As Dean's lead grows, his party worries

[Maple]

"In the wider Democratic universe, however, the prospect of a Dean nomination has sent some party members into paroxysms of private hand-wringing. Not only do they see him losing badly to Bush, they also see Dean hurting Democratic candidates further down on the ticket - rippling into congressional races, and possibly even boosting Republican control of the 100-seat Senate close to the crucial threshold of 60 seats, which would make it filibuster-proof.

"We could come perilously close to a one-party state," says a longtime Democratic activist with no formal ties to any campaign. "We could wind up with two more Antonin Scalias ," he adds, referring to one of the most conservative justices."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1118/p01s03-uspo.html

Well...everyone was right. The 'establishment' doesn't want Dean as the nominee.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

1. I'm Sick of These Bullshit Articles

Some insiders love Dean. Others hate him. Some insiders love Clark. Others don't.

What matters is that the PEOPLE will decide who the nominee will be, and all of these cowardly insiders who talk shit about the candidates without going up to the plate and formally ENDORSING someone else can kiss my ass.

DTH

[el_gato]

3. yeah it seems like bullshit

handwringing? gimme a break!

[Maple]

5. Well I didn't say

they were right...it's a case of 'suspicions confirmed'...and another hurdle for Dean to overcome.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

7. I Know

No offense intended towards you, I'm just sick of all these articles. They're certainly legit fodder for discussion, though.

DTH

[Skwmom]

15. Do you ever wonder why the Democrats keep losing.

Maybe it's because they've done a HORRIBLE job at long term strategizing and planning.

[AP]

30. Since 1992, Democrats have been winning lots of good races.

They lost one big one in 2000 not because people weren't on their side, but because of aggressive cheating. And they lost a few in 2002, thanks to the fact that the 9/11 was the gift that kept on giving. But the Democrats are getting back on track, and there's no reason to think that their overall strategy hasn't been good, especially considering the degree to which they are underfunded and to which the media helps Republicans.

[sangh0]

AP, stop confusing the issue

with facts!

[Scott Lee]

55. Yeah the Democrats did great in the last elections didn't they

Do you drive with those rose colored glasses on?

[Bandit]

74. and what about 1994?

Wake Up! You are living in a Dream World. The Democrats have been losing badly for a decade now. The governships were uncontested in 2000 and they still ended up losing far more than everyone thought they would. They just lost two out of three governships last week. Wake Up! Your Repub-lite strategy just isn't working.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. How Can You Say That?

I got skewewed on this board for incorrectly predicting the Blanco-Jindal race though I did get the midterms, Cali, KY, and MS right....

That's three out of four....


I'd like to be that good at picking the horses....

That being said, besides winning the White House in 96 it's hard to point to many post 92 successes......

I belive in 92 the Dems controlled the White House, the House of Reps. ,the Senate, and a majority of state houses....

We don't control diddly squat now...

[sendero]

41. Maybe it's because..

.... the ones we currently have in the senate and house have capitulated so many times it feels like home.

That is why NOBODY who is currently serving in Congress will get my pre-nomination support. Pink tutu is too nice a term for most of them.

[Skwmom]

8. I think that it is extremely important

for people to be aware of what the downsides are for Dean. If they get a filibuster proof senate we are going to be in BIG trouble. In making any decision you're supposed to look at the upside and downside. Dean's potential downside is HUGE and not talking about it is not going to make it go away.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

16. I agree

anyone looking at the big picture has to see this as well. A Deano-centric view is very limited in its perspective.

[HFishbine]

29. " A Deano-centric view ?"

Funny. That's all you seem to focus on is Dean.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

32. It's a political party

not a personality party.

