An interesting view of Howard Dean

[wndycty]

Dean is still my #2 but I still thought this was an interesting piece.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/perspective/chi-0311230255nov23,1,6207545.story?coll==chi-newsopinionperspective-hed

AN UNHAPPY CHOICE
Democrats on a suicide course

By Don Rose, a Democrat who has worked for Republicans, is a political consultant and food writer
Published November 23, 2003

-snip-
My nightmare scenario, however, is that Democrats who feel the same about this administration will nominate a candidate who seems almost certainly destined to defeat by the very president we seek to oust.

I speak here of Dr. Howard Dean, the acknowledged front-runner whose brilliant campaign has so effectively galvanized the Democratic base--including most of my dearest friends and allies--and who appears to be on an inexorable march toward the nomination.

Virtually every poll that shows Bush to be beatable also shows Dean losing to Bush worse than any of the serious contenders--even before being put through Rove's meat grinder. Republicans are salivating at the prospect of facing Dean next year. Columnists such as William Safire say so publicly, and GOP pros say so to each other. It is not, as one friend put it to me, simply a tricky ploy by Safire.

Dean's problem is that the campaign that has so captivated and energized the partisan base is one most likely to turn off the middle-ground constituencies required to win a general election. Presidential elections are won between the 40-yard lines, and Dean is playing as if his 35-yard line is the end zone.

Not exactly too liberal.
-snip-

Wanted: Electable progressive

All this is a plea not for a more conservative candidate such as Sen. Joseph Lieberman, rather for a less divisive, more electable progressive. Bush will not be defeated by voters who believe as I do. Otherwise we would be yawning our way through Al Gore's re-election campaign right now. Nor is this a tract for any other specific contender, although I believe Wesley Clark or John Edwards would make much stronger general election candidates--and the polls certainly bear that out about Clark.

This is simply a wake-up call for progressives to recognize that the most important job ahead is the defeat of Bush, not the nomination of another loser, however lovable. Good grief--if I wanted to go with the candidate whose positions are closest to mine, I'd be with Rep. Dennis Kucinich--yet another suicide mission.
-snip-

[OKNancy]

1. Snap out of it!

That is what I'd like to say to some Democrats.

It's so obvious, but some people are just blinded by, well who knows, because I don't see Dean's attraction.

And I agree with his take about Kucinich.

[wndycty]

2. I really like Dean, but I know the Democrats can do better. . .

. . .that is why I support Clark.

[CWebster]

3. Don Rose, a Democrat who has worked for Republicans...

Note the deliberate selection of words: Unhappy, nightmare scenario, destined to defeated, Republicans are salivating, Dean's problem, another loser...

Sounds like he is still working for the Republicans.

[wndycty]

4. He also writes:

-snip-
-if I wanted to go with the candidate whose positions are closest to mine, I'd be with Rep. Dennis Kucinich--yet another suicide mission.
-snip-

So are you calling Kucinich a Republican?

[CWebster]

5. No, the author

Didn't you read what it says about him?

[wndycty]

6. I read what it said about him . . .

. . .and I read what he said about himself. He said Kucinich most reflects his point of view. So are you calling Kucinich a Republican? That is a simple question isn't it?

[CWebster]

11. Please

He knows that Kucinich doesn't stand a chance, that is why he, as well as many of the self-professed liberal Clark supporters compare their position to Kucinich---it is just a ploy to appeal to progressives or show off so-called progressive stripes: I am a progressive but I feel the only way to win is to vote for the most Republican candidate. Sort of like how a Democrat who works for Republicans operates.

[wndycty]

12. So are you saying he is not genuine?

:kick:

[CWebster]

14. I would say

that DrSatan answered it best.

[wndycty]

15. Can't speak for yourself?

:kick:

[wndycty]

10. I'm still waiting. . .

. . .is Kucinich a Republican?

[demnan]

7. But half the people don't vote in this country

and if Dean is energizing this group (as he testifies he is) he certainly has a good chance of winning the election.

[Dr Satan]

8. pathetic

Your cult's entire strategy is the subjective word "electability."

