tecoyah

Will he be a beacon for new democratic leadership, or a hinderance to political understanding?

Dean named Democratic Party chief
Former presidential candidate rips Bush's plans for America

Saturday, February 12, 2005 Posted: 2:35 PM EST (1935 GMT)


Howard Dean, elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee during its winter meeting Saturday.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean took the helm of the Democratic National Committee on Saturday, vowing, "Today will be the beginning of the re-emergence of the Democratic Party."

Dean, 56, won the chairmanship on a voice vote of the 447-member committee after six other candidates dropped out in recent weeks.

He immediately laid out his vision for rebuilding a party clobbered in recent elections, leaving it out of power in the White House, both chambers of Congress, and a majority of governorships.

"Republicans wandered around in the political wilderness for 40 years before they took back Congress.

"But the reason that we lost control is because we forgot why we were entrusted with that control in the first place," Dean said in his acceptance speech.

"The American people cannot afford to wait for 40 more years for us to put Washington back to work for them."

"It won't take us that long -- not if we stand up for what we believe in, organize at the local level, and recognize that strength does not come from the consultants down. It comes from the grass roots up."

Republicans, Dean said, "know the America they want, and...are not afraid to use any means to get there.

"But there is something that this administration and the Republican Party are very afraid of -- it is that we may actually begin fighting for what we believe: fiscally responsible, socially progressive values for which Democrats have always stood and fought."

The former presidential contender, who appeared likely to win the party's nomination before his candidacy fizzled in early 2004, promised to work hard in areas in which the Democratic Party faces major uphill battles.

While avoiding the heated, emotional style of his infamous "scream" speech that contributed to his loss of the presidential nomination, Dean, in measured tones, lobbed heavy criticism at the GOP and President Bush's agenda.

Referring to Bush's 2006 budget, submitted this week, Dean said, "The Republicans introduced a $2.5 trillion budget that deliberately conceals the cost of their fiscal recklessness."

The budget, Dean said, "brings Enron-style accounting to the nation's capital and it demonstrates once again what all Americans are now beginning to see: you cannot trust Republicans with your money."

He lashed out at Bush's Social Security plan, which would allow people to place some money earmarked for Social Security into private investment accounts.

"We believe that a lifetime of work earns you a retirement of dignity," he said. "We will not let that be put at risk by leaders who continually invent false crises to justify policies that don't work, in this case borrowing from our children, shredding our social safety net in the process."

Despite his litany of criticisms, Dean said, "We cannot win if all we are is against the current president and his administration."

"The Republicans will not tell Americans what the Democratic agenda is. We will do that," he aid.

Dean described his party is a "big tent" that represents the young, the elders, veterans, members of the armed services, and all working Americans "desperate for a government that looks out for them."

Dean also vowed to work to help the Democratic Party build a reputation as strong on national security, saying, "There is no reason for Democrats to be defensive on national defense."

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

C4 Diesel

First off, I refuse to vote on this. If there was just a "no" and then I could explain myself, then I would, but he is not an "ass with a nasty temper" in my opinion, so I will not vote on this poll.

I do not believe he's going to unite the US. While I think he could put together a solid platform that will win the Dems back a few seats in both houses, I just have no faith in the parties (or the US regions) ever coming to anything near a consensus on the issues that sit at the forefront of the current political arena.

__________________
C4 to your door, no beef no more...

Seaver

Howard Dean is way too liberal for America.

Clinton was corrupt, but he was wise enough to align himself closer to the center and took many southern states.

Dean belongs to the NE'stern dems who believe that the south can be ignored, or that a ultra lib will bring the rest of the country to the left (instead of ignoring him).

tecoyah

My apologies for the use of humor in the polling questions....but I was hoping it would melt a little ice.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

guthmund

I completely agree with this. The one thing that really disappointed me during the election was the negative spin on everything the Republicans did. Instead of giving burgeoning Democrats sound ideas and developing a platform for them to hang their hats on, the DNC attacked the administration at every opportunity they had.

It seemed that despite having softball type questions thrown his way about the Democratic agenda and their plans for America, Terry McAuliffe was only concerned with trashing the President.

I'm all for laying blame where blame is due, but mud slinging does not an agenda make. There has to be substance, there has to be something there to debate, there has to be an alternative offered.

