Dean to seek chairmanship of Democrats

Dean, slightly (only slightly) left of Liberman. Just barely a democrat.

I really at this point would not care if he was an independent. We need fighting people.

Speaking of that, what do you all make of what is going on with Reid and the massive attack on him from the republicans?

This is an interesting question. We'll have to start a pool.

A firebrand Democrat, who really hates Bush and or the Republicans, would be thrilled at the prospect of Chairman Dean. Because he will say what they want to hear. And, possibly, because he innovated campaign funding. Funding is a big part of the Chair job--and in that realm, he has an impressive resume.

My first blush answer was: It will likely be very bad in the short term for the Dems--but in the long run, it may just renew them.

There is one constant about Dean. He will say the wrong thing. Period. There's no way around it. He keeps his feet in his mouth. The only variable is how bad will it be?

Added into this (quite titillating to me) scenario-- The country has changed recently. There has been an undeniable shift away from ACLU mentality, boobs at halftime, and the general ripping anything mentioning God out of public sight. It had gathered a lot of momentum--and it has stopped in it's tracks. The people who are behind this shift...the people who turned away from the Dems (women, blacks, Jews, Hispanics--I think were the major categories) -- These people are very likely to really dislike Howard. He is likely to confim their temporary move Republican to permanent.

So, short term bad for the Dems...

But, I really think a Howard Dean--if he isn't canned out of the gate for a faux pax--will be such a lightening rod--the party will have Civil War. (Deaniacs v Clintonistas) When the smoke clears, the party will at least be defined. So, maybe good in the long run. For them.

I don't think he ever stuck his foot in his mouth. He just spoke the truth. He was the only one in the beginning who was willing to stand up and say that the Iraq war was not the war on terror and was not part of 9/11 and I will always respect for that. In fact he got the debate started in earnest in the media and political world.

I don't really care if he is good for us as far as getting the democrats back in the whitehouse or the house any time soon. What I care about is getting some clarity and having someone in my party who is willing to go out on a limb and stand up for those who do not toe the GOP line.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17718-2005Feb11.html?nav=hcmodule



<sniiiiip>

Dean sounds pretty good to me. Here's one of his latest.

Ever since the purveyors of conventional wisdom pronounced that the last election was about moral values, the beltway pundits have been endlessly engaged in trying to divine What It All Means. After all, President Bush presented himself as the embodiment of compassion and American values, and has told us that the election was his accountability moment?-proof positive that the American people support his policy priorities.

The simple truth is, however, that it did not take an election to convince us that the American people are a deeply moral people. When we see children pool their pennies to help tsunami victims, or a community unite to pay for a neighbor's transplant operation?-that is all the evidence of compassion we need.

With the State of the Union Address and the annual budget submission, President Bush will have his opportunity to unveil the most tangible statements of his priorities and values. These two documents are a distillation of hundreds of choices made and priorities ordered. It will be interesting to see what he chooses.

Because in the course of making thousands of decisions that impact the real lives of Americans, one decision that the President made has impacted virtually all others, and that was the decision to completely change the structure of our economy by dramatically shifting the tax burden from corporate interests and wealthiest individuals squarely onto the middle class. That decision has put our nation in a financial straightjacket for generations to come.

And now the President suggests that the deficits created by his policies must be reduced by cutting the domestic budget, while his tax policies remain off limits. But make no mistake?-it is the middle class that will feel the impact of George Bush's economic restructuring the most. While corporations have historically been responsible for over 20% of the tax burden, today they are paying just over 7%. Combined with tax breaks for the wealthy, we are left with an economy in which the middle class is shouldering a staggering load of the burden.

Ironically, rather than funding the services most of us rely on; taxes paid by the middle class are going directly into the pockets of the wealthy in the form of tax breaks. And most working families have much more to contend with than taxes: many employers can no longer provide health insurance; our parents can no longer depend on nutritious meals delivered to their homes; Head Start cannot accommodate enough deserving children; and students know that the President's much-touted $100 increase per year in Pell Grants will not put college within their reach.

The President has made his choices, and no matter how drastic the change in circumstance?-be it war or recession or his proclaimed "crisis?" in Social Security?-he refuses to revisit those decisions. Yet?-as need permeates the middle class and not just the destitute?-it is hard to believe that the American people favor more corporate handouts and endless tax cuts. And whether they live in red states or blue states, whether they worship in churches or temples or not at all, Americans do not want to see their neighbors bankrupted by emergency medical care or watch military families barely scrape by on meager salaries augmented by food stamps. Fairness, after all, is a cornerstone American value.

So over the coming days, all Americans should be watching what the President does, not just what he says. Will we have more of the same?-eloquent words masking a distorted economic system?-or will the President at long last put his money where his mouth is? The stakes couldn't be higher.

I'm not sure if I posted this here...

It was Dean or Green as far as I was concerned. If the Dems had not elected Dean chair, I would have been through with them.

Here's a little flashback -- Dean speaking to the DNC in 2003:



Link to full text here.

I'm much happier with Dean as chair than Dean as presidential candidate. I agree with what revel says about wanting someone who's willing to stand up to Republicans, be a fighter -- I think his strength lies there more than in convincing people he should be the leader of the most powerful nation in the world.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20050212/ap_on_re_us/democrats_12

Democrats Elect Howard Dean As Chairman

1 hour, 28 minutes ago

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

Weasley...err, Wesley Clark isn't so thrilled with Dean for DNC Chair.



I'm sure glad I'd finished drinking my coffee when I read that.

I just wish that there was some kind of forum or place to post to Dean and his handlers to tell him to ignore what the repubilcans have to say about al this and to stand his ground with his beliefs.

Two mistakes I think happened with past election (here in the US) was that we let the republicans manipulate the talking points and we let them put us on the defensive all the time. We have been putty in their hands long enough in my opinion.

We need to start paying attention to domestic matters before there are no domestic matters to pay attention to.

Also, dean pays attention to security matters; he just does not try to be a republican copycat.

He didn't even realize the Soviet Union had been dissolved well into his campaign.

He don't know diddly about foreign policy.

It will be interesting to see what he does as DNC Chair, it's fun to hear men like him who have little man's syndrome try to talk tough.

brand x

I don't see how you can say that with a straight face considering bush, but anyway..

Lash, I missed that part about the soviet union during the campaign, would you mind refreshing me?

Nevermind, I looked it up and it was a slip of the tongue that of course some will make a hey day out of.

I haven't voted in my poll, and won't, but he's making more and more sense to me as a poke in the ribs to the party - and hopefully U.S. politics in general. Too many complacent people south of the border. Some shaking up would do everyone some good.

beth

Yeah, this is good news. He has the ability to motivate the democratic base, and to bring young people into the activist fold. He's more than willing to get in a scrap. He has a clear understanding of how corrupt the opposition has become. He's conversant with the online world and will likely utilize this new medium more effectively than most anyone else the dems have.

"I hate Republicans and everything they stand for" ~ Howard Dean

The party of hate?

<Insert Dean Scream>

Yeah, Dean's a uniter not... a divider, too.

Oh, please; using the uniter and divider line is also a stretch considering bush.