Howard Dean new Democrat party chairman

[Harry Tuttle]

Here's another reason why I think Dean is an extremist and not just a militant. During the primaries Dean was the outsider looking to break in to the so-called "Washington Insiders" that controlled the party. He screamed and he screamed bloody murder to his young followers, huffing and puffing about how they were going to storm the gates like some mongol horde.

He ran a pessimistic campaign and ran heavily against the "bureaucrats" in power. He wasn't a major proponent of anything except change. It wasn't like he was a supporter of the Dems, but rather an interloper.

[Harry Tuttle]

Well now that I'm comparing definitions... I dunno Che. Being a militant assumes that you support something. An extremist is just extreme...

Yeah ok, I agree, but Dean sure wasn't militant about the Dems, just about himself. It's really ironic that he would be chosen to lead or for that matter want to lead something he was so against. Does this mean the traditional avenues of fundraising will dry up as he attempts to remake the party in his own image?

[Sava]

I think we need to give Harry Tuttle a "Nedaverse", so to speak... the Tuttleverse? It doesn't quite have the same ring to it, but nevertheless, it rings true.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Sava
I think we need to give Harry Tuttle a "Nedaverse", so to speak... the Tuttleverse? It doesn't quite have the same ring to it, but nevertheless, it rings true.

Hey you know what, at least I try to argue.

[Sava]

I know, you're better than me... I just troll and make poor attempts at making fun of people.

I give you props for not really biting my trolls though.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Sava
I know, you're better than me... I just troll and make poor attempts at making fun of people.

Why thank you, that really means.... HEY!

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Centrism is wrong. It makes no stands, only compromises.

WOO!

Liberal's already a dirty word, I can't wait until "Centrist" and "Moderate" become just as vile insults!

I wear my "liberal" label with pride.

I do think we should use the term "progressive" more often though...it'd very hard to demonize that word.

[Odin]

It is about time we turn conservative into a dirty word.

The demonization of the left really started in 1968 when the right started bantering around the term "radical liberal."

[Odin]

Oh, and the only reason Clinton was a "moderate" was the '94 election.

[Ramo]

Here's another reason why I think Dean is an extremist and not just a militant. During the primaries Dean was the outsider looking to break in to the so-called "Washington Insiders" that controlled the party. He screamed and he screamed bloody murder to his young followers, huffing and puffing about how they were going to storm the gates like some mongol horde.

He ran a pessimistic campaign and ran heavily against the "bureaucrats" in power. He wasn't a major proponent of anything except change. It wasn't like he was a supporter of the Dems, but rather an interloper.

Demanding party reform - greater grass roots input, accountability for the loser consultants, fewer corporate contributions, putting together a coherent message, and loudly standing up for your beliefs makes you an extremist? In a party as seriously ****ed up as the Democratic Party? That's nonsense.

And he did run on specific issues, largely his VT record - balanced budgets, universal childhood healthcare, etc. That his most contentious idea was party reform hardly means that his platform was amorphous. And the party reform wasn't amorphous either - it was a specific set of proposals, and it has gotten even more specific for the DNC chair campaign.

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

I guess they are standing on principles. Good for them. They can lose all the elections they want. It is certainly their right.

Four Fantastic One-Party States:
Mexico
Japan
China
North Korea



"...We have never sought to become a [one party state]. Rather, our [views] are simply so [right] that nobody feels the need to compete."
--CEO Nwabudike Morgan...

Mexico is currently not a one-party state imho

[Ramo]

The NDP aren't part of the picture. They stand less chance than a snowball in hell of ever forming a government.

The Liberals co-opted the Conservative fiscal agenda. They delivered on balanced budgets and tax cuts when the Conservatives floundered. Don't tell me that the Democrats couldn't get traction on the issue of deficits.

The language they used was 'responsible government'. Revolutionary, I know, but it might be worth the risk to propose it to the American electorate.

That's not what I asked. Do they refer to tax cuts as tax relief?

I can tell you what I hear. I hear rabid critics of the Liberal government. What I hear only a zombie would vote based on.

I don't live in Toronto, but I doubt the Liberals get a free ride there.

Still, they win.

I very much doubt that right-wing partisan radio stations are as prevalent in Canada as in the states. But, let's assume they are. There's still the matter of massive Republican investment in right-wing think tanks, particularly focusing on language, which doubt is anywhere near as extensive in Canada. Republican Congressmen take classes on language framing. There's just no comparison between the two.

I doubt it comes down to that. I doubt that any from the Liberals or Democrats would ever admit that abortions in the third trimester depended on the mother's health. No, the issue is no restrictions, or Pro Choice 'no matter what', no matter what everyone else thinks about it.

Religion be damned. I am not religious, but the thought of a child who is hours from life outside of the womb being dismembered and destroyed on a whim is disgusting and it cries out for restriction.

Then you clearly don't understand Democratic politics. In my experience, the vast majority of Democrats support restrictions on abortion in the third trimester, excepting situations endangering the mother's health. In fact, that's the current law in Roe.

I would say that election results do not back you up.

How so? Kerry lost principally because he wasn't able to articulate a message. He didn't define his core values, rather had a laundry list of issues which he didn't bother to defend, or connect to a moral basis. That's why the flip-flopper charge stuck so well to him - he was seen as vacuous.

[Odin]

To me it seems that US politics isn't even about important issues anymore, it is about wedge issues like gay marrige, and looking good for the news clips.

[Ramo]

Very simple. Clinton got elected and moved left away from the center. He started pushing for National Health Care and ending the ban on gays in the military among other things. These are nice ideas but it was more then enough to convince the center that Clinton, and by reflection the Democratic Party, was leftist instead of centrist. Bam, we lose election.

As Rufus stated, Clinton campaigned well to the left of how he governed.

The real lesson of 1994 is that Clinton failed to define his Presidency or the Democratic Party, so the Republicans did it for him. He didn't bother to defend his relatively moderate health care reform, so the Republicans turned it into a NHS-like system. He caved and triangulated, and so did the rest of the Democratic Party. And they were slaughtered in Congress.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Odin
To me it seems that US politics isn't even about important issues anymore, it is about wedge issues like gay marrige, and looking good for the news clips.

It's how the right has managed to gain power like it has... wedge issues like gay marriage and abortion split the nation. While we are all arguing about this other bull****, they laugh all the way to the bank with their tax cuts while social programs get gutted.