Howard Dean may be too liberal for America and he may even be too liberal for the Democratic party, but at least he's offering more than 'President Bush sucks" as an argument.

And that's why I'm glad he won the DNC nomination. In reality, I suspect that Howard Dean's appointment will do very little to bring both sides together, but at the very least, I think, he'll pull the straggling Democratic party together in an effort to at least offer an alternative to current policies and plans that, up till now, simply wasn't there.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

roachboy

i couldnt find anything on the poll that reflected where i stand on the matter, so.

what dean was good at is develping new types of organization, particularly in using the web as an organizing tool. if the kind of tactics his campaign was developing can be expanded and refined, you might see something emerging that would rival the present leader in old-school machine-style political organization--which is (to my horror) the christian coalition. he was also able to mobilize lots of folk in their 20s who otherwise would have remained wholly outside the political system. so i think he is a good appointment for this position. i dont see him running for president on the basis of this gig, so questions on that order seem irrelevant. i am also unclear how is personal politics will impact on the democratic party: but in my view, anything that weakens the dlc is fine by me.

thinking about what something like this might mean in the longer run for american politics from present conditions seems tautological---the oppressive, conservative narrowness of the field of options is, to my mind, partly a result of the dlc style, which has driven the republicans well to the right. the field seems wide open for a more progressive position to develop--i would think that if it doesnt develop within the democratic party, it will develop outside of it. and i expect/hope---here my general optimism, which is usually concealed well, rears its head--that another term of bushworld should implode much conservative ideological appeal. in which case, the next election could well come down to organizational power--and if dean can integrate some of the things he intiated in the early phases of his campaign, then maybe the democrats can do something to help push the right back under its rock.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Charlatan

First I've heard of his corruption... that's just as bad as some one posting here and saying... Dean will do well because Bush is corrupt...

Hyperbole helps noone...

...back to your regularly scheduled thread.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

host

So weary of reading posts like yours. You made a provocative statement
about Clinton. Please show us all some courtesy by justifying your accusation
with some facts that are referenced. Back your argument and let it be
examined by fact checking, to stand or fall on merit and accuracy.

If you just want to post propaganda or slogans, please take it over to the "discussion" thread. I am sorry if this seems too blunt, but I am truly frustrated that you think that you can do this anytime you want to, on
the politics thread. Yesterday, on the "thanks for the memories" topic, started by Pinkie, there were 30 initial posts with no links that consisted of slogans and
unsubstantiated and unreferenced opinons. I called members on it, there,
and I'm going to challenge anybody I see doing it, from now on. If the mods
can't, or won't admonish this practice and trend.....they should ban me
and rename this "Discussion II".

Seaver

Right with all the Gate scandals as well as being paid off for the pardoning of frauds I think even yall would admit to corruption. I dont even consider Lewinsky corruption, that was just retardedly played on the Rep's side.

Now, if you read the REST of the statement you would realize what I was trying to say. I didnt like Clinton because of the constant corruption, but I respected him because he was polticially smart. Many of his bills past, while left leaning (of course), they were much more conservative than people like Dean wants. Dean will NEVER win the south if he stays his current course.

C4 Diesel

As to the first part of that statement, scandal does not necessarily entail corruption. While I will admit to Clinton having his fair share of scandals, scandal does not necessarily involve truth. Scandal is merely...
(I have used the second definition presented, as the first relates to religion, which is inconsequential to discussion.) Therefore, without presenting any facts, you cannot legitimately present the idea that Clinton was corrupt.

I also never heard of anything more than heresay and tabloid news segments claiming that Clinton was paid off for pardoning frauds. Do you actually have any credible sources to back up this claim, or is this just a personal belief with little or no basis?

Also, I feel your statement...
is wholly unjustified and merely a matter of personal sentiment.

Along the lines of what Host is trying to foster, please keep your opinons as such and do not assert them as fact unless you can provide supporting material.

__________________
C4 to your door, no beef no more...

maximusveritas

This isn't about liberal vs. conservative. Anyone who says Dean is too liberal doesn't have a clue what he or she is talking about.
Likewise anyone who says that Dean wants to ignore the South is either living in Bizaro world or watching too much FoxNews.
I think Dean will do a better job than McAuliffe (not hard, i know), but he won't be the savior of the Democratic Party as some expect. He doesn't have much power and he's dealing with a party full of weak concessionists, a gutless corporate-controlled media, and a misinformed and fearful electorate.
In the end, Dean was the best choice because he brings new ideas and energy to a party with little of both. From what I say from him today, he gets it and he will do a great job.

archer2371

He's certainly got good ideas, but it all will depend on whether he's willing to play ball with the Republican Leadership or not.

