privatization, etc.

Someone suggested that is was simply amazing that the right wing was so powerful and arrogant that they though they could actually pull off a "Manchurian" Chairman.

Whoever gets it, your guy, my guy, I'm totally on board if they are ready to organize and fight.

[benny05]

37. Wellington Webb is my choice

As he not only was a good and strong mayor, he's on several corporate boards and the Black Caucus encouraged him to throw his hat in the ring. At age 64, he doesn't have any other political ambitions.

[genius]

44. I also like Webb. It's good to see there are some thinking people here.

[JDPriestly]

40. I support Dean

I did not support him for president and don't know whether I will/would support him for president in 2008 if he tried to run.

I support Dean for DNC chair because he has the ability to organize the foot soldiers of the Democratic Party. I saw that first hand during my stint in the trenches during the past presidential election. Everywhere I looked -- in the local Dem. HQs, in the tabling brigade, on the phones, at the party and Kerry meet-ups, everywhere were Dean people -- ubiquitous.

They weren't just present, they were dedicated 100%. No matter how small the task, they were willing and able and organized. It was Dean supporters bought and donated the Kerry tee-shirts, signs, buttons, yard signs and banners that we sold to fund Kerry campaign activities out here in ATM California. Dean people organized, took leadership positions, sent e-mails, and could be relied up to show up and do the hard work in bigger numbers than other supporters. Although they were disappointed by Dean's defeat, the Dean people I met threw themselves totally behind the Kerry candidacy. They showed themselves to be true Democrats first and Deaniacs second. I was so impressed by them that I joined the DFA.

So, you see, I don't support Dean because of his platform or his personality. In fact, I don't care what they are. I support him because I believe he is the only man who can reorganize and rejuvenate the party so that Democrats become really active at the grassroots level where elections are won.

[Adelante]

43. Precisely so

"I support him because I believe he is the only man who can reorganize and rejuvenate the party so that Democrats become really active at the grassroots level where elections are won."

[radio4progressives]

47. Advocate for the Status Quo if you must, but please don't premise your

choice on campaign smears.

please. :eyes:

[electropop]

48. The others all looked like Repuke Lite

They were so busy trying to sound like right wing 'christians' that they forgot about the 1st Amendment. We need real Dems, with real vision. Rosenberg advocates what I consider to be crucial to future success: A Norquist-style weekly meeting, where the marching orders are issued. It's the only way we will convey a consistent, repetetive message, drummed into American brains at every turn. It's the reason all Repukes are saying the same catch phrase in a given week, and it works. Doesn't matter that it's a lie; repeat it enough and people will fall for it. Now imagine how powerful it would be to do the same thing, only with the truth. Much easier to believe, _and_ repeated enough to remember it.

[mitchtv]

50. If you look at Dean, i predict he will set up the same

type of program. I am just amazed it took so long for Any dem to figure that out.

[wisteria]

51. Simon Rosenberg

I support Mr. Rosenberg also. I just feel Dean is wrong for this position, his temper is a concern to me.

[Cha]

52. I really don't give a

shit what the media brands..I don't bow at the alter of mediawhores!