Dean is more like Clean-Gene McCarthy than like McGovern

[arendt]

Nobody remembers Gene McCarthy. He was
a nobody senator from Minnesota who
went to NH in 1968 to campaign against
the war. He won the primary, LBJ announced
he would not run; RFK jumped in and
stole the anti-war mantle from Gene.
The rest of the history most people
know.

Dean is the nobody governor who went
to the Internet (in my opinion, the
new primary system) and beat the pants
off the DLC/DNC appeasers. Now that
Dean has shown that the Democratic
electorate wants out of this war,
the DLC appeasers are trying to grab
the voters that Dean energized, without
delivering the results that those voters
want because it would be embarrassing
to their previous position.

If 1968 is any guide, the grass roots
is going to be put off by such a move.

No analogy is perfect. And this one can
only be pushed so far. In '68, the titular
head of the party, LBJ, chose not to
run. Same in '04 with Gore. In '68,
LBJ asked people to support Hubert
Humphrey, his VP. Gore has asked
people to support Dean because Gore
feels that Dean carries on his policies.

So, right there, the analogy doesn't
just break down; it short-circuits.
Its like LBJ being a lame-duck
peace activist and supporting a
peace activist VP against a mob
of status quo insiders.

Another difference is that none of the
DLC candidates are RFK. None are as
talented; none are as ruthless; none
are as charismatic. Meanwhile, Dean
has much more going for him than Clean
Gene ever did. Dean has money, organization,
and is no quixotic, introspective, ethereal
muse like Gene. McCarthy was a straw in
the wind. For 3 months he was somebody;
but he vanished as fast as he came.

So, continuing a conversation I had
with darkstar in another thread, I
think this Civil War stuff is overblown.
Can you see John Kerry leaning on the
Boston police to suppress Dean demonstrators?
What a joke! The Gore brouhaha is just
a bunch of insiders fighting over who
is boss. The insiders wouldn't be stupid
enough to want a replay of the Chicago
Convention of 68; not with Bill Clinton
still an active guider of the Democratic
Party. (said with eyes shut while whistling
past graveyard).

Comments?

arendt

[LuminousX]

1. Innovative, but Dean is just Dean

I don't believe there is a historical comparison that can be made with anyone. This is new ground, new history.

[arendt]

13. Fine, then Dean can't be compared to McGovern n/t

n/t

[LuminousX]

29. Exactly

I am becoming frustrated in that people are so eager to trot out the Democratic Party's litany of losers.

[OKNancy]

2. I worked for clean Gene and Dean is no Gene

(self -edit)

[arendt]

3. Thank you, Senator Benson, but I'm no Dan Quayle.

You got facts or just re-tread one-liners?

arendt

[GalleryGod]

5. I Worked for RFK in Indiana,Oregon,and Calif; Dean Ain't No Gene

McCarthy was a superb,allbeit low key,speaker. A Classy and Classic intellectual; All his positions were well thought out..and Oh,BTW, he STUNNED the RFK Juggernaut:wtf: in the next-to-last OREGON Primary.

Still in the Faculty:hangover: Lounge...wading thru BlueBooks!
G.G.:silly:

[arendt]

10. Well, you are agreeing with what I said.

I said that Dean is no low-key guy, he is also
not intellectual for its own sake (no slam on
intellectuals), but Gene always seemed to lack
killer instinct.

Months ago I gave my reasons for supporting Dean.
In those reasons, I explained that Dean is a
Rockefeller Republican - a mixture of liberal
and conservative views, and a reputation for
honesty in public life. Now Nelson was no saint,
Christ look at how he died, but he was no crook
like Nixon.

I want someone who fights, and so do a lot of
other outsiders. I will take some of my program
implemented plus the GOP getting poleaxed rather
than a lot of mealy-mouthed mush from the DLC.

arendt

[GalleryGod]

4. As Long as you still have to go to the Polls, The Internet is just a Tool

NOT "The New Primary System"

Anyway, Dean's Best Pal, AL :pals: Invented it!

Your Man in the Faculty:donut: Lounge...STILL grading Blue Books,
G.G.:shrug:

[arendt]

7. "have to go to the polls" - Fair point, but...

everyone knows that until CFR really happens,
as the crooked Congressman said "money talks
and BS walks."

The Internet raises money for genuine progressive
candidates, without the corporate/DNC filter.
The Internet paid for MoveOn's TV ads, way before
the elections.

The primary system is a kluge, and a constantly
changing one at that. It is old tech, that worked
100 years ago. But, ever since Kennedy started
gaming it, it has been "in play". Now we have
Super Tuesday, and the GOP govs are cancelling
primaries right and right.

If the GOP gets their way, the primary system
will be gutted. Besides, with all the gerrymandering
and Diebold, who needs primaries.

My point is that the Internet is all we've got
that NOBODY has figured out how to game or shutdown.

Now could we get back to the Clean Gene analogy?

arendt

[cryofan]

6. has skills & politiics like Clinton, background like Bush n/t

[arendt]

11. This slam is inchoherent

What has it to do with Clean Gene and RFK?

