Democrats' Strongest Voice Stifles Himself (Dean turning pro war?)

[tedzbear]

When former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean accepted the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, he was a pale copy of the screeching wild man who effectively ended his 2004 presidential bid in that memorable post-primary rant in Iowa.

Dr. Dean delivered a sober and low-key talk to the DNC's members on the imperative of more effective grass-roots organizing and fund raising. Such organizing had to be undertaken, he said, not only via the Internet, as in his campaign last year, but in the nation's neighborhoods, where the Republicans had bested his party.

He made relatively little mention of policy positions on which he intended to lead the Democrats back from their 2004 defeat. He particularly eschewed sharp criticism of the Iraq war, whose conception and implementation had been the centerpiece of his campaign...
-----------by Jules Witcover

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0218-22.htm

[DaveinMD]

1. he's building the party

its exactly what he should be doing. He's not running for President. He's building the grass roots. Good for him.

[Kipepeo]

102. agreed

jesus, what do people want from him? There are different speeches for different occasions. You can't realistically expect him to deliver the same one everywhere. He said NOTHING contradictory to his beliefs, so what's the beef? Oh, wait a minute, that's not beef, it's republican bullshit.

[DaveinMD]

113. He's doing a great job

the stuff I heard today about how McAuliffe left the party is infuriating.

[Radical Activist]

2. ummm....what else is new?

During the primary he said we should be there for years and had the same position on the occupation as Kerry and Lieberman. Dean was only anti-war for a brief period when it benefited him politically during the primary. Does anybody really think this guy elected by the party establishment is going to do anything besides protect the status quo? Please.

[imenja]

4. that is not an accurate assessment of his position

He was consistently anti-war from the point he first declared his candidacy long before the primaries. He did not advocate withdrawing troops immediately, but he said the war was a mistake. He certainly did not take the position because it was politically expedient. It's unfortunate you're not able to tell when someone actually believes what they say. Most people can, including Republicans who acknowledged that at least Dean stood for issues, even though they didn't agree with him.
Dean's job is not to set policy now, so he will not be arguing any positions not set by the congressional leadership. His job is to organize the party.

[Radical Activist]

8. The fact is

he didn't call for withdrawal in the near future. He said we would have US troops in Iraq for years. That is no more a peace position than Kerry or Lieberman had. Its nice that he could badmouth the war since he wasn't in the Senate to vote on it, but other than that he had the same position as the pro-war crowd. You can't go back in time so only his position on what to do in the future was relevant. Don't live in denial.

[imenja]

9. again, distortion

He did not call for withdraw. True. But he did not say troops would be there for years. He said that since Bush had gotten us into this mess, we needed to deal with it. Now mind you that was nearly two years ago, so it was not yet clear the full extent of the disaster.
His position is different from yours, but to accuse him of simply uttering what was politically expedient tells me you weren't paying attention.

[Radical Activist]

11. You just admitted I was right, how is that distortion?

You just said I am right about what Dean's position was. You can't say I'm correct and call it distortion. You just want to spin it to be something noble. Dean supporters always have a spin to make the things all politicians do seem courageous and wonderful when Dean does it. It gets old.

The Democratic primary voters opposed the war and Iowa has a strong pacifist tradition. Opposing the war was politicaly smart at the time for a Democrat running for President in the primary. You can draw your own conclusions.

[imenja]

22. you're partially right

you're wrong to say that his position on the war was due to political expediency and identical to that of Lieberman and Kerry. You're right that he did not call for withdraw. You're wrong that he said we'd stay there for a number of years. He never set a time frame. Also, remember he dropped out of the race in the Winter of 2004.
He got in a load of trouble for saying he thought we were no safer because of Saddam's capture. That was hardly politically expedient.
Dean drew support early on precisely because he did speak out against the war. But around the time of the Iowa and New Hampshire, the war was not looking as bad as it had before Saddam's capture and as it has since. Unlike Kerry, Dean didn't change his position back and forth to suit current public opinion.
Where is this fantasy candidate that fits your criteria? He certainly isn't a Democrat. Do you even remember what country we live in?

[Radical Activist]

29. His name was

Dennis Kucinich. You know, the guy who actually voted against the war, spoke out strongly against it months BEFORE Dean, and called for a quick withdrawal of US control and troops. That is what a real anti-war position looks like.

I recall clearly during the debates that Dean said we would be in Iraq for at least several more years. No, that isn't a specific timetable, but no one gave an exact timetable, except Kucinich. I'm sure you could find the transcript if you like.

[imenja]

Why did I know you'd say that

Kucinich or Bugs Bunny. It's a toss up. I'll go with Bugs.

Talk about someone who is out of it. I can't imagine a worse Democrat. Not because he doesn't think lovely thoughts, he does. But because he has no conception of political reality or the nature of the international economy. I don't think he actually took his candidacy seriously. How could he argue he'd cancel all trade agreements immediately upon assuming office? The global economy would have gone into a tailspin. A president needs to have a grip on reality.

