1
   

HOWARD DEAN WOULD HAVE !!

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 07:26 am
Bush won because more people voted for him.

3 things happened to make that helped accomplish that.

1. Liberals decided anyone who voted for Bush must be sheep, homophobic, warmongers, etc., etc., etc. This only served one purpose. It motivated the voters to actually vote out of anger at the left.

2. Euro-weenies got involved. The general American can give 2 sh!ts what Europeans think about our country and our politics. If nothing else, It gave Bush a few hundred thousand votes. People immigrate to America to get AWAY from those people...

3. Dem's nominated John Kerry. A career politician who offered nothing new to the voters. He had a voting record and a long history in D.C. No one wants that in a president. How many career legislators have become president?
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 08:58 am
Dean my favorite liberal ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 08:05 pm
McGentrix wrote:
I would have voted for Dean.


I, too, would have given Dean a long look; and from what I saw, I also would have voted for him.......
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 08:58 pm
Howard Dean would have...

Lost by a larger margin than did Kerry

Been more fun to watch than Kerry

Pulled at least one more crazy stunt a la Primal Scream in Iowa.
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Nov, 2004 02:12 pm
Finn'

I don't know.

Kerry's lukewarm campaign polled %48, what would someone who was truly opposed to Bush and his neo-Imperialists polled.

He must have done some good, as he's in the running for a post in the DNC. Be good to have someone in the DNC who truly would represent the "Back To Basics" movement of the party.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Nov, 2004 03:37 pm
NeoGuin wrote:
Finn'

I don't know.

Kerry's lukewarm campaign polled %48, what would someone who was truly opposed to Bush and his neo-Imperialists polled.

He must have done some good, as he's in the running for a post in the DNC. Be good to have someone in the DNC who truly would represent the "Back To Basics" movement of the party.


Polled about 38% to 40%

You need to stop nursing the false presumption that there are three to five million Leftists in the country who chose not to vote rather than vote for Kerry.

Dean would not have picked up a greater percentage of moderates than did Kerry, and there is every reason to believe he would have attracted less. Therefore, the only way Dean could have done better than Kerry would have been to draw some vast reserve of ultra-liberal voters out of their warrens to join in the cause.

Face it, going more Left is not going to win the White House anytime soon.
This doesn't mean liberal positions are wrong (although I'd argue that they are), just that you are among a minority of Americans.

Though it may kill them to admit it, if Liberals examined the results with clear eyes, they would come to the conclusion that of all the Democrats that sough their party's nomination, Lieberman had the best chance to beat Bush.

That Dean is in the running for chair of the DNC is absolutely no indication of how he would have done against Bush. It is an indication that a strong segment of your party is going to resist the need to move to the right. If he should win the position, Republicans will be quite pleased.
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Nov, 2004 05:24 pm
It does show that this movement may realize that it needs folks on the inside.

But we shall see.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 11:56 pm
NeoGuin wrote:
It does show that this movement may realize that it needs folks on the inside.

But we shall see.


I don't know how it shows this, but as you suggest, we shall see.
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 07:01 am
Finn:

I think part of the problem that this "New Progressive" movement, which may have some roots in the "Anti-Corporate" movement, has is that it has very few people willing to listen to them on the inside.

Only about 1/2 of the Democrats in the House are part of the Progressive Caucus and that Caucus is basically the Black Caucus.

Getting Dean into the DNC would mean there's someone in power who'd be willing to listen to us.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 07:56 pm
NeoGuin wrote:
Finn:

I think part of the problem that this "New Progressive" movement, which may have some roots in the "Anti-Corporate" movement, has is that it has very few people willing to listen to them on the inside.

Only about 1/2 of the Democrats in the House are part of the Progressive Caucus and that Caucus is basically the Black Caucus.

Getting Dean into the DNC would mean there's someone in power who'd be willing to listen to us.


How do you define the "New Progressive" movement?

What does being "Anti-Corporate" specifically mean?
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 09:20 pm
OK:

"New Progressive"--Basically MoveOn, Act For Change and those types of groups that are using technology to oppose Bush's imperialism, etc.

