Billmon says in two posts (first here, second here)what I meant to say the other day in my half-crazed rant about Howard Dean, which is, essentially, I don’t find his remarks altogether offensive, but I do find them to be pretty stupid politically. He has to know how these things are going to get played out in the media.
I don’t mind hardball in politics, but I find it a little silly for the person whose job is to smile a lot, shake hands, and raise money to be picking fights and leading with his chin. It seems pretty clear that Democrats have read their Lakoff, have discussed message control, remember Newt Gingrich’s selective use of wording, realize the polling that Frank Luntz is doing is effective, yet, in the end, haven’t learned a damned thing, which lead me to the conclusion that they anyone too stupid to figure out how the modern political arena functions isn’t bright enough to lead the country. You can disagree with that if you want, but there is a reason we tolerate rigorous campaigns.
It appears that other Democrats recognize Dean’s folly:
Rep. Harold Ford Jr.: “I think perhaps Governor Dean sometimes gets a little excited at the mouth, and says things that are simply not true. It may reach a point where if he can’t find a way to kind of control some of his comments, and temper his comments, it may get to the point where the party may need to look elsewhere for leadership, because he does not speak for me, and I know he does not speak for a majority of Democrats and I dare say Republicans in my home state. I know that other, even Senator Biden and others, have made some stronger comments about him. I look forward to having a chance to sit with him here in the next day or so. I think he’s going to be here in Capitol Hill a little later today to meet with us. I want to ask him directly. Can he contain himself in a lot of ways, and what is his thought process in a lot of these issues because it is not representative of where the party is.”
Rather than savagely attacking Ford and others who recognize that Dean is a loose cannon doing more damage than good, despite how much fun it is to be in full-on angst-ridden attack mode lashing out incoherently (trust me- I know a thing or two about this), Democrats would be wise to get on message, or craft a coherent one if necessary.
In a related note, in the comments section of this post, Hokie challenges me to come up with some middle-of-the-road positions that if Democrats offered, I could support. Putting aside the social issues like civil unions, stem cells, etc., in which I more often than not side with libertarian or Democratic positions, the big one for me would be a return to fiscal sanity.
The spending has to be dealt with, but I am almost certain that the Democrats are as or more ill-suited than the GOP to do that, partly because of their governing philosophy, partly because of the inevitable promises that will have to be made in order for them to win. I thought the Republican party was the party of fiscal restraint, but over the last five years we have shot that hoary old misconception and buried it in the cemetery at midnight. At any rate, I am unimpressed with comments noting that government spending as a percentage of GDP is down, and I am troubled by the exploding deficits.
Democrats being Democrats, I have little faith that their approach will be widespread budget cuts, which leads me to believe that is is almost inevitable that taxes are going to be increased at some point in the future. More likely than not, it will be Democrats that will do it, as Matt Yglesias discussed yesterday in his brand new digs at Talking Points Cafe.
Of course, this is going to be widely resented by Democrats, who are pretty justifiably going to feel that the GOP held the wild party, broke all the lamps, pissed the bed, and then took off leaving the Democrats to change the sheets and air out the mattress. Republicans can protest this and point to the expense of the war and the post-bubble economy all they want, but it still doesn’t explain the Prescription Drug Plan and the 25% increase in social programs. Fiscal responsibility means that you DON’T spend boatloads of money on new social programs (particularly really bad ones which are nothing more than a giveaway to big Pharm) while you are trying to finance a war. And you certainly don’t increase spending dramatically, cut taxes, and then propose several trillion dollar changes in social security and other programs. I fear that the history of this administration, on fiscal policy, at least, is going to be one of missed opportunities, misplaced priorities, and an emphasis on short-term political gain rather than long-term fiscal health. I hope I am wrong.
I can understand the inevitable anger of Democrats regarding this, and Republican protests are going to fall on deaf ears. I think it is pretty clear I am not impressed with the current crop of ‘fiscal conservatives’ in the White House, House, and Senate. That being said, my knee-jerk position is anti-taxes, so I would counsel the appropriate course of action would be to roll back some of the wild spending. With Democrats being Democrats, and already keenly yearning for dramatic increases in health, education, and social insurance programs, that just isn’t going to happen.
At any rate, I am now wildly off the original topic of this post… Discuss.
*** Update ***
For the willfully slow who STILL do not get it, here is exhibit A in how letting the man who is supposed to be quietly fund-raising and whipping up the troops lash out indiscriminately and pointlessly is not good for Democrats:
Behind schedule after a delayed flight, Ken Mehlman last night rushed into a room at the ornate Duquesne Club, Downtown, to address a gathering of the Republican Jewish Coalition.
“First of all, let me say to my fellow Christians, it’s good to be here,” the Republican national chairman said, cheerfully fanning the partisan flame ignited by his opposite number’s comment earlier in the week that Republicans were “pretty much a white, Christian party.”
Jibes at the remark by Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean were a staple of the hastily arranged gathering of about 50 GOP partisans. The event underscored the partisan spat, but coalition member Joe Weinroth, the GOP candidate for mayor of Pittsburgh, insisted that its timing was coincidental. “Despite those rantings, this was going to go on anyway,” he said.
Even Deannow sort of gets it:
An unapologetic Dean was on Capitol Hill in Washington yesterday, rebutting the criticisms of his remarks that have come from Republicans and even some members of his own party.
“You know, I think a lot of this is exactly what the Republican want, and that’s a diversion,” Dean told the Associated Press after a meeting with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Dismissing the week’s controversy as “a media circus,” Dean said, “What we’re focused on is how to have a decent Social Security system, how to have a strong national defense, how to have jobs in America again and how to deal with incredibly high gasoline prices and get a decent energy bill that will actually do something about gas prices.”
Again, this is not rocket science, but if you read the comments below it is brimming with idiotic ‘stop picking on Dean’ nonsense. Dean should stop providing people knives to stick in his back and get down to fund-raising, smiling passively, and assuring contributors that the Democrats have a good chance in 2006. Not running around popping off at the mouth indiscriminately.
I don’tknow why this is so hard for some of you Democrats to understand, but I am beginning to recognize why you are now entrenched as the minority party.
Hokie
Actually, what I meant was more what you wanted in terms of “coherent policy proposals,” since I think we can all agree that giving specific plans at this point in time is fruitless and you wanted more than just some sort of general statement of priorities.
Tim F
Historically this goevernment is hardly an exception. Since FDR Democratic administrations always underspend Republican administrations. This post explains some numbers and links to more.
Hokie
Oh, and yes, a coherent message would be nice, which is why I like the tack Edwards is taking with this: “We’re all saying the same thing, and we have been, though certainly we wish Chairman Dean might have used different words.” I do think this entire thing has been managed badly, though as I said, I don’t disapprove of what Dean’s doing (what his follow-through is, we’ll have to see).
I do at this point think, given the exploding deficit, that we need to raise taxes, along the lines of what Clinton did. Obviously this by itself isn’t enough, and we need to curtail spending as well, but I don’t see how we can get back to a healthy fiscal state without raising taxes, even if only to pre-2001 tax cut levels. If there are any ideas, though, that’d be great.
Oh, and, for the record (though this has made me a bit unpopular with some Democratic friends of mine), Lakoff sucks. I can’t think of a given frame he’s proposed that’s good.
