Because you stick your foot in your mouth and you're an asshole.

Howard Dean is a ninnie

quote:

Fundraisers jilt Dean By Alexander Bolton Three top fundraisers at the Democratic National Committee have resigned at a time when its chairman, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, has come under fire from fellow Democrats for controversial comments and his Republican counterpart has raised more than twice as much money. Democratic sources link the resignations to Dean’s decision to focus on raising money in small increments through the Internet, as he did during his 2004 presidential bid, and building up the party’s grassroots infrastructure while paying little attention to major Democratic donors. But other Democrats say the first several months after a party’s losing presidential campaign are naturally a time of transition and it will take time for committee officials to get their “sea legs.” Dean’s defenders also note that DNC fundraising is ahead of where it was at this point after the last presidential election, when Democrats could still raise unlimited amounts of soft money. The committee’s finance directors for the two biggest hubs of Democratic fundraising have quit. Bridget Siegel, finance director for New York and the surrounding area, resigned last week, and Lori Kreloff, finance director for California, left the committee last month. A third top DNC fundraiser, Nancy Eiring, the director of grassroots fundraising, has also resigned, citing strategic differences with aides to Dean, according to a report yesterday in ABC News’ “The Note.” Siegel told The Hill that she remained at the DNC for the first few months of the year only to help with the transition to leadership under a new chairman and that “Dean is moving the party in a great direction.” Siegel will raise money for Andrew Cuomo’s race for New York attorney general. Kreloff has set up her own consulting firm, LBK Consulting Inc., and has signed on Maryland Senate hopeful Rep. Ben Cardin (D) as a new client. She said Dean is “doing a wonderful job building the grassroots.” Eiring did not return a call for comment. Democratic fundraisers say that there is growing concern over what they call Dean’s lack of attention to major donors and that donors are much less likely to give money if they don’t have sufficient opportunity to meet with the party’s leadership. “When you don’t have the chairman to fundraise with, or any principals of the leadership, you can’t get major donors to help you,” a veteran Democratic fundraiser said. “You want the leaders of the party to sit down with them so they can discuss their plan.” “It’s frustrating to be the staff person in charge of that group,” the fundraiser said. “No one wants to stay in a job in which they’re not successful.” The fundraiser added that New York is a competitive place to raise money and that donors often demand detailed explanations of how the money will be spent. Dean stressed Internet fundraising at a speech he delivered in Washington last week at a “Take Back America” convention of liberal activists and strategists sponsored by Campaign for America’s Future. In that speech, Dean said many Republicans have “never made an honest living in their lives,” a remark that has prompted criticism from Republicans and caused such Democrats as Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) to distance themselves from Dean. Concern over Dean’s remarks has fused with concern over the party’s fundraising pace compared with that of Republicans. Through the end of April, the DNC raised $18.2 million in total contributions, according to a report filed with the Federal Election Commission, although DNC officials say that $18.6 million is a more accurate total. By comparison, the Republican National Committee has raised $42.6 million, according to FEC data — more than twice as much. The disparity comes as a shock to many Democrats who touted the ability of Democrats to match roughly the GOP’s fundraising in last year’s election. “Governor Dean is focusing on the major donors and the grassroots fundraising,” DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said. “He meets with our major donors on all the trips.” Finney said Dean was in San Francisco on Monday and attended an event with donors there. She added that Dean was in Seattle on Sunday; Montana on Saturday; and Kansas, Missouri and Atlanta on Friday and “in each of those places [is] reaching out to the major donors as well as the grassroots.” Finney also said Dean has raised more money by this point in the presidential election cycle than any other DNC chairman had. Through the first three months of this year, the DNC raised $14.1 million, ahead of the pace Chairman Terry McAuliffe set in 2001, when he raised $23.5 million in the first six months of that year. But some donors say the party’s leadership has not been clear about its policy goals. “What would the leaders of the Democratic Party like to do five years from now?” asked Steve Kirsch, a California-based donor and founder of InfoSeek.com. “You don’t know and nobody else knows, and that’s a problem.” However, Steve Grossman, who was DNC chairman in the 1998 election cycle, defended Dean. “In any period of new leadership, in any organization, there’s going to be a transition, a shakedown period, and people are going to find their sea legs over a period of time,” he said. Pointing out that Dean traveled to Boston three and a half weeks ago to speak to about 100 major donors at two events, Grossman said, “People found him to be electrifying. They’re seizing on the message,” which Grossman described as “strategic, thoughtful and tactical.” Joe Cari, DNC finance director in 2000 and a DNC member, said Dean is “doing a great job.” “There is a transition period,” he added. “He’s clearly finding his footing as a chairman, but it takes a while. It takes a while to get the right people in place.”

HOward Dean is nothing more than a partisan hack. I didn't think the DNC could do worse than Terri McCaullough, but listen to this guy. Regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum, this is really offensive.

fucking moron

I see nobody wants to defend Dean--I can't blame you. This guy just can't get out of his own way!

