Dean is no McGovern...face it!

[Cascadian]

Is anybody in here getting sick and tired of the comparisons of Howard Dean to George McGovern? I am! What are the basis for this arguement? I fail to see anything that points to this. What is the nature of this analogy?

Dean in my view is a common sense centrist who wants the Democratic Party to get a spine. What is so wrong with that? That is not a leftist or centrist thing. It's just about caring for the Democratic Party and it's principles. I think those who criticize Dean are basically envious of the fact that Dean pulls no punches and was brave enough to stand up to Bush. What is wrong with that? To me his platform indicates nothing that woulc be so McGovernesque. It's an afirmation of bringing the Democratic Party back to being Democratic. Not Republican or Bush lite.

So you guy's views that Dean is some McGovern prototype just does not wash with me or anybody in DU that supports Dean. Sorry guys!

John

[silverweb]

1. Amen.

The McGovern comparison, I think, is just a psychological ploy to make Dean seem like a candidate who can't win.

Whether it comes from the Rove machine or the DLC or another Dem campaign doesn't matter. It's pure psyops propaganda.

[Cascadian]

4. The more I think about it....

the more I am seriously beginning to wonder if the leadership of the Democratic Party particularly those in the DLC are Republicans in desguise. I know it sounds conspiracy tinged but just think about it. I would be surprised if there are some DLCers talking to Karl Rove right now. Anybody have a take on this?

John

[pyro1392]

28. I wouldn't say they are Republicans in disguise,

but they may be playing the same game as Rove and the other Republicans who just want power. Many of these politicians seem to put a desire for power over everything and have no principles. I'm beginning to feel that the status-quo power-seeking politicians of both parties are bigger enemies of the country than the more principled libertarians and even conservatives.

I wouldn't be surprized to eventually see a battle between the more principled liberals, libertarians, and conservatives (I do know some, though they tend to lean libertarian) on one side and the power-hungry, elitist, corporatist, politicians on the other. Unfortunately, most people in Congress are probably members of the latter group. I don't suggest abandoning the Democratic party, but I do suggest putting as much effort into the primaries supporting principled Democrats as into the general election. The biggest hope is in electing more people like Russ Feingold and Paul Wellstone where possible. Even in solidly Republican districts, people like Ron Paul, who will challange the status quo, can be elected. We need to demand more principle from our politicians, and we might get it.

[Ein]

2. Dean isn't very liberal.

So what is with all the comparisons in other threads?

[JohnKleeb]

7. I know Ein you know what bothers me

These people are like you and me politically, they despise the DLC yet wont support Kucinich because he's unelectable supposely, I think Dean could win but I also think if people listened Kucinich could do. Let me just say this, I want 180s not 90s and Kucinich offers us a 180. Remember the person who is president in 2004 will probably have a chance to pick at least 3 supreme court justices, do we what another Warren Court or do we want a moderate court that is socially liberal but more so economically conservative.

[Ein]

10. Damn straight John

You are a bright young'un

[JohnKleeb]

14. yep

You see I want 180s people not 90s. You know I read that the next president will be able to appoint three to the court, now imo that could give us the most progressive court since the Warren court, I assume we all love the Warren Court here or at least admire it? Dean has good social issues but Kucinich blows him away on that and on economics Kucinich is even better. If you find the department of peace idea a joke? what are you gonna tell the man who thought of it? you know the man who thought as of the father of his country, George Washington, and I would like to thank Tom Harkin for that tidbit. We can win this thing and we can real change not some change with a Kucinich presidency, the poor children will be able to go to schools, war will be a rare thing, and the American Reinsannce will begin.

[Droopy]

3. I'd like to see a side by side comparison

of Dean and McGovern if somebody is serious about saying Dean is the next McGovern. All I know about McGovern is that he lost in a landslide. Are the two candidates similar on the issues? What about the strength of the competition? Is Bush as strong as Nixon was? Why do the detracters say this about him? Is it because of his stance against the war in Iraq?