Barry
Two comments –
First, the Democratic Party, IMHO, suffers greatly from fear of pissing people off. The GOP has capitalized on this by being eager to piss people off, and by knowing that Democratic politicians won’t counter-attack. So right, the push needs to be attack and counter-attack. Tuning comes later. We’re in that stage of the war were Lincoln, when told that Grant drank a lot of whiskey, asked what brand, and expressed a wish to send some to all of his generals.
Second, coherent policies don’t win elections. Bush won with know coherent policy that was publicly expressed – he ran on slogans like ‘it’s your money’, ‘fuzzy math’, etc (I’m sure that there were some, but they weren’t publicized). The Democrats have no shortage of coherent plans and planners; start at the TPM cafe, The American Prospect, and (I hate to say it) The New Republic. Read there and follow the links. Within an hour you’d have a nice set of policy proposals to fill an empty weekend of reading.
Brad R.
I don’t disagree with you. There’s a place for fire-breathing anger, and it ain’t the head of DNC. They gave John Edwards’ ideal job to Dean, IMHO.
ppgaz
You have it all wrong on the Dean story, John.
What’s going on is a fight for control of the Democratic Party.
The struggle is between the gang of muttonheads who slept through the 1980s and partied under Clinton, for a while, and have no clue how to create, or lead, the Democratic Party of the future. They are a bunch of gutless bastards.
Dean is there to get in their faces and shake the tree. That’s his job, and he is exactly the person I’d hire to do it. He is the Anti-Lieberman, and he has my full blessing and support.
Republicans can waste their time cackling over this big-mouth Dem all they want; the GOP leadership is presiding over a train wreck that is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory every day, and they can’t get off the phone with James Dobson long enough to stick their heads up and see what is really going on around them.
The LimbaughDobson strategy got them all three branches of government, narrowly, and they can’t govern because they never considered the problem of governing while they were engineering this takeover. Not unlike the Iraq fiasco, really. Mission Accomplished! That phrase will be their epitaph … just not in the way that they thought it would.
Real Dems don’t eat quiche, John. They are out to take control of the party from the “I voted for it after I voted against it” crowd. The fight will be ugly. But if I were you (guys), I wouldn’t waste a lot of time watching it on tv. Your own party has sold its soul to the devil, and you better have your own fight to get it back.
John Cole
Did you even read the links to Billmon, PPgaz?
I don’t care if you attack, and I am not arguing that an attack is a bad thing.
But make it a useful attack that makes sense, not just lashing out incoherently. This is not rocket science.
Go read Billmon and get back to me.
Jeff
I don’t agree with everything ppqaz said (thank God) but he is right that this is a battle for control of the Democratic party.
I don’t like Dean even a little bit, in fact, i think he’s a jerk and an embarrassment.
that being said, however, it is interesting to see the way “Inside the Beltway” Democrats rush to condemn him for everything he says, when a lot of them are saying the same things.
The other day, Harry Reid essentially said that Dean needs to watch what he says and the way he says it, but this is the same Harry Reid that called Bush a loser and called Clarence Thomas an embarrassment.
Ignoring for a second whether or not you think those two labels are true, it’s amusing that they get so bent out of shape when Dean does what they’ve been doing for a while.
I think they really do feel threatened by Dean’s popularity with the rank and file and his outsider status.
brenda
I diagree with your opinion that Dean is a liability or that he is any different than democrat or republican party heads in the past. I don’t think he is.
What republicans are good at is distracting everyone from their crap and shifting the focus onto the democrats crap.
What you appear to be saying is that dems ought to play softball politics, that they would be more sucessfull if they did. But given the current climate and especially when the media is controlled and manipulated in favor of the republicans, given this, I think it is absoulutely necessary for them to play hardball politics.
The dems need to be as Maceavellian as the republicans are in order to win. The real problem is that the dems don’t have a large population of dupes like the evangelicals that they can cynically manipulate to their own ends.
BTW, how many non-white non-christians were there at the last GOP convention? Less than %1 I bet. So why is the media always so willing to jump to the GOP tune? In the case of FOX, they are directly ordered to. For other outlets the pressure is less direct but it’s still significant. The media and the concentration of its ownership into something like, maybe 8 large corperations, is a large part of the problem.
Tim F
Billmon is right, and in another sense ppgaz is right. JC is definitely right. On the one hand Dean needs to use his vitriol more smartly. On the other hand there is definitely a contingent of Dems who hate and fear change, regardless of whether the Republicans have figured out the old plan so well that they’ve forced three consecutive turnovers.
Biden and Liberman represent that old guard, just give them a mic and they’ll find an excuse to undercut these new guys and their new game plan. Reid is new blood, and theoretically he and Dean would be a deadly combination, but Dean’s injudiciousness and friction from the old guard are hurting them badly.
Jeff
One interesting sidelight of all this stuff with Dean is the Barack obama factor.
People that, during the DNC and the campaign, would flip out if you suggested that Obama was anything less than the second-coming, are all of a sudden saying “hey, what the hell is up with this guy” in light of his A)vote for confirm Condi, B) vote for the Bankruptcy Bill and C) the fact that he’s not criticized Dean.
He’s gone from saint to sinner quite quickly.
Jeff
Sorry, C) should say “the fact that he’s NOW criticized Dean”.
CadillaqJaq
I have no idea how many or few of you heard Howard Dean’s remarks after meeting with the Senate Dems Thursday BUT it was a different Howard Dean than went into the meeting. Perhaps he got his ass whupped.
Today is another day however and not havng had either a radio nor TV on have no idea what Dean’s Friday pronouncements are, if any.
He is a fresh, interesting guy, but I don’t see a loose cannon resurrecting the Democrat Party.
John Cole
What you appear to be saying is that dems ought to play softball politics, that they would be more sucessfull if they did.
What?
Are you reading the words I write or just projecting. As I stated:
I don’t mind hardball in politics, but I find it a little silly for the person whose job is to smile a lot, shake hands, and raise money to be picking fights and leading with his chin.
I don’tmind rough and tumble in politics, but I do mind stupidity. Dean and the Democrats aren;t fighting smart, they are just lashing out with pent up rage, and it is used against them.
It’s stupid. Fight tough and be angry, but try to have some focus.
ppgaz
Okay, John, I took the post to be a Dean bash followed by …. well, some other stuff. My reply is to the Dean bash, and no, I basically glanced at the Bilmon thing, but I don’t see how a specific rant against Dean, no matter what it says, is relevant to my point. What I’m saying is, Dean is there to piss people off. Looks like he is doing just that, and fine with me. The people who are complaining are either the Old Dems (yeah, I know, Barack Obama and all that, but he’s too new to have a handle on those big power games back there) who still think that I voted For It After I Voted Against It is a message, or … Republicans, who of course are going to scream bloody murder.
I ignore the former, and I ignore the latter too. The OldDems have done a crappy job, I don’t care what they think right now. And the Republicans? Except for you and a few sentient pals here and there, I don’t care what the GOP noise machine thinks, either.
I want the fight (inside the Democratic party) and the way to get it is to walk into the bar and punch people in the nose.
Last, I don’t agree that Dean is lashing out incoherently. I think he knows exactly what he is doing. I do not subscribe to the “scream meme” on this guy. The scream was a ginned-up tv bullshit thing. Dean was hollering in a room full of screaming people and nobody heard him except the tv audio track. Dean is, as I said, a provocateur ….. I hope he provokes the living crap out of people. The more, the better.
What Dems like me want is for Dean to go to the offices of the Liebermans and the Bidens and tell them what they don’t want to hear: You guys represent the Loser Wing of this party. There’s a new sheriff in town.