Lets define what it means and examine the results:

1. Poll numbers are USELESS a year away from the election.
2. Clark brings absolutely nothing to the table regarding policy issues except the issue of Defense.
2a. Clark's one dimensional trait of being strong on defense is an admission that the PERCEPTION of Democrats being weak is reinforced.
2b. Democrats are NOT weak on Defense and once that issue is removed, all that is left is a man who has nothing to run on.
3. Attempting to tear down Dean will have the same results as Kerry.
4. For a man who has been a Democrat for less than 3 months he needs to learn quickly that there is a nomination process and his supporters need to look at the nomination numbers, not the general election.

To say that Clark is the only one electable is an outright LIE and pretending that this is a football game doesn't prove anything.

[wndycty]

9. Who said Clark is the only one electable?

I said I could support Dean if he won the nomination and the writer also cites Edwards as someone who could win.

I just feel that Clark is the best candidate.

[blm]

13. But you love Dean tearing down Kerry and his camp spreading memes

that Kerry is a "corrupt Washington insider." You know, the same John Kerry who has exposed MORE government corruption than ANY lawmaker in modern history.

Yet, Deanies spread the lie to new voters that Kerry is corrupt. Disgusting.

[wndycty]

16. There is a double standard . . .

Deaniacs have a set of rules that allow them to attack any candidate at anytime, while it is a bash if you raise any issue about Dean. Dean is my #2 and he continues to be, but I also have my criticisms of him as well.

[oxymoron]

80. Exactly

Some of Dean's people on DU want to post constant smears of other candidates, but scream when there is any critical discussion of Dean. It's a real turnoff.

[Hep]

82. And of course vice versa.

It's supposed to ALL piss you off.

[Scott Lee]

86. Looking at the polls, Kerry is doing great at tearing down his campaign

.

[Julien Sorel]

17. Even more so:

1. Poll numbers are USELESS a year away from the election.

Poll numbers provide evidence. Certainly, when the election is a year off they are less reliable than when the election is tomorrow, but to say they are 'useless' is being either naive or, more likely, considering the source is a Kool-aid swiller, dishonest. Note that said Kool-aid swiller ignored the rest of the evidence on electability, further evidence of the dishonesty for which the Kool-aid swillers have earned such a glowing reputation.

Clark brings absolutely nothing to the table regarding policy issues except the issue of Defense.


What does Dean bring? Almost his entire platform is taken from the DLC: just like Clark's. If Dean were strong on policy, why has he none of his own to offer?

2a. Clark's one dimensional trait of being strong on defense is an admission that the PERCEPTION of Democrats being weak is reinforced.

Admitting that a perception is being reinforced? What kind of nonsense is this?

2b. Democrats are NOT weak on Defense and once that issue is removed, all that is left is a man who has nothing to run on.

And how will this be accomplished? Got a magic wand?

3. Attempting to tear down Dean will have the same results as Kerry.

What results were those? Did Bob Graham also attempt to tear down Dean? Did Kucinich? Carol Mosely Braun? This is symptomatic of the tendency of Kool-aid swillers to assume that the entire world rotates around Whoreard Dean, that Dean is the cause of all effects. Maybe in your world, bub, but the rest of us know better.

4. For a man who has been a Democrat for less than 3 months he needs to learn quickly that there is a nomination process and his supporters need to look at the nomination numbers, not the general election.

Guaranteed tactic by a frustrated Kool-aid swiller: lie about the party affiliation. The chief Kool-aid mixer coined the riff; like a good ovine, you ba ba ba to the tune. Focusing on the nomination process is what led to Mondale in 1984, what led the Republicans to select Goldwater in 1964: and so on. That's kind of the point of the article, in fact, but why bother paying attention to that, when I'm sure Dr. Whoreard has whipped up a new batch of his finest, and the scent is sooooo distracting....

[DianeK]

18. oh boy

if we can't see through this extraordinarily transparent desparate attempt by the rove machine to distract us, then we really do deserve the country they are trying to jam down our throats...get a clue, guys

[wndycty]

19. Is anyone that is critical of Dean part of the Rove machine. . .

What say you? If you don't support Dean you are part of the Rove machine?

[DianeK]

20. not at all...

i did not even mention dean in my response to you..i happen to support dean but i do not discourage anyone from supporting who they choose to support...if you want your candidate to win the nomination then work like hell for it and if your candidate falls short of the nomination then work like hell for whoever gets it...but recognize a smokescreen when you see one

[wndycty]

21. So explain what Karl Rove has to do with this then. . .

. . .you brought him up. Lets not cut and run now, you brought up Rove so explain to me why he is even mentioned in this thread.