Linkage

quote:

THE NATION Dean's Zeal Is Looking Like Zealotry, Some Fear Tone down the rhetoric, Democrats tell their leader after his recent inflammatory remarks. By Richard Simon Times Staff Writer June 10, 2005 WASHINGTON — When Howard Dean was chosen to head their party, Democrats looked forward to the benefits of his bristling energy and zest for political combat. But at a private meeting Thursday on Capitol Hill, a number of worried Senate Democrats warned Dean that he had been going overboard and needed to choose his words more carefully. The former Vermont governor and unsuccessful presidential candidate recently referred to the GOP as "pretty much a white, Christian party" and declared that a lot of Republicans have "never made an honest living in their lives." Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.) said that at the Capitol Hill meeting, "there couldn't be any doubt that there was some concern, even by Dean himself," about how his comments had been received. The meeting had been scheduled to discuss party strategy before Dean's controversial comments. Also Thursday, two Democrats seen as rising stars — Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee and Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner — made a point of distancing themselves from Dean's remarks. Ford, who plans a Senate run next year, said on the Don Imus radio show that if Dean could not "temper his comments, it may get to the point where the party may need to look elsewhere for leadership, because he does not speak for me." Ford later told The Times that Dean was "leading us in a direction that makes it difficult to win…. His leadership right now is not serving any of us very well." Warner, who has been mentioned as a possible 2008 presidential candidate, said Dean was using "not the kind of tone that I would use, not the kind of tone a lot of the Democratic governors in mostly Republican states are using to get elected or to govern." Warner made his comments at a luncheon at The Times' Washington bureau. After the meeting on Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats expressed continuing support for Dean, who was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee in February. "Every single one of us has stuck our foot in our mouths at one point in our public careers, and we've paid for it the next day," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said that although she didn't agree with Dean's recent comments, she considered him an effective party chairman. "That is why the Republicans are so relentlessly going after him," she said. The flap demonstrates Democrats' conflict over how sharply party leaders should express themselves after the party's 2004 election losses. "We really don't have a message right now," Ford lamented. Dean is no stranger to controversy. His strong opposition to the Iraq war helped him emerge as the initial front-runner in the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, but his candidacy faded after a series of verbal gaffes. He was especially hurt by his overheated concession speech after finishing third in the Iowa caucuses. When Dean sought the party chairmanship, he attracted support with speeches that fiercely attacked President Bush and the Republican Party. He has continued such pugnacity since becoming chairman, but it was his recent remarks that heightened concern among Democrats. Dean, in a speech Monday in San Francisco, said Republicans were "not very friendly to different kinds of people. They are a pretty monolithic party…. It's pretty much a white, Christian party." A recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found that 82% of Republicans identified themselves as white Christians. For Democrats, the figure was 57%. Given those findings, some people defended Dean's comment. But many criticized it as divisive. Christian Coalition President Roberta Combs said in a statement: "Howard Dean, when he was elected chairman, promised to reach out to all the states that voted for President Bush in last year's election. Disparaging Christians is not the smartest way to do this." Democrats who believed they lost votes last year on values-related issues worried that Dean's comments would give Republicans an opening to portray Democrats as — as one congressional Democratic aide put it — a "godless party." That aide, who requested anonymity, also said Dean's comment that a lot of Republicans "never made an honest living in their lives," which Dean made in a speech in Washington last week, could hurt Democratic efforts to win support from middle-class Republicans. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on her way into the Capitol Hill meeting with Dean that he "ought to stick to organization, raising funds and supporting Democrats, rather than creating friction and splitting the party." She added that she would advise Dean to "cool it." A Feinstein spokesman said after the meeting that the senator had expressed her concerns to Dean, but in a more diplomatic way. Among those who expressed their concerns to Dean at the meeting were Democrats from states carried by President Bush. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), up for reelection next year, said that he cautioned Dean "not to get caught up in the Washington game of political polarization." Dean's response was, "Thank you," Nelson said. Dean declined to speak with reporters after the meeting. While walking away briskly, he said he planned to be "focusing on the future." Political analysts agreed that Dean's recent comments could hurt Democrats. "Every time he makes an outrageous remark, other Democratic leaders have to answer questions about it," said John J. Pitney Jr., a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College. "So instead of talking about their best issues, they're talking about their loose cannon. "He's throwing them off message." Don Kettl, a University of Pennsylvania political scientist, added: "The Democrats wanted Dean in part because he showed how to raise huge sums of money on the Internet — and because he was a live wire who could energize the party. But high-current wires can sometimes cause painful shocks too." Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) said he didn't think Dean's comments were helpful to the party. But he noted, as did a number of other Democratic senators, that Dean was still new to his job as chairman and had been accustomed to speaking his mind as a governor and presidential candidate. "This is a learning process," he said. If Dean were to continue to make the sort of comments he has made recently, Biden said, "he might find himself in a real difficult situation. But I think you'll see him be a little more careful in how he phrases things. Do I think this has caused long-term damage for the Democratic Party? No. If it becomes the steady diet for the next three years? Yeah."

Well I haven't been following the fortunes of the American Democrats that closely lately, so I'm not sure how much I can really add to this debate, but based on the articles you've provided I'm not exactly sure there's a whole lot of substance to the aspertions you seem intent on casting on Howard Dean.

With regards to the first article, the author seems to have written it with the pre-conceived purpose of linking the resignations of DNC fundraisers with Dean's ineptness in his new role, although the facts in this case don't seem to bare out this conclusion at all. From what I can gather from that article, those who have resigned have done so amicably with support for the job Dean is doing (with the possible exception of Nancy Eiring?). Please tell me which of these resignations demonstrate that there is discontent amongst the Democratic rank-and-file for the aptitude Dean is showing for the role he is currently performing:

quote:

Siegel told The Hill that she remained at the DNC for the first few months of the year only to help with the transition to leadership under a new chairman and that “Dean is moving the party in a great direction.”

quote:

Kreloff has set up her own consulting firm, LBK Consulting Inc., and has signed on Maryland Senate hopeful Rep. Ben Cardin (D) as a new client. She said Dean is “doing a wonderful job building the grassroots.”

quote:

Eiring did not return a call for comment.

