Establishment Democrats None Too Happy With Howard Dean

[Itsthetruth]

CounterPunch
June 7, 2005

Dean at the DNC
The Establishment Vs. the Elites
By JOSHUA FRANK

Establishment Democrats are none too happy with Howard Dean these days. He's deviated from the script on a number of occasions, which has resulted in lashings from John Edwards as well as Joe Biden among others. But the larger story isn't Dean's verbal punishment; it's the fact that the DNC's top three fundraisers have left the committee for what many insiders see as a result of their differences in fundraising strategies.

Washington Democrats are linking the resignations to Dean's fundraising style. Like his presidential campaign, Dean is focusing much of his energy on the Internet. He still believes that the grassroots can reenergize the party. Of course it is still not clear as to what Dean would do different regarding domestic or foreign policy, yet he still argues that Democrats have to look outside the Beltway for direction. Look for this attitude to change soon.

The largest blow to Dean's DNC came when the director of grassroots fundraising, Nancy Eiring, resigned, citing strategic differences with Dean aides, reported ABC News. Dean has indeed done a fine job of corralling his progressive activists who latched on early to his presidential campaign. But critics of Dean's short tenure at the DNC note that he has yet to adequately reach out to the Democrat's corporate block.

.... in the coming months look for Dean to reach out to the party's corporate wing. He's done it many times before and he can do it again. The Washington Democrats think he's done a fine job of corralling the grassroots; now its time to get big business back on board. Howard Dean won't let them down.

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank06072005.html

[JNelson6563]

1. I get the feeling

counter-punch isn't too fond of Dean. ;-)

Julie

[lancdem]

18. CounterPunch doesn't like Dems, period

They treat them like they're the enemy instead of the Repukes. I find little of what they say to have any value.

[LoZoccolo]

27. They were an important source for FReeper troll seventhson as well.

That's where he got the Haitian man-boobs story.

[Just Me]

59. I wonder if Counterpunch acknowledges how they are being used,...

,...as a RW tool?

Seriously.

Maybe we should point out the fact to Counterpunch.

[Generator]

74. Haitian man-boobs story?

And I thought I had heard all the Kerry smears. Or is this about Cheney? Sorry..sometimes a laugh is good..necessary. :)

[LoZoccolo]

79. It was a Clark smear.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=122033

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=367739

He was also known to try to make a big deal about Kerry's Skull & Bones membership, though.

[Pepperbelly]

76. did 7thson have hatian man-boobs? No wonder he was disturbed. nt

[Eloriel]

86. Seventhson wasn't a freeper

any more than you are.

[LoZoccolo]

89. I see two possible responses to this one.

#1: If course I'm a FReeper. You know as well as I do that I post on DU about the "food stand AIDS-riddled lifestyle"* you people exhibit.

#2: There is a better-than-not possibility that the Bushes have somehow translitted a dumail through his IP address (which I suppose is a real possibility given their technology). I think he will be proven innocent by the IP address.**

Remember...the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend!

_{*This was derived from seventhson's parting words.
**This was derived from a letter seventhson sent to a prominent DUer days after the election.}

[Proud2BAmurkin]

51. Counter Punch is a useless tool.

They hate democrats.

[Walt Starr]

50. Counterpunch is a LINO organization

"Liberal In Name Only". IMO, they were created by the Republicans to try and cause a split in Democratic ranks.

[Itsthetruth]

63. Please Stop The B.S. About CounterPunch

I suppose we are also to believe that Tom Hayden and Dennis Kucinich are also right-wing Republican tools while your leader who you support in the Senate, Harry Reid, is a great crusader against Bush and the Republicans.

Now please don't make any more excuses for those Democratic Party leaders who vote for Bush's appointments and legislation. If you disagree with writers for CounterPunch I have no problem with that. But, please stop the low-level baiting smear attacks. Just indicate how and why you disagree with an article.

I urge you to focus your attacks on very real Bush/Republican Party collaborators in the Democratic Party and not bogus ones like CounterPunch. Attacking, splitting and dividing the real opposition to Bush and attacking opponents of his policies is of no help to progressives.

[Walt Starr]

68. I gave my opinion

Don't like it? TOO BAD!

[Itsthetruth]

70. Was That Merely An Opinion Or A Slander Walt?

I think we all understand the difference. It seems to me you're political enough to understand that a publication that is to the left of Harry Reid does not mean it's Republican.

[LoZoccolo]

80. Al Sharpton was to the left of Harry Reid...

...and yet he was getting help with financing and talking points from Republican operative Roger Stone!

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0405,barrett,50745,1.html

Nader was to the left of Harry Reid...and yet he was getting funding and help with ballot petitions from Republicans!

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0709-04.htm
http://www.freep.com/news/politics/nader26e_20040826.htm

[Walt Starr]

85. Let me explain the acronym "IMO"

It means quite literally, "IN MY OPINION"

I stated it as opinion. Any other inference has been made by YOU.

