Dean to seek chairmanship of Democrats

Wohoo! I got the first vote. 100% agree with me too... oh wait...

of course, i'm going to eventually going to ask "why", but the vibe'll do tonight <smiles>

EEEEEEEEYYYAHHHHHHHH!!!!

It's him or nobody as far as I am concerned.

If they don't pick him, they're done. Probably for more than a couple of rounds.

He's the logical choice.

Fair enough. I won't waste the opportunity to hear (watch?) myself rant.

Dean represents a new approach for Democrats -- one with the passion and gusto that characterized the Democratic party in its more glorious days. As a corollary to this renewed vigor, Dean leans towards demagoguery. He's a populist. I consider his candidacy a "bad thing" not because I fear that a Dean-led party would be impotent, but because I think it would hurt America (I don't give a whit about the Democratic Party or any other party, per se). Recently, Republicans have drifted towards populism with the politics of fear, a fiscal policy that promises easy and illusory rewards (allegedly free tax cuts + more entitlements), trade injuring protectionism, and a foreign policy that implausibly mixes cultural isolationism and military interventionism (plus more than a dash of fantasy). Irrational, short-term populism used to be the realm of Democrats. I would rather not see Democrats seize that mantle again; less we have two parties with the same warped vision.

Dean's ascendancy would destroy the potential for something great. In the presently fractured and lost Democrats, there exists the potential for something new: a party that appeals to the electorate on the basis of competence rather than bald ideology. This was the vision offered by Clinton before he invited the moralists to power with his silly indiscretions. The Republicans are leaving the door open with a failing war and an incoherent fiscal policy. If the U.S. is lucky, a pragmatic Democratic party will exploit this opportunity by reinventing itself. Let the current leadership rile and scare the masses with images of wolves, talk of traitors, and the passion of an impetuous and ill-planned war. When the long-term effect of such short-term, dissent-free thinking materializes, a party that values deliberation, dissent, and the all of the accoutrements of rationality might pick up the pieces. Dean is not the man to make that party.

This is exactly what the "New Grassroots" (MoveOn, etc) needs to do.

Get people that will listen to them into power.

:wink:

It will take a lot of hard work and good results to quiet the hyenas who would nip at his heels, but I have confidence in him.

Why?
Howard Dean is no Green; he's not even a liberal

The Dems better get someone that can turn the losing streak around. If that's Dean, then he should be the man.

McG:

I say look to the Steelers.

Getting "Back To Basics" worked for them, maybe the Demos need to do the same thing.

Didnt vote in the poll cause I dont know whether its a good or a bad thing.

My gut says, good idea; my head says, mm prrrrobably better not. Its never wise to go on gut instincts; on the other hand, I've been known to be overly cautious and deliberative and, well scaredycat. So perhapsd they should just steam ahead and do it.

Mind you, everything Steppenwolf says makes sense; I would agree. But on the other hand I also think that, however populist Dean's style, his ideas are actually pretty sound - and perhaps the Dems should stop hiding and thinking oh, we'd better not do anything that the other party might remotely pick up on and use to make us look radical - because the other party's gonna make you look radical in any case, and they're pretty good at doing that to even the most innocuous moderate. And faced with such a monomatic attack it might not be bad to have a fighter at the helm yourself too, who'll just go + boldly claim back the discourse himself, just like Bush's radicals dont hesitate to. You know, as in instead of wiggling out of anything that might remotely be antagonising, like Kerry did, which just ended up making him look like a prevaricating coward.

So, er, yeah, I dont know.

Mr. Hammer, meet Mr. Nail...


-- Howard Dean, 1/11/05

THE RS Blog

Karl's in charge, can-do Condi, Medicare madness and since when is working three jobs 'uniquely American'?

By TIM DICKINSON


Karl's Coup
The Evil Genius strikes again! Karl Rove the president's chief political strategist, credited with engineering Bush's rise from bungling baseball executive to commander in chief, will now have his hand in sweeping aspects of policy in his new role as deputy White House chief of staff.

In addition to being responsible for selling the president's agenda, Rove will now be charged with coordinating policy among the Domestic Policy Council, the National Economic Council, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council.

Two words: **** me.

Should we be shocked? I should have long ago disabused myself of any notion that the Bush administration formulated policy objectives first and then puzzled over the political implications later. But to see the naked inversion of policy and politics, to see the chief spin-meister actually formulating policy, to see Karl Rove standing between the National Security Council and the president, between the Homeland Security Council and the President -- it's nauseating.

Consider that the Homeland Security Council is supposed to: "Provide advice to the President ... on developing and coordinating the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks..." and "advise the President ... on, the effectiveness of the implementation of specific strategies to detect, prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist threats or attacks within the United States."

Consider that Karl Rove is an experienced direct mail consultant.

