Dems jumping on Bush (finally) is this an effect of the internet?

[Gore1FL]

I was speculating with my business partner about the the current and uncharacteristic (at least recently) of the Democratic attacks on Bush and his lying, treasonous, et al acts and policies.

I noticed that this started after Dean's major internet fundraising successes.

Could it be that the support, and money, he generated by "representing the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" awakened some of our party leadership out of the stagnate funk they were in as a result of the fear of taking on Junior?

It almost seems like a bandwagon effect.

Did Dean's success in speaking out change the Dem's SOP?

No matter what the case, I am happy that finally Shrub and Co are being held accountable for some of their policies, crimes, exagerations and lies. The timing is, nonetheless, interesting.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Would you like to see the close to half a meg

of letters I have emailed them?

Boy I have teh collection of letters, and some of them
were written by my reps... my Senator was so grateful
when I did send him that little bit about Patriot II...

He learned it from me, not the papers, not the press.

Quite the shock, when he was given teh document by the
Secreatary after printing it...

[shance]

2. Call it the "Dean effect"

It seems to me Howard Dean is the Oprah Winfrey, Dale Carnegie, or even the Billy Graham of internet (or grass roots) politics. He is providing the necessary incentive to re-charge and motivate Americans. His theme is about empowering, which in my opinion is what Democracy is all about - empowering everyone to take responsibility and GET INVOLVED.

It is draining the absolute power out of Washington, which is not only saving America from corruption,but igniting a response from D.C. This is what America should and could be all about.


Whatever your feelings of Howard Dean (how could they not be anything but positive at this juncture***) he has given us direction and the inspiration necessary to take our country back, and with that we must TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. I mentioned to a friend the other day, that after the election of 2000, I have realized that activism is not a privilege, but a responsibility. It is something we will always have to be involved in, if we want to have the true Democratic process that we have always assumed we would have.

We cannot simply resort to resigning our voices and our powers to our leaders. They can, as any of us would be, easily seduced and manipulated by lobbyists and special interests. We must become our OWN lobbyists. We could be lobbyists for Lady Liberty!

I have made a point to get to know the names of the aides that answer the phones so that I can develop relationships with them, just as lobbyists do. Life is all about developing relationships, and the more we can develop relationships with our Congressional offices, the stronger influence we will have. Just like anything else in life. We should go and visit whenever we can and say hello! We have to beat the lobbyists and Special interests at their own game, and I believe we are a step ahead because we have the truth on our side.

[hayu_lol]

3. Bush attacks are coming directly from the grassroots...not from

the chickenhearted DLC/DNC. The party, having been leaderless for almost three years now, has gotten it's act together at the internet grassroots level and sending out a barrage of continuous letters, emails, phone calls, faxes, and all the other avenues of approach we have.
The (Al From/Reed)Liberal Elites are finally speaking out with one voice...we are doing it ourselves despite our worthless leadership.

[boilerbabe]

4. You are definately doing the proper thing!!

I will follow your example and also attempt to contact those who need to be contacted!! Why sit around and whine, when we can be making a statement!!
Do us a favor and give us some names and phone #s so we can also make a difference!!
XXXOOO

[boilerbabe]

5. From what I've read

in the NY Post, Dean is the far left wing...though he's the one I am supporting...
At least he is rattling some cages here.
They attack him for having McGovern-like tendencies. Well..as far as I can see...that's ok. And from the other front, they are attacking him as to his "Carter-like" approach...so either way, if you really look at it...he's not so bad!
If Dean does not make it thru the primary, then, anyone but Bush!!! But I would rather see Howard Dean, who represents maybe the leftist of us in the Democratic Party, than anyone!!

[Gore1FL]

6. I agree

i am leaning toward Dean. I don't see him as a super-liberal as the right is trying to portray him. (to Rush, Hannity, Bortz, et al, Hitler is a socialist...)

He is liberal compared to the conventional (and often failing) "we gotta have a moderate to win the south" strategy. He is liberal in the sense that (in hos own words) he represents "The Democratic wing on the Democratic party".

[caledesi]

7. Dean cannot be labeled and that is what is frustrating to people.

[chimpymustgo]

8. Good grief, get a grip. That just takes the yellow cake.

You're saying DEAN is the driving force behind this? I am incredulous!

Ambassador Joseph's Wilson's op-ed in the NYT disputing the Administration accounts led the WH to issue a statement of clarification. The White House press corps actually jumped on the story, and it took off from there.

All the Democratic candidates and leading Dems in Congress started howling. And here we are. Dean/Internet driving this? That's an astonishing reach.

[Gore1FL]

15. No I am not saying that at all

What I am saying is the Dems saw an unprecidented amount of support for Dean via the Internet because of his rather unique "fight back" stance. Seeing the success in attacking Bush from a previously unexpected resourse, it would seem, compelled the rest to follow suit.

This is not brought on by Dean in any other sense than him acting as a catalyst.

I am crediting the Internet, and the activism therein, not Dean.

[AP]

9. It's probably the fact that Iraq is not proceeding cleanly...

If I had to guess, I would say that the Democrats knew they couldn't oppose attempts to, uhm, protect national security. What were they going to do months ago? Challenge all the intelligence at a time when, if there had been an attack on the US, Bush would have blamed Democrats for stonewalling? Too big of a risk of looking anti-national security, and unpatriotic. And they knew there was nothing that was going to stop Bush.

However, every Dem must have known that Bush's avarice and the complete lack of any sense of even-handedness by Republicans guaranteed that Bush would do the wrong thing in Iraq (they are physically and intellecutally not capable of a Yugoslavia-style approach to foreign policy).

Therefore, it was a matter of time. Just wait for Bush to be Bush, and then start swinging.

[chimpymustgo]

10. It really has been a "perfect storm".

AP, you're right about the mounting casualties - that, along with the op-ed piece, and the instant spines of the press, along with the Dems turning up the heat, and here we are.

[lkinsale]

11. No. This had no traction until...

1) Iraq began to seriously fall apart

2) Soldiers began dying at the rate of one a day, and

3) Wilson's opinion peice saying the SOTU was a lie

Before that, Graham and Dean and others had been speaking out and getting nowhere. Zip. Nada. Lucky they weren't run outta town.

Additional momentum has come from the further disintegration of the WMD case and the incredible cost figures on the war.

Dean's grassroots success is great on a campaign level. On the national and international level of "Did the President lie to the American people?" it just sounded like another heckle from the crowd of wannabes until 1, 2 and 3 came along.

Until it was clear to everyone what a gigantic bungle Iraq really is, no criticsm of Bush from anywhere was getting any play at all outside the hardcore net.

[HFishbine]

12. Dean Was a Factor

Last quarter, 50,000 individuals made financial contributions to Dean's campaign. He had the largest number of contributors and he raised the most money of any of the Dem contenders. He was also anti-war.

These facts are just one facet, but one that cannot be ignored. Like it or not, the impressive support of Dean has legitimized the anti-war effort for the press more than the millions who marched.

It's sad but true, and not my opinion; simply what it took to get the press to adjust their myopic pre-war views.

[lkinsale]

13. I disagree that Dean's $ was any kind of significant factor

in comparison to the others. But of course there is no way to prove any of our claims. :)

As someone above said, it (so far) has been The Perfect Storm.

[HFishbine]

14. Sure

Right. Of course. Nobody can say for sure what caused the tide to change (and I'm not yet convinced that this will "stick"). It has indeed evolved from a perfect storm. Something "tipped" the discussion though -- but again, who can say? My point really was that the enormous support shown for an anti-war candidate had to be a factor.