[ldf]

51. dean actually inspires his supporters

.....and the democratic party has become a "personality" party?

i think we have become much more a reality party. we have awakened.

people are sick of the power brokers of the democratic party that have been sitting on their asses doing nothing but cowering. 2000 was a disaster, thanks to them, and the media. 2002 was another disaster, while the same crowd ran the show.

dean is not cowering, and he IS inspiring. if you don't like him, vote for your candidate. clark looks really good in that department, too.

but don't start "the sky is falling if you vote for dean".

maybe it will, maybe not. but it seems that the american people will not vote for anyone that does NOT have the ability to hold their attention long enough to get the selling points across, regardless of how intelligent they are. gore is one of the most intelligent men that has ever run for president. but since he was "wooden" and "boring", americans decided that they would much rather go get drunk with w. we have got to get their attention and keep it long enough to do the job.

no one else has elicited the excitement and enthusiasm as dean, and the powers that be are terrified. please forgive us if we like what we see and hear, and are generous with our endorsement.

another check is in the mail.

[Scott Lee]

57. Did you say that when JFK ran?

Oh I forgot...it's not about personalities.

[whirlygigspin]

12. Hey! Relax!

just wait for election night when you see some "glitches"
spinning numbers back and forth like a roulette game in Vegas.

"I ain't a losin' Florida-zap!" Bush wins! yeehaw!

[eileen_d]

I agree with you. n/t

Edit: this is a reply to DTH post #1 - DU glitch

[demigoddess]

14. I'm tired of these articles , too

How do we really know that they are not written by people who really back the republicans and this is republican spin. They seem to bad mouth the best and most capable of the democrats. You notice they don't really offer the name of the one who could beat bush, and all the polls have been saying most demos could beat bush.

[lancdem]

17. Good post

[Eloriel]

47. Thank you, DTH

I really admire and appreciate your sentiment here. It's outrageous, it's sickening, it's heartbreaking that they think they have ANY right to take over the people's choosing FOR them.

OTOH, isn't that just a mirror of what's happening with the voting machines? Curious symbolism, eh?

Eloriel

[sangh0]

2. Hey look, Ma! Now I'm "the Establishment"!!!

DNC insiders aren't the only people who don't want Dean to get the nomination.

[LeftCoast]

4. Why is it so hard for the Dem Party elite to understand

that we want an alternative to the failed policies of the Republican Party? Being the "me too" party isn't going to win us any elections as the last few years have shown.

[sangh0]

13. Hey look, Ma! Now I'm the "Dem Party elite"!!!

.

[Scott Lee]

58. Well stated. Imitating the GOP will get us nowhere

And somebody forgot to tell Terry Mcauliffe this. Oh well, if there are any Gods he will soon be asking "Do you want fries with that?"

[Scott Lee]

6. The establishment only worries about it's own future

To me, that is what is at the core of the correctness of Dean's campaign.

I have an aquaintance who is a former conservative repug, but now is beholden to no party politics. He says that there isn't a dime's difference between the two parties when it gets down to brass tacks. I suspect that when you talk about the party elites, that is true.

All is not lost, I can recommend several opportunities in the fast food industry for Terry McAuliffe should he get his well deserved pink slip.

[lancdem]

9. I hope their worries are misplaced

but only time will tell.

[RetroLounge]

10. DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN

DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN
DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN
DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN

MARSHA MARSHA MARSHA

DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN
DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN
DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN


Whatever...

[Jacobin]

11. They're just afraid of losing their corporate bribes

for being pink tutu Dems.

Fork'em.

[whirlygigspin]

20. gonna have us a firesale on pink tutu's

after this is all done.

[blm]

40. So you support the most deregulating corporatist as an antidote?

CATO's favorite Democrat, Howie "the Deregulator" Dean?

[Jacobin]

42. Then, splain this to me......friend.........

How come they're not filling up his campaign coffers with money?>???????


HUH??????????


HUH?????????

Sorry, I didn't catch that..............

[sangh0]

73. Who says they're aren't?

.

[Jacobin]

76. I DO. My friend, you cannot be serious, or perhaps you are just

outrageously misinformed. In either case, in order to have an intellectually honest discussion of candidates, rather than cheap pot shots, I urge you to read more about Dr. Dean.

Dean calls for new business controls

Democrat seeks to reverse years of government deregulation

By Jim VandeHei
THE WASHINGTON POST

HOUSTON, Nov. 18 — After years of government deregulation of energy markets, telecommunications, the airlines and other major industries, Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean is proposing a significant reversal: a comprehensive “re-regulation” of U.S. businesses.

