Howard Dean new Democrat party chairman

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


But he's not far left. What he is is militant, which most people mistake for extremism. Kerry was to the left of Dean, but because he's mild mannered, he seemed more centrist.

Well, yes. He is not a communist if that is what you mean but you must agree that he cannot win a national election, which is my point. Why don't the Democrats choose a man like Joeseph Liberman? I might even consider voting for him.

[Ramo]

FYI, Kerry's considerably more liberal than Dean.

[Dinner]

Re: Howard Dean new Democrat party chairman

Originally posted by Lincoln

Do the Democrats ever learn anything?

I am afraid we must lose a few more before we kick out the idiots.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Re: Re: Howard Dean new Democrat party chairman

Originally posted by Oerdin


I am afraid we must lose a few more before we kick out the idiots.

The only idiots in the Democratic party are the ones who think the party should define itself as a kinder, gentler GOP. Dean, thankfully, is not one of those.

[Dinner]

Yes, you are right. Clinton was an election losing idiot. Extremism is so much better.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Ramo
Just curious Lincoln, what aspects of Dean's record do you believe make him a "far left nut case" or a "far left radical?"

He did not support the troops during war time. If that is his view then good for him but he will not be a national leader with that position. I guess he forgot all the American flags after 9/11. If he has the guts to stand for unpopular issues then he is to be commended but he will drag the Democrat party out of relevance to the great majority of Americans. That is just the way it is. If he want to be another Ralph Nader of Pat Buchanan then good for him but the Democrat party is nuts for choosing him to lead their party.

[Ramo]

Clinton lost Congress in a landslide.

[Ramo]

He did not support the troops during war time.

What the hell does that mean?

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Lincoln
He did not support the troops during war time.

What do you define as supporting the troops?

EDIT: We posted that question almost simultaneously, Ramo.

[Lincoln]

He wanted to bring them home while sugesting their work was for nothing and they died in vain.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Lincoln
He wanted to bring them home while sugesting their work was for nothing and they died in vain.

Isn't that an oversimplification? As I recall, Dean was against Iraq, not Afghanistan.

[Ramo]

And Dean wanted to keep the troops there after the invasion took place, and in fact supported having more troops than Bush has, in Iraq. He had a very similar position to Kerry, in fact.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Yes, you are right. Clinton was an election losing idiot. Extremism is so much better.

Clinton was Clinton -- best campaigner to ever run for president. And even he would have lost if Perot hadn't split the GOP vote. Plus, as Ramo points out, the Dems under Clinton finally completely lost control of Congress, and never got it back. The only lesson to be drawn from Clinton is that teh Dems win when they run Clinton. It's not much of a lesson.

But beyond that, the Dems real problem is that they -- moderates and liberals alike -- only define themselves in terms of the GOP. When the GOP is doing well, the Dems runs as "nicer than the GOP"; when the GOP is screwing up, they run as "not the GOP." But LBJ was probably the last Dem who actually ran as a Democrat, instead of a not-Republican. The Dems can't win if they won't define themselves. Dean gets that. Too few other Dems do.

[Kidlicious]

I remember him wanting to bring them home after the invasion. That's one thing that impressed me. I beleive the troops cause the problems over there.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Clinton was Clinton -- best campaigner to ever run for president. And even he would have lost if Perot hadn't split the GOP vote. Plus, as Ramo points out, the Dems under Clinton finally completely lost control of Congress, and never got it back. The only lesson to be drawn from Clinton is that teh Dems win when they run Clinton. It's not much of a lesson.

No, it's that they've been losing consistently except for him.

Hello, McFly! You have to get people to vote for you, a majority of them, if you want to win elections. You can hold all the crustless-sandwhich, tea and knitting meetings that you want. You will lose until you appeal to the majority of the electorate.

Ironically, I find myself a Tory who is similarly shut out of power where I am from by a bunch of leaders who don't seem to be able to rent a clue about what it takes to get elected to power.