__________________
"This ain't no Ice Cream Social!"

"Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it."

"I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

flstf

I don't know too much about Dean since I haven't paid much attention to recent Democrat political strategy. I have seen his famous Weeoouup! speech about a dozen times on news shows in the last week though.

scout

I would think it has more to do with convincing the American people that the Democrats have more to offer America than gun control [when will they learn?] and gay marriage/gay rights. It has little to do with working with the Republican leadership.

Tophat665

Hell, I wanted him to be presdient. He's nowhere near as liberal that Kerry is fiscally, and yet I agree with him on most social and foreign policy issues . I think it's time we had a president who got visibly pissed off - nothing wrong with displaying a bit of fury when it is called for, particularly if you don't let it rule your actions.

But, failing that - since he peaked too early and had the equivalent of an Ed Muskie moment, I would be pleased as punch to see him running the Democratic party. No he will not unite the country. I don't believe that is necessary or desireable. What I hope is that he can begin to win the terms of debate away from the corporate whores, theocrats, and cryptofascists who have been setting them.

The fact of the matter is that a moderate is what is needed, but an extremist shifts the terms of debate. Dean is a moderate who talks like an extremist. That is a good thing.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

uncle_el

well said. nothing else to add.

__________________
An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of inprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses. - Malcolm X

Superbelt

I agree with Tophat almost entirely.

If you think Dean is an ultra liberal, you haven't been paying attention.
Dean got A's from the NRA, Republicans in his state loved him... more than the Dems did. He did a great job with his state's fiscal footing.

Clinton was almost a republican mole in the policies he pushed. He talked good liberal policy but when it came down to it he further pushed down gays, opened our federal wildlands to more exploitation, at a faster pace than in most years preceeding him, he passed a very republican welfare reform that got the poor off it quicker, but did nothing to help them better themselves while doing it.. I could go on. Clinton was part of the DLC whose purpose was to out-conservative the republicans. I was never enamored with him.

I am happy that Dean is leading us now.

irateplatypus

yay. one more person in the political world who doesn't really mean what he says.

and to superbelt, winning the support of republicans in vermont is nothing like winning a similar number of voters in a red state.

i think dean will be caustic and divisive. however, that's really his role. his objective has nothing to do with working with republican leadership, his job is to beat them into the dust. let the people we elect worry about working together once they climb up capitol hill... he is only concerned with doing what it takes to get them there.

that being said, i'm ecstatic that dean is the dem party chair. he may get widespread support in the liberal hamlet of vermont... but he will turn the rest of the country red if he continues in the path his past seems to indicate.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Mojo_PeiPei

It was funny watching Kerry talk about the election and the future of the democratic party. He actually made the assertion that the Dem's didn't need change and how they had only lost by inches, well as the saying goes it doesn't matter if you lose by an inch or a mile, they still lost.

I think Dean will be good for the Dems though, hopefully light a fire under their butts and help them with this identity crisis they've been having for the last few years, are they going for watered down republicans or crazy tree huggers? Maybe he can help them get back into good graces with the average American that has concerns about family and social values, I think that is the key for the Dems, you can talk down to people and insult them all you want calling them ignorant and fundies, but I doubt that will inspire them to vote for you.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

alansmithee

I find this type of thought highly arrogant. I remember watching Washington Journal on C-SPAN before the election when they had some author on, who happened to be liberal. He was talking about his book, which IIRC was about the war on terror and the Bush admin's actions. Someone called in and criticized what he wrote. His answer to what the caller said was "Where's your footnotes? My book has over 1000 footnotes" as if that somehow was a reasonable response. Not everyone has time to write books and do research to check the work of others, just like not everyone has an hour to spend finding and reviewing articles to support whatever position they take. I have seen many articles on here cited as some sort of reasonable authority which were little more than personal attacks upon those with differing opinions, not acutal unbiased facts. I remember a thread on here about people's reliance on the founders of America to prove their positions, well at least most of them have some solid contribution to mankind, as opposed to the ravings of some whackjob who managed to swindle a PhD from somewhere. There is almost always some person who will support whatever whacked out position you want to prove. Don't belive Clinton was corrupt (despite his admitting lying to a grand jury [and if there was nothing wrong with what he was doing, why did he lie?] and being disbarred temporarily, or the whitewater land deals)? Here's a link to a article: Clinton's corruption
here's another:
More obvious Clinton Corruption
One has news in the title, and the other even has .org!
Those clearly show that beyond a doubt, Clinton was corrupt! Did I check into their validity? No, why should I, they share my views, obviously they are right. And don't try to resort to the old attack of attacking the sources, that won't play. Debate the issue of Clinton's corruptness, that's whats important.