And if were talking about political expediency, how about K's born again pro-choice position?

Flame away. I don't like Kucinich. Not that I have to worry about it. He would never in a million years win the presidency or the nomination.

[Radical Activist]

36. Oh look you found someone to attack

How typical of a Deaniac. It's so much easier to attack than defending your own position. Kind of like attacking Bush-light Democrats instead of standing for something distinctly different than Bush-light DLC Democrats. You could almost base an entire campaign on attacking others like that. Oh wait, Dean already did.

But you know what, attacking Kucinich still doesn't make Dean a real pro-peace Democrat.

[imenja]

40. I'm not into the cult of personality

I liked certain aspects of Dean's candidacy, and his outspoken criticism on the war was primary in my support for him. Kucinich entered the race much later than Dean, so I would have had to have some over riding reason to switch. I didn't find it. I think it was great that Kucinich and Sharpton, especially Sharpton, stayed in the debates to raise important issues. I didn't, however, find K an acceptable candidate. His campaign gave the impression he really didn't expect to win the nomination, so it wasn't possible for me to take him seriously.

Dean was quite strongly an anti-war candidate, but he also spoke about what he would likely face when he took office. Kucinich didn't speak in such terms. He spoke in abstract ideas, but never practicalities, and it seemed to me that was because he didn't expect to ever gain the office. If a candidate doesn't take himself seriously, voters can't either.

I don't consider myself a Deaniac. I supported him in the primaries, but felt no sense of trauma when he dropped out. I feel no need to defend his or anyone else's positions during the primary, since those races are over. I'm not interested in rehashing the past. I did, however, object to your mischaracterization of Dean's character and position on the war.


As of now, I ally myself with him or no one else, since that election is over. I'll consider the candidates for 2008 as they make themselves known, but certainly no sooner than 2007. I'm concerned about building the party grass roots and organizing so that we can be in a position to win the governor's house and local races. After the 2006 election, I'll think about the presidential candidates. Dean won't be won of them, but we can hope that as DNC chair he gets things organized at both the national and state party levels.

Regardless of differences in who we supported in the 2004 nomination, both of us want to dislodge Republicans from power. That is the key point that all of us must unify around.

[Radical Activist]

86. I'm not interested

in refighting the primaries either. That's why I didn't bother defending Kucinich since the original post was an article about Howard Dean. It does provide a useful contrast of what a true peace position looks like. Strong peace advocates don't typically support a long, bloody occupation and keeping military spending at exagerated war-time levels, like Dean does. It's nice that Dean opposed the war early, but that becomes somewhat irrelevant when he wants to lead us complacently into a prolonged war. And that isn't a distortion, despite spin to the contrary.

[imenja]

89. again, I disagree with your depiction of Dean's position

supporting a "long bloody occupation." His position was that Bush has gotten us into a horrendous mess, and we have to deal with it. Nonetheless, I very much respect your opposition to the war. I similarly opposed and protested the Iraq occupation for months before Bush invaded.

[Radical Activist]

90. self delete

double post
my connection is goofy tonight.

[Radical Activist]

91. That's spin

Dean's concept of dealing with Bush's horrendous mess involved spending several more yeras in Iraq. That is a fact and you have yet to to say exactly what you find to be a distortion. Here's a quote to prove exactly what I said. As I said Dean said we would be in Iraq for several more years. After that is a very different idea Kucinich gave of how to get out.


KOPPEL: I just want to make sure that I understand Governor Dean correctly. In other words, you're saying, given where we are today, a continuing presence of some number of U.S. troops is going to be essential over a period of, what, years?

DEAN: Over a period of a few years, until the Iraqis really are able to have a democracy which is strong enough not to allow Al Qaida to emerge and has a constitution that's widely enough respected so they will not have a fundamentalist Shiite regime.

KOPPEL: Congressman?

KUCINICH: Well, I'd like to take issue with something that's been said here. You know, the war's not over. The war is not over. We have 130,000 troops there. And the occupation equals a war.

Now, my plan, which I mentioned earlier, which is on a Web site at kucinich.us, and I'd like everyone to look at it, calls for the end of the occupation, for the United States to get out.

Now, the U.N. will not cooperate unless the U.S. takes a change of direction. And here's the change of direction: The Bush administration must let go of its aspirations to control the oil in Iraq.

(APPLAUSE)

They must hand over to the U.N. the handling of the oil, on a transitional basis, so the U.N. can handle it for the Iraqi people until the Iraqi people can be self-governing.

KUCINICH: The U.S. must hand over to the U.N. the contracting process. No more Halliburton sweetheart deals, no more war- profiteering, no more bids going to people who have contributed to the administration.

The United States must let go of the plan to privatize the Iraq economy, because, frankly, that's a violation of both the Hague and Geneva conventions, and that's another sticking point.

We have to turn over to the U.N. the cause of governance and helping to write a constitution.

You know, you can't say, as Dr. Dean has, that you're against the war but you're for the occupation.

(APPLAUSE)

Because by keeping our troops in Iraq for years, you're essentially keeping the war going.

