Dean ! Dean !

[shimsham]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Genx87

He would energize the democratic party just like how he brought new life into the party during his run for the presidency.

I dont think energizing is the problem. Getting moderates to vote for democrats is.
Democrats were plenty energized this last time around but still lost because in the end Kerry just didnt appeal as much as Bush did to moderates.

How is Dean a radical leftist? That is a myth generated by his detractors. This guy was a very popular governor in Vermont, which is not some liberal state.

Dean lost to Kerry because of all the disinformation spread by the power players in the democratic party. They did not want a outspoken guy to lead them, they did not want a guy with guts to challenge them on their mistakes so they wanted a softer spoken guy to run instead - Kerry. Dean was a much better candidate than Kerry all the way along and only lost in the past few weeks to Kerry due to the all the false negative attacks on him by the Washington democrats.

These beltway democrats did not want a non-Washingtoner to run and challenge their authority. Dean is a great man who was unfairly trashed.

couldnt agree more. it wouldve been nice to cast a real vote for dean, instead of a non-vote for bush.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: SuperTool
DLC GOP-liters have been running the Democratic party for last 10 years, and to what effect? You can't win elections if you surrender in the battle of ideas. Not over long term.

Clinton won by taking GOP ideas and preceived strengths and making it his own. Some would say co-opt, some would say taking the issue off the table so the other side won't bash your head in with it. Take welfare reform off the table. Take the soft on crime issue off the table by standing around with the police unions and the 100,000 police officer bill. He knew what he was doing. Karl Rove did the same thing. Kerry tried (firefighter union, Vietnam vet, etc) but Democrats are still preceived as soft on terrorism. Stand for core Democratic beliefs but never let the other side bash your head in with some issue you cannot win on.

You don't address the appearance of being weak on terrorism by following the GOP's lead and getting this country in nationbuilding adventures.
That got Kerry into trouble. He voted for the authority to go to war to appear strong on defense, and ended up looking like a phony, because he signed off on the GOP position which weakened his ability to criticize the president. You can't imitate the other side and criticize them at the same time. You need to oppose them consistently. If you disagree with the other side, then if people agree with you, you win, if they disagree, you lose. But if you agree with the other side, you lose either way.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You don't address the appearance of being weak on terrorism by following the GOP's lead and getting this country in nationbuilding adventures.
That got Kerry into trouble. He voted for the authority to go to war to appear strong on defense, and ended up looking like a phony, because he signed off on the GOP position which weakened his ability to criticize the president. You can't imitate the other side and criticize them at the same time. You need to oppose them consistently. If you disagree with the other side, then if people agree with you, you win, if they disagree, you lose. But if you agree with the other side, you lose either way.

Kerry appeared whishy-washy on this issue. He was never able to explain the $87 billion dollar vote coherently. Always support the troops even as you disagree with the policy. There is no concensus on the Iraq issue but GWB famed it in the context of the larger war on Terror. Kerry needed to decouple that but was unwilling to for a long time. Kerry never was able to counter that image effectively. I will bet the 87 billion vote hurt him more than the authorization if though I agreed he should have made a better agrument as to why.
Remember GHW Bush trying to label Clinton as a "waffler." It did not work because Clinton stood up and attacked back. He also appeared independent by criticizing violent rap music - i.e. Sister Soulja taking on a core constituent in Jeese Jackson.

This is a debate on the direction of the Democratic party. I am a Democrat because though I don't agree with everything or every policy in the platform, the core beliefs of the Democratic party of equality and freedom and opportunity are important to me. Kerry was not able to offer a coherent counter message and lost.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You don't address the appearance of being weak on terrorism by following the GOP's lead and getting this country in nationbuilding adventures.
That got Kerry into trouble. He voted for the authority to go to war to appear strong on defense, and ended up looking like a phony, because he signed off on the GOP position which weakened his ability to criticize the president. You can't imitate the other side and criticize them at the same time. You need to oppose them consistently. If you disagree with the other side, then if people agree with you, you win, if they disagree, you lose. But if you agree with the other side, you lose either way.

Kerry appeared whishy-washy on this issue. He was never able to explain the $87 billion dollar vote coherently.

That's what drove me the most insane during his campaign. It was so EASY to explain why and he NEVER brought up Bush's threat of a veto on the version of the bill on which Kerry did vote Yes!!

 

[UbiSunt]

Thought this fit the topic title pretty well:

http://www.vicalecorporation.com/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryID=5

http://www.vicalecorporation.com/detail.aspx?ID=37

Make sure you listen to both the sound clips

http://www.vicalecorporation.com/sounds/hb0038.wav

 

[mwtgg]

YEAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!