I've seen Dean's record. It looks like he did a good job in Vermont and they are doing better than most of the nation as a consequence. I agree with the original poster. Dean is a moderate. That's why he's not my first choice. But if he gets the nomination, I'll happily cast my vote for him.

[SGrande]

5. Dean is not like McGovern , his supporters are

not seeing that they are supporting a loser ...

[tedoll78]

8. *yawn*

Yeah, a real loser.. :eyes:

If he's such a loser, why is he giving everyone such fits?

[unfrigginreal]

9. Talk about getting personal...

at least we DON'T SUPPORT a Wishy Washy Politician

[SGrande]

23. see I attacked the candidate, not the poster

BIG difference, please refer to the DU rules

K,thx,bye

[poskonig]

11. And you were sobbing about being picked on by Dean people?

A little inconsistent, eh? :+

[SGrande]

24. no I attacked the candidate

big difference, please refer to DU rules

k,thx,bye

[jbou]

12. what's with you?

Kerry has no charisma, he has a solid record, but no charisma. Dean has his problems, he needs to hire a military advisor that will knock the socks off of the GOP.

Calling Dean a loser is flat out wrong, If you take a look at the political scorecard he is a winner, the latest poll in Iowa has him in first place, he's running neck and neck with Kerry in New Hampshire, and he's on the frontpage of Time, and Newsweek, and he's on the frontpage of the washington post Sunday, on the frontpage of the ny times last week, on Larry King tomorrow night. If Dean is a loser then Kerry is just a scab on the loser's ass, because I don't see Kerry growing, I see him drying up and blowing away, especially if he fails to win New Hampshire.

You need to light a fire under your candidate's ass.

[SGrande]

25. I don't mean loser as a lonely guy in his mom's basement

I mean he won't win the general election.

And trust me, I WISH Kerry would lite a fire under his ass. I think he will, starting in Sept on his big kickoff

[farmbo]

16. If you're a typical Kerrycrat...

...I'm voting for Dean!

[Ediacara]

19. If Kerry's people could have "destroyed" the loser Dean

then why haven't they?

[SGrande]

26. I think they created the Deancrat

by attacking him in the first place.

Kerry's campaign Manager created Howard Dean with that first attack.

And now a few dean supporters are creating a new surge in the Kerry camp by attacking Kerrycrats so harshly and personally

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SGrande]

27. ignored for personal attack

[TLM]

36. Ignore time for you...

First the arm pit hair bashing, then posting flaimbait, and now these loser attacks.

[SGrande]

37. fine bye me

buh bye :)

[Clete]

6. I find Kucinich closer to McGovern

IMHO

[Fixated]

13. ...

But Kucinich has no shot of getting the nomination

[Ein]

15. As long as...

everyone keeps chanting that, over and over.

[JohnKleeb]

18. yep

We must always believe in hope, some said there was no chance that we could have civil rights, but the power of love, compassion, and dignity helped pave the road, it was not an easy road but if we believe in Kucinich's greatness, we will have an American Reinnsannce. We need that, Kucinich speaks like one of us, and his department of peace idea isnt so radical, George Washington would be shaking his hand. The department of peace idea is originally George Washington's idea, thanks to Tom Harkin and Dennis for mentioning that. I want a populist candiate who knows what we can accomplish.

[Cascadian]

31. I like Kucinich but....

I honestly think he will not get the nomination. It is just my opinion.

John

[Clete]

32. I don't think so either.

I do hope that whoever does get the nomination though would consider Kucinich as VP nominee. Right now I feel that it will take someone like Dean or even Hillary Clinton to win the primary. However, instead of going to the right like Gore did with Lieberman, I think a VP candidate who is further left would be better this time. Any Democrat who was centrist in the last election will be fed up enough with Bush to lean further to the left and he might lure some of the Green vote back. Just a hunch. I could be all wet.

[Cascadian]

33. Kucinich could get a cabinet position but....

I honestly think Bob Graham would be a better fit for Dean as VP. Kucinich could do well as Secretary of Labor, HUD, or maybe even a Department of Peace.