[imenja]

112. isn't that lovely

Only by Jan of 2005, the UN wasn't about to commit troops or assistance to Iraq. They withdrew most personnel after the bombing of the UN compound. Kucinich says nothing about how the US would arrange a withdraw, how security would be established, and who might take over. Dean also advocated inviting the to participate in reconstruction and political matters, but he didn't pretend there was no military issue to consider. UN reconstruction could not take place in a war zone. Nor would they have agreed to go in at that point. Abstracts solutions are great, especially when you have no intention or prospect of implementing them. What would Kucininch have done with the real situation, rather than hypothetical idea, of what he faced when he took power? That he never considered, because he never intended to become president.

We can all create an idealized notion of what we would like the world to be, but unfortunately we can't simply invent an alternate reality. Whoever became president in 2005 was to inherit a prior crisis and its existing consequences. Pretending otherwise doesn't change that. I don't like Dean's statement there or the idea of troops being in Iraq for years, but I'm also not going to advocate hallucinatory proposals.

If Kucinich really wanted to withdraw, what he needed to say was that he would pull troops out immediately, damn the consequences. Anything else was a lie. The idea that the UN would take over the burden by that point is obviously delusional. That window of opportunity had closed by late spring or early summer of 2003. The situation has deteriorated steadily over the last two years. The UN was not going to justify an unjust war by committing their own troops, and reconstruction can't proceed without security. So if you don't care about repairing any of the destruction the US carried out in Iraq, if you think it's acceptable for the US to go around deposing governments, leveling a country, and assume no responsibility for the consequences, then Kucinich was your man.

[Radical Activist]

121. Oh yes, I forgot

Any strong position for peace is always unrealistic and overly idealistic. Some day I'll grow up and realize how foolish those views are, like Howard Zinn did. Isn't that the standard argument used against any advocate of peace?

You distort Kucinich's position. He did not argue that we abandon Iraq. He proposed a reparations program which is very far from leveling a country and taking no responsibility for the consequences, as you accused Kucinich of proposing. It recognizes more responsibility for our actions than Dean's ideas.

Your assessment that the UN would not have taken over if we gave them real control is speculation. No doubt they would not have done so under Bush with the strings that Bush would have attached to the deal. Whether they would have repeated the kind of role they played in Afghanistan under a different kind of proposal from a different President is something we can't know. I think you are wrong to dismiss it as impossible.

Kucinich's plan was specific, not abstract. Although it is an easy, standard line to dismiss left wing proposals as unrealistic. I would argue the idea that Iraq can have peace as long as US troops are present is idiotic and overly idealistic. As long as we are there we will be a target and there will be instability. It is also arrogant to believe that the US is the only nation that can bring stability and that the Iraqis are incapable of doing so. That sort of arrogance is what kept us in Vietnam for years.

[imenja]

127. really?

Then why have they pulled the majority of their personnel out of Iraq? Why did they observe the elections from Jordan rather than turning up at the polling places? And if he advocated staying, how is that different from Dean, Kerry, or even Bush, who, as you say, all support a bloody occupation?

I think there was a chance for the UN to assist in the Spring of 2003. It's obvious to anyone who even casually glances at a newspaper that is no longer possible.

I don't support keeping troops in Iraq, but if a proposal isn't feasible, it's worthless, and that's exactly what the idea you suggest is at this point. While there might have been a very slight possibility it was workable last winter, that you think it was applicable by Jan of 2005 is frankly ridiculous.

[Kipepeo]

105. Dean wants to lead us into prolonged war???

LOL. :)

Can you pass that pipe, man? Smoke Smoke, GIVE, Smoke Smoke, GIVE.

On a serious note, I find it sad when people who like to think they are on the side of peace do everything in their power to attack those who might be able to bring it. Good intentions ARE admirable, but the road to...well, you know the rest.

[Radical Activist]

108. And what else would you call

support for the occupation and keeping it going for several more years? I finally had to post the transcript of one of the debates where he said that. Some people expect more than a few speeches.
And what has Dean done to bring peace? He supported high military spending, not cutting the pentagon budget. He supports the occupation. He gave support on Meet the Press for Bush's approach to dealing with Iraq a few weeks ago. Sounds to me like he hasn't done a thing. I find it sad when people are so easily placated by a status quo politician who gives a few half-assed speeches. Nixon claimed to be a peace candidate and promised to end the war too.

And no, I don't smoke pot.

[sarahlee]

66. These attacks on Dennis

are the kind of thing I was trying to get people to see via my thread here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3134994&mesg_id=3134994

Dems can't get it. So Dems will keep loosing the country becomes empire instead of democracy.

[imenja]

82. it's a democracy

we're all entitled to our opinions. What I don't like is deliberately distorting someone's positions. Support who you like, that's fine. I personally do not consider Kucinich an acceptable choice. You have a different opinion. Regardless, none of these guys are running for national office now. The primary ended nearly a year ago.