Let ’em squeal all they want. Let ’em paint Dean to be the loose cannon. Reload the cannon, and aim it directly at the obstacles, whoever they might be, on whichever side of the aisle.
Simon
Billmon rocks. That is all. Just had to give props there.
neverlearn
So what the Democrats might do in the future (even though they didn’t do it in the last Democratic administration) disqualifies them in your eyes. Yet what the Republicans have done and show themselves incapable of stopping, while fiscally, socially, and militarily worse than anything Democrats have ever done, is.. what, some sort of temporary aberration?
brenda
I understand “smile a lot, shake hands, and raise money” to be softball politics. That’s what I hear, in spite of the first phrase.
As I see it, dean is put into a double bind by the media in a way that republicans never are.
Therefore, anything that Dean says will be met with a whithering attack from the media and the GOP. How do you fight that? How do you fight in an unfair playing field? Should we hire someone who can out Rove Carl Rove? If it is true that the “GOP has sold its soul to the devil” then should the dems do the same?
I don’t think so. Is it even possible to fight hard and smart when the cards are stacked against you? I don’t think so. If we accept that we’re in an unfair situation then the only way to counter is to meet force with force.
This is all kind of theoretical, my real fear is that the game is already over. That, as Orwal said “The future is a boot stomping on a human face, forever.” America took giant strides to that future in the past 5 years.
Rick
John,
Shhhhh. Never interrupt your opponent–especially when they’re as dangerously loony (“reality-based!” LOL!)as are the millenium’s Democrats–when they are making a mistake.
Cordially…
John Cole
I understand “smile a lot, shake hands, and raise money” to be softball politics.
Then you don’t understand much at all. Maybe Jack O’Toole can explain it to you:
C
carot
I think your comments about Deam were some of the most perceptive made all year. Someone should lock Dean, Hillary, etc in a room with some of your posts until they get it.
The first law of selling is you don’t sell by knocking the competition. That just makes people who were thinking of voting Republican feel stupid or slandered, and then they don’t like the person who said it. Once they don’t like the seller they want to buy (vote) for someone else. They end up voting for the ones who say nice things about them, the Republicans.
But how does one get out of this dilemma? The same way every salesman does. The idea is not to knock the competition but to say it is unsuitable for the client/voter. There’s a huge difference between the two.
The Democrats hate Bush because they feel slandered by him, but Bush and other Republicans never say bad things about Democrats. Even Rush doesn’t really do that. What they do is far more clever than that. They say the Democrats are too left wing, and point to Michael Moore, liberal elites, etc as proof.
The Democrats are stunned by this accusation to the point that in denying it they tend to lose their identity as Democrats entirely. To avoid the stigma of being too Liberal to govern they try to appear as not Liberal and end up standing for nothing.
They respond to this in exactly the wrong way. Bush and Rove always try to disassociate their policies from being right wing, but instead being a reasonable position but not definable in the political spectrum. So Bush brands the Democrats as too Liberal but himself as apolitical. Since he avoids the political label the Democrats can’t think of anything more than personal smears which alienates the Republicans and swing voters even more.
Since the Democrats don’t attack Bush’s politics the voters tend to think that Bush and co are flawed men following good policies. Voters don’t mind this, they let Clinton get away with the Lewinsky affair because they thought he was a flawed man but did a good job. In fact Clinton did the reverse on Gingrich, who spent all his energy smearing Clinton than refuting his policies.
The irony is though that Bush is very right wing, he is just better at avoiding that label. Since the Democrats never actually point that out then he gets away with being a right wing extremist without being accused of it. Worse, there is little or no criticism of extreme right wing philosophy as good policy to run the country.
What the Democrats should be saying is that the Republicans are too conservative to govern to counter the Republicans saying the Democrats are too liberal to govern.
Every time the Republicans do some thing dishonest, corrupt, etc the Democrats should be tying these things as being the extreme right wing philosophy itself. When Delay is corrupt they should say this means he is too conservative. When a spokeman lies about Global Warming he is too conservative. Phasing out Social Security is too conservative. Tax cuts for the rich is too conservative. Giveaways to Big Pharma is too conservative. Take everything the Democrats don’t like about Republicans and label it as the extremist Conservative philosophy. Then let Bush and Cheney make speeches on why extreme right wing philosophies are not bad for the country.
Make the Republicans shrink from the Too Conservative label like the Democrats shrink from Too Liberal.
I’m sorry for the long post but I thought your posts were just too brilliant to pass up on. They really are a knock out.
John Cole
So what the Democrats might do in the future (even though they didn’t do it in the last Democratic administration) disqualifies them in your eyes
Who said it disqualifies them? I doubt very seriously I will vote Republican in 2006- at least not for this current crop of fools and charlatans.
Darrell
I love it. Leftists are under the delusion that the only problem is that they “seem” too kooky and out of touch.. and those mean Republicans are so unfair, Democrat race-baiting nothwistanding. I got news – Howard Dean *really is* a wild eyed kook and the fact he was nominated to head the DNC speaks to where the Dems want to take their party. Harry Ried is only marginally lower on the kook scale.
Outright Democrat bigots like Cynthia McKinney are never/rarely denounced by fellow Dems. Don’t want to offend any of their core constituency of race baiting anti-semites you see. And regarding spending, get real. Take any of the huge spending fiascos under Bush: Education bill, Prescription Drug, Agriculture, etc. In EACH AND EVERY CASE Dems were either completely on board, or in the case of prescription drugs, Dems whined that the increases in spending weren’t enough. I really wish someone would reign in spending, but you gotta be kidding if you think it’s the Dems in their current form
ppgaz
All due respect, John, I think you are wrong.
Dems lost the national election in 2004 because they were playing by the old softball rules, against a team that plays Don Drysdale hardball. Drysdale said, why waste four pitches putting a man on base, when you can hit him and do it with one? Drysdale is the pitcher I want in this game.
If you are going to send me to a fight against a take-no-prisoners opponent, give me Patton, not Colin Powell …or Joe F-ing Lieberman, or Joe Biden.
There is a reason why Dean did not survive the 2004 primaries: The entrenched power structure of the party didn’t stand behind him. They feared him. They still fear him. Good. I hope they are crapping their drawers.
They gave me Kerry. Thanks a lot. I like Kerry in many ways, but they might as well have given me Barbara Walters, for crissakes.
The room full of mostly young, screaming people in the room for Howard’s famous yell …. that’s the energy of the party.
metalgrid
So if he’s supposed to be fund raising, how much money has he raised? Is it more than the guy before him raised by this point in time?
Proof is in the pudding and all that, if his loose cannon attacks are making more money for them than they did with the previous guy’s softball tactics, then aren’t they better off with what works?
John Cole
Dems lost the national election in 2004 because they were playing by the old softball rules, against a team that plays Don Drysdale hardball.
This fucking cult of personality with Dean is going to get you knuckleheads killed again.
Let me say this one more time, and then I wash my hands of the lot of you:
I am not telling you to play softball politics. But that doesn’t mean I think it is wise for you to show up in the batter’s box with a hockey goalie’s mask on and then proceed to give the crowd the finger and hit the ump with your lacrosse stick while the pitcher beans youi in the ass with the ball.
Whch is what Dean is doing. From Billmon:
You people and your idiotic and slavish devotion to your PARTY FUNDRAISER are cutting off your damned noses to spite your face. If Dean wants to lash out and be edgy and give some red meat, fine. BUT DO IT IN A WAY THAT IS POLITICALLY EFFECTIVE.
