Dean seems to get to decide what a democrat being a democrat is

[Bombtrack]

I'm getting really tired of the contintued regurgitation of all of his code-words and buzz-words and implications and contradictions from this self-proclaimed straight-talker on this board and at events.

Implying(and thats what it is because he obviously isn't blunt enough to come out and say it) that all of the candidates who aren't anti-war are not real democrats is really assinine, and just one way in which he shows that he cares more about being nominated than a democrat(whether real or not real for Dean) winning the presidency.

You can see that according to Howard Dean, only real democrats follow his orthidoxy, so the only real democrats are Howard Dean and his campaign activists.

And he either contradicts himself or he just makes no sense:

He believes that, or rather "say's" that he can win, not by getting the most independant voters, but by exciting the base. Whether or not the base is made up of real democrats is not clear, although at least 35 - 45 percent of democrats and democratic leaning independants supported the war, so that must disqualify them from real democrat status. So Howard Dean will win the election by exciting the 55 - 65 percent of the afformentioned group, rather than by Imitating fake democrats like John Kerry.

But Dean also say's he's a centrist, yet judging from his most adamant supporters here, and it's not unreasonable to believe they are a microchasm of all of his supporters, centrists are sell-out, republican-lite, corporate-whores.

As you might imagine, this throws everything back into the air again.

What would we do without straight-talkers

[wtmusic]

1. What's your definition of a Democrat?

I wanna hear some "straight talk"

[Bombtrack]

4. someone who votes for democrats

and who identifies themself as a democrat.

[poskonig]

2. This makes no sense.

Howard Dean supposedly is the devil because he didn't support the Iraq war, appeals to centrists and liberals, and actually wants the job he's running for.

How is this bad?

[Bombtrack]

6. he appeals to one group

anti-Iraq-war knee-jerk liberals.

I really don't know how you completely missed the point of the post

Howard Dean is self-proclaimed straight talker

when he is probably the least straight-talking of any candidate, except perhaps Kerry

He cares more about himself being nominated than a democrat being elected, and I think that makes him a selfish asshole, and I still don't know how you completely missed that

[ryharrin]

7. He is a self proclaimed straight talker?

Do you happen to have a link when he has "proclaimed" this? I'll even settle for one where he merely said it.

[poskonig]

10. I believe you have Dean mixed up with Nader.

Most anti-war knee-jerk liberals respect Dean. But not all Dean supporters are anti-war knee-jerk liberals. Team Dean will have 3 million people connected to his campaign by Nov 2004.

Dean did not significantly change any issue positions over the last six months. Dean cares about being nominated AND being elected -- his objective is to win the White House.

[Gringo]

24. Only conservatives are "knee-jerk"

Liberals actually think about their positions on issues. The reaction against the Iraq conquest was not "knee-jerk" If it were knee-jerk, millions would have protested Afghanistan, too. They didn't, because there was some justification for Afghanistan.

Iraq was a filthy crime built upon a foundation of lies.

As to his appeal, I can tell you from the meetups I've attended that his core constituents are yuppies, very bright people. They are not pacifists, just not fooled by the excuses for THIS war.

"Howard Dean is self-proclaimed straight talker"
When did he lie?

"when he is probably the least straight-talking of any candidate, except perhaps Kerry"
Now you're smearing Kerry, too? Okay, so he wants it both ways on the Iraq war, so what? That makes him the biggest liar?

He cares more about himself being nominated than a democrat being elected, and I think that makes him a selfish asshole, and I still don't know how you completely missed that

How asinine. Why in god's name would he want to get nominated if he didn't want to win, unless he was a GOP plant? If he is one, we're doomed anyway.

Just more baseless smears.

[Jim Sagle]

45. Maybe because it's all in your mind?

[kentuck]

3. He could be Howard the Duck....

It doesn't matter. It isn't about Dean. It's about his message. Democrats that don't understand that are way out of touch with reality. People are pissed with Bush and the Repubs... and those that think they can "work" with the Repubs are lost sheep.

Dean has connected with where the majority of Democrats are at. It's not politics. It's real life.

[AngryYoungMan]

5. But it's true!

All of the candidates who aren't anti-war are not real democrats.

There, now I'VE said it. Am I asinine? I don't think so. I'm prepared to defend the point all day and all night if necessary. There are several reasons that this statement is true, all of which depend upon a clear definition of what a "real" democrat is. I'll take this one to the mat. Dean is speaking the truth when he implies this.

[Bombtrack]

9. shouldn't you say implying the truth

Nobody gets to say your not a real democrat, just like nobody gets to say your not a real american.