This is a politics board, and much of political science cannot be proven to a scientific certainty, so duelling experts really gets people nowhere. And where is the cries for references for the hundreds of "bUsHwOrLd is teh suxx0rz, no blud 4 oil!!!11!1!!" opinions that populate the board?

More on topic, I think Howard Dean will do an ok job as head of the DNC. He could help more moderate talking candidates by being an extreme example to run to the middle of. He will also probably give the Dems more direction on their more nat'l races then Bush sucks. And if he can keep his fundraising base (and the laws don't change again) he can implement his strategies to help more local races get cash. The only negative I see is him being too much involved in policy decisions and antagonizing some current dem leadership, and giving the GOP a poster boy for the "radical left".

MoonDog

From the Rules...
Hmmm, I just re-read the Rules thread for this part of TFP, and I don't see ANYTHING that requires posters to reference a link to bolster what they say, unless in the situation above. If you want this to change, maybe you need to petition the "Powers That Be" so you can become a mod. Then, and only then, do I see you being able to impose your rules on discussions here.

However, if you make it your purpose to harass others when they choose to post in this manner, I would hope that someone would report you to the mods. Bottom line: you don't get to dictate how "discussion" happens here. I would prefer it to happen in the way you outline, but not everyone is going to operate in that fashion.

tecoyah

Understand One Thing

The "Mods" are here to direct discussion when it is needed, not to take sides or validate the opinions of individuals .

Yes we do prefer links to debated issues, as it helps head off petty little bitch sessions before we have to act. That said....this is a petty little bitch session that does not need action. If someone wishes to be Banned.....Just let me know, as I will swiftly meet your request.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Tophat665

That is what is called taking a quote out of context. I said nothing about the content of his message, merely about it's manner. This is not about bait and switch. Why do we need someone like that? We already have Son of Bush. This is about shifting the terms of debate (as you just attempted.)

Shifting the terms of debate does not require uniting the country - in fact, it positively can't happen without a debate. It does require that one's own side absolutely adheres to certain modes of expression and turns of phrase. This is how Anti-Abortion became Pro Life, which is idiotic, since many or most who call themselves Pro Life are also Pro Capital Punishment and Pro Mankilling Firearms. You can jive and jingo all you want, but saying you're pro life when on two thirds of the issues you're in fact Pro Death is an outright lie. Which makes it the best kind of debate shifter - since people fall into the trap of debating the terms rather than the issue.

Much like I have just done.

Sigh.

So step off. I didn't call Dean dishonest. Compared to Bush or Clinton he's George frickin' Washington. Why do you think he got so much support from the younger demographic but couldn't line up the party machine? Well, that is exactly the kind of person one wants running the party machine.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

stevo

The funny thing here is, both sides seem to be happy with this move. Personally, I could think of no one better than a loser like dean to head the democratic party.

Seaver

Woah there buddy. Pro-Life means we protect the innocent. I am pro-life. I do support the right to bear arms, protecting the innocent in self-defense. I am pro-death penalty, protecting the innocent by getting rid of the psychopathic killers (though unfortunately many mistakes are made).

I dont know how you can support the release of a killer, taking away guns from a man who wants to protect his family, and kill an innocent baby.. and claim to be truely supporting life.

daswig

Just as America's re-electing Bush was a giant "F you!" to the rest of the world from Americans, the Dems electing Dean is a giant "F you!!!!!!!!!!" to Americans from the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party will be a regional party within the next 10 years. They're toast. What will arise to take their place? Who knows.

daswig

Please explain. Is there a pro-non-mankilling firearms group? If you take a non-functional, antique firearm and hit somebody over the head with it and they die, does it become a "mankilling firearm" again? What if it's not even a firearm, but is, say, a brick, and you hit somebody over the head with it and they die. Does the brick become a mankilling firearm at that point, or is it a mankilling brick? Would masons become "merchants and installers of death"?