One was going to leave anyway, the other left to pursue a different career path, where Eiring gave no comment at all. The first two left praising the work was doing, the third left with no explicit criticisms. Is this really a sign that there is wide-spread discontent within the party about the fund-raising initiatives Dean is leading? Especially when the facts (don't you just love them?) tell us that, whether you agree with his grass-roots methods or not, "Dean has raised more money by this point in the presidential election cycle than any other DNC chairman had"? I'm not sure exactly what you or the author of the article are trying to lampoon Dean about here, but the criticisms - at the very least - seem to be largely unsupported.

As for the sound-bite, sounds like he hit the nail more or less on the head to be honest. I know that given the post-Clinton spinelessness of the Democratic party that Republicans aren't used to being criticised, but feign indignation all you want because I'm not sure that there was anything particularly offensive or inaccurate about anything he said.

How many Republican politicians can you name, for instance, that aren't white or Christian? Given their propensity towards authoritarian conservativism and their narrowly dogmatic and largely homogenous belief systems, how can they can they not be considered, in a sense at least, monolithic? Given that they're all white, god-fearing, clean-cut, middle-aged men with the same predilection towards blatant, unjustifiable idiocy, how can one make the argument that - allowing for a degree of poetic licence here - they don't look and act the same? However I will admit that Dean was wrong to say that Republicans are not very friendly to certain types of people. Perhaps he just wasn't thinking straight or was blinded by the lights, but what he said was - ultimately - wrong. In my experience, the misanthropic, anti-humanitarian pricks seem to be unfriendly to all types of people.

As for the third article, it's probably correct to say that Dean is good at courting controversy, but that's what makes him such a valuable commodity. As that Democratic representative said on his own party, "We really don't have a message right now" and I think that this safe, centrist, non-commital, middle-ground that the Democrats have tried to step carefully on since the unabashed centrist presidency of Clinton, was part of the reason that they lost the 2004 election. Ultimately the election was decided on "values" and the Democrats didn't seem to have any, or at least were unwilling to state explicitly what they might be. The fact that they have someone in their party willing to be outspoken on the sorts of issues that the Democrats should be standing up for and who is willing to show-up the GOP as the mindless shills they are is something they should be thankful for. Obviously, like I said, he's going to be divisive in saying some of the things he does, but Bush was the most divisive president in living memory and he won an election, so why shouldn't it work for the Democrats?

Godspeed, Mr Dean. Don't you go changing yourself for no-one.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Renegade on Jun-10-2005 at 18:55

I give Dean through the end of summer to finish shooting himself in the foot. I honestly think he will not be long for this post.

With regards to your comment about naming Republican politicians that aren't "white/christian". In all honesty, it's such a pathetic thing to say on Dean's part. He describes the majority of the Democratic party in the same brush stroke. Hell, what is Dean? In his worst defense he's probably a white agnostic or something stupid like that. Alls I'm saying is he is doing a disservice to himself and his party. Granted, Terry McCullough wasn't much better. A blogger I like made some interesting comments on Dean today..

quote:

Intolerance Finds Its Voice “They all behave the same, and they all look the same.” With that sentence, Democratic firebrand and Party Chairman Howard Dean labeled the entire Republican Party—and, by definition, his own Democratic Party as well—according to today’s New York Times. In this, The World According To Howard, the political party to which I belong is “pretty much a white, Christian party.” Well, he’s got me—Republican, white and Christian—although I’m not sure if I’m precisely the kind of “Christian” Howard Dean is talking about. There is, you see, a very broad spectrum of Christians—ranging from Catholics to Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, Congregationalists and Unitarians, with probably a few in between that I left out. Catholics, of course, have the most rigorous and dogmatic faith; Unitarians, on the other hand, pretty much agree that some kind of God probably exists, more or less, somewhere in the universe, now and then, most likely. (I was best man in a Unitarian wedding: it was all very laid-back.) Even within Christian doctrines, there are sub-spectrums: Northern Baptists—the people who came over with Roger Williams and settled Rhode Island—share a faith and a lack-of-organizational-structure remarkably similar to Congregationalists, of which I am one. In fact, during the summer I attend a small Baptist Church in Rhode Island, and except for the large baptistery (a Jacuzzi-like tub) built into the wall behind the altar, you wouldn’t know the difference between a Northern Baptist and a Congregationalist church service. Southern Baptists, on the other hand, are most likely the kind of “Christians” Howard Dean has in mind with his “white, Christian,” label—and apparently Howard doesn’t like their kind. Whether we Republicans are Baptist, Congregationalist or Episcopalian, one thing is clear in The World According To Howard: “Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people.” Dean’s brand of weirdly intolerant liberalism struck me as particularly interesting this morning, having attended a fundraiser last night for a local elderly care center with which I am involved. This was an old elementary school converted into a welcoming center that helps care for a relatively small number of elderly people during the day, while their children are at work. They come from families that can not afford home nursing or do not want their parents in nursing homes. The facility generates a great amount of local support within our community, precisely because it works, and thus has touched many lives. I sat at a table with a couple who are good friends of mine who happen to be a member of the Political Party that is “pretty much a white, Christian party,” according to Howard Dean. Except they somehow missed the indoctrination seminar, because they are, in fact, Irish Catholics—not the Southern Baptists of Howard’s stereotype. Furthermore, across the table from us was another long-time friend with whom I served on the board of a local senior housing commission a few years ago. She and her husband are both Democrats, and, as it turns out, white—somehow crossing Howard’s color line. I am not sure of their religion—they share an Irish Catholic surname, but, of course, she may in fact be a Southern Baptist or possibly Jewish by birth. Gosh, just thinking about the whole thing the way Howard Dean thinks about things, I’m not sure how it is possible that the six of us—Republicans, Democrats, Catholic, Congregationalist and possibly Jewish—even bothered sitting together, given all the differences we have. It’s a wonder we even attended the same function. Just thinking about it makes me ponder whether I should stop being friendly to Manny, my friend, who happens to be non-white, and, therefore, "different." On the other hand, Manny is a Republican, so he is one of "our kind," according to Howard. Maybe I should straighten out the whole mess by informing Manny that he signed up for the wrong political party after his boat trip across the Florida Straits, Manny being both non-white and Republican. Also my pal Art—who is both Jewish and Republican. Or, perhaps, in the interests of his new brand of intolerant liberalism, Howard Dean can come to my town and explain to all of us why it is we shouldn’t live together and work together and give time to a local elderly care facility together, given all our differences. Then we could be functioning about as well as Washington, D.C.