[DianeK]

25. rove/smokescreen

one and the same...after all these months the sputtering strategy has been painfully clear..first dean is a nobody from a no where state, then he is too far to the right, then he is a flaming liberal...now he is unelectable..that label seems to have stuck.....i don't buy any of it....as i said..this is the time to work like hell for the candidate of your choice...dean supporters do not stop and the people at dean headquarters are there 24 hours a day....i don't think there are a lot of other dem candidates that inspire that kind of dedication..the unelectable label is nothing but republican talking points and they may as well be whistling by a graveyard

[wndycty]

26. Again. . .

. . .you are saying that anyone who feels Dean is unelectable (you did mention him this time) is only repeating Republican talking points. So again I ask you, are you accusing those who share this point of view as following Rove? Are you saying they cannot think for themselves?

[DianeK]

28. can not or will not..

or maybe just to lazy to do the research..and yes, i do think that when i hear that coming from a democrat they are falling right into the rove trap..rove is very clever

[wndycty]

31. So you are proving my point. . .

. . .you have been conditioned to see anything anti-Dean as a Rove trap. Slurp, Slurp.

[DianeK]

33. umm, no....

what i am saying is that if it is clarke that you support, why aren't you doing that? why is it all dean all the time for you folks? i don't see any of the other candidates with the energized support base that dean has been able to generate..they are all just talking about dean as are their supporters..you get clarke nominated and i will be the first to get a loan so that i can send him the 2000.00 i will be allowed to send him

[wndycty]

34. Will you admit then that this has nothing to do with Rove. . .

. . .your brought him up.

[DianeK]

35. i will admit no such thing

it is obvious that the reason YOU are talking about dean is because it is the strategy that you talk about him..you are falling for it...if you were not falling for it you would be using every ounce of your energy to support clarke...you are making my point

[wndycty]

38. Its Clark. . .

Hey I just posted an interesting column. And you brought up Rove. Slurp, slurp. "Not pro-Dean, must be a Rove smoke screen." Slurp, slurp.

[chiburb]

22. Thanks for the post Wndy...

Just got finished reading the column in print and was going to link to it.
For what it's worth, Don Rose has been a campaign strategist/consultant for over 30 years in Chicago. He used to rep the Independent aldermen in Daley I's regime, is a Lakefront Liberal, and if I recall right, worked to get Harold Washington elected as Chicago's first African-American mayor. Yes, he's worked for some Repugs too. But as his article clearly states, he is a died-in-the-wool anti-Busher. From the article:
"His anti-Bush rhetoric is raw, red meat to people such as myself, but Middle America is not into steak tartare. They prefer a better-cooked approach."
Anyway, his point was not to boost any specific candidate, but to raise red flags about Dean's electibility.
Some on these boards can dismiss his opinion, I respect it because it comes from a veteran of campaign wars. Disagree, fine. Dismiss...mistake.

[wndycty]

23. I just wish that some people would see criticism of Dean as constructive

...there is another thread critical of Clark's Chicago fundraiser last night. I am not going to get defensive (I was involved in its planning) rather I PM'ed the poster and forwarded the concern to the campaign. Thats called being interactive and responsive. The Deaniacs see a criticism, get defensive and attack.

[chiburb]

27. Yep, but it isn't limited to them...

I've seen Clarkies get just as defensive.
As an undecided (but leaning to Clark and Dean) I NEED to see differing opinions of all candidates. It just galls me to see Rose called a Rove operative by people who've never heard of him. As an "older" lefty, I have a hell of a lot of respect for his perspective.
Anyway, thanks again for the post.
AND GET THAT KID HIS BUMPERSTICKER!!!

[wndycty]

29. I am trying to get that bumpersticker!

If I could say one thing to my fellow Clarkies, our candidate is the best man, but he has a long way to go to get him nominated. When he is attacked or critcized we must defend him if it is unfair, but we must also consider some of the points raised and not be afraid to challenge him when necessary. In the long run that might be the difference between his winning and losing.

[Eloriel]

84. Those who are referring to this as GOP talking points

are misinformed. They are DLC talking points.

The GOP is now officially concerned about Dean. Very. And we've seen several threads about that over the last several days. There's another mention in one of the "Morning News Roundups" on the Official Blog.

It MAY have been true that at one point in this campaign they feared Dean is unelectable, but to a large extent the DLC's and Power Brokers' fear now is that he IS electable. However, since the "unelectable" meme continues to have some traction they'll continue to use that.