[LoZoccolo]

81. And I agree with you here.

Attacking, splitting and dividing the real opposition to Bush and attacking opponents of his policies is of no help to progressives.

Exactly! Stop pushing Counterpunch articles on DU!

[Itsthetruth]

91. Perhaps You Need To Actually Read CounterPunch Articles!

It seems you haven't read any of the numerous and regular articles in CounterPunch that do something leading Democrats are hesitant to do. And what might that be? Well,CounterPunch writers actually oppose George Bush's policies and his appointments while Democrats vote for them! Now what is so hard to understand about that?

Doesn't it bother you at least a little bit when you see Democratic Senators vote for Bush's legislative bills and appointments?

That seems to bother most progressives a lot, including those over at CounterPunch and many on DU.

[LoZoccolo]

92. Nope.

Well,CounterPunch writers actually oppose George Bush's policies and his appointments while Democrats vote for them!

No they don't. They're about opposing Democrats who still oppose Bush*'s policies and thus supporting the Republicans who support most if not all of Bush*'s policies.

Doesn't it bother you at least a little bit when you see Democratic Senators vote for Bush's legislative bills and appointments?

Yep.

It bothers me more to see people try to get Republicans elected who vote for most if not all of Bush*'s legislative bills and appointments.

Anyways, this is a tired argument that you already know and understand and yet defy anyways, so I just might not be back to respond to your next post.

[The Magistrate]

82. Counter-Punch, Sir

Is of more use to the right than even the Weekly Standard. This may not be the intent of its staff and authors, but it is certainly the effect of their efforts: a thorough-going Leninist would have no difficulty denouncing them as agents in fascist pay....

[hfojvt]

96. I used to read them alot

during the run-up to the Iraq war they punched pretty good at the Republicans. However, in the run-up to the election they seemed more interested in punching at Democrats.
It would not be fair to call them LINOs though, since they never would claim to be "liberal". They might call themselves radicals or progressives. It is part of the tradition of the left, for us to fracture and squabble amongst ourselves for the crumbs of power in our weak organizations.
They could also easily be in fascist pay, since they are funded by subscription and Scaife and Koch could purchase alot of subscriptions in order to weaken the left with internal squabbling and get more progressives to vote third party and thus elect more Republicans.

[aeolian]

2. Good. I'm none too happy with establishment democrats,

so that's points to Dean in my book.

[Raiden]

37. Here, Here

:toast:

[smartvoter]

88. I second that! nt

[aden_nak]

3. Democrat Voters None Too Happy With Establishment Democrats

[Telly Savalas]

64. Then maybe more of them should have voted for Dean in the damn primary

Given how the "establishment" vote was spread among several candidates, it shouldn't have been too hard to get an outsider to beat them.

So called DINO's don't hold office because the DLC appoints them. They win because we keep voting for them. When the voters decide to make the hurt stop, it will stop.

[bpilgrim]

4. Good... he must be doing the job weTHEpeople sent him to do

give'm hell Dr. Dean :toast:

peace

[OrlandoGator]

5. "Establishment Democrats" are the reason we're here.

They are being educated in what it means to be an opposition party.

[ibegurpard]

6. Good.

Gives me confidence that he actually IS trying to make changes in the party.

[Pithy Cherub]

7. Establishment Dems want to reach out for corporate money

because that's the only power they have. Dean has very strong grassroots and net roots support. Now, let me think, which group has only money and one groupthink corporate idea and which has money, ideals, ideas and a bigger number of actual voters. :freak:

Rock On Dean, Let those who would be ashamed of being a grassroot Dem continue to show themselves! We are taking names and notes - guess who does the real work - the grassroots!

[Vincardog]

8. FK the Democrat's corporate block. and the DLC Fight for the PEOPLE

Go DEAN

[Zorra]

9. The corporate plants are leaving? Everybody sing hallelujah! n/t

[Deep13]

10. Ah, the purge has started.

:7 B-) :7 B-) :7

The establishment Ds don't seem to understand that there won't be any establishment Ds if we keep losing! What's the best way to keep losing? Do what we have been doing.

I don't know who the folks are who are quitting, but my gut feeling is that they are among the consults who keep giving us bad advice. Ya know, like telling Gorekerry to softball Bush and not to be too liberal. Those folks gotta go! The fact is that Dean is doing better with fundraising than McAulliff did four years ago.

Washington people are so out of touch with the rest of the country that we need to go back to the folks to have any chance. Seems like Dean is the only one who understands that.

[ultraist]

25. Did you read the entire article? It essentially calls Dean a fake

[Deep13]

42. Yeah, the guy who goes to the public is a fake, ...

... but those on the take from corporate America are the real thing!

[Cleita]

11. "the corporate wing" says it all to me.

Keep fighting Governor Dean. We've got your back. If there is any organized labor lurking here, my advice to you is that it's time for you to step in and replace those corporate lobbyists right now.

If anyone from Governor Dean's office is lurking here, it's time to go after organized labor to replace the corporate dimes. Considering they give most of their dollars to the RNC, I don't think they have our party's core principles in mind when they donate.