John

[caledesi]

17. Yes Cas, I am so f*cking sick of the comparison.

It's repug talk. Dean = McGovern = LOSER

I was around during the McGovern race and Dean is no McGovern. McGovern was a great man, but not like HD at all.

How are they different? Let me count the ways:

McGovern was much more liberal than Dean
Eagleton became a problem for McGovern because the Repugs "McCained" him about his ECS (electro-convulsive shock treatments) for depression. I remember seeing him crying; it was sad.
McGovern received the Distinguished Flying Cross for WWII - Dean was not even in the service
Dean's demeanor is totally different than McGovern; McGovern was fairly soft-spoken, but deliberate

Again this is FREEPER talk. They are scared stiff of Dean. Why do you think Rove was intermixed with Dean supporters on the 4th? To GET SCOOP. To find out why they people were attracted to Dean so he could figure out how to counter the "Dean attack."

[Gman]

21. Dean and McGovern are both losers

it's that simple. Nothing complicated or over anyone's head here. THey're just both losers.

[Redleg]

30. Care to give reasons?

Or is it easier to just flame-away?

[Kanola]

22. They do not know what to make of Dean

The keep trying to spin.. Oh he will be over next month, he is the next McGovern, he is too far left...

Dean has mobilized a lot of voters and they are scared shitless. IMHO

[TLM]

38. Dean has a quarter of a million supporters signed up so far....

Compare that to the maybe 8 Dean bashers here? And it looks like they're having such a hard time getting anybody to buy their BS that at least one had to go to other boards and troll for back up.

[thebigidea]

29. bad strategy to even defend against these stupid charges

attack instead, why let the Republicans define/deride/distort?

"No, but Bush is worse than Nixon ever was... and you'd prefer his minions, cronies, and descendants to rule today?""

[bluestateguy]

34. McGovern

People forget that McGovern was not really chosen as the party nominee. The rules were rigged in his favor by a commission that he chaired in 1971, and he limped to the nomination as a result of a confluence of events: Ted Kennedy's Chappaquidick, The NH Union Leader's smear of Ed Muskie (the frontrunner for months) and the shooting of George Wallace (who actually got more primary votes than McGovern). McGovern never had any real momentum. Even is support among young people was overstated: 18-29 year olds voted 52%-48% for Nixon. Dean's momentum is real, and I might also add that this is not the Vietnam era. The American public's tolerance for casulties is a lot shorter than it used to be. I have always said that the 70% support for the war in Iraq was a mile wide and an inch deep, that is to say, very fragile.

[maine_raptor]

35. The question should be "Can he be McGovernized?".

Ok before you Dean supporters start firing up the tar and plucking the feathers, hear me out.

I worked on the 1972 McGovern campaign in the only state he won; MA. Watergate, Eagleton, and other things aside, one of the accomplishments of the "Trickers of Dick" was to paint the image of a weak, flip-flotting candidate that would push America left and down the river of communism if he were elected. Take a look at some of the television ads that were run against the Senator sometime.

I worked with Sen McGovern when he came to MA during the campaign. He worked increadable hours during that fall. He spoke himself hoarse on several occasions talking about where this country was headed under Nixon, trying to overcome the number that was laid down on him.

And all for nought.

I sense a simular convergiance of events in 2004 as I did in 1972. The GOP has a huge financial advantage, they hold the WH and the Congress, nevermind the Supreme Court, and with the rise of the Corporate Media, I fear they will be harder to beat.

So, with all these advantages, why possibly give them another one?

If you are honest, you know that the "defining of Dean" is already happening. Political pundants, talking heads, etc. are talking about the "left-leaning Dean" or asking "Has Dean pushed the Democratic Party to the Left?".

The Democratic Party MUST win back the White House in 2004. But they MUST also win the Congress. For if, we were to win the White House, but not the Congress, then sure as shooting the "scandals" will start, then the "investigation", and finally the "impeachment". Who says history cannot repeat itself?