Especially not when it turns the nominating process into 1968

His followers really have become a blindly obedient cult

[AngryYoungMan]

12. Why can't anyone say that?

Yes, I accept your grammatical correction; thanks.

But I don't agree with your subsequent statement. That's a silly rule. Who convinced you of that? Benedict Arnold was not a "real American" (just as an example to refute your absolute statement).

I don't get where you're coming from. Did you support the war, or do you now? Did you support Bush's tax cuts?

Accusing those who support these two things of not being "real Democrats" seems fair to me. What am I missing?

[Bombtrack]

18. I guess you've never heard that Foriegn policy ends at the waters

edge. The democratic party is now the liberal-leaning party, and the GOP the right.

A strategic regime change has nothing to with being a democrat or a republican. The estate tax does. Tort reform does. This war doesn't.

And no I'm not even pro-war, and I'm not anti-war either.

I actually bothered to listen and read to the other side on the issue of war, which I doubt many of you did, and there are alot of good reasons for it. There are also alot of bad things that could and will happen because of it. And I'm not afraid to say "I don't know"

What I am very confident of is the wrong direction that demagogue Dean is taking all of you people by making being a democrat an strict orthidoxy. An orthidoxy he picks and chooses at the expense of hurting the parties chances of beating Bush. And an orthidoxy of contradiction, pessimism, and Bullshit

[Gringo]

31. It's "orthodoxy"

"What I am very confident of is the wrong direction that demagogue Dean is taking all of you people by making being a democrat an strict orthidoxy. "

What orthodoxy? Because he promotes a set of beliefs, that means he's excluding those that don't accept all of them? I don't think so. I'd be willing to bet that many Lieberman supporters are against the Iraq war, and hate Bush, yet Lierberman ignores them, and praises Dumbya's war every chance he gets. So is that Lieberman's orthodoxy?

[Bombtrack]

33. Leiberman doesn't say

that people aren't being real democrats when they don't follow his line

[poskonig]

35. Sleeperman just repeats GOP talking points.

A ticket to nowhere, leading into the wilderness, blah blah blah.

[Gringo]

38. You've never proven that Dean says that either.

You claim he "implies" it. Well, Lieberman "implies" that anti-war democrats are unamerican and unpatriotic by constantly siding with a neofascist idiot Resident.

[Gringo]

27. I assume you're being sarcastic

though the humor is undetectable.

Real democrats are not necessarily anti-war. Real democrats ARE, however against wars based upon mountains of lies, and conducted for reasons other than those presented to the public, IMO. To support a war that you know is based on a lie is totally corrupt, and therefore, Republican.

[w4rma]

8. On Larry King he credited Graham and Kuchnich for voting against

the Iraq invasion.

And he named Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards as voting for the Iraq resolution.

[Bombtrack]

13. Yeah, I know

that's his whole campaign, bunching them into a group and implying that they are not real democrats, and implying that they voted for Bush's tax-cuts when only Leiberman did. I guess now that he's apoligized for lying about Edwards voting for the tax cut he'll stick to inuendo and association to make all of his lapdogs believe that all four of them are these DLC motonotons who vote how the DLC chairman tells them to.

You people see the world in black and white more than republicans do

at least it seems that way in this nominating process. I should just go away let this thread be clogged up with the same tired rhetoric and dismissal as any Dean critism here is met with

why even bother

[AngryYoungMan]

16. Don't leave. LISTEN.

You're not being fair.

All that's happening right now is that

1) A democratic candidate is attacking the President's policies
2) it has made him MORE and not LESS viable as a candidate.

We're not mindless robots or whatever you said, and we're not drinking kool-aid. We're simply excited about this. Don't be so proscriptive. We'll all keep paying attention and if Dean screws up or turns out to be a jerk, we'll still be watching. We're not zombies. We're just excited and galvanized by what's happening. You could be, too. Nobody's asking you to give up your reservations about the guy. It's only August 2003. We've got a LONG way to go. Chill.

[w4rma]

19. I reread the sentense. I think I understand what you are saying.I disagree

The pro-Iraq resolution candidates have been attacking Dean on his foreign policy ability. Lieberman came out over the last couple of days and said, outright, that Dean is weak on defense.

IMHO, Dean is defending against those charges by counterattacking. If he were to defend instead of counterattack on the subject of the military, he would be perceived as poor on national defense. In fact, IMHO, he is the *best* candidate on national defense.