THE FORMER Vermont governor said he would reverse the trend toward deregulation pursued by recent presidents — including, in some respects, Bill Clinton — to help restore faith in scandal-plagued U.S. corporations and better protect U.S. workers.
In an interview around midnight Monday on his campaign plane with a small group of reporters, Dean listed likely targets for what he dubbed as his “re-regulation” campaign: utilities, large media companies and any business that offers stock options. Dean did not rule out “re-regulating” the telecommunications industry, too.
He also said a Dean administration would mandate new workers’ standards, a much broader right to unionize and new “transparency” requirements for corporations that go beyond the recently enacted Oxley-Sarbanes law.
“In order to make capitalism work for ordinary human beings, you have to have regulation,” Dean said. “Right now, workers are getting screwed.”

http://msnbc.com/news/995462.asp?0cv=CB10

[Julien Sorel]

18. What lead? From the article:

And among the first spate of primaries, there is no clear common leader: Dick Gephardt is ahead by a nose in Iowa; Howard Dean is way out front in New Hampshire; and John Edwards and Wesley Clark are neck and neck in South Carolina.

This is what party insiders have been concerned with all along, by the way: Dean has negative coattails according to their polling and the logic of politics. It's frightening that Dean's supporters, many of whom have the hubris to consider themselves the 'true Democrats,' refuse to accept reality on this issue, but their candidate has the potential to drag this party into irrelevance for years.

Mr. Rothenberg adds that this sense of unease probably mirrors some concern in the Democratic establishment that Dean is too much of an outsider, that he's too angry and can be painted as too far left.

If Dean begins to win primaries and looks to be locking in the nomination, the party will fall in line and back him. But among operatives, Rothenberg says, the thinking is that while Dean may bring in 2 or 3 million new voters with his brash, "truth-telling" style, he may alienate 5 or 6 million others.

[DrWeird]

19. This article seems somehow familiar.

Reminds me of an article I read in 1991. What was that guys name again?

[AP]

34. The insiders WANTED Clinton in 91, and were afraid of another Dukakis

Read "All Too Human"

[BuelahWitch]

38. Hmmm, not the way I remember it

I seem to remember they were trying to push Tsongas. The Dems seemed embarrassed by Clinton's zipper problems. AND they kept trying to draft Mario Cuomo....

[andym]

50. They wanted Tsongas

Clinton had those infidelity rumors,
and Jerry Brown was too much a true outsider.

[BuelahWitch]

37. LOL! You took the words right out of my, er, fingers!

I was going to say they said the same thing about Clinton until he got the nomination.

[DemPopulist]

75. Naw, they definitely did NOT want Tsongas

Tsongas was never really taken seriously by the party establishment; he only became a major contender when the locals in NH supported him. The insiders had started to rally behind Clinton before the Gennifer Flowers/draft business, but it did make them nervous. To the extent that anyone else in the field was looked at as a plausible alternative to Clinton, it was probably Bob Kerry but his campaign went nowhere; labor was warm to Tom Harkin but he also never gained traction. There was always some talk of drafting Cuomo (or Gore or Gephardt or Lloyd Bentson - there were a number of names bandied about) if Clinton completely self-destructed, but there was still a vast preference among "the Establishment" for him over either Tsongas or Brown, who were seen as almost DOA in a general election The attitude was, "Another Greek from Massachusetts? Governor Moonbeam? Come on!." Clinton, for all his flaws, was always seen as a superior candidate compared to those two.

[Patriot_Spear]

21. The Handwringers have lost us the Senate, The House, the Presidency...

...AND they're worried about HOWARD DEAN?! What have we got to lose that they did'nt already LOSE ?!

We live in fucking Bizarro world!

[AP]

35. The "handwringers" lost the Presidency?

Gerrymandering has put the House into a state of incumbent-protectionism.

The Senate is stalemated.

The presidency was lost becuase Gore was a bad camapaigner who was cheated.

If Gore won in 2000, we'd be talking about the end of the Republican Party right now (which is why it was so important for them to steal that election).

[madfloridian]

22. Ah, is this the Will Marshall who is with Kerry?

He has always been against Dean, and has been pushing his "unelectability."