[Radical Activist]

88. I think some poeple are threatened

whey they have to confront someone who is everything Dean sometimes pretends to be and doesn't feel that being more electable means having half-assed positions.

[msongs]

69. Che Guevera was a common criminial who murdered women & children

he got what he deserved in the end.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Radical Activist]

87. There you go

By bashing Che you can not talk about the fact that Dean supports an occupation that results in the death of women and children on a daily basis. Good job.

[Cha]

98. How typical of you to be

attacking Dean.

[Kipepeo]

103. Oh, so being against the war

from the begnning only has merit if you're in the Senate? I guess my position never counted then, heh? Maybe I chose it because it was politically expedient for me. :eyes:

[sallyseven]

109. Didn't you guys read his memo.

I will build the party. The democratic leadership will set policy. He will do what he says and then make the leadership accept certain truths. Let him alone and let him do the job he was hired for.

[imenja]

115. that's exactly what I said

You need to argue this point with someone else.

[niceypoo]

60. The Party establishment did nothing but attack Dean

During the presidential race. They felt threatened by him.

[Radical Activist]

81. That's the rhetoric

But the reality is that most of the party establishment endorsed him right before the Iowa caucus. Remember? Now the party establishment just elected him chair. Maybe they don't feel so threatened after all. Maybe they don't have any reason to feel threatened.

[KissMeKate]

84. Too bad Kucinich didnt get more votes. eom

[Uzybone]

110. wonderful point

the matyr complex of the more irrational Deanies is laughable. Dean IS establishment. To me thats a good thing. That means our party is getting serious about opposing Bush.

[imenja]

3. Dean has made clear his role is not to set policy

He is organizer and fundraiser in chief of the party. DNC chair does not set policy. That's what was so absurd about everyone's insistence that the DNC chair fall in line of various issues.
Dean will articulate policies set out by the congressional leadership and whoever the next presidential candidate is rather than setting out his own positions. Get used to it folks. He's got a new job now.

[madfloridian]

5. Perhaps Mr. Witcover did not hear the Dean/ Perle debate last night.

He said he would still have his opinions, and he will, and he did.

There are a whole bunch of threads here on that debate.

Geez, they fuss if he gets excited and they fuss if he is subdued. Can't win for losing.

[DaveinMD]

6. agreed

they just want to stir controversy. Dean is doing a good job. He'll be a great chair.

[imenja]

14. yes, though

there is a difference when he speaks for himself versus speaking on behalf of the party. I would assume that in a debate he would need to articulate his own ideas.

[LoZoccolo]

7. It is because of stuff like this, that the DLC was formed.

I like Dean as a person and as DNC chair. I really do. But somehow I knew that some of his supporters, from which all this new funding is supposed to come from, would find some reason or another to become disappointed with him or something he would "neglect" in their eyes and the support would dry up some. It's because the DNC had to deal with activists who would get somewhat hotheaded (and if you don't think they can, look at some of the attacks Sharpton laid on Dean himself) that the DLC started trying to court corporate-minded sponsorship as a more reliable source of funds, and one that wouldn't hold them to immoderate positions.

[madfloridian]

10. I am editing this post subject and title to make peace.

I thought the person I was responding to was approving of the DLC coporate donors because they were more dependable than activists.

I said.

"And Oh, Yeah, I am an activist and proud of it. There are lots more like me.
Interesting enough, Dean does not care if he is liked. That is not his thing. He sets goals and goes for them. You have to be controversial to get changes."

And then I said this. I was told I was being racist because of Sharpton being an activist...I still don't understand since I did not mention Sharpton at all.

"The DNC will just have to learn to deal with activists. It is not the party of the DNC officials anymore. " This is true, they will have to deal with activism more now. We realized what was happening, that they were voting so much with GOP. So nothing is wrong with this statement.


And this statement is fact. I did something very wrong. I did not mean to. Others disagree with people even more sharply than I do.

"Oh, did you see that membership is up 60% since last week? "

[LoZoccolo]

12. I NEVER FUCKING SAID THAT!

NEVER! THERE IS NOT ONE THING IN MY MESSAGE THAT EVEN IMPLIES THAT!

[madfloridian]

17. Sorry if I misunderstood. I will correct the parts I got wrong.

Did not mean to offend. Please tell me which parts to correct, as I could have misunderstood. I would like not to be yelled or cursed at.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

23. You say I should leave DU for a month?

What tack? If I misinterpreted what you said, I will correct it within the hour limit. Gladly.

It is not your place to tell me to leave DU.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

27. What "junk" do I do all the time....I responded to your post.

I will go back and make it clear that you disagree with me, and I will I misinpreted what you said.

I would like to know what I do that is any different than others...

I will go and edit my post.

[LoZoccolo]

30. My point is that if activist or member donors...

...are to replace corporate ones, they have to be just as reliable if not more, or they will make themselves irrelevant.

[madfloridian]

31. Corporate donors are safer but more dangerous....they are not for us.

I edited my OP. Will you please go back and see it is ok now.