RE those who genuinely worry that that's the case, I was reading some poll numbers the other day and I "got it" about why the ill-informed, narrowly focused insiders might think that. Good grief, they're reading polls that still have Leiberman in the upper tier (nationally)! Polls like this are totally meaningless this far out. But beyond that, what registered for me is that those who are sitting in their comfy office chairs, poring over polls, are completely missing what's happening on the ground, in the field, around the country. They aren't looking at the full "reality" of any of the campaigns, but an abstraction. Much like trying to understand the reality of water from the phrase "H20." Or the reality of an orange from reading the dictionary definition.

Howard Dean has upset every Conventional Wisdom prediction so far -- to me that means that the pundits who seem to know so very much are completely out of touch with a reality that is CHANGING everything they thought they knew anyway.

Eloriel

[Donna Zen]

49. Thanks for doing that!

I did the same this morning. I understand that they are under time restrictions, especially with Clark having to go to the Hague, but time management should be more liberal. :-)

Now that reminds me of the Hague...and I have to fume all over again.

[Hep]

50. All we ask for is reason

If you think we're going to be reasonable about every piece of criticism, you're dreaming.

Yeah, forgive me if I don't think "Dean asks for money too much" is a constructive piece of criticism. You just don't see assholes making arguments like that against other candidates. So stop acting like everything is even.

[wndycty]

53. Wait a minute. . .

. . .a lot of Clark supporters e-mail me complaining that Clark is aksing for money too much, so how is that constructive criticism if someone says that about Dean, it may even be a Dean supporter.

[Hep]

57. Where is the thread

about it?

I'm saying it's NOT constructive criticism.

Look, I email the campaign all the time and share REAL concerns. But until these concerns are demonstrated and backed up, theres nothing constructive about it. FEW here have been able to show me well reasoned arguments. And NO ONE responds when Dean supporters defend him with reason and civility. Take this post for instance:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=753339&mesg_id=754019&page=

All these constructive critics run and hide.

[wndycty]

58. I have not seen a thread. . .

. . .I manage a list of Clark supporters and a number of people have complained. It was not on DU. .. if any DU'er wants to complain about Clark doing asking for money too much have at it.

[Hep]

61. Have at it?

Why? You think it's a legitimate piece of criticism, or do you say that because it is so easily dismissed?

[wndycty]

67. It is legitimate. . .

. . .but more importantly its fair and I am not going to stand in the way of criticism because I might get my little feelings hurt.

[Hep]

74. I guess

we decide for ourselves what constitutes appropriate criticism or valid complaints.

THat said, I don't think Kucinich is electable because his head is too round.

;)

[Logansquare]

24. Ehhh...Don Rose?

I've always wondered if Don Rose Communications was any more than Don and his fax machine. I'm familiar with him mostly as a local talking head, and I don't mean that as a compliment. He was a frequent guest on Chicago Tonight, usually filled with acrimony toward almost anyone who hadn't hired him--sort of a small town Dick Morris. And quoting William Safire as a source of useful and accurate information? Might as well ask my cat who she thinks middle America will vote for.

[chiburb]

32. This Don Rose...

Don Rose, political consultant, was Dr. Martin Luther King's press secretary for the Chicago campaign from 1965 to 1967. He was also an organizer for the National Mobilization Committee Against the War in Vietnam.

Also, I believe he worked on Carol Moseley Braun's senate campaign.

[wndycty]

36. Don't you know that he is a Republican. . .

. . .because he said something bad about Dean. Don't forget we were also told many on this board that the Confederate flag is not a symbol of hate and oppression. Slurp, Slurp.

[Logansquare]

37. I know you won't believe me

but my response would be the same if he was trashing Clark or Kerry. I've seen him on TV poo-poohing anyone and everyone he doesn't work for. I think the guy is more or less a liberal, but also is petty when rejected.

[chiburb]

42. I have no reason NOT to believe you...

I admit it's been awhile since I've seen or heard him, and maybe he is a bitter old man who's seen too many juicy jobs go to David Axelrod. I DO remember him, however, as a fighter of the good fights back in the old days.
That said, I still respect his perspective...

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bushisanidiot]

39. I Say We Completely IGNORE Repuke Spin.

It is to our advantage that we have 9 candidates and several of them are running nearly neck & neck. We don't want a runaway front runner.. this person would only have a target on his/her face waiting for Rove to spin his sh*t.