[Malva Zebrina]

12. with all that is going on

the slaughter in Iraq, the lives of young people sacrificed, indeed murdered by a unconscionable liar in the White House, the Downing street minutes, the lies, the holding back from the American people of pertinant information and all the rest of the crap that Bush and his court have done to destroy America, this is all they can contribute? An attack on Howard Dean?

You know, there is something very corrupt going on. What do they actually have to lose by this? Nothing. I am certain Biden could not care less about American ideals. He would still have his cushy job, and get to pontificate for an hour or two to show off his debating skills. It would probably mean not a thing to him at all if another Republican were elected to the presidency after this.

I tell ya, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Biden( and Lieberman)--you have betrayed good hearted, sincere and patriotic Americans who voted unanmously for Howard Dean as chair, and you ignore that. You show no respect to the people of this country at all by arrogantly denying their votes and will and are responsible for furthering the split in the Democratic party. Hope you stick to your Republican lite ideals and work harder to eat your own, even though they do not seem to appeal to your gourmand tastes.

Sheesh--what is wrong with this party today?
we have endless analysis of what the Democrats "should do" to win next time around. Well I tell ya--I think they should NOT do what these two namby pamby well off belt way politicians have done in attacking Howard Dean who is working tirelessy day after day to bring this party back to the party of the people--and let me tell you, Senator Biden, and Mr. Edwards--these people are NOT the rich and famous, the lobbyists, the upper eschalon of the partying elite, these are the people, the hard working people who NEED you and you respond by thinking of your own position.

Blegh--I am sick of it after five years of the reign an insane man who neither of you, indeed any of you who sit in that Capitol building making laws or I should say bowing to a king George, hesitate to lay it on the line and call him a LIAR who has squandered the lives of human beings on those lies. Why do you not? It is the truth.

I have voted Democratic all my life--I am seriously considering why I should stay in this party.

[Deep13]

16. "namby pamby well off belt way politicians "

Preach on! Can I have an amen?

Wake up seat-warmers, Bush is the enemy and you aren't saying much about him! Congress is no place for the timid!

[Malva Zebrina]

23. I have said plenty about Bush

over the past five years. Plenty.

No place for the timid in Congress--I agree. It takes a real honest man, a bold, principaled man, a man with concerns for his country to be effectively functioning as a representative of the people in congress. Unfortunately, we have few of those sitting on the left side of the aisle and that , my friend, is a fact.

That makes me laugh. We, indeed, face it, have been timid, and it has been documented here on DU (think how many times "pink tutu" has been mentioned over these years)

The latest from Biden, the consistency of the Repub lite Lieberman and others, the inability of few to actually stand up and call Bush a LIAR, in the face of the facts that he lied to his own people and subsequently is responsible for the loss of thousands upon thousands of human beings who lost their lives. Think of it. They continue to die to this very hour and there is now nothing we can do but watch it repeat itself day after day.

THIS is an issue. THIS is what is being done in our name. The killings of human beings on abject and despicable lies from their leader and president.

Sorry--had enough of it.

[Deep13]

My remarks were directed at wishy-washy Congressmen...

...not you. I completely agree with your assessment. I suppose I should have phrased it better. These Senate Ds need to wake up.

[mahina]

20. Edwards responds:

This is what he posted at his blog:

We Agree: Working Americans Let Down by the Republican Party

What a flap has arisen over a disagreement about the way something is said! I was in Nashville over the weekend, thanking the good people of Tennessee who supported the Democratic presidential ticket this year, when I was asked whether I thought that it was fair to say that people who were Republican hadn’t done a good day’s work. Of course, I didn’t think so, and I said that. I don’t think our DNC chair, Howard Dean, would put it that way again if asked either. I disagreed with him, and I said so. And, I want to be clear, I would have to say so again if I were asked again. I said a lot of good things about Howard’s outreach program and invigoration of the internet as a communication and fundraising tool, but no one wrote about that. Instead the headlines blared that I disagreed with Howard. And then the flap arose: A chasm! A split! A revolt!

Instead, how about: Nonsense!

We are both talking about the Republicans and their failure to address the needs of working people. We both agree with this basic truth: This Republican president and this Republican majority are not doing what they should be doing for working people in this country. That’s a core belief we need to fight for. And what’s more, we agree that we - all Democrats and all working people - should be complaining, criticizing, and generally speaking out about this critical failure of the Republican party and offering our positive vision for America. And we have.

Howard and I have been saying the same thing about this for years. Hear that? The same thing. For years. Have I ever put it some way that Howard wouldn't agree with? Probably. And he put it in a way, once, just the other day, that I can’t agree with, since I come from a place where hard-working people, who are better served by the agenda and passion of the Democrats, somehow still vote Republican. But Howard and I are committed to a 50-state strategy that will reach out to those voters, in North Carolina, and in Kansas, and in Tennessee, across this country and tell the truth about what is happening in this country to their jobs, to their health care, to their forests and streams, to their vision of what this country is and should be.