Coordinate your message, and create one that isn’t more damaging to you than it is to the opposition. Eighty percent of the country identifiesthemselves as Christian- do you want to run the chance of pissing them off? Rather than actually pointing out how white the GOP is, this attack lets Ken Mehlman go before a Jewish group and point out how diverse the GOP is…
I am not saying Howard Dean has to shut up. I am not saying you have to play nice, because I know the Republicans won’t. He just has to stop saying stupid and pointless shit that can be used against him.
For the love of God you people are exasperating sometimes.
brenda
“Then you don’t understand much at all.”
ad hominium attacks are unlike you.
Yeah, political schmoozing for party members is softball. Starting a whispering campain on….oh, McCains illegitimate black child. That is hardball. Throwing felons and blacks off the voter rolls, enough to swing an election, that is hardball. An electronic voting machine that scores 200 per cent and more of the enire population in the county, hardball.
And while many are suggesting that playing hard and smart is what Dean ought to be doing, what I am saying is that doesn’t win elections. Playing mean and dirty, what I’ve been calling hardball, does.
You can’t fight that. When either party plays mean and dirty, as I believe the GOP has in the last 5 years, then America loses.
carot
Here’s a good analogy. You have two tems of salesman, A and B. You want to sell Sanyo Tv’s and the main competition is Toshiba TV’s. Team A’s strategy is to say so many bad things about Toshiba buyers that they won’t buy Toshiba out of shame. Toshiba buyers are to be cast as dishonest, corrupt, liars, religious fanatics, etc.
Team B has a different strategy. They decide to say that Toshiba buyers are good but misguided people and that Toshiba TV’s are inferior.
The simple fact is Team B will sell nearly all the TV’s. The Democrats strategy is all Team A all the time. It’s the most ridiculous thing in sales training.
Even Billmon and Kos don’t seem to get it, which is unbelievable. They still seem to think if you keep thinking up more insults on Toshiba buyers they’ll want Sanyo more.
Are the any Democratic politicians with a clue? I don’t see any at all out there.
M. Scott Eiland
Haven’t looked at DKos yet today, but I can’t help but wonder whether the piranhas there will turn on Harold Ford, Jr. now for daring to question the conduct of the Chosen One. One of the more amusing long-term political interests I have is seeing if the true believers in the Democratic Party will succeed in chasing Ford to the Republicans or out of politics completely because he’s not usually inclined to parrot the usual deranged nonsense that is par for the course for most of his fellow CBC members.
John Cole
Brenda- I am sorry, that was rude.
I am so frustrated. This is so clear to me, yet every time I tell you that Howard Dean’s unscripted idiocies are neither hardball politics nor beneficial, you accuse me of wanting you to play softball and just slither away.
I am doing neither…
Jeff
“When either party plays mean and dirty, as i believe the GOP has in the last 5 years, then America loses”.
See, this is the kind of crap that, regardless of how pissed off this soon-to-be-ex-Republican is at the Republican party, keeps me from switching to Democrat.
brenda, i live in Philly and BELIEVE ME, Democrats know how to play dirty. At least, here they sure as hell do.
The crap you talk about with higher percentages voting than are in a precinct was an issue here in 2000 and it benefitted GORE!!
Democrats here send union thugs to almost every polling place. Why do you think so many national Democratic party heavy-hitters came to Philly in 2003 to help an incompetant racist boob like John Street in the mayors race? Because they know if they got enough votes in PHilly, they win the state, and a Democratic mayor will make sure of that.
Democrats are the party of “George W Bush lynched my father all over again” and “If you vote Republican, another black church burns”. (BTW, don’t give me this crap about it was the NAACP that ran those ads and they’re non-partisan. They’re a bought and paid for subsidiary of the Democratic party).
Darrell
Brenda, I believe most of the voting scandals recently (Wisconsin, E. St. Louis, Washington state) benefited Democrats. Funny isn’t it, how the dead, the homeless, and the Disney characters seem to always vote Dem? along with their other core constituency, convicted felons.
Now tell us brenda, and please provide links, where blacks were systematically disenfranchised by the system? And while your at it, tell us some more about blocking those convicted felons too
carot
“Dems lost the national election in 2004 because they were playing by the old softball rules, against a team that plays Don Drysdale hardball. Drysdale said, why waste four pitches putting a man on base, when you can hit him and do it with one? Drysdale is the pitcher I want in this game.”
No, the Dems lost because they were pitching at each other in the primaries and destroyed each other’s crdibility.
Kerry barely criticised Bush’s policies, except to flip flop around the issues. The Dems went so far to be Republican Lite they couldn’t criticise Bush without him saying the Dems supported him earlier and now were just flip flopping.
KC
John, forget it. The left is as bad as the right when it comes to closing ears. I’m a Dem and I think Dean screwed up. However, now he’s made the DNC more money–Kos, Atrios, and others are openning their wallets for him. The message to Dean: go nuts, make cash. I figure we’ll see how the election goes in 2006 when Dems have written the GOP’s commercials for them. I’ll bet the left won’t happy.
ppgaz
John, take a breath. I’m disagreeing with you, not condeming you to burn forever in the fires of hell … you know, like Republicans do ;-)
Please note that I have not used the word “fundraising” in this conversation. To me, this is not about fundraising. It’s not about being careful not to give the GOP something to yell about.
It’s about sending a message to the Dem old guard: Your day is over. Thanks for your service, we honor your service. Now get out of the damned way, because the future of this party is not with you.
Make no mistake, folks, the Bidens and the Liebermans and the old timer Dems are a bunch of good old boys who love their power and will fight to keep it, just like all old DC insider politicians save a precious few on boths sides of the aisle.
To them, Howard Dean is the enemy, more profoundly that the GOP thinks he is THEIR enemy.
I don’t care what the GOP thinks. Let them save their own party from destruction, it’s going to be a full time job.
Go, Howard, Go. Ignore the “Oh mys” of the ladies’ auxiliary, and reload that cannon. Fire, fire, fire.
Once the Dem power structure gets it, if they do, we can all go back to pretending to be nice.
metalgrid
Ok John, I’m confused. You rant at this guy because of the way he is acting when he’s supposed to be fundraising.
Now if Democrat sources are to be believed, he’s apprently raised more money than his predecessor: http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/2/85226/67718
A quick look at actual FEC reports shows that Dean has raised more money in an off year than any DNC Chair in history.
First Quarter of 2005 – $16.7 million
Q1/2004 – $28.7 million
Q1/2003 – $8.7 million
Q1/2002 – $11.8
And Dean is on pace to break the midyear fundraising of $23.7 in the first six months of 2001.
So, I’m scratching my head here wondering what it is that you’re complaining about? Apparently what he’s doing is working as far as bringing in money is concerned for them – or those guys are spinning the numbers.
ppgaz
Hopefully, because, you know, we Dems are nothing if not hopeful types …. this is my last attempt to get you tin-eared GOPers to listen:
You have the pulpits. You have the talk radio stations. You have the cable news networks. You have the courts. You have the House of Representatives. You have the Senate. You have the White House and all the cabinet departments. You have the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force and the Coast Guard, and the Justice Dept and …
Would it be okay with you if we didn’t have to take YOUR GODDAM ADVICE on how to run our party over here?
How’s the future of your lousy party looking right now?
Why don’t you focus on the job you need to do, and mind your own business?
Thank you.