I guess the one good thing about Rove's new central role is that we'll no longer have to wonder whether those Orange Terror Alerts are politically motivated. Now we'll know they are.

The president had this to say about the promotion of his right-hand man: "Karl Rove is a longtime advisor and trusted member of my team. His hard work and dedication have been invaluable. I appreciate Karl's willingness to continue to serve my Administration in this new position."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan suggested Rove's new title only makes official what has always been true, adding: "Obviously, when it comes to Karl, he is one of the President's most trusted advisors who has played an integral role in the strategy and policy development for a long time."

The Dems wasted little time in attacking Rove's promotion. Outgoing party chair Terry McCauliffe told AP: "Empowering Rove in this way shows that Bush cares more about political positioning than honest policy discussions. Bush knows that Rove is neither an economic nor a national security expert. He is simply an ideological strategist.... Clearly, Bush thinks political manipulation matters more than keeping the president honestly informed about the state of the country."

Bush by the Numbers

Proposed budget: $2.57 trillion ($2,570,000,000,000!)
Deficit spending: $390 billion
Defense budget: $419 billion
Additional money to be borrowed for Iraq and Afghanistan wars this year: $81 billion
Education budget: $56 billion
Homeland Security budget: $32 billion

Interest on debt: $211 billion
Deficit projected in 2010 by White House: $164 billion
Total deficit projected by Democrats over the next 10 years (accounting for Iraq spending, Bush's Social Security overhaul, and making permanent the president's tax cuts): $4 trillion
Americans who disagree with Bush's Social Security privatization plan: 50%

Number of new jobs Bush's tax cuts were supposed to have created by now (according to the White House Council of Economic Advisors) that have not materialized: 4 million
Number of new jobs in January: 146,000
Number that this was short of economists' projections: 44,000
Number of workers who gave up looking for jobs and are no longer counted in unemployment statistics: 200,000
Bush's budget cuts to job training: $500 million

Percent of Americans who now say the Iraq war was not a mistake: 55%
Jump this represents since January: 8%
Bush's Approval rating: 57%

Budgetary Bull$#!+

The only way to judge the president's 2006 budget is as a political document. The president proposes axing farm subsidies, fighter jets, and 150 discretionary programs each with its own vigorous constituency. By the time Congress is done with this puppy it's going to be bloated beyond recognition.

By submitting a (comparatively) slender budget that doesn't account for the Iraq war or for his massive Social Security expenditures, the accounting magicians at Office of Management and Budget can pull projections out of a hat that make it look like the president is on track to meet his pledge of halving the deficit in five years. Hence, for a day or two at least, Bush gets to strike a fiscal conservative's pose.

But is it really worth the effort? Just who do they think they're fooling? The sleights of hand required are so laughable that not even loyal administration soldiers like Don Rumsfeld can keep a straight face while talking about it. Watch this briefing if you can, but the reaction to the SECDEF's lying smirk even finds its way into the official transcript:

Q: The budget shows that Army spending is going down by $300 million ...

SEC. RUMSFELD: ...The only way you can look at this budget is to look at the supplementals with it...

Q: ... Are they, in fact, hiding non-combat costs in the supplemental --

SEC. RUMSFELD: No, of course not. No, that would be wrong -- (laughter) -- and we wouldn't do that.

Medicare Madness

First it was lowballed at $400 billion over ten years. Then -- in a revelation that was then scandal-worthy -- officials admitted the pricetag would be more than $500 billion. Now it seems as though the cost of the new Medicare drug benefit will reach as high as $1.2 trillion through the year 2015.

Can-Do Condi

I'm not sure what Condoleezza Rice had to do with it exactly, but peace didn't seem to be breaking out between Israel and Palestine when Colin Powell was Secretary of State. And when was the last time an American was so warmly received by the French?

It's early yet. Honeymoons don't last forever and all that. But Rice has surely gotten off to an auspicious start as a America's most senior diplomat.

How to Win (not Whine) Like a Democrat

It's official. The Democrats have retreated into a posture of resentment and complaint. You know you've hit a low point when Senate minority leader Harry Reid is pleading with Bush to make the RNC and Rush Limbaugh stop picking on him.

Bill Clinton advised in the immediate aftermath of the election that it's "a mistake for our party to sit around and ... whine about this and that or the other thing." But since November that's precisely what Democrats have done -- about the president's cabinet choices, about Social Security, about the elections in Iraq, about the budget.

It's a terribly difficult task for a party in exile, but the Democrats need to stop bitching about the president's proposals and counter with some Big Ideas of their own. Granted, they don't have a natural platform. Granted, the GOP isn't going to let them enact their vision anytime soon. But it's not enough to fight Bush's Social Security plan with numbers saying things aren't that bad. It's time for Democrats to come up with their own plan for saving the program. It's not enough to complain that Bush's budget is a "hoax." It's time for Democrats to insist on proper funding for programs that matter.