My prediction is that once he loses his DNC post, you probably won't hear much from Dr. Dean anymore. And what's the deal with a doctor of all people being so intolerant? I would never go to the guy for medical help as he'd probably kill me instead!

Yeah, I'm still not getting why the statement that the GOP is "pretty much a white, Christian party" (which it is) constitutes "intolerent liberalism" or an in any way open slander on Christianity? As the blogger points out, there are different strains of Christian belief and some Christians (including the blogger himself, if he is to be believed) are capable of great good, but what part of Dean's statement indicates that he wasn't aware of this? Given it's non-specificity, what part of the sentence under scrutiny should Christians be taking offence to?

Also, on an unrelated note, I like your new sig, although I prefer the more precise "A always equals A at the same time and in the same regard" myself. I forget who said it originally, but - as innocuosly simple and obvious as it may appear - that is basically the foundation from which all epistemological speculation can flow. Without the implicit understanding that A equals A, no human "knowledge" would be possible.

[/epistemological derail]

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Also, on an unrelated note, I like your new sig, although I prefer the more precise "A always equals A at the same time and in the same regard" myself. I forget who said it originally, but - as innocuosly simple and obvious as it may appear - that is basically the foundation from which all epistemological speculation can flow. Without the implicit understanding that A equals A, no human "knowledge" would be possible. [/epistemological derail]

I'm actually referencing Rand (how surprising, huh?) But your version certainly fits the bill!

quote:

The metaphysical assumptions of Objectivism, besides believing in objective reality, also support belief in the existence of the human mind, but deny the existence of a god. The universe consists only of that which man can perceive with his senses and interpret with his reasoning mind. Negatives, or nonexistence, such as religious or spiritualist conceptions of heaven, hell, an afterlife or other worlds, cannot be proven, and therefore do not exist. The only existence is that which you can prove or detect with your physical senses and interpret with your reasoning mind. Therefore, all other notions of gods, ghosts, angels, demons, trolls, spirits, leprechauns, etc., are mystical nonreality. Additionally, everything in our physical world has an identity and is equal to itself; something cannot be itself and yet not itself nor something else. Rand summed this Aristotelian logic of "A equals A" as her axiom "existence exists." This is the logic of natural, physical laws.

Hey Shakka,

Ya know, just because I don’t respond much anymore doesn’t mean a response isn’t justified by any means. So here’s my first thought:

Give me a fucking break, man.

Have you actually closely examined these fucking retarded accusations that have been thrown out as GOP talking points?

Let’s first examine a few things about Dean and his position:

He was a near UNANIMOUS vote into the DNC chair. And who put the pressure on to vote him in? The grassroots. If you google some things about his history and his position coming into the chair vote, you’ll see that there was indeed some opposition by folks from the Beltway – most were Washington centrists who’s been led by the same fucking consultants who continue the wonderful losing streak for the Dems. over the past 2 decades (the exception, of course, is Clinton). And yes, even the Clintons had some opposition to Dean’s position – but let’s keep in mind that their opposition was primarily because Dean was not a typical “Beltway” bureaucrat. He was an outsider who swung with both fists, speaks his mind entirely, and knows how to raise a shitload of cash fast.

As it was becoming quite clear to the Beltway fucks (Biden is most certainly one of them), Dean was a whopping overwhelming favorite for the Party chair, so their tune changed quickly (and I do mean quickly once they saw the numbers). They did a 180 and began praising his fundraising abilities, and he was overwhelmingly voted in as chair.

So now they (the Beltway Dem. Fucks) see an opening in Dean as this bullshit about his fundraising abilities has been put into question. The trouble is, it’s pure bullshit. They (the Beltway Dems.) of course know it, but what we’re seeing here in the Dem. Party is something long brewing – the Beltway fucks are losing power and FAST. I say, the sooner the fucking better, because with fucks like these in the party, who needs Republicans?