Quote from the article:
"Will Marshall, the DLC president, speaks of the "myth of inevitability" that the "Dean propaganda machine" has skillfully cultivated. When does the myth morph into reality?

"When actual voters start voting," he says. "What we have now is a pundit primary, in which a lot of commentators seems ready to anoint Dean the nominee two months before anyone has had a chance to cast an actual vote. I guess we've got to fill up the time somehow. I'm willing to wait and see what the people think."

I detest that use of not being electable. It is ridiculous. The problem is that their plan has been thwarted by Dean. I think they should say that Marshall has a vested interest elsewhere.

[KoKo]

23. Well, here's an upbeat clip from the article....which is worth a read.....

For Republicans, the nightmare is that voters think Dean will be so easy to defeat, they don't turn out in large enough numbers. The Portland pollsters, Hans Kaiser and Bob Moore, have constructed a chart that shows how Dean can win next year - even without winning Florida.

Early in the Democratic race, Dean distinguished himself as the insurgent candidate, and the different power centers of the Democratic "establishment" kept him at arm's length, hoping that one of their own, such as Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, would catch fire. That hasn't happened, and now key elements of the establishment have embraced Dean - such as the two big labor groups that endorsed him last week - and can marry their resources to Dean's existing movement.

[lancdem]

24. Everyone should read the entire story

Other people in the article aren't nearly as worried. Check out this graf:
"Ken Smukler, a Democratic consultant in Philadelphia, says the sense of panic about Dean was prevalent two or three months ago, but is dying down. The two labor endorsements "went a long way toward tamping down the panic that had begun to set in," says Mr. Smukler."

[cally]

25. These articles are just annoying

If someone could truly predict what most Dems think then they would be delusional. We're dems, we are not predictable. These articles seem like RW spin to split the party.

Dean is not my first choice, but I do not believe that the insiders are against him. I want the primaries to determine our candidate and then I will support the Dems choice.

[rucky]

26. How is this fear-mongering different from any other type?

Sounds like the Defeatist Party is already looking for a scapegoat.

They're hedging their bets out of fear, But they don't seem too interested in doing anything to prevent what they're predicting.

Terry McAullife, YOU are the weakest link. Goodbye.

[Mountainman]

27. There are going to be a zillion articles to convince us we aready lost

It is like Lord Ha Ha during WWII, Poor Dems they're about to pic a candidate like Dukakis or McGovern.

I'm hearing that Dean is a conservative Democrat. He may even pick up some Repubs that don't like Bush.

The Republican party is not solidly behind Bush I think.

[Maple]

28. You should know

this article was being highlighted on the Drudge report.

Naturally.

[Larkspur]

31. The only candidates Dean will hurt down the line is Vichy Dems

The Bush-lite Dems are the only ones fearful of Dean.

Dem candidates wanting to defeat Repukes favor Dean and are looking to ride his grassroots tidal wave.

[mrgorth]

39. Vichy Dems

is a great line. I can't wait to use that again. Thanks.

[eissa]

33. Is Dean to blame

for the loss of governerships recently? For the downturn of democratic wins? Maybe, just maybe, it might the democratic "leaders" in the DLC/DNC who have failed us? What option do we have but to retreat from the center-driven path of those pink-tutu wearing, shrub-ass-kissing "party leaders"?

[jobycom]

36. It's not just the elite

I hear that from rank and file Dems, too. A lot of Dems think he's going to win the nomination but cost us the general election. I hear that from some members of my club, while others support him wholeheartedly. There is a legitimate split in the party over him that shouldn't be trivialized as "establishment" versus whatever the opposite of establishment is.

Actually, the biggest supporters of Dean I can think of in my club or in the party in general around Austin ARE the establishment. They work for the state and the county Democratic Party, or the state executive committee, or they are former office holders. The head of his campaign here is a former state rep. Actually, there are a few "establishment" Democrats-- meaning people who are in the decision making level-- who are supporting Kucinich.

Anyway, that's my own personal observation, based on people I know. Maybe that's just Austin. But the idea that the establishment is against Dean while the regular Dems are for him is too simplified.