This President is not fighting for our jobs. His administration has on numerous occasions said that the out-sourcing of American jobs is good for this country. Well, it may be good for Wall Street, but it is lousy on Main Street. If he thinks that jobs moving overseas is good for us, why would he ever fight for American jobs?

Our labor laws have seen weak enforcement during the time we have had this Republican administration in place. Companies that skirts this country’s labor laws have gotten a slap on the hand, and even that has come too slowly. Efforts to allow workers to choose whether to unionize have not been protected in the way that they should, and the mutually beneficial bargain between labor and management that made this country the greatest economic power in the world has been broken, all while the Republican administration and Republican majority stand idle, with their hands dug deep in their pockets.

Those working people I grew up that I talked about earlier live where I lived, in our rural communities, which is exactly where this Republican president wants to cut broadband extension, firefighter grants and investment and market access programs that will protect our rural jobs. The manufacturing extension program, which helps small manufacturers everywhere stay profitable - and therefore open, gets little support from this President. How are our towns going to remain vital with policies that ignore them? Where will the sons and daughters in our rural communities have to go to find jobs?

And this President has made choices that, if enacted by the Republican majority in Congress, will deny the opportunity to learn the skills for a new job to an untold number of Americans. Vocational and adult education would be cut by 89%. He wants to drastically cut adult education and retraining programs that allow American workers to better their skills either to get ahead or to get a new job when theirs leaves for overseas.

And if you happen to be a working man or woman in the United States military, this Republican president doesn’t support loan forgiveness for your student loans or top quality health care when you get out of the military.

The safety net is eroding. The ladder has been pulled up. This is not new. For more than two decades, the Republican Party has talked about an agenda that addresses concerns of working people while they have passed an agenda that serves the goals of the wealthiest among us. Howard and I know that these are the wrong choices for America. We won’t always use the same words. But we will always fight the same fight: for the dignity, the respect, and the rights of those who built this country, the working people in America.

Your friend,

John

Source: http://www.oneamericacommittee.com /
Link to his post: http://blog.oneamericacommittee.com/article.pl?sid=05/0...

[ultraist]

22. This is the point: Dean and Edwards are fighting the same fight

"The safety net is eroding. The ladder has been pulled up. This is not new. For more than two decades, the Republican Party has talked about an agenda that addresses concerns of working people while they have passed an agenda that serves the goals of the wealthiest among us. Howard and I know that these are the wrong choices for America. We won’t always use the same words. But we will always fight the same fight: for the dignity, the respect, and the rights of those who built this country, the working people in America."

Don't let slimey, narcisstic journalists get you sidetracked from the real issues.

[Malva Zebrina]

28. Edwards was amongst the first to vote the IWR

and defended his postion with vigor. Dean, not a belt way insider, did not take that position. That is where I see a difference and now, we see denigration toward Dean, with an attempt to spin it as NOT a denigration.

Get it in order. Those who voted for the blank check have an awful lot of accounting to do and they know it. Ergo, they do want to avoid any mention of that fact and that causes a lot of slippery avoidance tactics.

Ergo, our children and the Iraqi people, human beings just like us, die day after day due to George Bush's invasion folly and NO ONE can honestly call Bush a LIAR because of that complicity.

It is a comedy of errors, and the only ones who are suffering are the families of those murdered by George Bush in his quest toward world empire.

[ultraist]

29. Most Senators did vote for the IWR. Bush lied.

My guess is that MANY of them would NOT have voted for it, had they had ALL of the info.

BUSH FUCKING LIED!

Dean did not vote. Have you read his recent comments about the Iraq war? The ones the Kuchinich wrote an open letter in response to?

[Malva Zebrina]

34. You are right of course

Bush did lie, but, unlike the erudite and entrenched Senators, myself and many millions like me,just the common folk, who were not privy to the information of the Senators and their staffs of hard working aides, KNEW it was lie based on the research and information we had.

We did our homework.

I cannot buy it that those Senators were "duped" by Bush. It is a poor and flimsy excuse. Further, what about those who did NOT buy it and did NOT vote for it?

What are you saying about them, now that it turns out to be they were right?

Were they stupid? Not as statemanlike? Not as "respected"? Not as "smart? Had a better staff of more intelligent aides?

That argument is weak and no longer hold water and those Senators who jumped on it for political reasons and treated it as a chess game,I suspect, know it.

[ultraist]

38. Well...

They were in part stupid about their decision but then again, they were operating with one hand tied behind their backs due to all of the disinformation they were presented.

In a sense, they were bamboozled.

[Malva Zebrina]

39. I know you are trying to defend it to the best of your ability

and I think it must be hard to be unbiased especially if one has thrown their complete and unquestioning trust, unequivocally, behind a certain person in the world of politics. It must be quite the cognisant dissonance to look at it objectively as the facts present.

But, what about those who did NOT vote for it? Were they smarter? Better informed? Crazy?

[ultraist]

47. No need to be condescending

"...to the best of your ability."