John Cole
PPGAZ- Fine, your party. Have fun, but don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Metalgrid- I think Howard Dean will be a great fund-raiser. I am suggesting that he could fund-raise without providing political ammunition for his opposition.
I would also suggest a comparison between what the GOP and the DNC have raised would be in order for a full analysis.
p.lukasiak
your complaints about Dean are a testiment to the vacuity of the GOP and its adherents. Rather than concentrating on the substance, its all about “style.”
And if you are going to approving quote Ken “closeted homo” Mehlman’s reference to “Christians”, perhaps you should point out his complete intellectual dishonesty for not using the phrase “white Christians” — which are the words that Dean used. (BTW, how do you think non-Christian GOPers responded to Mehlman’s exclusionary remarks?)
metalgrid
I would also suggest a comparison between what the GOP and the DNC have raised would be in order for a full analysis.
That would help. Any idea where one would go for a comparison of that over 5 years?
Mind you, I’m addressing this from a rather objective viewpoint. I usually vote LP and the last time I voted for a Republican or a Democrat was Bill Weld for governor of Mass.
ppgaz
Your points are better taken by me than you think, and in your case, I appreciate the friendly advice.
However …. you are right, it is my party. And as I said earlier, there is a death-struggle going on inside this party and it is going to be butt-ugly. Sorry we can’t make it more of a family tv show for all you sensitive Republicans ;-)
As for fundraising, since people here seem intent on talking about it …. I don’t see the goal here as matching the GOP in terms of money. We don’t have BigAssPharma and BigAssEnergy and BigAssBanks lining up to pour money into our party, do we? I’m just asking. We (real, non-Lieberman-Biden Dems) don’t want to be the party of the Fat Cats.
I’ve been a Democrat all my life, I don’t mind being a fundraising underdog. What I do mind is being led around by a bunch of mealy-mouthed liars like Joe Lieberman and his ilk.
If I wanted mealy-mouthed liars, I’d register as a Republican and get it over with.
John Cole
your complaints about Dean are a testiment to the vacuity of the GOP and its adherents. Rather than concentrating on the substance, its all about “style.”
And if you are going to approving quote Ken “closeted homo” Mehlman’s reference to “Christians”, perhaps you should point out his complete intellectual dishonesty for not using the phrase “white Christians” — which are the words that Dean used. (BTW, how do you think non-Christian GOPers responded to Mehlman’s exclusionary remarks?)
Attacks on people’s sexuality are just as unwelcome from Democrats as they are Republicans…
I am not approving of anything, just that they know how to fight. They took what Dean said, and are using it to their advantage to further marginalize you. But that is ok, I guess, because you guys need to be angry and the elected Democrats need to get the message from the Party Chair and get in line, even though it should be the other way around.
Or something. Whatever. I give up on you Deaniacs. I wasn’t attacking him- I was telling him to quit saying stupid things. You guys apparently think his lashing out and giving the GOP more ammo to savage all Democrats in the press is apart of some new and ‘aggressive’ hardball strategy.
Again, whatever.
brenda
Hey John
Hey also, to those who think I’m nuts and looney.
I just have a different thinking style, I’m associative, artistic and non-linear. This is my strength and it does not invalidate what I have to say. Even so, I make mistakes, so do you.
My argument is that it doesn’t matter what Dean says or does because the system is so corrupt.
Your argument John, as I understand it, is that Dean ought to be tough but be smart about what he says. I don’t disagree with you, I just don’t think it’ll do any good. Five years of this administration has taught me that I can’t be cynical enough.
I hear you and I understand you, if I’ve misrepresented you please let me know.
How’s that? I think I stated everyone’s position in a nice linear fashion. And I think I’ve been fair.
Now everyone cool it, kay? It’s only politics.
:)
ppgaz
Brenda, I think you have touched on an important point: The corruption.
The GOP is totally corrupt. Unfortunately, so is the Democratic (old version) party right now.
Howard Dean knows this, and he knows from personal experience how mean, and how self-serving the Old Guard dems really are. These are not nice people.
A nice party chairman is not going to get this done. A pit bull is needed.
Howard Dean, pit bull. That’s my take on it. Let the chickens cluck over there in the chicken coop. I don’t care.
Kimmitt
At any rate, I am unimpressed with comments noting that government spending as a percentage of GDP is down, and I am troubled by the exploding deficits.
Federal spending as a percentage of GDP:
2000 18.4
2001 18.5
2002 19.4
2003 19.9
2004 19.8
There’s a word for this, and it isn’t “down.” Federal spending is more than a percentage point higher than when Bush took office.
John — what I think you are unfamiliar with is the fact that that it doesn’t matter what Dean says. Yes, he spoke clumsily, and yes he has to start qualifying his phrases more. But if Dean spends any time criticizing the Republican Party, it will be taken out of context, made to sound absurd, and splashed all over Fox and CNN. Just like when anyone else in the Democratic establishment criticizes the Republican Party. Eventually, one has to give up, accept that the corporate media is going to try to make you look bad, and keep pushing anyways so that people eventually realize that there’s no way that all of these quotes can be accurate.
Democrats would be wise to get on message, or craft a coherent one if necessary.
And who, besides Dean, has shown any interest in crafting message?
“It may reach a point where if he can’t find a way to kind of control some of his comments, and temper his comments, it may get to the point where the party may need to look elsewhere for leadership…”
This phrasing has to tell you something; Rep. Ford has his own reasons for saying this.
Not running around popping off at the mouth indiscriminately.
I don’t think you understand the rage our Party’s base feels at our leadership. Not only have they betrayed our principles, they did so in order to lose badly. It is absolutely necessary for Dean to keep being himself in order to keep the base from simply declining to vote in the next few elections. This is what it looks like when you take your Party back. This is what it’s going to look like when and if the Republican Party starts to get taken back by the grownups.
Anyways, to sum up: (1) Dean should’ve used more qualifiers and been more clear. (2) Dean was expressing a truth which is unexpressed by Party leadership. (3) There is a power struggle going on in the Party between the folks who think we can work with the current Republican leadership and the folks who think that we really can’t. Sen. Biden and Rep. Ford are playing the game, and they are very comfortable with making the Party look weak and divided while doing so.
lily
I think Dean’s unapologetic hardnosed rhetoric is just right for communicating with the 5% of swing voters that we need. At least 47% of the voters will vote Democratic in a national election no matter who the candidate is. The real battle is for enough swing voters to tip things our way. There’s lots of research n independent voters and it all amounts to this; they vote for perceived trustworthiness. They vote for the guy who seems to be a straight-shooter. This is different from charisma. It is the anti-thesis of the carefully calibrated sanitized political inanities of people like Kerry. They want a person who says what he means and means what he says. Dean does that . The other Democratic leaders need to learn from him.
ppgaz
Yes, lily, exactly.
I’m a Dem through and through, but one of my favorite politicians was Barry Goldwater. The man said what he thought was the truth and didn’t really care who he offended in the process.
If only more of these potatoheads were like him.
Andrei
“The first law of selling is you don’t sell by knocking the competition.”
Wait… how did the GOP get into power then?
I guess my only comment in all of this is that I agree with John’s main point is an idealized view of the world of politics, but I would ask him, how did the GOP get nominated into power with all the incredibly stupid things so many of the GOP leadership have said over the past 20 years?
We have an American public that got worked up with the GOP over a President lying about sexual affairs in the White House but not getting worked up over the mismanagement and sales bait-and-switch job a President has overseen with a war where people are dying.