We know the chimp we're up against. That's all that matters.
Whoever wins the dem nomination WILL win the presidency.. we just
all have to close ranks in behind her/him. We ARE the majority.. that was proven in the last election.

[wndycty]

40. Again. . .

. . .if its not pro Dean, its Repuke or Rove spin. Maybe its the truth.

[w4rma]

41. Again. Dean doesn't support gay marriage. He supports civil unions.

…
DEAN: We have civil unions, which gives equal rights -- doesn't give marriage, but it gives equal rights in terms of insurance, employment rights, inheritance rights, hospital visitation, to every single Vermonter, no matter who they are.

You know, interestingly enough, Dick Cheney took a position in 2000 in the debates that is not very different than mine. He said, this is not a federal issue. I really am inclined to leave this matter to the states, and I think we ought to let states figure out how to give equal rights to everybody in the way that they do it. So I think this is kind of a political issue at the federal level, but the power to decide these things really belongs to the state level.

KING: All right. On your own state level, if it were a referendum, would you vote for gay marriage?

DEAN: If what were -- we don't have a referendum in my state, and we have civil unions, and we deliberate chose civil unions, because we didn't think marriage was necessary in order to give equal rights to all people.

Marriage is a religious institution, the way I see it. And we're not in the business of telling churches who they can and cannot marry. But in terms of civil rights and equal rights under the law for all Americans, that is the state's business, and that's why we started civil unions.

KING: So you would be opposed to a gay marriage?

DEAN: If other states want to do it, that's their business. We didn't choose to do that in our state.
…
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/04/lkl.00.html
http://www.howarddean.tv/

[Hep]

43. Hear hear

I agre with him.

[Terwilliger]

45. so you applaud him for playing into the right-wing spin?

GAY MARRIAGE is a bogeyman set-up by the religious right as a wedge issue, and Howard Dean says "Oh! Gay marriage! *scoff* *scoff* *scoff*" Well, no worries Deanies...just have to convince the American media that he's NOT the liberal that the right wants people to think of him as.

[Hep]

48. LOL! You're on a roll today!

No one should force the church what to do. It's about rights and recognition, not telling religious entities what to do. If calling it something different will get it done, I'm all for it.

I guess some people would rather bitch about semantics. I suppose those morans think that if it isn't CALLED marriage, then it isn't real. Sorry.

[Terwilliger]

54. "force the church"

is that what you believe gay marriage supporters are doing?

What do you say to religious gays who wish to bond their union in the eyes of the church? What do you say to those priests and other clergy who perform gay marriage ceremonies? What do you say to gays who are fixtures in many churches who want what's given to everyone else?


The only forcing that goes on is your trying to force right-wing talking points down our throats.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BritishHuman]

70. That's for the church to decide/priest to decide

Dean appears to be saying that a gay couple who make a legal commitment to each other should have the same rights and privileges (and duties) as a heterosexual couple who do the same thing - but that's where the state's involvement ends. If they can find a church that will marry them or not is between them and their church, a private matter the state should not be regulating.

"force the church" is somewhat egregiously out-of-context. "not force the church" was his actual point.

[Terwilliger]

75. interesting

No one should force the church what to do. It's about rights and recognition, not telling religious entities what to do.

not force the church to give homosexuals their "rights and recognition"

It's like the end of slavery...blacks didn't actually have any rights because they'd been freed from slavery...they got rights only 40 years ago when their treatment at the hands of others was regulated by the government that had to tell the racists "we don't care if you don't like blacks...they have rights that are apart from your judgement" We should be treating gays the same way...forcing those who would discriminate to accept things that they're not comfortable with.

[Hep]

76. Yes, it is interesting

I'm not going to tell you what to believe, but you're arguing that the government regulate the church. That to me is beyond crazy.

And your analogy to slavery is off the mark. The church isn't a business or a labor union, or anything else the government has a right to influence. They have their own sets of rules. They have to exist within the framework of our laws to a certain extent, but matters of the church and its doctrine can and will not ever be determined by the government.

And you should understand that you can't force anyone to accept anything.

Same sex couples deserve every legal right that heterosexual couples have. It's up to the church to decide whether or not to accept them as it is up to each individual to accept them.