For the record, I did not and do not agree with any Senator's vote to go to war but I'm being realistic about the fact they were lied to rather than jumping on the bandwagon of hysterics and hyperbole, which seems to be a favorite pastime with some here at DU.

The MSM can go fuck themselves. I am not interested in helping them DESTROY the Dem party.

Why waste our time eating our own, when the fact is, we don't have any to spare!

Dean is out there fighting for the party, raising money in all states and it is his job to support our candidates. We need to take on the same attitude. Pick a candidate or leader(s) and support them!

[Malva Zebrina]

61. No harm meant

relax--what I meant was to the best of the extent of your passion, or driven by your loyalty and passion or similar words with similar meaning. I have no doubt that you have, indeed, many abilities some of which are probably outstanding.

So to get on now--what about those who did NOT vote for the war? Stupid? Uninformed? Voting idiologically? Or smarter and better informed than those who did vote for it? It looks to me as if they indeed were better informed. Can you agree with that?

If you cannot, what are we to think of them?

[BeFree]

77. I think you will find...

... that those Dems who voted against the IWR were not up fo re-election anytime soon after the vote was taken.

One thing you seem to ignore is the fact that most Americans were for revenge for 9/11 and bxxh was giving them what they wanted. That is what made it so easy for people to buy what bxxh was selling. It was political suicide to "go against the flow" at that time and political suicide is NOT how folks get elected, eh?

I said at the time: Dems were giving bxxh just enough rope to hang himself, and lo and behold, he's put the noose around his administration, what with the DSM and the mess he's made since bypassing the UN as the IWR demanded. The people are no longer buying what bxxh is selling and his demise is forthcoming.

Leave our friends be and focus on the enemy.

[ultraist]

94. True

Shall we slaughter every Democrat that voted for the IWR? We already do not have any Dems in the Senate to spare.

It would be suicidal for our party to make sacrifical lambs out of any Dem Senators. If we focus on taking down Dem Senators, we will NOT be able to take back the majority.

We need to look at the big picture and accept reality. Not all Dem Senators are what we consider ideal. But the alternative is frightening: A Republican controlled Senate run by fanatic religious rightwingers! Take your pick.

[MisterP]

43. Kerry said he still would've if he knew everything then that he did now

[bpilgrim]

53. they all need to be asked that question again in light of DSM

i was very disappointed when he said that then.


peace

[bpilgrim]

33. once bitten twice shy, don't FIGHT IT, take the criticism in-stride and

LEARN from it... we need a UNITED FRONT against the EVIL DOERS (neoCONs) so say NOTHING negative against ANY Dem who is being yelled at for sticking it to them.

thats the point, john

peace

[Toots]

46. Sometimes Edwards says the right things, just not enough

He was and still is a staunch advocate for the Iraqi War. Even with evidence that it was based on false intelligence he still agrees with the general idea. As long as he maintains that belief I can not get behind him.

[ultraist]

48. Edwards is not a "staunch advocate for the Iraq war."

Back up your claim with facts and links or retract your blatant fucking lie.

Apparently, you missed all of his speeches during the campaign, as well as recent speeches.

[Toots]

56. I heard Edwards say many times the invasion that it was the right thing

According to previews of John Edwards's much-anticipated speech tonight, the junior senator from North Carolina will attempt to establish his foreign policy bona fides. At the center of the address, naturally, will be Iraq. The issue will be a tricky one for Edwards. Along with Senator Joseph Lieberman, Edwards was an unapologetic defender of the war throughout the Democratic primaries, even as John Kerry began his efforts to distance himself from his support of the war-efforts that culminated in Kerry's embrace of the "antiwar" label.

But since he became Kerry's running mate, Edwards has dismissed any connection between Iraq and al Qaeda and repeatedly suggested that the war in Iraq was "needless." In doing so, the man known for his "Two Americas" stump speech risks opening himself to charges that there are two "Two John Edwardses" on Iraq.

Although Democrats, including Kerry, had long paid lip service to a policy of regime change in Iraq, Edwards was one of the earliest and most outspoken Democratic hawks on Iraq following the September 11 attacks. On February 24, 2002, he described Saddam Hussein's regime as an "imminent threat" in an interview on CNN. "I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."

Later that year, on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Edwards said that the "time has come for decisive action" on Iraq-a statement still posted on his Senate website. "With our allies," he said, "we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed
by an Iraq with weapons of mass destruction and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein." And what if the U.N. Security Council were to refuse support for such decisive action? "Then we must act with as many allies as possible to ensure Iraq meets its obligations to existing Security Council resolutions." Edwards continued: "The terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every reason to believe that Saddam would turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror."

These words are striking not only because they echo the central arguments the Bush administration made in support of ousting Saddam, but because they came one month beforeCongress voted to authorize the war. Edwards, who today suggests that the Iraq War was "needless," warned in ominous language about the Iraqi threat in an October 10, 2002 floor speech: "I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action."

Edwards continued: "Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility." The war, he said, would not undermine U.S. efforts to get Osama bin Laden. "I believe this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."