And if you wish me to leave DU and seek advice, please put it in the ATA forum.

Thank you.

[LoZoccolo]

34. I didn't say you were breaking rules.

It was for your own sake as a person who wishes to make a point that I suggested that to you.

And here's where you've pulled that trick before:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1372759#1372845

[madfloridian]

35. For my own sake? That thread you pulled up was from November.

I said nothing wrong there, and I edited the parts you thought were offensive. There was nothing wrong with that thread, except I think it was criticism of the DLC. And that is what I have done, and I am not wrong in doing that.

Dean will have to reach out to them as chair, and he will. I fully expect that. However, I don't have to like what they have done to the party.

You are still harboring a grudge over a post from November of last year? I had long forgotten that. And I think you should apologize to me for suggesting I leave DU and seek counseling.

[LoZoccolo]

37. Yeah, for your own sake. You've now embarassed yourself publicly.

Pretty much everyone else can see what you're doing, whether you're going to admit it or not. Not good for someone trying to make a point. Not good at all.

It's becoming obvious to me that this is fruitless. You thrust positions on people that they don't support. Whether you do this because you lack subtlety, or because you don't understand that you're doing it (despite the fact that I intentionally did it to you in this thread and you seemed to understand when you were the victim), or because you just choose not to fight fairly, is becoming irrelevant to me, because I'm going to bed.

I'm not harboring a grudge so much as I'm pointing out that I had just about this same conversation we were having just now - with the same dynamic of you misrepresenting what I'm saying - months ago, and that this particular form of cheating seems to be an important part of your strategy.

[madfloridian]

38. I do not feel embarrassed at all. I wonder why?

I find it odd that you think you have the right to tell me I should leave.

Sorry, I am embarrassed over nothing I wrote in this thread or the other one.

I was not ugly, I simply posted things you did not like. Maybe that is the problem.

No, sorry, I do not feel embarrassed at all. Not at all. I have done nothing wrong.

[LoZoccolo]

42. You know what? You probably don't.

I'm not surprised.

[LittleClarkie]

73. Actually I thought Mad was being quite good

And I've been rather getting along better with her as a result.

You however are tripping dangerously close to personal attacks here.

Asking someone to leave the forum seems rather out of line to me.

[LoZoccolo]

92. You didn't see what she had to go back and edit.

It was way out of line, and a misreprestation of what I said.

[madfloridian]

94. Nothing out of line. I did it to make peace.

Actually it was about what I have there now. I was just trying to be non-confrontational. I really was. What is there now is about the same.

I must have hit a nerve about the DLC comments. I did not intend to be confrontational.

[LoZoccolo]

97. If it wasn't part of a pattern of behavior, I might believe you.

You do not put words in someone's mouth to exaggerate what they're saying, and be "non-confrontational".

This conversation is over.

[madfloridian]

99. Praise the Lord.

I am glad it is over.

[imenja]

41. people sometimes misunderstand, it happens

but there is no need to keep harping on him for 12 posts. He apologized and sought to correct his mistake. It seems to me it's much worse to tell someone they don't belong on the site. We need to learn to discuss and disagree without attacking the person's very right to participate.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

15. Also: Ah, so you think Dean is racist and still support him.

:eyes:

[madfloridian]

18. Where in my post did I use the word racist? You are confusing me

No, I do not think he is racist, where did you get that.

[LoZoccolo]

21. You said activists should take over.

Al Sharpton is an activist who implied Dean was racist, therefore you support that, plus you support Dean.

(This is an example of the kind of junk you pull out of other people's words - I'm being sarcastic.)

[madfloridian]

25. I am an activist also. We come in all skin colors.

I do not believe what you are reading into my words.

What junk do I pull. I quote to be sure I am getting it right.

Again, tell me what part is wrong, and I will correct it. I am trying to be nice here, but you are not the one to tell me to leave DU and get advice from others.

[LoZoccolo]

28. "I do not believe what you are reading into my words."

EXACTLY. And I don't believe what you were reading into my words. Get it?

[madfloridian]

33. No, I don't get why you want me to leave DU.

I don't think I have ever been ugly to you. I edited my post above to make sure I had it clear.

I am trying to be nice, not trying to pull any stunts or anything.

I am just saying that the party will now have to listen to the people more. They will, they won't like it. It is as you say, far safer to count on corporate donors.

Problem is they are drying up a little as we are a losing party right now.

I do not believe I did a single thing to upset you so badly. And if you don't want me to put your own words in the subject line, then don't say them. People do that to me all the time. There is nothing wrong with it.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

58. You don't have to deal with his personal attacks

LoZoccolo should apologize...that's the courteous thing to do

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

63. I did too and posted on the ask administration forum nt

[ProudToBeLiberal]

54. apologize to mad for the personal attacks nt

[LoZoccolo]

93. No, you don't even know what's going on.

The original message has been edited, so you don't even know what you're talking about.

No one should have to apologize for demanding that someone not deliberately distort their position, or for being giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they didn't do it deliberately and they should take some time to reflect on where they might be going wrong if they can't readily see it.

