Mondale... Dukakis.... McGovern... Dean.

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Democrats are understandably questioning of Republican's motives in warning them off of Howard Dean. And the Republicans just walk away shaking their heads, smiling.

Its not as if there hasn't been a pretty formidable history to back up the contention that liberal, NE Democrats don't fare well in general elections. Agreed, we aren't tied to history. Facts can change, obstacles can be overcome-- but, avoiding the history in this case can lead to another national embarrassment.

The memories and current relevent issues are served up here.. Would like to hear responses to the article.

A tidbit.

Among Democrats nervous about Dean's shrillness, there is some surreal talk that Dean might be stopped by the "Democratic establishment." Oh, sure: It will come riding to the rescue on the back of the Loch Ness monster.
Nessie, unlike the Democratic establishment, never existed. Two generations ago that establishment did. It secured the nomination of Vice President Hubert Humphrey rather than Gene McCarthy at the riotous 1968 convention in Chicago. But by 1972 democracy, as then under-stood by Democrats, had come to their nomination process, producing a convention at which Shirley MacLaine could be a delegate but Richard Daley, then in his fifth term as mayor of the nation's second largest city, could not be.
The Democratic establishment's last hurrah may have been in 1984, when it rallied to Walter Mondale, preventing the nomination of Gary Hart. Mondale went on to sweep Minnesota. Would Hart have done worse? Will Dean do better? He already has done much: By radicalizing the nomination contest, he has guaranteed that this will be an election about big differences.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,966 • Replies: 34

No top replies

I still say that many in the DLC are scared of Dean because he represents the kind of Democrat that the DLC's been trying to get away from--to the point of isolating their party's core.

Alas, that core has an issue to rally around, and a candidate who speaks for them.

The way I see, one sure way to rebuild is to get "Back To Basics", and Dean seems to be doing that.

0 Replies

NeoGuin--

Thanks for responding. The article sort of points out the wherefore and why of your insight. When the Dems went with their 'lefter leaning nominees', they were crushed in the nationals. Understandably, the Dems have had to move right to get in national office.

So this departure from politics as usual is a bold move. I think its the braver choice. It like coming out of the closet. "We're here; we're liberal, and we're not hiding it anymore!" The Dems have been criticised for being too Republican since Bush's election, and now they're being criticised for being too liberal. They will at least have more respect by putting themselves out in the open--no matter how unpopular their policies may be to the general electorate.

This is sure to be one interesting, eventful political season.

0 Replies

I'm happy to vote for a candidate who represents something. Win or lose, I can vote my conscience.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

This is sure to be one interesting, eventful political season.

Yeah ... in the fashion of a chain-reaction pile-up on a fog-shrouded freeway. Ya think the Republicans are arrogant now, just wait and see what they do with a clear plurality and an apparent overwhelming mandate. Lets not forget the effect on the Democrats should The Greens mount a campaign as well. The Dems bring not a knife but a pillow to the coming gunfight.

0 Replies

:wink:

0 Replies

I can only conclude that should Dean be put up as the democratic candidate for the presidency that they have a death wish. He has about as much chance of winning as Nader.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

I can only conclude that should Dean be put up as the democratic candidate for the presidency that they have a death wish. He has about as much chance of winning as Nader.

They were saying that about that Bill Clinton guy also -- but he not only won, he was re-elected.

0 Replies

I never thought i would say this however, should Dean be the candidate of the democratic party I may forced to vote for Bush. As the lesser of two evils.

0 Replies

Sadly, au, politics often affords the pricipled voter nothing more than the choice of the lesser evil.

0 Replies

Not just often, nearly always, timber. Check out my signature quote again.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

I never thought i would say this however, should Dean be the candidate of the democratic party I may forced to vote for Bush. As the lesser of two evils.

Could you give us a specific of why you would even jest about something like this -- and I know you are not jesting!

0 Replies

Frank
Not jesting just frustrated. Dr. Dean is too far to the left for my taste. I also have the distinct impression that he would cut and run in the middle east. Although I believe that it was a mistake to attack Iraq. I believe it would be an even greater error to leave with the job undone. We would lose what little "face" we have left.
In reality I would be on the horns of a dilemma not wanting to vote for either one of them. I would still in the end be voting based on what I believed was the lesser of two evils.