[Bombtrack]

28. No they havn't

Show me where John Edwards attacked Dean, ever

or Gephardt for that matter

This is what Dean does he lumps them all together, to make them into these cartoonish double-agents, just so he can win the primary

John Edwards has said continuously that "you won't get me to say one bad word about my apponents"

even after Dean lied about Edwards voting for tax-cuts

maybe you should try and not fall victem to the same "mistakes" that Dean does

and I don't think that any of the things Dean has had to apoligize for are mistakes. I don't think he cares about misrepresenting, misleading, or outright lying if it gets him another 5 or 10 or 100 supporters. I saw him doing it several times tonight on LK, he's very skilled at it.

[w4rma]

29. But neither have they defended Dean's position against the Iraq war

None of them have to go after Dean, directly, because they are letting Lieberman and the DLC leadership do it for them. They can't attack Dean directly because it would hurt their position with the Democratic base. They let Lieberman do it, who is already disliked by the Democratic base.

[Bombtrack]

32. Why would you defend someones position that you disagreed with?

This has to be a prime example of reaching if I've ever seen one

Edwards attacked Dean because he didn't defend a position of a political opponent that he disagrees with

[w4rma]

39. I would like to see Dean move to the left, but I know that it would be

impossible for him to win if he did so. Dean, IMHO, does the best job of explaining his positions as clearly and concisely as possible. And, I think that in U.S. politics folks have lost the ability to reason because of all of the folks in Washington refusing to give straight answers. And the Democratic Party and democracy will lose, in the long run, unless folks get a handle on reality again.

"The preeminence of representative government {is maintained} by showing that its foundations are laid in reason, in right, and in general good." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1810.

[sandnsea]

15. Let's try this

Kucinich voted against the Authorization because he was actually against the war. Graham voted against the Authorization because he thought there wasn't broad enough language to go after other terrorist groups in the region. A vote against the Authorization for War, isn't necessarily being against the war.

Dean didn't have to vote, but he thought Saddam was a threat and thought we would probably have to go to war and wanted it to be a multilateral effort. Acknowledging that votes on the war don't necessarily reflect actual positions, it is mind boggling that anybody can say Dean was anti-war based on his own statements.

And that's why some people think Dean isn't really quite the straight-shooter he claims to be.

[w4rma]

25. Dean's statement immediately before the vote was strongly anti-Iraq war

...
Dean, whose advocacy of liberal domestic policies has struck a chord among grass-roots activists here, offered the sharpest dissent. He contended that Bush has yet to make a compelling case to justify going to war.

"The greatest fear I have about Iraq is not just that we will engage in unwise conduct and send our children to die without having an adequate explanation from the president of the United States," he said. "The greater fear I have is the president has never said what the truth is, which is if we go into Iraq we will be there for 10 years to build that democracy and the president must tell us that before we go."
...
http://www.dre-mfa.gov.ir/eng/iraq/iraqanalysis_27.html

[ibegurpard]

11. I prefer my grapes sweet.

You like them sour.
To each his own.

[Gringo]

14. blah blah Dean blah blah destroying party blah stiff blah hidden agenda

blah blah dishonest blah blah supporters mean and rude blah blah unfair attacks blah blah we're democrats too blah blah same ad hominem attacks against Dean as always blah blah can't be repeated enough at DU blah blah because Dean's still front runner blah blah let's tear him down blah blah because our guys can't seem blah blah to inspire anybody blah blah blah blah blah blah .



blah.

The only thing I'm more sick of than "let's stop all the candidate bashing" threads is the candidate bashing threads. Why do people get off on this so much?

[whirlygigspin]

20. I like your style!

blah

[xequals]

17. I agree

Whenever I hear "Democrats have to start acting like Democrats" it makes me wonder what Dean, Kucinich, and Sharpton think a "real Democrat" is.

The fact of the matter is that they have an agenda to pull the Democratic Party in a certain direction just as the DLC does. The Democrats are a coalition of diverse factions, and each faction within the Party believes themselves to be the "real Democrats". It has always been this way and probably always will be.

[w4rma]

21. IMHO, he means that we should quit trying to hide our positions

and fly in under the radar. Be open to the public about our intentions. Try to explain our positions as well as we can and lead the polls instead of following them.

That doesn't mean that a Democrat can't be a moderate/centrist. Dean is a moderate, but I like him because he is open and blunt about his positions.

[Bombtrack]

30. So is Edwards

how is Edwards not like that(like you say Dean is)

and why is Dean saying him and all of the others aren't being real democrats

and for that matter, by that criteria, how is he different from Leiberman

Leiberman seems to dance around what he is ideologically way way less than Dean

[w4rma]

34. Edwards isn't a threat. He's polling in the single digits.

Lieberman attacks the Democratic base. He demagogues the Democratic base to prove to... someone... that he dislikes liberals too and isn't a liberal.