Bush has already primed America to believe that the Democrats are "obstructionists" or ostriches who hide from difficult tasks. The more they kvetch, the more unbecoming their resistance to Bush's agenda becomes. If the Democrats don't find a positive voice to enunciate a real vision for the party -- and quick -- it's gonna get mighty ugly in 2006.

Bigger Is Better

Americans like the Bigness and Boldness of Bush's vision. He may be dead wrong on Iraq and on Social Security, but he's not shy about pushing his audacious ideas. For a president who is allegedly a nitwit, he's making the Democrats look like a bunch of empty-minded complainers. Instead of trying to compete on the same playing field, the Democrats are just heckling Bush from the stands.

What are these big ideas? If it were up to me, I'd gin up an excuse to have Barak Obama present a major speech to the nation. I'd follow it up with 527-funded TV ads, and a campaign-styled roadshow to promote this agenda:

1) Catch Osama. Nabbing him is fundamental to the War on Terror, yet the administration has completely dropped this ball. America's Enemy Number One has been on the lam for nearly 1,250 days. This is a joke. To insist on his capture and justice for the victims of 9/11 cuts against Bush without whining. It sets an agenda that's unimpeachable. And making this a signature issue will let the Democrats share in some of the glory if Bush is lucky enough to catch the bastard.

2) Fix Social Security. Come up with a competing plan for chrissakes. First demonstrate that the president doesn't even know what he's talking about. Find footage of the following event and get your 527 allies to fund commercials to play it over and over again:

Q: How is the new plan going to fix [the] problem?

THE PRESIDENT: Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised.

Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled .... There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.

Okay, better? I'll keep working on it. (Laughter.)

Then trot out a proposal that shows how the same trillions of dollars Bush is proposing to use to "reform" Social Security could actually be used to fix, to save it permanently. If you have to have the government invest some of the trust fund in the stock market to make the numbers work, so much the better. Embrace change -- but not a change in benefits.

3) Demonize Crystal Meth. The left needs a boogey man in the worst way. And here's one that's real. The drug is ravaging communities in the Midwest and the South. And here's a corrosive drug that even lefty pot-heads can hate. In a liberal world lacking in moral absolutes, can't we all agree that this scourge must end? As an added bonus, vilifying this drug resonates with overtones of: Democrats care about safeguarding your kids. Democrats care about law and order. Democrats care about what's ravaging Rural America.

4) Institute the Mary Mornin Rule: Nobody in America should have to work three jobs to survive, least of all a divorced single mother of a child with special needs. Get MoveOn to fund an ad to play this clip from this week endlessly:

THE PRESIDENT: Good. Okay, Mary, tell us about yourself.

MS. MORNIN: Okay, I'm a divorced, single mother with three grown, adult children. I have one child, Robbie, who is mentally challenged, and I have two daughters.

THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?

MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)

There's nothing fantastic about any single mom in America working three jobs. Not in the America Democrats are building. Figure out a plausible tax credit to guarantee the security of breadwinners working two jobs.

5) Medicare for America. This is the Biggest Idea of the lot -- and the most controversial. But it's time to face up to the fact that American healthcare is on the brink -- anyone who's had to navigate the bureaucracy knows it. Nearly half of all bankruptcies in this country stem from medical bills. Something big has got to be done.

But big doesn't mean complicated, Hillarycare big. It means taking a program that's good enough for our senior citizens and making it work for all of our citizens. Blow up the HMOs. Cut up your Kaiser Card. Kiss your PPO goodbye. The Dems need a plan for universal Medicare coverage. Make sure it makes sense. Demonstrate how it saves money. If Costa Rica can afford universal health care, the richest country in the world certainly can.

Three of these ideas (Osama, Meth, and the Two-Jobs-Is-Enough) are unimpeachable. Social Security is already a fight that's been brought to the Democrats. If universal Health Care's not worth fighting for, then nothing is. Anyone promoting these ideas is likely to be savaged by the GOP. But they will rally the Democratic base, and start to get the party back into the game.

Without a bold vision to compete with Bush's, Democrats are in for a long, tough, irrelevant ride.

Tim Dickinson wishes Howard Dean luck. He's going to need it.



(Posted Feb 09, 2005)

Dean is just what we need. Someone who says what he thinks even if it is unpopular.

When Dean was governor of Vermont (a neighboring New England state) he was considered anything but a liberal or a demagogue. At best he was considered a moderate. He does however have one characteristic which has been significantly lacking in the democratic leadership of late. He is willing to both articulate what the democratic party has traditionally stood for and to challenge the ideologues of the regressive wing of the Republican party. I think he will make an excellent party chairman and just might put some spine back in the democrats.

Dean represents the democratic wing of the Democratic party...