[blm]

45. Thanks for that.

I hear the same here in SC. They're afraid of losing Hollings seat when they have a great candidate, but, Dean at the top drags her numbers down, too.

[Eloriel]

62. Oh, let's see some support (documentation) for that one, blm

Put up or shut up.

Eloriel

[Eloriel]

56. Jobycom

I hear that from rank and file Dems, too. A lot of Dems think he's going to win the nomination but cost us the general election.

They're just parroting what they've "heard" or "read," unless of course they seriously think the civil unions thing will get in the way (it won't).

There is NO objective reason, if one looks very carefully at the campaign stats, to imagine that Dean is unelectable. None.

Now, to be sure, there are a few things that Rove can use to try to make Dean lose. But there are plenty of things for EACH candidate.The Repugs will go after any of our candidates tooth and nail. Hell, they'll make stuff up if they can get away with it.

I honestly believe Dean is THE most electable. Why? Because he's so forthright, honest, clear-eyed. I think people are starving for that kind of leadership -- the truth for a change. Wow, what a concept!

Eloriel

[jobycom]

71. No "objective" reason has nothing to do with it

And believe me, the people I'm talking about are not parrots. Many are hard corp party activists, heads of the ACLU, college professors. Not the types easily fooled.

Two points: First, voting is not an objective exercise. There was no objective reason someone would choose Bush over Gore, or go along with Bush's lies about Iraq. Voting is about emotion as much as-- mor for many people-- reason.

Second, Bush's machine will do as it always does. It will slander. I've watched this yahoo and his dad for a while. He did it to Richards in Texas. He did it to Gore. His dad did it to Clinton, Perot, Dukakis, Mondale, and even Reagan during the 80 primaries. It's not that the Bushes are lucky and always run against greatly flawed individuals, it is that the Bushes can turn the most pure saint into a lying nutcase in peoples' minds. They will do it to Dean. The question is how Dean will handle it.

From what I've seen, and what many (not all, not by a long shot) tell me, is that Dean won't respond well to that type of slander campaign.

That's not really the point of my post, though. I don't dislike Dean. I don't think any of our candidates have much chance of beating Bush, and Dean's is probably as good as any-- maybe better. My point was that those who claim that this mysterious "establishment" (or the boogerman DLC) is trying to block Dean for some reason don't get it. The rank and file is split over him, not just the leaders. Since we are talking about elections, peoples' opinions matter just a little.

Too many people define "establishment" as anyone who disagrees with them, and seem to believe that a candidate can win even if the majority of people don't want him to. Elections only work that way for the other guys.

[RetroLounge]

79. I hear that from rank and file Dems

that they are supporting Dean.

So there...

[sendero]

43. I don't think it is so much "his party"....

... as it is the elements of his party who have played "go along to get along" to the point that they are almost as corrupt as the forces they are supposed to counter.

And they are damn scared of losing their cushy deal. Too bad.

[w4rma]

44. Election 2004: Why Dean Can Win, September 2003

TO: Moore Information Clients & Friends

FROM: Hans Kaiser & Bob Moore

RE: Election 2004: Why Dean Can Win, September 2003

A recent article by David Brooks left readers with the distinct impression that Republican pollsters are all of the opinion that Howard Dean cannot possibly beat George Bush. We regret that he didn’t check with us first, as it is our belief that Dean has the potential to be a formidable candidate who could give the President a very difficult race.

The conventional wisdom that has some Republicans giddy about a potential Dean candidacy is not only misguided, it is counterproductive. Writing off a candidate like Dean by selectively sorting statistical gobble-de-gook and mixing it into a broth of “empirical” sociological evidence ignores the political realities of our time.
…
The difference between Howard Dean and the rest of the Democrat candidates is that Dean comes across as a true believer to the base but he will not appear threatening to folks in the middle. More than any other candidate in the field, he will be able to present himself as one who cares about people (doctor), who balances budgets (governor), and who appears well grounded while looking presidential. To be sure, he doesn’t look that way to the GOP base, but that has no bearing on the election, because they will never vote for him anyway. He can appeal to the middle and Republicans can ignore his candidacy at our peril. We are whistling past the graveyard if we think Howard Dean will be a pushover.