Dean doesn't demagogue the Democratic base to get his moderate credentials.

[poskonig]

44. "Dean doesn't demagogue the Democratic base to get moderate credentials."

You hit the nail right on the head. :kick:

[xequals]

40. you like him because his a intensely partisan

(at least his rhetoric is), but sounding very partisan won't win a national election. What Dean is trying to do for the Democratic Party is a good thing overall, but it's the job of a senatorial/congressional type leader, who can get his hands dirty and not have to worry (like a Robert Byrd or a Tom Delay). A national candidate should appear to be as non-partisan as possible, and simply run on being the better candidate. Both Clinton and W ran on centrist platforms and on being "uniters not dividers". The vast majority of voters (especially the type that vote in national elections) HATE partisanship.

[charlie]

41. What Dean is doing to others

is blowing love smooches compared to what Dubya did to McCain during the primary.

[Gringo]

43. Untrue.

"Both Clinton and W ran on centrist platforms and on being "uniters not dividers". The vast majority of voters (especially the type that vote in national elections) HATE partisanship."

Clinton ran on a centrist platform, and governed center-right. Budh ran on a right-wing platform, and has governed to the ultra-right, and has been ultra-partisan. Why don't the American people mind his partisanship?

[xequals]

46. Both Bush and Clinton "triangulated"

and ran as centrists. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative". Clinton ran as a "new Democrat". Clinton triangulated issues away from the GOP with welfare reform, defense of marriage act, etc. Bush is triangulating issues away from Dems with his AIDS package, the Medicare package, etc.

Bush is to the far right on certain issues, as Clinton was to the left on others. But overall they were/are both very aware of trying to take as many issues away from the opposition party as possible --both are/were masters at it.

Many far right conservatives dislike Bush for "big government" as much as many far left liberals disliked Clinton for his fiscal conservatism.

[Bombtrack]

23. Dean is DLC

just as much as any other DLCer, it's just another huge contradiction that highlights the overall BS of his campaign

His campaign has gotten a large quantity of his followers to believe that the DLC(which is just a think-tank) is actually a wing of the party that are really republicans or share the same goals as the republicans

but then they'll be the first ones to tell you they're centrists.

Dean is probably the most political candidate, meaning he dances around the truth more than anyone, yet he can't tell you enough that he "says what he means and means what he says"

when a politician has to say that, greeted with that awkward smile, people know somethings up.

[w4rma]

26. It's the media and the Republican Party trying to define Dean as a liberal

Everyone here on DU knows he's a moderate. Most of his supporters know he's a moderate. He has said himself on many occasions that he is a moderate.

[Bombtrack]

37. what does that have to do with what I'm talking about?

You're reusing old Dean defense talking points

I don't care what you call Dean, I do know what he would be to the electorate that would hand Bush a second term if he was nominated

but this post isn't about him being a moderate.

It's about him being a selfish opportunist who implies that other moderates are not real democrats because they disagree with him.

[w4rma]

42. The DLC attacked him first, not the other way around

And this invasion of Iraq was totally unthinkable before the build up to it. President Carter came out strongly against it. Vice President Al Gore came out against it. Diplomats resigned. CIA agents quit and protested.

This invasion was not supported the majority of Democrats. Bush alienated our allies and put us in a quagmire.

And, I disagree with your labeling of Dean as a selfish opportunist. His tactics are not conventional, but the most successful tactics never are (easier to defend against textbook tactics since you know whats coming).

[Gringo]

36. What it means is

That we as a party and a society have done nothing but give up ground for 22 years, if a bit more slowly under Clinton, and it's gone far enough. The time to draw the line, and behave like an opposition party is NOW. To not do so is to fold up shop on American democracy. We are that close to it being OVER. The democratic party of today looks like the GOP of 30 years ago in terms of economic policy. Stop determining policy with polls and by comparing ourselves to them (scum) and looking at polls. Do what is RIGHT. That's what I'm about. I don't care if I'm a REAL democrat or not. I'm a proud liberal democrat, though, and that's good enough for me.

[madfloridian]

22. Dean gets to define it right now because he is being honest.

The others are playing games, except for Kucinich and Graham. Since Graham helped found the DLC, I need to feel he is not too tied to them. I like him though.

Wow, Dean must have made impressions tonight. Look at all the posts about him. LOL