[BritishHuman]

87. As Hep points out, it's not the same thing.

The post-slavery treatment of blacks revolved around real issues of their pay, their opportunities in business and education, their essential freedoms. No one can stop you from believing in God, or praying to Him.

[ima_sinnic]

66. don't you see he takes it much further than that

Dean's response is brilliant (and can't really be faulted IMO) because:
1. It satisfies those who feel that marriage is a sacrament that is "corrupted" by the "abomination" or whatever of same-sex marriage. Again, control is returned to a smaller entity, the churches themselves, to determine if gay marriage will be recognized within that religion.

2. All legal rights of "marriage," a public commitment to another individual and joining of properties, are preserved in civil unions. These are spouses for purpose of wills, leases, property, taxes, bank accounts, insurance, etc.

3. He gives it back to the states to define and decide--(actually as it is now--so definitely in opposition to a federal constitutional amendment). This is another instance of returning control to the people, closer to home. It does of course raise the question of interstate honoring of civil union rights--I'm no lawyer but there must be precedents about this--with a Howard Dean presidency I think this type of question--of states honoring each others' laws--might become more relevant.

Getting the government smaller and less intrusive is what the "conservatives" grouse about all the time, and a sense of wanting to return to smaller, simpler times seems pervasive now in the USA (just my humble observation)--in this way Dean is appealing to a broad spectrum--in addition to the community-oriented campaign that he is running.

He is also temporarily reducing the issue of gay marriage to a more realistic level. People are being murdered, atrocities are being committed, in Iraq; we're on the brink of some serious war s**t and being seriously gored up the backside by neocon fraud artists. Admittedly all law-making cannot be given back to the states, resulting in a seriously fragmented and disjointed country--but let the issue be resolved on the local level for now so that attention might be fixed on what is seriously hurting the American people.

[sangh0]

77. Civil unions don't give the same rights as marriages do

Civil unions do nothing to secure the partner's rights to their partner's Social Security benefits. Married spouses can collect on their spouses SS. Civil union partners cannot.

Civil unions only make the benefits a *state* provides available to the partner.

[QC]

46. Civil marriage is not a religious institution.

The government is not in the sacrament business, and no advocate of same-sex marriage has proposed telling Brother Jimmy down at the Interstate 82 Family Worship Center that he has to marry anyone he doesn't want to.

I have no trouble with calling it "civil unions" in order to get around opposition from those who do not understand the difference between a sacrament and a contract, but it is simply false to say that civil marriage is a religious institution.

[Terwilliger]

44. Kucinich would win the presidency

Republicans would vote for him because he actually believes in the liberal positions he takes, as opposed to the lip-service doled out by just about everybody else.

And who said Dean is too far to the left to capture the "life is between the 40-yard lines" crap...I guess these would be the same people that would consider Dianne Feinstein to be a liberal Democrat.

[Hep]

47. Keep dreaming!

Forgive me. I'm not proud of my cynicism, and I like DK. But "I voted for him because he sticks to his principles" is something DEMOCRATS say when they vote R. It doesn't work the other way around.

[Terwilliger]

51. And I'm sure you know what you're talking about

You've probably reflected Dem mainstream thinking throughout the terrible losses the party has suffered in the last 10 years.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Terwilliger]

56. Talk about what? You're capitulating to idiots

then saying "well, that's just reality...deal with it" Sounds like you're a collaborator more than anything else.

[Hep]

63. I'm what?

Do you even know what you're arguing?

You claim that republicans are going to vote for Kucinich because he sticks to his principles (except for when he went from voting like a repug on reproductive rights to actually resembling a D on the issue).

You're full of it. No Way. I think you've smoked a little too much of Willies wonder weed.

And because I have a REALISTIC approach and an argument you apparently can't counter, I'm capitulating? Whatever!

But tell me, just how would I be a collaborator for sharing my opinion? I really wanna read this.

I don't believe that we should even bother appealing to republicans. We won in 2000, we have the numbers, we just need them to go to the polls. So your point is moot on like 4 different levels.

[Donna Zen]

52. Perception vs Reality

As long as we have a rightwing corporate media, perception wins every time.

It is not Don Rose, it is the electoral map....

[JNelson6563]

59. I caught this smear piece

last week.

I loved the disclaimer before the article; "Dean's still my #2 but..." Did you know "but" negates all that comes before it?

And the fact that once again you found a blatantly language-loaded smear piece so interesting as to post it in GD, thereby kicking off another counter-productive thread, is a bit, well, telling.