Howard Dean’s appeal is closer to Ronald Reagan’s than any other Democrat running today. Granted, that’s not saying much with this field, but there are similarities here. The Democrat party used to chuckle about Reagan and his gaffes which they believed would marginalize him to the far right dustbin of history. But when his opponents tried to attack him for some of his more outlandish statements, the folks in the middle simply ignored them. Voters in the middle looked to the bigger picture where they saw a man of conviction who cared about them and had solutions for their problems. Howard Dean has the potential to offer a similar type candidacy.
…
http://www.moore-info.com/Poll_Updates/2004%20Election%20%20Why%20Dean%20can%20win%20Sept%2003.htm
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/106829671744920.xml
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=709103

No George McGovern
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50126-2003Nov16.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=723850

[Renew Deal]

46. I spoke with a Dem insider a couple weeks ago...

He said what you posted almost word for word. I posted it to DU as soon as I got home. So I am saying that I believe this exists because I have been told that straight up.

[blm]

48. And you got grilled for it, as I recall.

;)

[bobbyboucher]

49. Of all the past Dem candidates, which were

"establishment" approved? And which weren't? Just so I can get some perspective.

[ACPS65]

52. Can't say I blame 'em.

Dean won't carry a single southern state, and will be typecast as an amalgam of Mondale, McGovern, and Howard the Duck. Sad but true.

[bobbyboucher]

61. You sound like you don't like Dean, or his views.

What are your views on issues of concern to Americans and how do they differ from Dean's, and which candidate do you favor? There must be some reason for your insults.

Thanks.

[Catherine Vincent]

70. I doubt if the troll come back and answer you.

[Nlighten1]

53. "We could come perilously close to a one-party state,"

George Bush, unelected idiot, has gotten 96% of his judicial nominations cleared. I would say we are already fucking there.

[Scott Lee]

54. It's natural, folks. Roll with the punches

No one has ever shaken up an establishment without getting attacked or pummeled by the elite and their supporters. It goes with the territory, and I'm sure Dean knows this and has prepared for it.

The upside is, with the underdog phenomenon, every punch they take and not go down, they get that much more popular.

"That which does not kill me, makes me stronger."

[in_cog_ni_to]

59. If insiders are so worried

then why are they endorsing him? WHY not endorse someone who can win FOR SURE? Like Clark. :7

[dusty64]

60. Sounds exactly like the

bullshit editorial the other day from the Democrat's friend william safire almost word for word. I can't believe this crap is taking on a life of its own, if these people are concerned you can bet it's NOT that the Democrats will get creamed next November. Think about that, if these people are scared I'm hopeful.

Never Love a Stranger
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Published: November 12, 2003


WASHINGTON — Both power centers of the Democratic establishment — the Kennedy left and the Clinton middle — are frantic at the prospect of losing control of their party to Howard Dean. They fear a McGovernesque debacle that would hand the G.O.P. a super-majority in the Senate.

Clintonites were first to take the Dean threat seriously. As reported gleefully in this space (full disclosure: I'm rooting for Dean's candidacy in hopes of the debacle), the Clinton crowd surrounded ex-Gen. Wesley Clark with Clinton managers, spinmeisters, pollsters and fund-raisers and marched him into battle against Dean.

The Clinton political strategy was, as usual, astute: let Dick Gephardt slow Dean down in Iowa, then push Clark hard enough to upset Dean in New Hampshire, or at least attract enough of the isolationist vote from Dean to let John Kerry squeak through.

Of course, if the national economy had gone south, Hillary would have gone South with Clark on her ticket to take on an unemployment-ravaged Bush herself. But with the economy surging and Democrats robbed of their central issue, Hillary can wait till 2008. It is in the Clintons' interest for the 2004 Democratic nominee to lose respectably, not in a landslide, laying the basis for a 2008 comeback that would be impossible if Dean were in the White House.

