Who needs Republicans to undermine Howard dean?

[RBHam]

Democrats are doing just fine.
Keep it up.
Another 4 years of a traitorous Fascist Administration should just about do it for America's pretensions of Democracy.

[Code_Name_D]

1. You think they would have learned humility

with the 2002 elections.

[salin]

2. We are doing a pretty good job of undermining all of the dem candidates

as if it has become the fad x sport of the season.

[reknewcomer]

3. All I'm seeing from the Dem candidates is...

"I'm not Bush". It's going to take a bit more than that to sell their soul.

[RBHam]

4. Huh?

Selling their soul? You mean the candidates who voted to allow the Bush Crime Syndicate to slaughter innocent civilians in third world countries while stealing their resources and footing the American tax payer with the bill.

[DemBones DemBones]

9. Dennis Kucinich voted against Bush's Iraqi invasion, voted against

the Patriot Act, has spoken out against the war and the occupation consistently, introduced bills and resolutions in the House, sued Bush to get the troops home, etc. But people wn't give him a chance because he's not a pretty boy.

Howard Dean, on the other hand, wasn't required to vote at all so he hardly has any ground to criticize those who did. He has spoken worse of his fellow Democrats than of Bush and he has weaseled and flip-flopped on the war and other issues. I have no admiration for Dean, and I don't owe him my vote. The media have promoted him, Gore has endorsed him, it's like the GOP's coronation of Bush -- a pox on all the little princes of the Ivy League!

[ShimokitaJer]

15. Good rebuttal.... now I admit we can all work together

Do you even bother to read the posts before you reply?

[Gman]

5. The game has now become

Speak ill of Bush and you endanger the country.

Speak ill of Dean and you endanger the country.

[wyldwolf]

6. But undermining the other candidates is just fine, huh?

:eyes:

[SlavesandBulldozers]

7. the more i see Dean

the more I realize how bad we need him. Dems have been getting kicked in the nuts for 4 years, now we have a champion emerge. Stay strong Howie.

[slinkerwink]

24. don't worry, Dean isn't a shrinking violet like many other Dems here

[John_H]

8. I don't know how long yuou've been in politics, but

I notice nothing different about this primary than 84, 88, or 92. There are many who feel strongly that the outcome of the general election will be decided by the outcome of the primary. For that reason, people are doing everything they can to make sure the person they feel can beat chimp wins.

In fact the 80 rethug primary was far more brutal (nazi Ronnie running against the BFEE).

If you doubt the willingness of Dems to come together behind the nominee, check out the threads about who will vote for the dem nominee.

The only people around here who will become part of the problem are the fair weather minority of a few Kucinich "Dems" who will vote their pristine, self absorbed agendas rather than the interests of their country.

[DemBones DemBones]

10. May I remind you that Dennis Kucinich is a Democrat? To call

his supporters "Dems," implying that we are fake Democrats, is grossly unfair. I have been voting Democratic since 1968. I will vote for Kucinich in the primary. I am opposed to Dean and do not believe voting for him is in the best interests of my country, much less of my party. The party machinery seems determined to push Dean through to the nomination, advancing someone's pristine, self-absorbed agenda. If Dean is the nominee, I'm not sure what I will do, but emigration has great appeal.

[John_H]

13. Sorry, not meant as an attack on all DK supporters.

As I have said repeatedly, I love DK--we are both rustbelt liberals cut from the same cloth.

You must admit, though, that he is being used by Greens as cover--they know he won't win but they'll use the "we tried to support a dem, but..." shtick. Those are the "Dems" I was refering to.

[OneBlueSky]

11. I think a lot of what you may perceive as candidate bashing . . .

is nothing more that the desire of many Democrats to put forth the strongest possible candidate in 2004 to combat Bush's obvious advantages (incumbency, money, voting machines, etc.) . . . and there are some -- and I include myself here -- who have honest concerns about Dean's viability as the Democratic nominee . . . given that no primary votes have yet been cast, I think it's perfectly legitimate to express these concerns, even if they amount to nothing more than a gut hunch based on watching and participating in presidential elections for many, many years . . . I also think that pointing out the kinds of weaknesses that Rove and company will surely exploit is also legitimate . . . we all recognize that Bush MUST be defeated, and we simply want the candidate who will do the best job in what is bound to be a nasty campaign . . . I'll support Dean if he's the nominee, of course, but my preference right now is for John Kerry, who I think matches up better against Bush in a whole lot of ways . . .