I mean really…
Dean is a bit of a loudmouth and I’m not too keen on the outburst — while I still do hope he shakes things up like ppgaz suggests — but given the enormous amount of stupid things so many in the GOP leadership have said publicly over my lifetime, I’m not sure how what was good for the goose in the past is now going to kill the gander.
John Cole
I guess my only comment in all of this is that I agree with John’s main point is an idealized view of the world of politics, but I would ask him, how did the GOP get nominated into power with all the incredibly stupid things so many of the GOP leadership have said over the past 20 years
By saying things that attacked the opponent but that couldn’t be used against them. If you want to attack the radical right influences on the Republican Party, don’t just come out with some lame statement that can be interpreted as hostile towards all Christians.
I am by no means saying play nice. I am saying play smart, and have a message that can’t be used against you.
KC
I saw Dean when he was in San Francisco in November of 2003. I was an early fan of his. But, I recognized the very real mistakes he made during the campaign and didn’t cry when he lost the primaries. I also accepted that other Dems ganged up on him, that he lost because the press had a field day with a scream that really wasn’t very significant at all.
That said, I really think turning this guy into the Dem god he’s not isn’t the right way to go about things. I saw him on Tim Russert and thought he did a decent job, but it was also clear he needed some help doing primetime. In one portion of the interview he got Saddam and Osama mixed up. He did this repeatedly. Don’t get me wrong, everyone makes mistakes, but really, can’t Dean take some notes. His GOP opposite would never have made that mistake. If he did, the Republicans would rightly get him some good television training.
My point is that Dean needs a handler or at least someone to help his rough worn image a little bit. Dems aren’t going to build the party by offending voters, pure and simple. You’re living in dreamland if you think Dems are going to get anywhere stirring up unnecessary controversy with potential voters. I like Dean, I think he’s a good guy, but his “frankness” and “honesty” looks a little offensive and sloppy to me.
Nash
Does anger at Dean translate into more votes for Republicans?
Discuss.
Nash
By saying things that attacked the opponent but that couldn’t be used against them. If you want to attack the radical right influences on the Republican Party, don’t just come out with some lame statement that can be interpreted as hostile towards all Christians.
So, the 2004 bumper sticker:
Democrats & Terrorists support Kerry
can’t be interpreted as hostile torwards all Democrats, correct?
Okay, got it.
ppgaz
I don’t think it’s a factor.
The GOP Anger/Noise machine always has, and always will, find something to rant about. That is its job, and it is very good at it.
I consider the question moot.
However, even if we take away all or part of that mootness, there’s another question that goes with it:
Will anger at Republicans result in more votes for Democrats?
The GOP has established an anger-based playing field. I’m down for that. They have NO IDEA how angry a lot of Dems are getting, or what that means. Dean knows, because he ran for president on the basis of that anger. I don’t think it’s a winning strategy for a presidential candidate (thus, GWB’s patented pretenses that all that sort of thing is beneath him). But I think that the D party has to learn how to fire up and harness the energy in the party, and that’s Dean all the way.
F–k the GOP. No real Dem cares what the core Repubs think right now. Trust me, we don’t care, and won’t care. This is about our side.
John Cole
Democrats & Terrorists support Kerry
I missed Ed Gillespie selling those at fund-raising events.
andrei
“By saying things that attacked the opponent but that couldn’t be used against them. If you want to attack the radical right influences on the Republican Party, don’t just come out with some lame statement that can be interpreted as hostile towards all Christians.”
I agree with you in strategy in an idealized sense, but Nash brings up a valid point. The GOP — the leadership, talkshow typees and grass roots members — has been constantly slandering the left for so long, saying the most inane things for quite some time. It hasn’t hurt them. In fact, it’s gotten them voted in by slightest of margins.
I agree with you in principle about Dean. I don’t agree with you that Dean’s antics right now will kill the Dems anymore than the same antics on the right have hurt the GOP. That’s all.
Given that, I think — I’m hopeful — Dean will do more good in the end than bad, by doing what ppgaz suggests: waking the Dems up from incredibly piss-poor political leadership by not fighting back. By shaking things up, if anything, Dean creates a circumstance for people in the Dem party seeking change and seeking to take back control. He opens up the door for change by sheer force.
While Dean himself might not go much farther in his political career due to what he says, he could create the conditions for his party to move forward by being the one to speak what’s on his mind regardless of whether it the smart thing to do politically. The more people in the Dem party start to speak up, the better off the party will be when the good ideas, the good political strategy, etc, move to the head of the class.
Dean changed the way the Dems raise money. He did it differently and his own way than everyone else. His unorthodoxy can pave the way to real change in a party that has lost its will to fight.
Tim F
John, guess who’s made precisely the same point that you are? Yup, you guessed it, Carpetbagger.
I understand the point you’re trying to make and, for the most part, agree with it. It strikes me that most people don’t really get Labor Democrats or West Virginia Republicans, neither of which fits very well their stereotypical party mould. You should see the reception that Casey-type Labor Democrats often get at Kos. We’re too big a country for ‘Democrat’ or ‘Republican’ to mean that much as a generic label.
That said, the idea that the GOP needs ammo to go berserk is a bit silly. The GOP hardly needed any actual evidence to Swift Boat Kerry. They just made shit up. Ward Churchill, who the fuck is Ward Churchill? GOP politicians ran around claiming that some guy we’d never heard of was a ‘darling of the left.’ They applied a ‘Whoopi standard’ to people over whom we had no control. Meanwhile Fristy appears at an event where the moderator calls Democrats traitors and anti-Christian and everything in between and you hear…crickets chirping. Seriously, don’t pretend to call taht fair.
Democrats’ main problem is that they’re too afraid to piss somebody off. Howard Dean needs to focus his energy sure, but as long as the press senses that it can get some Dem to apologize or attack another Dem for some made-up rightwing outrage the whole argument is moot.
John Cole
I dont think that was fair, and I don’t think there has been anyone louder than me attacking the bullshit my party engaged in with this Justice Sunday crap where they branded all Democrats as against people of faith.
And no- people don’t know what West Virginia Republicans are like.
Nash
I missed Ed Gillespie selling those at fund-raising events.
Well then, there we have it. The whole thing depends on making sure the fucking assholes in either party have plausible deniability . More importantly, it assumes, as I try to point out above, that it makes one whit of difference whether it’s on a bumper sticker vs. coming from an Ed Gillespie’s mouth.
This is your point, if you are willing to own up to it:
Calling Democrats unAmerican on a bumper sticker doesn’t move independents into either camp.
But Ed Gillespie calling Democrats unAmerican would move independents to vote for Democrats.
Or am I misunderstanding the reason for your last retort?
Tim F
To clarify what I said above a bit, I wasn’t implying that the blogger himself supported the Justice Sunday thing but rather that the attitude remains widespread among the Pope George the Second types.
Also, I brought up WV Republicans and Labor Democrats because people often color what they hear based on what they expect to hear.
John Cole
Or am I misunderstanding the reason for your last retort?
Umm, yes.
I think it is offensive that someone would have said bumper sticker, much less make and sell it. Just like I find Bushitler bumper stickers offensive.
But we aren’t talking about some person, we are talking about Howard Dean and Ed Gillespie. If Ed Gillespie ran around saying those things, I would think him stupid for it.
So yes- plausible deniability, or, as is the case with the bumper sticker, legitimate deniability, is an issue. Unless you want Dean to have his ass continuously handed to him in the media and in the mainstream.