[madfloridian]

95. I said nothing wrong at all. I was trying to make peace.

It did not work.

[NYCGirl]

13. From what I can see here, all his supporters posting have exactly the

right idea and attitude, and fully understand what Dr. Dean needs to do. Can you point out the "disappointed" ones?

[LoZoccolo]

16. Whoever wrote the article.

You know there's going to be people disillusioned on one point or another. Look at how McGovern's far-left support disintegrated over the Eagleton thing.

[NYCGirl]

20. I had no idea the author was a Dean supporter. The fact that he called

Dean (in his former role of candidate) "the screeching wild man" made me feel that might not have been the case. Not that the author is a detractor, just not a supporter.

[imenja]

24. yeah

check out radical activist's posts above.

[janx]

59. Radical Activist is hardly a Dean supporter. n/t

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

67. Please note also that several Kerrycrats are also supporting the Doctor

(Oh great, I just pictured him in a long scarf. Photoshop anyone? But I digress.)

I'm here to support our new Chair as well. This isn't about who you supported in the primaries. This is the party we're talking about. I am a Party supporter. And, besides, the good Dr. is starting to grow on me.

Just thought I'd point out that it's not just Dean supporters who are on Dean's side here.

[NYCGirl]

70. Point taken and appreciated, LC. NT

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[IronLionZion]

51. Thank you Grovelbot for not attacking our new chairman

[Vinnie From Indy]

61. lol n/t

[necso]

39. Many rational, responsible, decent and well-intentioned people

believe something like the following:

1) If we pull out now, (more and worse) chaos and violence will ensue.
2) If we stay and help some fledgling government out, then eventually it will no longer need our help. (Suggested timeframes differ.)
3) As this "Vietnamization" (my word) occurs, things will get better, our costs and casualties will decline, and we can reduce troops over time to the point of pulling out.
4) This process will leave behind a stable Iraqi state that we can live with.

I call bullshit. My view is:

1) Iraq is "going up" sometime after we pull out, no matter what.
2) The state that emerges there will not be to our liking -- or benefit -- whatsoever.
3) The best that we can hope for is some "decent interval" between when we leave -- and when the futility of our efforts there becomes finally apparent (except to those who refuse to "see" anything that they don't want to see -- and there are always huge numbers of these people).
4) There is absolutely no reason to pay an additional price for the useless pretense that a "decent interval" would provide.
5) We should cut our losses, cut off the war-profiteers, and just get it over with. It's a tooth that needs to be pulled -- let's get it over with.

But I can live with someone who takes something like the first view. It is human (for a decent human being) to wish for some good, decent, humane outcome (a future outcome, in this case) to things, especially when the short-term alternative is clearly such ugliness. It is human (for a decent human being) to be hopeful and to wish for the best generally. It is also human to let these things influence one's judgment and influence one's plans -- to the point of reducing these plans to wishful-thinking, costly absurdities.

Still, when dealing with decent human beings, I am generally tolerant of their wish to do the "right" thing, as they see it. I understand that what is happening is human weakness in action. -- And I understand that I could always be wrong and that they could be right. So I usually go along if the promised disaster is not too great -- (and) or if it is not too pressing.

But while the ends may justify the means, nothing justifies using means that are stupid, or thoughtless -- or delusional. (etc, etc)

And one can generally never make up for lost opportunities on this scale -- never.

[Teaser]

43. How many times do you people...

have to be told the DNC's job isn't to set policy?

Jesus Christ. I know decerebrate chickens that learn faster.

[Guaranteed]

56. Are you saying we should support the war? nt

[NYCGirl]

57. What "you people" are you addressing? It's clear that most of "us people"

know that.

[LittleClarkie]

72. Reminded me of the VCR setting scene in City Slickers

"The cows could do it by now!"

We haven't established who the person is who wrote the article and what his game is. Pro Dem? Anti-Dem Nader supporter? Disgruntled Deaniac. Grumpy Clarkie?

So we're not sure who "you people" are really. And I don't think all the Deaniacs are arguing that he needs to set policy. But they are wary of him being straightjacketed in comparison to McAuliffe I think.

[Vinnie From Indy]

44. Another thread by a poster that doesn't return to debate.

The thread is posted with a provocative, editorialized title and supported by a story that is, in my opinion, crap.

When former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean accepted the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, he was a pale copy of the screeching wild man who effectively ended his 2004 presidential bid in that memorable post-primary rant in Iowa.


This paragraph alone should alert the reader that the author is an idiot. It was the GOP controlled media bitches that ended Dean's run for president.

[Cha]

100. Thank you, Vinnie

from Indy!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

45. I stopped reading after "screeching wild man."

Rather pointless.

[mandyky]

128. Really!

And for folks who don't realize Dean NEVER was anti-war - only that idiot cowboy had not made the case for the invasion of Iraq this time.
He was for Gulf 1, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan.