But let’s look at the facts of Dean’s fundraising:

quote:

These claims echo an assertion in a June 6 BusinessWeek article that misleadingly compared DNC fund-raising with money that the Republican National Committee (RNC) has raised this year. But a more relevant metric of fund-raising by the Dean-led DNC -- a comparison of this year's receipts with receipts in 2003 and 2001, the most recent election off-years -- proves that Dean's fund-raising efforts have surpassed those of his predecessor. …In fact, Dean raised $14.8 million between February and April 2005 (the latest data available), compared with the DNC's $8.5 million during that period in 2003, the previous non-election year, and compared with the DNC's $13.7 million in so-called "hard money" raised in the first six months of 2001. (It should be noted that since 2001, the contribution limits to national parties have increased as a result of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.) Moreover, the DNC has raised more in comparison to the RNC over the past three months than it did during 2003. The RNC raised $32.4 million between February and April, about 2.2 times the rate of the Democrats, as Media Matters for America noted; over the same period in 2003, the RNC raised $25.7 million, more than three times the rate of the DNC. Media Matters compiled statistics from February through April, rather than the first-quarter statistics that BusinessWeek used, because Dean did not assume leadership of the DNC until February 12. In addition, Crowley's comparison of the parties' cash-on-hand totals distorted the current state of Democratic party finances. She failed to note that the "$7.2 million for the Democrats" is nearly double the $3.9 million the DNC had on hand at the end of the first quarter of 2003. http://mediamatters.org/items/200506080004

So not only is Dean raising more money in the off-year than his predecessors, he’s kicking Mehlman’s ass in the past three months in comparison to 2003.

And speaking of Ken Mehlman, anyone wanna venture a guess as to why he hasn’t admitted whether or not he’s gay? I digress, sorry.

Also from Salon:

quote:

Despite the polemics that were sure to follow Dean's assuming the role of party chairman, his primary duty is to raise money. Though the Republican National Committee has raised money at a rate of 2-to-1 on Democrats in the first quarter of 2005, Dean himself has been effective. In the first four months, under Dean's stewardship, the DNC has raised nearly $19 million -- more than under any other Democratic chairman in an off-election year. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/06/07/dean/

Some more facts from Howard Fineman:

quote:

As a fund-raiser--the first duty of a party chairman and Dean's claim to fame in '04--he isn't quite the disaster some critics suggest. Early in the last "cycle," in 2001, the Republican National Committee outraised the DNC by a 3-1 margin. So far this year, that ratio has been cut to 2-1. More important is the way it was raised. In the past the party relied on "soft money" from millionaires. But such donations are now illegal. Officials esti-mate that $12 million of the $14 million the Dean regime has collected so far this year has come from those who gave less than $250. "For people who really look hard at the numbers, he's wowing people," says Elaine Kamarck, a respected DNC member. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8185333/site/newsweek/

Get the picture? As usual, you Republicans are left to taking things completely out of context to bolster your own case. To say the least, you guys continue to create a straw man. To say the worst, which I completely advocate here – THE REPUBLICANS ARE FUCKING LYING, period.

And speaking of one of those so-called “critics” of Dean, John Edwards, let’s take a real fucking look at what Edwards himself has to say about it on his own blog:

quote:

What a flap has arisen over a disagreement about the way something is said! I was in Nashville over the weekend, thanking the good people of Tennessee who supported the Democratic presidential ticket this year, when I was asked whether I thought that it was fair to say that people who were Republican hadn't done a good day's work. Of course, I didn't think so, and I said that. I don't think our DNC chair, Howard Dean, would put it that way again if asked either. I disagreed with him, and I said so. And, I want to be clear, I would have to say so again if I were asked again. I said a lot of good things about Howard's outreach program and invigoration of the internet as a communication and fundraising tool, but no one wrote about that. Instead the headlines blared that I disagreed with Howard. And then the flap arose: A chasm! A split! A revolt! Instead, how about : Nonsense! We are both talking about the Republicans and their failure to address the needs of working people. We both agree with this basic truth: This Republican president and this Republican majority are not doing what they should be doing for working people in this country. That's a core belief we need to fight for. And what's more, we agree that we - all Democrats and all working people - should be complaining, criticizing, and generally speaking out about this critical failure of the Republican party and offering our positive vision for America. And we have. Howard and I have been saying the same thing about this for years. Hear that? The same thing. For years. http://blog.oneamericacommittee.com...de=nested&tid=1

A bit different in FULL CONTEXT than what you Repubs. wanna paint, ain’t it?

And if you honestly think any true Democrat’s backing down from Dean, think again. First, from the DLC of all places (they’re a part of the anti-Dean Beltway):

quote:

My basic take on Howard Dean's DNC chairmanship is simple. After the 2004 elections, Dean had a choice. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for him to have assumed leadership of an abrasive and divisive faction of the Democratic party, as a proto-candidate for the 2008 presidential nomination. But instead, he chose to pursue the difficult and often thankless job of party chairman, building on the aspects of his 2004 candidacy that virtually all Democats appreciated: small-dollar fundraising, and grass-roots efforts to expand the ranks of party activists. For all my differences of opinion with Dean's 2004 campaign, his self-sacrificing choice afterwards earned my respect, and my loyalty. Dean's work as party chairman has focused expanding the Democratic base in red states, and that, too, is exactly what I hoped he would do. Every party chair spends a lot of time speaking to Democratic activists, and inevitably serves up a lot of red meat. Dean's recent "controversial" remarks would have been completely unobjectionable, and probably unnoticed, if they had been uttered by his predecessor. So I think the media treatment of his remarks is unfair, and moreover, misses the legitimate thrust of his basic argument: the GOP leadership does indeed favor wealth over work, and is indeed divisive and exclusive on issues of culture, ethnicity and religion. Sound-bites aside, Dean is right, and you can count me out of any campaign to get him to resign for saying the right thing in a way that is being wilfully misrepresented. http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/11/194416/914