[BeFree]

78. Thanks, Toots

You just proved your post #46 was mistaken: "He was and still is a staunch advocate for the Iraqi War. Even with evidence that it was based on false intelligence he still agrees with the general idea. As long as he maintains that belief I can not get behind him."


Your next post claims: Edwards, who today suggests that the Iraq War was "needless," warned in ominous language about the Iraqi threat in an October 10, 2002 floor speech: "I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action."


Edwards did not want war. But he did want to do what was necessary to protect America, and given that most of America was convinced by the bxxh lies, no smart politician was going against what most of America wanted.

I hope you can now see how mistaken and misguided your perception was. It was not a matter of wanting the war, it was a matter of doing something that most Americans wanted done. Now that it is a fiasco, it is all bxxh's fault - he got the support he needed, and he blew it.

Bxxh blew it. That's the only story needing to be told.

[ultraist]

93. Link?

Obviously very biased article, where did it come from? Those are NOT FACTS! They are spun opinions.

[handywork]

13. I love it...

take the power away from the corporations and give it to the people. We need to respond by keeping the donations coming...

GO DEAN!!!!

:yourock:

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

14. Good, 'cause I'm none too happy

with establishment democrats! They have no backbone.......

[Norquist Nemesis]

15. Establishment Democrats aren't happy about being deposed. n/t

[MGKrebs]

17. Umm, that was the point!

[LSK]

19. establishment democrats have established a Repuke Congress and Pres

Dont let the door slam you in the ass when you leave.

[ultraist]

21. That article goes on to totally TRASH Dean

According to The Hill, Democratic fundraisers admit that there is "growing concern over what they call Dean's lack of attention to major donors and that donors are much less likely to give money if they don't have sufficient opportunity to meet with the party's leadership."

Dean's affinity for the Party grassroots is really only a recent development, for Dean has hobnobbed with big business throughout his political career. An example: As Howard Dean planned his race for the White House; he must have thumbed through George W. Bush's campaign playbook. Within the first four months of Dean's announcement of his bid for the White House, he had amassed over $110,000 in donations from people with ties to the Fund for a Healthy America, a Vermont utility group. No, it's not Enron, but it's still dirty money, if only because of the conflict of interest. On February 27, 2002, David Gram of the Associated Press reported: "One donor who gave Dean's PAC the maximum amount allowed -- $5,000 ... is Robert Young ... a top official at two utility companies that have had a lot of important business before state government during Dean's nearly 11 years in office. Young is chief executive at Central Vermont Public Service Corp. and chairman of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp."

Although Dean's campaign spokesperson Kate O'Conner said it would be absurd for anybody to think donations to the Dean campaign bought access, Dean seemed to believe otherwise. "People who think they're going to buy a contract ... are mistaken," he stated in 1996 during the campaign reform bill debates. "But they do get access -- there's no question about that ... They get me to return their phone calls."

Dean's distinction allowed him to maintain a veneer of integrity: he claimed he was not for sale. But if such calls buy access, they buy the ability to help define the framework within which decisions are made, a framework that operates in the interests of industry, if not the outright interests of the individual firm from which the contribution comes. And indeed they did. As Gram wrote, during Dean's transition into the governor's mansion, he called on utility executives to help with the change of office. It's no coincidence that those executives' businesses benefited greatly. Notes Gram: *After years of pushing for the companies to absorb the excess costs of their expensive contract with Hydro-Quebec, Dean's Department of Public Service agreed to let ratepayers be billed for more than 90 percent of what those excess costs are expected to be in the coming years. The extra costs will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. *The department also agreed to allow the utilities to sell Vermont Yankee to a Pennsylvania company for a price that was expected to be $23.8 million by the time the deal closed. Shortly before the Public Service Board was to make a final decision on that sale, another company stepped in and offered more than seven times as much. That sale to Entergy Nuclear Corp. is currently before the board

Con't

This is exactly the type of BS, we do NOT need in the party. Dems being pitted against eachother, as was done this weekend with the MSM nonsense over Senator Edwards' two sentences, where he disagreed with ONE COMMENT of Dean's. Dean CORRECTED the comment! But some, got hysterical and started attacking our own. They bought right into the MSM spin.

SO WHAT if there is some minor disagreements, why use that as an excuse to smear and trash Dem leaders, such as Dean and Edwards?

I am so sick of the slimely diversions.

I respect Dean and Edwards and while I may not agree with their every comment, I agree with them on most major issues and their vision for our party. To fight for the poor and the working class Americans!

[jobycom]

30. I'm a leftist, and they nailed EXACTLY why I don't trust Dean

I know this is heresy, but I've said it before: Dean is playing us as fools, the same way Bush plays the far right.

If all these corporate contributions are so bad, why has Dean accepted them so readily in the past? If they mean that a candidate is owned by corporations, then Dean (like many progressive candidates) is already owned by corporations. If one can accept corporate money, as Dean has, and still be independent of the corporations, then what is the fuss? Our litmus tests should be on issues, not on where the money comes from.