I read a similar editorial in the Palm Beach Post where the writer called him a Vermont peacemonger - WTF - I thought it was peacemakers versus warmongers. Monger usually implies a negative - such as whore mongers and war mongers...

[lonestarnot]

46. Only war Howard for making, is one about to be had with repukes! n/t

[wyldwolf]

47. too funny! But predictable

There is a certain faction of the left who will never be satisfied.

In the coming days/weeks/month, look for that faction to claim...

Dean has sold out!
Dean has become a corporate whore!
Dean is in bed with the DLC... GOP... Satan!

...just wait. The Dem circular firing squad is reloading...

[Eloriel]

75. One problem with your little rant

Why are you blaming Dems for wht a fucking journalist is saying? And, in fact, that fucking journalist, as so many are wont to do, has it fucking WRONG:

The question for Dr. Dean is how he can generate the same enthusiasm and commitment from fellow Democrats without using the issue that was his chief mobilizer as a presidential candidate and that is the basis of fierce Democratic opposition to the Bush administration.

I don't know any Dean supporter who supported him ONLY for his anti-Iraq-War position. That position was responsible initially for capturing a lot of our attention for Howard, but we quickly found so much more to love and support about him. I don't even think that it continued to be any kind of real "mobilizer," as Witcover suggests, especially once the war was a done deal.

I'm so sick of journalists not getting it. I'm so sick of journalists simply vomiting up the conventional wisdom, as if it is the truth or reflects reality. I'm sick of the laziness, I'm sick of the cavalier approach to doing the job. I'm just plain SICK OF THEM.

And it doesn't help seeing those lazy and thoroughl incorrect assumptions picked up on and trotted out by DUers who obviously don't know much about the subject they purport to pontificate on either.

[wyldwolf]

76. One problem with your little nit pic / hit and run reply

Mainly, it's wrong.

Why are you blaming Dems for wht a fucking journalist is saying? And, in fact, that fucking journalist, as so many are wont to do, has it fucking WRONG

I didn't. The thread starter insinuated something negative about Howard Dean. There is also a subthread starting with post #2 that got a bit nasty about Dean. Given that, combined with the recent poo poo over what was said about Dean on Unfiltered, renders your little rant/hit and run attack on me pointless.

And even if I was referring to the writer of the common dreams article - Common Dreams is used on DU constantly as a reliable source and are considered "on the left."

[PassingFair]

111. You know, this member of "that faction" has just about had it with your

references to us as kool-aid drinking idiots.
We supported, and continue to support Dean due to his clear-eyed and clear-voiced, reality-based reaction to the pug party and the compromised dem leadership in Washington.
His "what I wanna know" speech spoke for vast numbers of us who had no champion articulating our positions.
When you hear us crying that:

"Dean has sold out!
Dean has become a corporate whore......",
THEN come back and gloat.

Until then, keep your Nostrildamnus predictions for
"the coming days/weeks/month..." to yourself.

We KNOW that Dean has a tightrope to walk. We are realistic in our expectations. But we DO expect results. Which is the direct opposite of what we have seen from your DLC leadership.

[wyldwolf]

114. The the question you must ask yourself is...

What are you going to DO about it?

beat me up?

Tell my mom?

If you've "had it" I suggest you put me on ignore.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

118. And I'm sure you're glad it didn't work for Kerry

...now, despite your avoidance of the point - you've "had it with me" so what are you going to do about it?

[cestpaspossible]

48. 'screeching wild man'

that's as far as I got. :thumbsdown:

[WI_DEM]

49. So where do you assume that he is turning pro-war?

that is an ignorant assertment with no facts to back it up. Just the other day Dean debated Pearle and was as anti-war as ever and anti-administration. There is a difference between giving stump speeches which excite crowds and acting as Chairman of the party where you have to unite many different factions. You don't operate the same way. From what I can tell, maybe Dean's rhetoric is less strident but what he has been saying has been consistent.

[IronLionZion]

50. He's doing what a chairman is supposed to do

grass-roots organizing, fundraising, and not making policy. He's not running for office so what's the problem? :shrug:

And he even debated Richard Perle yesterday about the war.

[lojasmo]

55. *cough* bullshit *cough* N/T

[zulchzulu]

64. Please supply Dean with Magic Wand to make the War go away

His position as DNC Chair is to fundraise and organize for more fundraising. He has stated he will not set policy...as the position has always been set as.

So he can't tell Bush to leave Iraq RIGHT NOW. But perhaps as a fundraising tool, someone could supply Dean with a Magic Wand to make the War just go away.

Until that possibility happens, expect Dean to do the job he signed up for (see paragraph one for that answer).

[LittleClarkie]

65. Does Common Dreams tend to be like CounterPunch

Are they normally anti-Democratic Party far left? Because that's what this reminds me of.

And this was not the time to be talking about the war. He wasn't running for president. He was running for Chairman. He's needed for organizing and modernizing the party so we can win.

And indirectly, by helping us win, he will also help stop the insanity.

If Common Dreams is not normally far left, then I wonder what the game is. Do they normally participate in circular firing squads then?