[NewYorkerfromMass]

12. Dean can take care of himself just fine

he doesn't need any help with undermining.

[Hep]

14. Yep, he's undermined his campaign all the way to the top.

The people can certainly tell the difference between a winner and a loser, as we're finding out.

[WilliamPitt]

16. Cry me a river

The primaries have not happened yet. If we don't find all of this stuff now, we're going to have it jacked up our asses three hours after the convention. Possibly...juuuuuuuuuuuuuuust possibly...Howard Dean is not the best choice we could make here.

[Hep]

17. Does it occur

to anyone that most people don't care now and won't care regardless of when it comes out?

It's all vanity. All the stupid games. All the "riling up".

If only more people here knew how completely irrelevant they are. You know, we'll find out what we find out. But Rove knows something that many here don't. The people don't care about "this stuff". The people respond to far more base and simplistic ideas.

They care more that they got a letter froma Dean supporter than they do about any single piece of negative claptrap they DON'T read about at DU.

[WilliamPitt]

18. If that's true,

then why do you bother to flit from thread ton thread the way you do? If all this is irrelevant, go out and enjoy the sunshine.

[Hep]

19. Man, if I could

I would. Unfortunately, I'm allowed a single hour of candidate advocacy per work week by law. I do howevre have to sit at my desk for 40 hours every week in order to get paid. I entertain myself here. If I could be outside right now, do you honestly think I would sit here and take crap from people who find it more fun to get on other people's nerves than to engage in any MEANINGFUL discourse?

[WilliamPitt]

20. Issue discussions aren't meaningful?

I find discussions of candidates records vs. their rhetoric to be both edifying and informative.

[Hep]

21. I find that kinda funny

Edifying and informative as to the nature of some personalities maybe. But it's funny that we sit around and talk about how lazy and weak our media is while turning around and relying on that same media to provide our arguments for us.

You may feel more informed, but for the time you spent, you're not one step closer to your goal. And ultimately what are you learning? How little control we have over how people make decisions and what decisions they make? I already KNEW people are nuts. At this point, more evidence to that end is superfluous.

Is there a threshhold where this edifying and informative information you receive will lead to to not vote in the GE for the D candidate? Or will you just feel worse for having to cast that vote?

You have a guy, and you'll vote for him. Who on this board besides Walt Starr (I love you WS, BTW), has changed his mind as a result of these edifying and informative discussions?

It's humorous to think that the politically informed have any serious say in elections. Think Schwarzenegger.

Or, think of how many critical articles have been written about Dean and posted here, and look at how Dean has fared. And think about why. And ask yourself how productive and ultimately important all of this "edification" is.

[shance]

28. WP - what happened to your calling on DUers to stop candidate bashing?

Might want to consider more consistency.

People look to you, and spreading doubt about our leading candidate doesnt benefit anyone, namely us as Democrats.

[Mountainman]

22. I don't like Dean, why is that bashing him?

What is sickening is the idea that we have to now all back Dean for one reason or the other.

I like Clark I don't think Dean can get enough states to beat Bush. If that is Dean bashing so be it. I care about winning and I think that Clark can win and Dean can't.

[Hep]

23. No one is asking you to back Dean

I'm asking you to back whoever you are backing and do it well. Do it for the benefit of the D party. Say ALL of the candidates are better than bush, and here is why I choose clark.

That's the farthest thing from Dean bashing. And a good step for Clark.

The point is, if you like Clark best, why would the word Dean ever come out of your mouth?

[Uzybone]

25. So we expect nothing but Dean from your mouth then

if that is your logic. I do agree with your first paragraph completely, but whining when Dean is being critized is childish. Its only gonna get worse ya know.

[Mountainman]

27. why would the word Dean ever come out of your mouth

Because there is the thought going around that since Gore endorsed Dean we all need to fall in line. I am attacking that thought and I have to say it comes from the Dean camp.

[bobbyboucher]

29. Wrong.

If you got the impression that since Gore gave his backing to Dean then everyone should fall in line then you are wrong. That's not the case. There is still going to be a very interesting primary season coming up.

[bushisanidiot]

26. Stop Watching Fox News, People. They Shouldn't Be PIcking Our

candidate! How hard can this be? Just listen to the candidates and pick your favorite at election time. Why trash any dem candidate? I don't get it.