Enjoy the roll in the mud pit.

Julie

[Julien Sorel]

65. A smear would contain dishonesty, for example,

unsubstantiated rumor, hearsay or simply making something up (Clark was a Republican 25 days ago...). This was an opinion piece written by a professional in the field, who supports his assertions with backing evidence. You might disagree with his conclusions, and they might even be incorrect (although I've seen no evidence presented thus far that disproves anything Rose says), but the fact that the opinions expressed in this piece happened to cast the ovinity Howard Dean in a negative light doesn't make it a 'smear piece.'

[paulk]

68. Once again you take the low road.

You attack the messenger, as if that tactic were some kind of valid rebuttal to the points this editorial brings up.

You accuse the person who started this thread as being "counter productive". To what? The nomination of Howard Dean? I share the concerns that this editorial brings forward, and I want more people exposed to this thinking. I applaud the poster of this thread!

Honest dialogue requires an acknowledgement that other opinions exist.
Disagreement, argument; these are processes by which two parties can reach common ground - that ground being, hopefully, a candidate we all can support come next November.

[wndycty]

71. Wow. . .

. . .coming after me for posting this. Thats a clever way to avoid what the columnist said.

[Scott Lee]

62. So Old Man Rose doesn't like Dean. How can I possibly go on?

Rose sounds like an old man with the blanket over his legs, spitting out jaded thought nuggets as he prepares to lob an old shoe at the neighborhood cat. Woe is us! An old DINO fence sitter doesn't like Dean.

The proper response to such an article is a polite half smile, a pat on old Don's bag and an offer to heat up his warm milk. In fact, be sure to treat all of your local old School statists in like manner as they fret and woop over Dean and how he's going to lead the Democratic Party into some form of political hari kari.

We don't want to upset them, it could cause a convulsion or something.

[paulk]

64. How can you possibly go on?

You could start by acknowledging that the concerns expressed by Mr. Rose are shared by many Democrats, and are, at the very least, worthy of discussion.

Personally denigrating Mr. Rose, as you have, says a lot more about your lack of maturity than it does about Mr. Roses'.

[Scott Lee]

72. Old Man Rose's problem is obvious. He's calcified.

And cannot stand the idea that things have changed since Jefferson Airplane was on the radio.

The biggest mistake the Left can make is to think that conservatism can't happen amongst our own. It can, and does.

[paulk]

81. Just because you don't agree with what Mr. Rose says

about Howard Dean doesn't make him a conservative.

And besides, ideological purity is no more attractive coming from the left than the right.

and in a complete aside - I saw Jerry Rubin speak in Laramie, Wyoming in 1980, just before he traded in his tie-dye for his suit and tie. It was pathetic - I thought he was a complete phony. Which got me into a big argument with the people I'd gone with, who were practically grovelling at his feet. They saw a sixties radical, still fighting the good fight, still leading the charge. I saw a bankrupt relic, trading on his notoriety for a couple of bucks.


Keep that little story in mind vis avis your support for Howard Dean (or any politician) - you might not be right, Mr. Rose might not be wrong.

[sangh0]

78. It's just more "attack the critic, ignore the issue"

.

[Scott Lee]

85. when the "critic"'s views are ill informed and badly written, yes.

But please lets have more from that high school debate primer. It's been so long....

[chiburb]

69. Here is Don Rose:

"It's different now," said Don Rose, former '60s radical and
political consultant to more liberal Chicago pols than even he can
probably count. "The people who passed us by at this rally, they
didn't spit at us. We're not dirty commie . . . like in the
'60s."

He was talking, and sounding a bit surprised, about the reception he
and his friends had gotten from passersby at a recent protest
against a possible war with Iraq.

But he was thinking back to other times, when he was the spokesman
for the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam,
one of the largest groups protesting the Democratic National
Convention in Chicago in 1968.


(I don't have a clue why those lines are thru the text. I even deleted and recopied...)

[Scott Lee]

73. And here was Jerry Rubin, former Yippie radical....

I don't have a photo, but I saw a shot of him right before he died. He was in a suit; stock broker, I believe.

Anything else?

[ima_sinnic]

79. that strikeout happened because

you put "<s>" at the end of "commie"

[chiburb]

83. Ah...

Too late to edit, but I thought all I did was cut and paste.
Thx.