0 Replies

It's too bad we can't force McCain to run. I think the majority of Americans, from all sides, would vote him in.

0 Replies

Too bad Powell won't run...

0 Replies

"Mondale...Dukakis....McGovern...Dean. "

In your dreams, Sophia.

There's nothing the Republicans want more than to pigeon-hole Dean as a "leftie".

Forget it. He's a staunch balanced budget proponent. He's been criticized as not agressive enough regarding the environment. He's anti gun control. All that sound "leftie" to you ? He's for health care reform via elimination of tax cuts for the wealthy, pretty moderate sounding to me.

Sure he's supported civil rights for gay people (civil unions, not marriage); as he said: "It's the right thing to do, and I have to look at myself in the mirror every morning." This courageous stand could have meant political suicide, but he took it anyway. Sounds pretty damn refreshing to me, regardless of what label you choose to put on it.

Bush ran as a moderate, but has CLEARLY sold out to the extreme right wing of the Republican party.

Forget trying to attach the "leftie" label onto Dean. It won't stick. Dean defies labelling; he is bright, independent, fiscally conservative, socially progressive, and after the national and international failures of the current regime, this country would do well to elect such a strong, smart, decent guy.

0 Replies

angie wrote:

He's anti gun control.

This is a bit of misleading propaganda. He has publicly stated that he is for a very few new Federal gun control laws (primarily addressing the gun show issue) but beyond that he's all for the states doing whatever they want with regard to gun control. If a state wants to ban them entirely he's all for it.

That's hardly an "anti-gun control" position.

Overall though, I do agree that he isn't easy to pigeon-hole. He's more of an "issue" candidate than any we've had in recent history. He doesn't just trot out the party line.

0 Replies

I appreciate the information, fishin. I did not intend to spread mis-information.

Being against new gun control laws (especially when we already have so many) makes sense, regardless, again, of what label you put on it. And I think, at least for me, that is Dean's appeal: he makes sense, issue by issue, regardless of, as you said, the "party line".

0 Replies

Well, somebody's dreamin' here. The prevalence of liberal sentiment evidenced on A2K is at odds with the greater demographic profiled by national polls. While Bush's "Numbers" have weakened, he still handily outscores any individual Democrat with whom he is paired, and enjoys substantial overall approval, confidence and support. The "Numbers" he's "lost" sure haven't translated to Democratic gains.

Dean's characterizing Hamas as "just soldiers in a war" along with his waffling doublespeak on various issues is sure to cause him problems as the silly season wears on. Terry McAulifef's strident Attack appears to codify a Democratic tone of negatavism not likely to go down well with most Americans.

Oh, well, its fine by me if The Democrats don't see themselves as moving to the left of the majority. Its their choice ... and they're big on choice. We'll see who the Nation chooses.

0 Replies

angie wrote:

"Mondale...Dukakis....McGovern...Dean. "

In your dreams, Sophia.
Yep. it is my dream...and your nightmare.
There's nothing the Republicans want more than to pigeon-hole Dean as a "leftie".
Its a done deal.

Sure he's supported civil rights for gay people (civil unions, not marriage); as he said: "It's the right thing to do, and I have to look at myself in the mirror every morning." This courageous stand could have meant political suicide, but he took it anyway. Sounds pretty damn refreshing to me, regardless of what label you choose to put on it.
Unfortunately for gays, and me and others who believe in complete equal rights--this nation is overwhelmingly against this. Right or wrong, it's left. This is the one point I agree with Dean. And, both he and I are way too left on this issue for the majority of Americans.
Bush ran as a moderate, but has CLEARLY sold out to the extreme right wing of the Republican party.
Clearly did not. They are mighty pissed at him, and he wears it like a badge of honor.
Forget trying to attach the "leftie" label onto Dean. It won't stick. .
Check again. It has stuck.

0 Replies

Mondale... Dukakis.... McGovern... Dean.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know