"Anti-Corporate"--Opposing the growing power of corporations within our government, as well as growth of corporate power worldwide.
0 Replies
 
georgia brown
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2004 10:15 pm
I live in boston. i've noticed some people , turning from disappointment to anger.
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 10:50 am
Georgia:

Here in Harrisburg it looks like we've gone from anger to orgainzing:)
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 10:37 pm
NeoGuin wrote:
OK:

"New Progressive"--Basically MoveOn, Act For Change and those types of groups that are using technology to oppose Bush's imperialism, etc.

"Anti-Corporate"--Opposing the growing power of corporations within our government, as well as growth of corporate power worldwide.


Do you mean to say that "New Progressive" is primarily defined by its opposition to Bush? Doesn't seem all that progressive.

Surely there is more to being a "New Progressive" than opposing Bush on the internet, and, if not, what is the strategy behind this opposition? I'm sure it's a safe bet that it involves something along the lines of "Shining the light of truth on Bush's imperialistic policies," but what is expected to come from this illumination?

New Progressive operations like MoveOn.org turned their lights on Bush and his administration throughout the recent presidential campaign, but Bush was still re-elected. Are you still nursing the hope that the woods are filled with disaffected liberals who need only be touched by the New Progressive movement to awaken and throw out the GOP scoundrels in 2008?

I commend your tone of optimism and refusal to wallow in defeat, but I just have to wonder what actual signs exist that could reasonably lead anyone to believe that we at some tipping point where the actions of New Progressives can move the country leftward.

As for Anti-Corporate, again you are promoting opposition rather than progressive movement. What is you anti-corporate goal? To eliminate corporations? To return them to a state of grace once possessed during a prior golden age?

It was almost a cliche, during the election campaign, that Democrats were doomed to lose because they were only against things and for nothing. This certainly seems to be the case with your Anti-Corporate New Progressives.

Are you sure you don't simply enjoy being in opposition?
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 07:19 am
I snipped my previous comments.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Do you mean to say that "New Progressive" is primarily defined by its opposition to Bush? Doesn't seem all that progressive.

Surely there is more to being a "New Progressive" than opposing Bush on the internet, and, if not, what is the strategy behind this opposition? I'm sure it's a safe bet that it involves something along the lines of "Shining the light of truth on Bush's imperialistic policies," but what is expected to come from this illumination?


It can be as Bush is kind of the figurehead of the reactionary forces, I'm working my way through Paul Krugman's Great Unraveling and this idea of a reactionary movement seems to be the guiding theme of the articles he included--as well as ones he writes now.

As for what is to come form this light, maybe just getting people to see it.

Quote:

New Progressive operations like MoveOn.org turned their lights on Bush and his administration throughout the recent presidential campaign, but Bush was still re-elected. Are you still nursing the hope that the woods are filled with disaffected liberals who need only be touched by the New Progressive movement to awaken and throw out the GOP scoundrels in 2008?


Maybe, as the effects of Bush's policies are seen more clearly, especially among those who will bear the sting the most (The poor, women, etc). But Bush has a powerful force call fear he can tap.

Breaking this fog is something that needs to be worked on.

Quote:

I commend your tone of optimism and refusal to wallow in defeat, but I just have to wonder what actual signs exist that could reasonably lead anyone to believe that we at some tipping point where the actions of New Progressives can move the country leftward.


1100+ Dead in Iraq
Deficits
It's there, people just need to see it.

Quote:

As for Anti-Corporate, again you are promoting opposition rather than progressive movement. What is you anti-corporate goal? To eliminate corporations? To return them to a state of grace once possessed during a prior golden age?


To reduce their power over government, both in the US and World-Wide.

Quote:

It was almost a cliche, during the election campaign, that Democrats were doomed to lose because they were only against things and for nothing. This certainly seems to be the case with your Anti-Corporate New Progressives.

Are you sure you don't simply enjoy being in opposition?


"Opposition to empire is service to mankind"
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/21/2024 at 06:21:52