Next, from the DNC itself:

quote:

Democratic National Committee leaders embraced feisty party boss Howard Dean on Saturday and urged him to keep fighting despite a flap over his blunt comments on Republicans. After a meeting of the DNC's 40-member executive committee at a downtown hotel, members said Dean was doing exactly what they elected him to do -- build the party in all states and aggressively challenge Republicans. "I hope Governor Dean will remember that he didn't get elected to be a wimp," said DNC member Gilda Cobb-Hunter, a South Carolina state representative. "We have been waiting a long time for someone to stand up for Democrats." [...] "Howard Dean is going to be much more aggressive, much more outspoken and much more of a risk-taker outside the Beltway than any chairman has been. We knew that," said Alvaro Cifuentes, chairman of the DNC Hispanic caucus. "We have to get our politics out of Washington. We cannot continue to be held captive by party leaders who I respect but who have to play their own local politics," Cifuentes said, calling congressional Democrats "timid" and the flap over his comments "mostly a Beltway play." [...] Several DNC members said Dean had done what he promised -- shift the party's focus to local races rather than concentrate solely on the White House, and pump money into "red" states dominated in recent years by Republicans. Western Democrats said they were thrilled Dean attended a regional meeting in Helena, Montana, last weekend. "How many Democratic chairmen have gone out to Montana?" asked Steven Alari of California. "When we elected Dean we knew we were getting a leader who would be good at organizing the base and getting the message out to the American people, and that's what he's doing," Alari said. "He's our guy." http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...1/pl_nm/dean_dc

A-fucking-men. He is our guy.

As for the Republicans run primarily by white Christians or something to that effect, please try not to deny that. Lo and behold, you guys are actually white as fuck:

quote:

But a new book about America's political divisions notes that the 99 percent of all Republican legislators across the country and in Congress are white. The national Republican Party, whose base is in the South, the Plains and the Mountain states, looks to white men as its power base and source of leadership. Even when Republican states have significant minority populations, the elected Republican representatives rarely are drawn from those communities. The Great Divide: Retro vs. Metro America, a new look at political divisions in America by educator-entrepreneur Dr. John Sperling, calls those states 'Retro America,' and notes: 'Its whiteness and maleness are mirrored in the Republican Party.' Of 3,643 Republicans serving in the state legislatures, only 44 are minorities, or 1.2 percent. In the Congress, with 274 of the 535 elected senators and representatives Republican, only five are minorities - three Cuban Americans from Florida, a Mexican American from Texas and a Native American senator originally elected as a Democrat. [NOTE FROM JOHN: That means the GOP has elected ZERO blacks to Congress.] 'President Bush's home state leads the way. Texas, with a minority population of 47 percent, has 106 Republicans in the state legislature, but there are 0 blacks and 0 Hispanics among them,' Sperling writes. 'No major corporation doing business with the government could be so white without being subject to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) action!' An advertisement appearing in the New York Times and Washington Post this week describes this 'Retro Republican Reality.' For more information and to download chapters of the Sperling book, go to www.retrovsmetro.org. Print editions of The Great Divide are on sale exclusively at amazon.com/greatdivide. http://americablog.blogspot.com/200...hite-study.html

Horrible shocker, I’m sure.

Here’s John Danforth, a former GOP Senator saying what we all know about your party today:

quote:

By a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians.... The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.... But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/033005H.shtml

And please help me decifer what a minority looks like in this pic with Bush signing his anti-abortion bill:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/20...194634/0225/2#2

Couldn’t find one, can you?

I’m really glad you Republicans are attempting to corner Dean on issues like these. I realize it may be a major insult to that whopping 7% of African Americans and 22% of Hispanics who consider themselves Republicans, as well as the 16% of those with “no religion” who also vote Republican:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=750

I realize that no Republican has EVER made any sweeping generalizations to Democrats or the Democratic Party EVER, right? How shameful of anyone to even consider such a thought from Republicans EVER doing the same, right?

So yes, in a nutshell you guys own the vast majority of white, religious nutbags who, I might add, definitely have your party by the balls and want continual payback for getting your president re-elected. If you don’t believe me, try examining how the fundie nutbags still feel over your judge filibuster compromise:

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/62005h.asp

Congratulations to all of you, really.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Hey Shakka, Ya know, just because I don’t respond much anymore doesn’t mean a response isn’t justified by any means. So here’s my first thought: Give me a fucking break, man. Have you actually closely examined these fucking retarded accusations that have been thrown out as GOP talking points? Let’s first examine a few things about Dean and his position: He was a near UNANIMOUS vote into the DNC chair. And who put the pressure on to vote him in? The grassroots. If you google some things about his history and his position coming into the chair vote, you’ll see that there was indeed some opposition by folks from the Beltway – most were Washington centrists who’s been led by the same fucking consultants who continue the wonderful losing streak for the Dems. over the past 2 decades (the exception, of course, is Clinton). And yes, even the Clintons had some opposition to Dean’s position – but let’s keep in mind that their opposition was primarily because Dean was not a typical “Beltway” bureaucrat. He was an outsider who swung with both fists, speaks his mind entirely, and knows how to raise a shitload of cash fast. As it was becoming quite clear to the Beltway fucks (Biden is most certainly one of them), Dean was a whopping overwhelming favorite for the Party chair, so their tune changed quickly (and I do mean quickly once they saw the numbers). They did a 180 and began praising his fundraising abilities, and he was overwhelmingly voted in as chair. So now they (the Beltway Dem. Fucks) see an opening in Dean as this bullshit about his fundraising abilities has been put into question. The trouble is, it’s pure bullshit. They (the Beltway Dems.) of course know it, but what we’re seeing here in the Dem. Party is something long brewing – the Beltway fucks are losing power and FAST. I say, the sooner the fucking better, because with fucks like these in the party, who needs Republicans? But let’s look at the facts of Dean’s fundraising: So not only is Dean raising more money in the off-year than his predecessors, he’s kicking Mehlman’s ass in the past three months in comparison to 2003. And speaking of Ken Mehlman, anyone wanna venture a guess as to why he hasn’t admitted whether or not he’s gay? I digress, sorry. Also from Salon: Some more facts from Howard Fineman: Get the picture? As usual, you Republicans are left to taking things completely out of context to bolster your own case. To say the least, you guys continue to create a straw man. To say the worst, which I completely advocate here – THE REPUBLICANS ARE FUCKING LYING, period. And speaking of one of those so-called “critics” of Dean, John Edwards, let’s take a real fucking look at what Edwards himself has to say about it on his own blog: A bit different in FULL CONTEXT than what you Repubs. wanna paint, ain’t it? And if you honestly think any true Democrat’s backing down from Dean, think again. First, from the DLC of all places (they’re a part of the anti-Dean Beltway): Next, from the DNC itself: A-fucking-men. He is our guy. As for the Republicans run primarily by white Christians or something to that effect, please try not to deny that. Lo and behold, you guys are actually white as fuck: Horrible shocker, I’m sure. Here’s John Danforth, a former GOP Senator saying what we all know about your party today: And please help me decifer what a minority looks like in this pic with Bush signing his anti-abortion bill: http://www.dailykos.com/comments/20...194634/0225/2#2 Couldn’t find one, can you? I’m really glad you Republicans are attempting to corner Dean on issues like these. I realize it may be a major insult to that whopping 7% of African Americans and 22% of Hispanics who consider themselves Republicans, as well as the 16% of those with “no religion” who also vote Republican: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=750 I realize that no Republican has EVER made any sweeping generalizations to Democrats or the Democratic Party EVER, right? How shameful of anyone to even consider such a thought from Republicans EVER doing the same, right? So yes, in a nutshell you guys own the vast majority of white, religious nutbags who, I might add, definitely have your party by the balls and want continual payback for getting your president re-elected. If you don’t believe me, try examining how the fundie nutbags still feel over your judge filibuster compromise: http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/62005h.asp Congratulations to all of you, really.

PMS much? Good lord, recognize the fact that on more occasions than not, Dean has stuck his foot in his mouth. Hell, I'd say it's a bad habit. He's scaring a lot of big donors and is doing a general disservice to your party by distancing the party position from the very people he said he wanted to "reach across" to. I guess his arms are just too short. If there was ever anyone with a superiority complex, you guys sure found him. The Democratic party continues to be in a state of disarray. Good luck.

I love this guy

quote:

Scream 2: The Sequel Dean's mouth gives the Democrats plenty to talk about. By Howard Fineman and Tamara Lipper Newsweek June 20 issue - By the glamour-challenged standards of Washington, it was a big-box-office move. On short notice last Saturday, C-Span decided to cover—live—a normally snooze-inducing meeting of the Democratic National Committee. The big draw was the Beltway answer to Russell Crowe: DNC Chairman Howard Dean, whose phone-throwing attacks on Republicans have made him a star again. Earlier in the week at an "ethnic press round table" in San Francisco, Dean had branded the Republican Party "pretty much a white, Christian party"—as if that were some kind of a crime. Wise guys of both camps viewed the statement as a blunder, because, well, most Americans are white Christians. But at the rostrum of a downtown capital hotel, Dean defiantly declared that his characteristic feistiness had been good marketing for the party, drawing $100,000 in unsolicited donations from the Web in one day. "We are not going to lie down in front of the Republican machine anymore!" Dr. Dean shouted. So here is the Dean argument: Is he the fearless avatar of a new Internet-based populism that will reinvigorate the Democratic Party by calling it like it is—even if it sounds like calling names? Or is he a grim Yankee hatchet man who will alienate not just big-money insiders, but the down-scale "faith-based" Red State voters he claims he wants to attract? As a fund-raiser—the first duty of a party chairman and Dean's claim to fame in '04—he isn't quite the disaster some critics suggest. Early in the last "cycle," in 2001, the Republican National Committee outraised the DNC by a 3-1 margin. So far this year, that ratio has been cut to 2-1. More important is the way it was raised. In the past the party relied on "soft money" from millionaires. But such donations are now illegal. Officials esti-mate that $12 million of the $14 million the Dean regime has collected so far this year has come from those who gave less than $250. "For people who really look hard at the numbers, he's wowing people," says Elaine Kamarck, a respected DNC member. Dean has a knack for organization, at least in its insurgent form. It won him the DNC chairmanship—and got him within screaming distance of the nomination. This time his theory is to strengthen weak state organizations with national help. He's visited 22 states since taking over this year; his "assessment teams" have investigated many of those same states. Drawing money from the Internet (as opposed to East and West Coast fat cats) and pumping cash into the grass roots (as opposed to waves of TV advertising) "represents a big paradigm shift in the way the Democratic Party does politics," says Kamarck. But as the permanent lead character in his own movie, Dean is always problematic. Something of a loner politically, he "doesn't have the Rolodex or the contacts that other people have," says Steve Grossman, a former DNC chairman and close ally. Dean is surrounded at the DNC with a new but rather small palace guard of people who believe in his vision and attitude—and who distrust the generation of Democrats that preceded them. But Dean was only too glad to get insider help after his "white, Christian party" remark, which was just the latest in a steady stream of invective that many Democrats have viewed as counterproductive at best—at least if wooing Red State swing voters is the goal. Meeting privately with senators last week, Dean promised to watch himself more carefully. "It's important to make the news, not be the news," he told them, according to Sen. Chris Dodd. But Dean's real problem may not be his mouth but his mind-set. He and his aides seemed genuinely mystified at the idea that his characterization of the GOP was a political mistake. But by labeling the other party a bastion of Christianity, he implied that his own was something else—something determinedly secular—at a time when Dean's stated aim is to win the hearts of middle-class white Southerners, many of whom are evangelicals. In a slide-show presentation at the DNC conference last weekend, polltaker Cornell Belcher focused on why those voters aren't responding to the Democrats' economic message. One reason, he said, is that too many of them see the Democrats as "anti-religion." And why was that? No one asked Dean, who wasn't taking questions from the press.