A gun is a tool. ANY gun can kill a human. But NO gun can kill a human without another force acting upon the gun. Stick a loaded gun in a locked gunsafe, and it will not kill anybody, ever. There's no such thing as a "mankilling firearm" in any legally binding sense.

stevo

I think he got so much support from the younger demographic because many young people, who often belive they have a perfect wold-view, are, in actuality, naive and have a skewed perception of how the world works. The party machine didn't lline up because they knew they would never get in the white house with dean as the candidate.

C4 Diesel

Holy, jeez, man... Sorry, but I can't let this slide... Without going ahead and bashing anyone or their viewpoints, I have to say that you're not in a position to be touting your viewpoints as any more correct than anyone else's, especailly a broad demographic like that. Not to get off topic, but you're coming very close to being insulting.

__________________
C4 to your door, no beef no more...

stevo

I'm not trying to offend anyone, but more times than not, the young people I've talked to who support dean fall exactly into this catagory. Not specifically anyone here on tfp, but people I've talked to personally.

thinktank

I honestly think the Dems are going the way of the Whigs... they've hardly put up a fight in the last 30-40 years. Clinton was kind of my last hope, and we all saw him do a great deal of nothing over 8 years. Until the free healthcare / free education / marijuana decriminalization socialist democracy party comes around, I'm done voting for the President at all.

Dbass

Not voting is the worst thing anyone can do. We all decided we could get away with it in 2000, and look where it got us...the power of the Dem Party has faltered, but then again, it has been so incredibly close the last two presidential elections that you can't possibly say there's nothing there. If every democrat AND everyone disappointed with Bush came out and voted, he'd be gone cos he's a shitty president. Dean has quite the job there, because yes, he's a little too liberal in my opinion, and could scare people away pretty easily. The thing is though, he stands for the right things that intellectual America wants and needs. How awesome would it be to have doctors at the top of the government, not BAs with bought degrees. Just a thought...

thinktank

John Kerry was worthless though, why go out an vote when BOTH canidates are lame? If I hate fruit, having me choose between an apple and an orange isnt much of a choice at all, is it? I also dont think it's fair to suggest that you have to vote democratic to be part of "Intellectual America."

daswig

Ah, yes, give the intellectuals the power....we've seen where that goes. Anybody remember "three generations of idiots are enough"?

"Intellectual" is generally another word for "authoritarian". They "know best" what's good for you, and will see to it that you get it, regardless of if you want it or not. Fuck that noise. I went to school with some of the "intellectual elite", and I wouldn't trust them with an infant of their own, much less with control of the country.

FoolThemAll

Agreed with your first paragraph (on there being no inconsistency), as a foe of both abortion and the death penalty.

But I disagree with the second. There's two ways I see that such a person can genuinely claim a pro-life label:

- I don't support the government taking life where it's unnecessary. I don't view the unborn to be human life.

- I don't feel that I have the right to kill someone currently incarcerated, and I don't feel that I have the right to restrain someone from having an abortion. Thus, I also don't feel that the government has these rights.

The gun control thing's a little trickier, but I'm betting that it can be assimilated as well.

Mind you, I disagree with both positions, but consistency is certainly as possible in these positions as in yours.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Tarl Cabot

Works for me.

What also works for me is Dean becoming DNC Chairman, since he's so good at winning friends with quotes like this:

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for."

Howard Dean, 1/29/05

filtherton

Replace "intellectual" with "conservative christian" and you're paragraph is just as valid. Although you probably voted for the party of the conservative christian, so they get a pass.

daswig

Nah, they don't get a pass, I just saw them as the lesser of two evils, and voted accordingly. The Dems could have had my vote if they had put forth ANY kind of moderate. They instead chose somebody who was further lunatic left than Bush is lunatic right.

daswig

BTW, in the category of "I find this very odd", I donated money to several presidential hopefuls, all of whom were Democrats. They all lost the primarys, so I ended up voting for Bush.

Superbelt

Bad comment because the leader of a POLITICAL PARTY should love his direct competition and their diametrically opposed views.