But what of the other power center of the Democratic establishment — who would be its logical stop-Dean candidate? Not Gephardt, who — although an ardent tax-raiser and entitlement maven — has been a stalwart supporter of winning the war and peace in Iraq. Not Joe Lieberman (too centrist and moralist), not Wes Clark (property of the Clintons), not John Edwards (too light).
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/12/opinion/12SAFI.html

[quaker bill]

63. Just another reason to donate

The establishment has not done us all that much good recently.

[farmbo]

64. Er...haven't you "Insiders" read the papers...We're already one-party!

Quote from article:

We could come perilously close to a one-party state," says a longtime Democratic activist with no formal ties to any campaign. "We could wind up with two more Antonin Scalias ," he adds, referring to one of the most conservative justices."
<snip>

You're stupidity is breath-taking!

You had BETTER nominate a Dean (or a Dean-like persona) or you're going to be peddling your "expertise" to Chief of Staff Ralph Fuc*ing Reed!

:grr:

[farmbo]

65. Er...haven't you "Insiders" read the papers...We're already one-party!

Quote from article:

We could come perilously close to a one-party state," says a longtime Democratic activist with no formal ties to any campaign. "We could wind up with two more Antonin Scalias ," he adds, referring to one of the most conservative justices."
<snip>

You're stupidity is breath-taking!

You had BETTER nominate a Dean (or a Dean-like persona) or you're going to be peddling your "expertise" to Chief of Staff Ralph Fuc*ing Reed!

:grr:

[Polemonium]

66. Misrepresenting a poor source and article, Why?

This kind of fluff could have been written by a sixth grade kid, and your quotes missed the gist of the article. The gist: there is currently no strong agreement in the Democratic camp for who the nominee should be, and Dean as the front runner doesn't have everyone behind him yet.
No sh*$ - that was informative. There are many candidates, a similar uniformative article could have been written about any of them. Why the hell did you bother to post it is my question?

The reason Dean is my pick. He has energized the base like no one else in recent history. That base makes up a grassroots campaign that is actually fired up enough to give him more small donations than ever seen before. Some of his biggest critics are the lost boys playing a worn out game of 'strategize your election victory'. This game incidently has lost us the last three major elections.

What, you support the candidate with the most support from a broad base of people? - madness. And he has sound democratic policy - but I wanted to vote for Sly Stalone.

[pasadenaboy]

67. Our leaders have done such a good job

lately, why wouldn't we listen to them (sarcasm)

Like Harry S Truman said, if you give people the choice between voting for a republican or a democrat who acts like a republican, they will vote for the republican every time.

[IronLionZion]

68. Damn the Establishment!

Fuck em! People powered Howard is real grass roots. If he wins, it will be such a sweet, satisfying victory for America.

[ScreamingMeemie]

69. I always love phrases such as "a longtime Democratic activist"

really? :eyes:

The country has to stop buying into this.

[Jacobin]

77. When will they start using the epithet: Longtime Repuke Activist?

Oh. I forgot, Jeff Christie et al have convinced the public that Democrat and Liberal are dirty words.

Never mind

[ModerateMiddle]

72. more than the establishment

There are lots of folks who don't want to see Dean as the nominee. They're not all right wingers. Some of them just see what Dean is doing and saying now as an act designed to get him nominated. They see a landslide for Bush if Dean wins.

[CWebster]

78. Not so much "his" party so much

as their own personal party feeling a potential threat.

[ellie]

80. I have kept out of this debate

because I don't care who wins the nomination. I vote a straight Democratic ticket, no matter what.

However, I am unsure of why insiders are afraid of Dean. Is it because they think his outsider stance will alienate the base? Didn't shrubbie run as an outsider, a fact that we all mocked because, for chrissakes, his father was president! How much of an outsider could he be?

From the article:
"Still, one discouraged outpost of the Democratic Party is the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the breeding ground for many of the centrist ideas that President Clinton and Vice President Gore espoused and which appear, in this cycle, to be out of sync with what Democratic base voters are looking for - a clear contrast with a president they cannot abide."

So the base wants an outsider and the insiders want an insider? Is that what is going on?

And the rest of the field are all considered insiders?

This article seems to be so much propaganda. The down and dirty repukes will paint anyone with the unelectable brush. I suggest we ignore them and focus on the business of nominating someone to save our country.