One more time. I never said he has to play nice. It would be refreshing if he played smart, though.
I never said anything about certain people calling DeLay a criminal and that he should be in jail, did I? I didn’t find that offensive or out of bounds.
I did, however, find it amusing that the Democrats waged an all-out jihad (with my support, I might add) only to find out in the following weeks that a couple dozen Democrats were racing to file their reports about their own travel, ahem, indisgressions.
Play tough, but play smart, for goodness sakes.
Fledemaus
John, I got yer fiscal responsibility – Right here
The chief budget hurdle is the paygo provision, which the Senate Budget Committee rejected last week by a party-line vote of 12 Republicans opposed and 10 Democrats in favor. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) plan to offer a paygo amendment on the Senate floor this week.
adk46er
John,
I assume you’ve figured out that you’re wasting your time… You’re arguing with people who believe: 1) All republicans are evil 2) the democrats have lost recent elections because they’ve been too nice. 3) Calling people who didn’t vote for you brain dead – will get them to vote for you in the future. 4) The take no prisoners approach will convince moderates to vote Democratic. 5) Bashing Christians by calling the red states Jesus land is helpful…
Trying to make a logical point isn’t going to work. Plus this is the internet where you argue just for the sake of arguing. I guess a lot of people don’t like having to say: yeah John I agree with you regarding Howard Dean maybe he should tone it down a little.
Fledemaus
Well, perhaps if it get to the Senate floor it will have a better chance with all those fiscal GOP types – but I wouldn’t hold your breath:
“Members of the Senate Centrist Coalition met Tuesday to pledge support for paygo and to urge other senators to join them. They said all 44 Democratic senators and one independent who typically votes with the Democrats would support paygo, as would five Republicans: Voinovich, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, and John McCain of Arizona.
That would give paygo 50 votes, one short of a majority.”
Every Senate Dem is in favor, exactly 5 GOPers are. Pay-go isn’t the end all be all of fiscal sanity, but it’s a good start. However this obviously hinders the GOPs ability to keep cutting taxes because they would be expected gee cut spending, too. And all but 5 GOP Senators are opposed to it. The party ended years ago but most of the GOP is still wearing the lampshade and doing taquila shots.
Kimmitt
I missed Ed Gillespie selling those at fund-raising events.
Well, there were the purple heart band-aids at the RNC . . .
cburke
John, I want to say thank you. I’ve said the same thing to Billmon. I’m a Democrat, very much so. I also happen to believe in balanced budgets and fiscal and military responsibility. I’ve always enjoyed Dean’s passion – he talks about politics the way people talk about politics in their living rooms; loudly and forcefully, but not necessarily with the most forethought. That’s great in my living room, not so great on the political stage; that is the place for comments that have been thought through. Dean does make it awfully easy for a shitstorm to break out, and that’s not really what we need right now. People all across the political spectrum are fed up with the beltway self-absorption and the time spent on infighting and not doing the work of government. I’ve said so on some of the Dem blogs I frequent, and have about been run out on a rail. I’ve heard some equivalent of “toe the line or shut up” so many times that I’ve thought I must be watching Bill O’Reilly rather than being on a liberal blog.
I think party unity is valuable. But I think taken to extremes it causes some pretty nasty problems. I think it is a contributing factor to how moderate and fiscal Republicans lost their party – they kept quiet about things they didn’t like too often, and now it will be hell to change them.
Heck, I’ve lost my train of thought. Grass is pollinating like nuts here, and the benadryl has eaten my cogititation.
Anyway, thanks for being a voice of logic.
Darrell
Fledemaus, the paygo system your referring to, is that the same or similar paygo system which Kevin Drum called “transparently silly” because so much of the budget was exampted from the paygo rules?
Sounds to me like another Democrat deceitful scheme to make it look as if they give 2 shakes about overspending.. We need a paygo type system, but Dems don’t appear to be serious about balancing the budget
brenda
“I am by no means saying play nice. I am saying play smart, and have a message that can’t be used against you.”
I really really want this to be true but…. man….I think it’s better if your supporters own the media.
“I don’t think there has been anyone louder than me attacking the bullshit my party engaged in with this Justice Sunday crap where they branded all Democrats as against people of faith.”
This is what I admire about you John.
take care, and relax :)
Fledemaus
We need a paygo type system, but Dems don’t appear to be serious about balancing the budget
You mispelled Republicans in your comment.
As long as you are so definate in your assumption that the Dems will not balance the budget (despite most of them state this as a goal) while the majority party twiddles its thumbs. The GOP has an opporunity to take significant steps to balance the budget on their terms (spending cuts rather than tax hikes) But your party still remains wedded to the free lunch strategy of tax cuts will increase revenues – how’s that panning out.
Yes, there are several pay-go rules both toothless and real ones. no I don’t know which on this is but there are real pay-go proposals out there right now
Tim F
another Democrat deceitful scheme to make it look as if they give 2 shakes about overspending..
Boy just shouts credibility doesn’t it?
Poor guys will never give Clinton credit for balancing the budget. Won’t forgive him for it neither.
Check out post #2 and the links therein. If you like Kevin Drum so much it should be no problem.
Nash
I appreciate the response, John.
I did, however, find it amusing that the Democrats waged an all-out jihad (with my support, I might add) only to find out in the following weeks that a couple dozen Democrats were racing to file their reports about their own travel, ahem, indisgressions.
Me too, but I wasn’t surprised that this was the case, because I don’t happen to think Democrats are particularly more honest folk than Republicans. But, I do think if the Democrats really want to take the whole play out of Gingrich’s playbook and not just the formation, they should not hesitate for a nanosecond to let some of their own be taken down along with a DeLay or two, just as Newt calculated losing some
Republicans over the check kiting scandals was more than worth it. He was correct. I don’t care if a Pelosi has to go because of it, if the Democrats make pelf and payola the theme, the Republicans, as the party in power, are going to suffer more this time.
One more time. I never said he has to play nice
I understood that to be a part of your point from the start, the problem is that I failed to make myself clear in response.
Unless you want Dean to have his ass continuously handed to him in the media and in the mainstream.
Now, because I fully understand that you don’t owe me a thing, could I risk committing further arrogance by asking you to consider the following concerning the points you are making here?
It’s the other shoe dropping on the argument I’m trying to advance: That having Dean make comments such that he gets his ass handed to him occasionally (no, every week; okay, every day) is a very good thing in terms of moving voters’ behavior. I’m suggesting that quite apart from the fireworks and all the negative press and commentary and scolding and hand-wringing that this garners Dean and the Democratic Party, when it comes to voting, it will cut more independents off from the herd and round them into the Democratic pen than it will send scampering to the Republican brand.
Proof you say? I have none. It’s a theory, based on my observation that though people will complain vociferously about the words and tone other people use, in the end they reward them with their attention and thus have at least the potential to be informed. One has to be listening to complain. People are a lot less dainty than assumed. Call it the counterintuitive theory or the Stupid Nash theory if you wish.
As an example of my postulate in action, and it may only be “proven” at some time later, I suggest that the “gulag” hullabaloo will come to be seen as incredibly more damaging for Bush and Republicans (and to my great sorrow, the US) than if they had never raised the stink over that word and kept the basic “US = torture” meme so prominently in the world’s eye. I think Bush was played by AI. My political instincts say so. No, I’m not a political theoretician or paid consultant, but I haven’t lost any more elections for President than has John Edwards, and he thinks Dean needed public scolding. (I did, however, stay in a Holiday Inn last night.)