More importantly, are Dean's supporters going to turn on him when he accepts corporate money in the future? This is what I really want to know. I know a lot of people will just say "He won't accept corporate donations," and refuse to answer the questions. But he will. Are his supporters who are now trashing Edwards and Biden (two other Democrats I've never liked much) bash Dean for going corporate, or will they then defend him, thus agreeing with Edwards and Biden in their positions now?

I'm interested to see. Dean to me is a fraud. He's a friendly fraud, and one mostly on my side, but he's still talking one game while playing another. I'll forgive him if he yields results. But I'm not holding my breath. By election time, he will look just like those who came before.

I didn't like Terry Mac's strategy, either. He tried so hard to be all things to everyone that he never took a stand on anything he was for. That, and not where he got his money, was the real issue. What I want to see is a leader who says "We believe THIS, and we will only work for THIS, and anyone who wants to give us money to help us achieve THIS can give us money. You decide." THAT would be a real progressive. I'm not holding my breath. Symbolism, not results, sways voters.

[dansolo]

67. So you are equating Dean with Bush?

You must have graduated from the Ralph Nader school of debating.

[jobycom]

71. That all you got? One liners?

And you feel that your debating tactic is superior to mine because...?

[Itsthetruth]

31. So You Want Us To Unite Behind Dems Who Are Bush Enablers?

"This is exactly the type of BS, we do NOT need in the party. Dems being pitted against eachother"

Right. So you think we ought to embrace Leiberman, Reid and every other Democratic Senator who has voted for Bush's appointments and legislative agenda?

That's the Democratic "big top" for ya. Let the DLC'ers slam everyone to their left and order all progressives to put on the blinders and shut their mouths while these corporate Dems collaborate with the Bush government!

[ultraist]

40. I think we should focus on tearing down Repub leaders, not Dems

It's a waste of time and energy to divert our focus to tearing down the Dem party. Why should we help the corporate MSM? I'm so sick of those fucking yappers.

These leaders work together behind the scenes. They know eachother. They all must make some compromises to find common ground to move our party forward.

Let the Repukes tear down Dems. If you don't like a particular leader, don't donate or write supportive LTTEs, etc. But why focus your energies on attacking them? Go after the REAL ENEMY.

Personally, I am fed up with all of the gossip and smears I read on DU. The Bev fraud BS, the mob lynchings on Dems. It makes us look hysterical, out of control, and unprofessional. We need to pull it together and FOCUS.

Be aware that there are trolls disguised as Dems here fueling the mob lynchings. I'm sure you know that. ;)

[Itsthetruth]

55. How Should We Respond To Bush Enablers?

And how do you think we should react to those Democratic leaders who collaborate with the Republicans and George Bush?

[ultraist]

95. Communicate directly to them, in a civilized manner for starters

I'm sure you can differentiate between constructive criticism/suggestions and a slaughter.

Again, we need to keep our eye on the ball---the REAL FIGHT.

[bpilgrim]

36. "Dems being pitted against each-other" - a M$MW favorite tactic

we need not respond, it's not only pointless it HURTS US.

John and others need to recognize this tactic and NEVER agree with the M$MW about someone giving the neoCONs the business.

forget egos and think TEAM.

John by responding to the criticism as NONSENSE only feeds the fire.

STOP IT

your right john we ALL are against bush, now stick to that story ;->

peace

[stickdog]

87. What a non-story. "Dean was once a politician who made deals

and compromises and even talked to his largest contributors!"

But, but, we all thought he walked on water! Thanks for spilling the beans, Suckerpunch!

:eyes:

[PurityOfEssence]

24. Boy, people are just craving some kind of internecine war

What a tiresome endeavor.

Dean's done great things for party unity, and he's helping restore some pride and hope. The guy's better suited to the job than many of us thought, and it's refreshing to see him in action. Not only that, for all the attempts by certain factions within the party and outsiders or enemies to sow seeds of discontent, it just isn't working.

[ultraist]

26. Apparently, some people prefer trashy gossip

And interpersonal conflict over uniting and WINNING.

Pathetic.

That article trashes Dean and several other Dems. Is that what we need to do? Tear down our own? What a loser's game that is.

[WI_DEM]

32. I like Dean because of the enemies he makes

if the corporate media, DLC types, and the Republican elite all hate him--then he must be doing something right.

[LaPera]

35. Quit bitching about it and send a vote of support & confidence to DEAN!

Send an email, a letter and/or a dontion. I have.

Write your newspaper, radio & TV station in support of Dean...

Before Dean does cave in to the moderate fucking Democrat assholes!

[ultraist]

41. So, you think Dean might "cave in to the mod fucking Dem assholes?"

It doesn't sound like you have much faith in Dean. Why are you advocating for division in our party? We are not fighting eachother, we are fighting the corrupt Republican party and the MSM.

Even Hillary came out strong against the MSM. I don't particularly like Hillary, but I have no interest in ripping her to shreds. SOMETIMES, she is a good voice for us.