By all means, Howie, keep on wooing...we're listening.

Last edited by Shakka on Jun-13-2005 at 14:33

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka PMS much?

That obvious, huh?

quote:

Good lord, recognize the fact that on more occasions than not, Dean has stuck his foot in his mouth. Hell, I'd say it's a bad habit. He's scaring a lot of big donors and is doing a general disservice to your party by distancing the party position from the very people he said he wanted to "reach across" to. I guess his arms are just too short. If there was ever anyone with a superiority complex, you guys sure found him. The Democratic party continues to be in a state of disarray. Good luck. I love this guy By all means, Howie, keep on wooing...we're listening.

What I think you're not catching here is this is EXACTLY what the Democratic party needs. As I mentioned earlier, there are indeed some Beltway folks who aren't too privy to Dean and his political rhetoric, shoot-from-the-hip style, but these are exactly the fucks that the majority of Democratic supporters want out. It's no secret that there is a bit of infighting within the party itself, but most true lefty Democrats agree wholeheartedly that this was a long time coming. So what most left pundits see and what I fully agree with is this scenario -

Are we going to continue going down that same ol' road of losing the races to far right extremists, hiring the same damn consultants who know NOTHING but how to lose a race, attempt to compromise with extremists on the Right side of the aisle who's motto is simply stated as "my way or the highway"?

Or shall we finally have a bit of reform in the Party? Shall we finally grab hold of the message of values, grab hold of the fact that the majority of people in America actually hold closer the values of the Democratic Party versus the Republican Party (check any polls on this if you wish)?

I choose the latter, and Dean has successfully put us down that road. Now that's not to say that there's some bumps in the road with Dean. Sure as shit we have to take the downsides with the upsides - but most Lefties see his upsides easily supersceding his downsides, as do I. As I said, he's kicking Mehlman's ass over the past 3 months on fundraising, and has raised more than any of his predecessors. So really, what is more likely here - someone on the Right made some error-prone comparison between Dean and Mehlmann and decided to spread it out via Republican talking points? Or maybe, just maybe someone on the Right (ahem, Rove?) saw the fact that Dean was actually making strides via fundraising, actually catching up to the Republican party, and decided it was best to smear him with a false report on his fundraising?

And really now, who's more fucking classless here lately? Have you not seen what fucking Cheney said about Dean's mother?:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050612..._ge/cheney_dean

Unfuckingbelievable, especially coming from a vice President. And what did Dean have to say in reply?:

quote:

Howard Dean sparred with reporters and drew laughs from the audience, even while he is earning criticism from "some" in his own party for doing something increasingly uncommon in politics... shooting from the hip. "The chairman of the Republican Party has made a big deal out of attracting African-American voters. This is a litmus test. If you don't support the extension of the Voting Rights Act, you don't have the right to walk into a black church and show your face," Dean said. http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/061...oward_dean.html

-and-

quote:

Dean energized "this" audience of union workers and Rainbow-Push activists with his "ideas" and "inclination" to say it like he sees it. "My view is FOX News is a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party and I don't comment on FOX News," Dean said. That was in response to vice president Dick Cheney calling Howard Dean "over the top" on Fox News on Sunday. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050612..._ge/cheney_dean

Fuck yeah - state the obvious.

Dean is doing exactly what the voters want the Democratic party to do- fight for control:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/...5067889,00.html

Jesus, Cheney calling Dean "over the top". What a fucking laugh. Pot fucking meets kettle, huh? I'll let eriposte from The Left Coaster state a retort on this one:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004615.php

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

hehe. Yeah, I saw Cheney's commentary this morning. I don't think it was appropriate either.

Bottom line to me--if this is the guy that you like and want in the post, then by all means--who am I to tell you differently. But I will say that if this is the guy who's supposed to be reaching accross the aisle to people like me (whether or not you agree, I do not consider myself an extremist or religeous zealot of any sort), then I think he's off to a pretty rocky start.

Sorry to detract from your intense studies! Hope everything is going well for you so far.