Play tough, but play smart, for goodness sakes.
I fully agree. I maintain that having both Sean Hannity and Joe Biden chiding you publicly is playing smart. Since no Democrat is going to listen to me, let alone understand this, we will never know. In a more just world, defined as one that did everything according to Nash, they would, and I would be crowned a political genius.
Darrell
But your party still remains wedded to the free lunch strategy of tax cuts will increase revenues – how’s that panning out
Not worth a damn. Repubs aren’t cutting spending. They are screwing the pooch. But as I stated before, Dems are even worse. On every single big spending piece of legislation, Dems either were completely on board, or were screaming to increase the spending even more as on the Prescription Drug benefits… yeah, Dems are demonstrating real fiscal restraint there
Boy just shouts credibility doesn’t it?
Uh, since you yourself are citing Kevin Drum, one would think his opinion of paygo (“transparently silly”) would be credible to you. Paygo, being promoted heavily by Dems, is a sham according to him. Any other questions?
Nash
On every single big spending piece of legislation, Dems either were completely on board, or were screaming to increase the spending even more as on the Prescription Drug benefits
Whoa there, Flicka.
One party insisted that the government be allowed to negotiate for better prices; the other party shot that down.
One party asked for drug reimportation in order to drive down costs; the other party said “non”.
Darrell
Let’s define some terms. What you are referring to as “negotiating” for better rates = *dictating* to the drug companies what they should charge. Yeah, government price controls have always had an impressive record, right?
Re drug reimporation, that’s no long term solution, and not much of a short term one either. A Red Herring. As it stands now, some drug companies are selling at lower prices in Canada because of Canadian govt threatens to break their patents if they don’t meet their price.. that crap would last all of 5 minutes if there was ever a large scale push for drug re-importation.. But it sure sounds good when trying to score dishonest political points against Repubs, doesnt’ it?
Nash
“negotiating” for better rates = *dictating* to the drug companies what they should charge
Because after all, it makes so much more sense to have the drug companies dictate to seniors what they are going to pay and to use our tax money to pay for it.
Negotiation to save taxpayer money: The right’s latest swear words.
Darrell
OK Nash, how’s this negotiation thing supposed to play out? Government says to drug company: “we want to pay you 2/3 of what you’re charging HMO’s”. Drug company sez: “No way, no discounts”
Now, if there’s an ‘equivalent’ drug out there, no problem. But in many (most?) cases, there are significant differences in quality and effectiveness of the drug. Usually the more important the drug or treatment technology (cancer treatments, heart drugs, stroke, new brain scans, etc), such differences in effectiveness become very important.
So tell us Nash, how then does the government ‘negotiate’ at this point? Oh that’s right, such a scenario hasn’t occurred to you before, because like most leftists, you’re living in detachedfromrealityland where wishes and good intentions are all that matter.
Government either brings its pressures to bear on the drug company to charge what the govt says is ‘fair’ (resulting in fewer new drugs coming out in the future) using govt mandated price controls, or it has to tell medicare patients that they can’t have the life saving drugs and treatments.. I can hear the Dems screaming now about that one
Vivek
Drug companies and HMOs, like most others, have a discounted rate for wholesale and group purchases. This is what the government uses in coverage for its employees, and many companies do as well.
Fledemaus
Not worth a damn. Repubs aren’t cutting spending. They are screwing the pooch. But as I stated before, Dems are even worse.
Oh Darrell, perhaps you should consult with your other brother Darrell. As you admit, the GOP isn’t cutting spending despite having nearly five years of complete legislative and executive control.
So here we are do you favor spending and tax hikes or spending and deficits (with even bigger tax hikes to pay for spending and interest a few years from now). Those are your options. If the GOP really wants to reduce government its time to shit or get off the pot (pardon my French). Becuase I am really getting sick of hearing cut spending and taxes and only one getting done. Does your party leadership even know how to run government?
P.S. Sorry Darrell, this is not an inditement of you (I’m sure you’d love to hack and slash at entitlements) but frankly your party seems more interested in gay marriage and judges than in actually running the federal government on a fiscally sound basis.
Darrell
but frankly your party seems more interested in gay marriage and judges than in actually running the federal government on a fiscally sound basis
Judges..perhaps. Gay marriage? you Democrats are a joke. You really are. Gay marriage is barely on the Repub radar screen. Most (all?)Repubs wish it would just go away. Only among the paranoid deluded imaginations of Democrats, are Republicans obsessed with gay marriage
I note that you offered no rebuttal to my obervation that EVERY SINGLE piece of big spending legislation either had the full support of Dems, or in the case of Prescription drugs, Dems were clamoring to spend even more. You have no rebuttal because that is exactly what has happened. No exaggeration needed
I wish there were an alternative to Republicans on the spending front. Unfortunately, judging by their actions and their words, Dems would be far worse. I would like to see control of spending not only on entitlements, but also on corporate welfare like the (Democrat supported) Agriculture bill. And tell me again, what purpose does a massive Dept. of Education serve? Because every time a Repub suggests curbing it’s size, Dems scream that Republicans “are robbing our children to pay for their limosines”
The unfortunate truth is, and everyone knows it, if Repubs took bold steps to control spending as they tried to do with Social Security, Dems scream at the top of their lungs to stop it, tarring Republicans as trying to ‘destroy America’, visions of elderly eating dog food, etc.. Republicans have problems, but Democrats are a f*cking disaster. The sooner you realize that, the faster you can get on the road to recovery.
Sojourner
Darrell:
The hard truth is that the tax cut for the wealthy is the major cause of a wildly out-of-control budget. The Repubs get the sole credit for that one. There aren’t enough dollars left to cut in discretionary spending to cover those hulking tax cuts.
Sure, go ahead and cut social security. But the tax payers will either end up paying for those folks anyway or we’ll be back to the good old days when half the elderly population lived below the poverty line. Which do you choose?
Darrell
Sure, go ahead and cut social security. But the tax payers will either end up paying for those folks anyway or we’ll be back to the good old days when half the elderly population lived below the poverty line
Beautiful timing Soj. See what I mean? Any attempt to control spending = poverty and hardship for the elderly, starving the children, etc. Republicans: “let them eat dog food..err, cake”.
Democrats, particularly leftie ones, are sooo predictable
Kimmitt
Well, yes, when you try to cut spending on a program which keeps seniors out of poverty, you will be accused of being comfortable with more seniors being in poverty. Similarly, if one tries to cut spending on defense, one will be accused of failing to take into adequate account the threats America faces. We buy these things for a reason, you know.
Fledemaus
EVERY SINGLE piece of big spending legislation either had the full support of Dems, or in the case of Prescription drugs, Dems were clamoring to spend even more. You have no rebuttal because that is exactly what has happened.
Yes this is what is know in the political world as a difference of opinion. We want more spending, and we want to increase taxes to pay for it.
The unfortunate truth is, and everyone knows it, if Repubs took bold steps to control spending as they tried to do with Social Security, Dems scream at the top of their lungs to stop it, tarring Republicans as trying to ‘destroy America’
Yes you are right. Once again this is a difference of opinion. If public opinion is on your side no one will listen to the Dems. But if you are saying that the GOP does not cut spending to avoid having a discussion about the appropriate role of the federal government because they are afraid of a political fight, then your party leadership is even more chicken than I thought.
The fact is despite everything you’ve said, your ONLY two choices are spending and higher taxes and spending and deficts. Those are your only two options.