[Itsthetruth]

49. Has Howard Dean Responded To The Hayden/Kucinich Letters?

I haven't found any response yet to the following letters.

I don't think anyone can seriously question the Democratic Party "credentials" of Tom Hayden and Dennis Kucinich. However, some may still accuse them of hurting the Democratic Party's alleged unity in supporting the continued occupation of Iraq. I don't think most people who want our GI's brought home really give a damn if their letters upset some pro-war Democrats.

Tom Hayden Letter To Howard Dean

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3569514

Dennis Kucinich Letter To Howard Dean

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050516&s=kucinich

[MisterP]

44. the Copperheads are angry everyone won't goose-step along and "WIN"

(USUALLY CAPITALIZED, always inaccurate).
Poor cryptoneocon babies.

[Behind the Aegis]

45. Good!!

I am glad the "establishment Democrats" are none too happy with Dean. Now, if they could turn that 'unhappiness' to the real threat, the Rethugs, maybe we would get some where!!! As for "Counterpunch,"...:puke:

[natrat]

52. establishment democrats are fucking crooks

[Jacobin]

54. Rank and File Democrats NONE TOO HAPPY with DNC

Fuck em.

I'm glad they don't like him. Maybe they will take their silly little corporatist asses and go back to work in another job.

[Justice]

57. Just what we need another group telling us what to do,

Bet Josh was one of those in 2000 saying that there was no difference between Gore and Bush - so vote Nader.

[Itsthetruth]

60. I Think You'll Lose That Bet!

I don't recall anyone saying that in 2000. However, I do believe that some people claimed that there were no differences between Nader/Camejo and Bush/Cheney in 2004!

You know the old line of b.s. The discredited claim that Nader/Camejo were tools of and funded by the Republican party! Hope you didn't spread such nonsense in 2004.

[insane_cratic_gal]

58. they can piss off

Its about time we had someone who stands up to these assholes running the house and senate.

you might not always like what Dean has to say but you can't call him a pussy

[Donailin]

84. exactly

The republicans are kicking our ass every which way. This implies we are in a fight. I want someone with fire in the belly, not some corporate kiss ass that pleases the fucking board of directors and shareholders.

We are at war folks, but not with Bush. We're at war with the corporations who mean to use we the people to suit their own greedy ambitions.

Bush is the tool of the corporations. Plain and simple.

[ariesgem]

62. Someone on KOS came up with a great idea and started a

fundraiser page on the DNC website called "We've got Dean's back!".

https://www.democrats.org/epatriots/give.html?sourcecode=E008977

>>>>>

Help stop the fat cats in DC attacking Howard Dean. An attack against Howard Dean is an attack against the American people who work for their paycheck. Please make a small contribution of $10.01 or $20.01 everytime you come across an attack on Dean in the media. If you see the Dean Scream, please contribute $30.01.

(The content above provided by Jill Lehnert.)

>>>>>>


It brings back memories of "The Bat".

[CAcyclist]

65. Why Is This Labeled Establishment vs. Elites?

I'm definitely not in the Establishment. Does that mean I'm an elite? Me , with my little $25 / month donation? Oh , wait, they still don't think the grassroots counts for anything.

[Rex]

66. Bad actor! Bad actor!

At least Dean CAN deviate from the script...unlike El Chimperator. I love the Established Corporate Wing of the Democratic Party!

Come, we all embrace minimum wage! :crazy:

[seabeyond]

69. i didnt hear biden, but edwards did NOT give dean "lashing"

so already this article is coming from an agenda. i read no more

[AmericanDream]

75. Exactly...unfortunately, some people here fall for the MSM too easily!

Like I said Biden is nuts... but Edwards was never offensive in any way in the first place and then he posted a great statement on his blog.

[dogday]

72. Democrats Are Just Tired Of Taking Crap And Are Ready To

Dish It Out. Want some shock and awe? Hold on to your hair-pieces people, Dean is going to clean your clocks....

[mtnester]

73. Again, the circular firing squad of the Dems

Listen up DLC establishment, get behind Howard or get out of the way.

Getting complacent and lazy in politics is certain death, and the DLC better wake up to that fact.

[Donailin]

83. OOOOOHHHH! The Corporate Block!!!

FUCK THE Corporate Block. They're the godamned problem in the first place.

It's about the PEOPLE.

"We, the people!!"

Not "we, the Corporations"

Motherfuckers.:grr:

[hatrack]

90. Establishment Democrats can bite my bag

We've been doing it their way for the last two cycles, and what do we have to show for it? Jack shit.

Heaven forbid that Dr. Dean stick to his guns of raising money from and (at the same time) returning power to the grassroots organization, because that would be wrong, wrong, WRONG.

Heaven knows it's much better for the DNC to try and play the roll of legislative fluff girl hoping that some crumbs will fall from the groaning corporate boards of Pfizer, ExxonMobil, SBC and Amway, since we all know that processing all of those $50 checks from individuals is just TOO GODDAMNED HARD.