[zulchzulu]

71. I call it "Common Whine"

Kucinich could have gotten elected President and some numbnut would say that he was a corporatist for moving to DC.

Some good stuff is on Common Dreams, but most is whiney white, upper-middle class faux-avant-garde "urban" parlor talk bent on proving who is more "progressive" than the other.

[Kipepeo]

106. A bunch of

"I'm more ideologically pure than thou" constests among mostly privileged folk.

Which crop up here from time to time too.

:)

[paulk]

77. they're not as bad as Counterpunch

CP isn't even "leftist". They're just a bunch of tin hat whack jobs.

Commondreams - well ZZ has it about right. I used to check them all the time till about a year and a half ago - then their constant whining took them off my favorites list.

They do have articles by credible journalist's on there, though - mixed in with some of the usual uber lefty ivory tower crap every
now and then...

[wyldwolf]

78. Actually, no. Common Dreams has always had a fair reputation..

...to Dems.

[HuckleB]

74. This is an amazing stretch.

This author sees many things that are not there.

Bizarre.

[no name no slogan]

79. Also, it's Jules Whitcover, for fsck's sake

The man is an old-school, inside-the-beltway establishment journo with a capital "E". He's not much different from the other columnists at the major dailies who's had his conventional wisdom carved in granite for the last 40 years.

Why are we once again hand-wringing over what some MSM columnist has to say about our people, even if it is in Common Dreams?

Jeez. :shrug:

[thebigidea]

80. so I guess the debate with Perle didn't take place, huh? little mention?

[hippiechick]

83. Oh Jebus Christ.

People wanted him tarred and feathered when he was a 'screeching wild man' ... and now that he's NOT a 'screeching wild man' ... they want him tarred and feathered.


Give me a f***ing break & let the man do his job. :eyes:

[KissMeKate]

85. "screeching wild man" yeah this is an editorial all right.

eom

[Capn Sunshine]

96. Commondeams has a common goal

Like another leftwing site, they believe that the Democrats must be destroyed in order to allow the far left's rightful ascendancy.

They have always objected to Dean's populism; the appeal of the message galls them, and his ideology is definitely not left wing, so he's a problem for them.

Either way, they are helping the neocons, albeit from a highly principled position.

[Radical Activist]

101. They present a wide variety of veiws

Including Dean's. I realize some people don't like that. Status quo populism doesn't always look good next to the real thing.

[wyldwolf]

119. Holy Hell, capn Sunshine! We AGREE on something!

And very well put, if I might add.

[MsMagnificent]

104. So we're 'Dividing and Conquering' our own selves now?

Oh BOO HOO HOO 'Dean didn't say what I wanted him to';
or 'by his silence he implied that'

Fucking stupid and self defeating.

Way to go. Let's fight among ourselves even more.

That'll show them!
Or are some of "them" right here in sheep's clothing stirring away at an already volatile pot?

Dog only nose.


Enjoy playing your game.
I'm staying out of it on the higher principle of getting that evil out of the White House and cleansing the party of his crooked cronies.

AFTER that we can discuss inter-party differences...

EDIT:
For the record, before I get attacked -- I actually favored Kucinich, and I liked Clark too although I felt he needed some more political experience. I was never on Dean's Team, although never against him.
The point of this post was to deplore us fighting amonst ourselves, especially at this point in time -- that's all.
So kindly don't attack me, at least from a cult of personality stance

[NorthSideCubsFan]

107. You should be listening to Dean vs Perle on C-Span now

Dean apparently thinks that Iraq had a right to self-determination but that Afghanistan did not and that Iran and North Korea don't either. Sheesh.

[AuntiBush]

117. I believe you've DIVORCED yourself from REALITY!

:) Sorry, at my age I call um' as I see um'!

Sincerely hope you meant no harm there. :crazy:

[Guaranteed]

120. In the light of the Dean/Perle debate many of us watched last night,

this post is pretty laughable.

[Radical Activist]

122. I really liked when Dean called Bush a liar

Oh wait, I didn't hear that. I didn't hear him mention that we were deceived at all. Maybe I missed that part. The protestor was the only one I heard bring up the issue of the nation being lied to.

[Guaranteed]

123. What politician has said that Bush lied in his reasoning for the war?

Besides- this was a debate. Usually, you don't call people "liars" in a debate.

AND, in the past, Dean has said many, many times that Bush "wasn't telling the American people the truth."

[Radical Activist]

124. He didn't have to use that word

So far I haven't noticed Dean take the Bush admin to task for the lies we were told. That's such an easy shot to make. Lots of politicians have made issue of that. I bet Barbara Boxer would have.

[Guaranteed]

125. He has. Over and over.

He's said countless times that Bush "didn't tell us the truth."

You know, you can't get every talking point in in a debate. There was a couple of things that I wish he had said, but Dean did great.

[applegrove]

126. You have to train people to take over. You cannot just leave unless

things are relatively cool in Iraq. It would be unconsionable. Even the UN would recommend that you have a plan.