I don't do vitriol, I do analysis.

arendt

[David__77]

8. I think McCarthy could have done better than Humphrey.

So many young people lined up with McCarthy, from what I understand. Humphrey was considered by many to be no better than Nixon.

[PATRICK]

37. Humphry another self-destruct

who played the party leadership game to defeat then regained his populist leadership when he was no longer a prez candidate. Part of the the Senatorial style problem too. Dean as a governor has an edge like Carter, Clinton, much more than Dukakis.

For tragic, primary self-destruction none have done it like Senators listening to conventional wisdom and playing the old game in place.

There is a comparison of the JFK Humphry cprimariy battles that is very telling first hand experience. Humphry shuffling over campaign brochures at a table, wasting time, waiting for his big speech, handshakes and goodbye whistlestop allowance. JFK's whole clan team working the entire state, meeting and doing things for each indivual, coordinating the entire process with a vengeance.

JFK and family WAS the campaign superiority miracle. Good candidates in the system that seemed entrenched were overcome and feeling not a little blindsided.

There are several elements in each unique situation. Comparing individuals obscures the history. Grasroots campaign fervor and organization, enabling and using talent and new methods. Charisma. The momentum factor. The electoral appeal and puzzle.

I think we are seeing it again in all its vitality, but it hasn't gelled into the winning ticket yet. Small wonder. The primaries are next year.

[Zomby Woof]

9. I like that, you have a point

Although there is no similarity in character - McCarthy was a principled and dignified man who always did oppose the war in question - I do see some parallels in the campaigns. Both attracted political neophyte followers with high energy and idealism, quite a few entrenched party people feeling disenfranchised, and both benefitted from early grassroots organizing.

Usually, drawing parallels between present and past candidates is dicey, because there are so many other variables. My stock answer is that Dean is Dean, and that is damning enough. His faux-populist hucksterism won't appeal to many outside of his "energized base". He would be doomed to carry 3 states and DC.

[arendt]

12. facts to support: "faux-populist hucksterism"? or is it just a soundbite?

n/t

[Zomby Woof]

18. it's my interpretation of him

Quite an overreaction to what amounts to a simple observation on my part.

[arendt]

19. Word games: interpretation = simple observation

Interpretation means filter and judge, not
observe and report.

An observation would be that you find Dean's
rhetoric to be disconnected from his actions.

But, hucksterism? That is a derrogatory word.

What is he falsely selling? The only possible
conclusion from your statement is that he is a
fraud.

That's a judgement, not an observation.

Faux-populism - another slander, based on your
judgement.

Why do Democrats constantly rip each others'
guts out for temporary political advantage?

arendt

[Zomby Woof]

22. because...

That's politics. ;-)

[arendt]

14. Let me unpack that a little

My point is that Dean brought a lot of
new people into politics. By demonizing
him, you will drive those people right
back out of the party.

How can Dems hate Dean more than Bush?
How can soundbites out of context trump
three years of looting, mayhem, and
police state tactics?

If you want another candidate, fine. But
where does all this hatred of the man
come from? Sounds like straight out of
the GOP playbook.

Why do Democrats eat their own?
Just asking.

arendt

[Jim Sagle]

15. Very good questions, all of them.

Don't expect good answers.

[Zomby Woof]

21. you would be wrong

I easily blew them out of the water.

[Zomby Woof]

20. so many fallacies and strange assertions

Wow! You threw all the trite clichés at me! Let me blow them out of the water:

My point is that Dean brought a lot of new people into politics.

That's great. I said as much in my first post. I love when people get involved, but the newness and overzealous dedication of his legions is part of the problem. They are naive about politics and the process. The zealotry causes many of them to get overly hostile when confronted with the LIGHTEST criticism.


By demonizing him, you will drive those people right back out of the party.

My criticism of Dean has NO EFFECT on the Democratic Party. At least not a negative one. It enriches it to a degree, if only because dissent is a democratic ideal, and one I do not intend to quell to appease the young neophytes all fired-up over Dean. Furthermore, my so-called "demonization" of Dean (calling him a huckster? Um, that is hardly damning in the world of politics) will not change the minds of his supporters, nor is it intended to. I force my POV on no one. However, the relentless bullying, unquestioning devotion, and overzealous haranguing by the Dean supporters against us very sincere and long-time loyal Democrats not enamored of him IS driving us away from Dean. Dean supporters are easily the most polarizing faction in the modern history of the party, bar none.

How can Dems hate Dean more than Bush?

I will donate $2000 to the Dean campaign if you can find ANY post where I say I "hate Dean more than Bush". That is the silliest thing I have ever read, and on here, that is saying a lot. I hate no one. I hate Bush's policies, his agenda, his inane utterances, his warmongering, his profiteering, everything he stands for, his phoniness, his fake Texan twang, but I try so very hard not to hate the man, or I betray my principles. Also, by being on DU, I loathe Bush's reign by default. I have never said ONE redeeming thing about him, but I have been fair to Dean when warranted. How in the hell does criticism of Dean equal hatred? I do not get that, and I doubt sincerely you will ever be able to prove a strange assertion like that.

How can soundbites out of context trump three years of looting, mayhem, and police state tactics?

If you are referring to comments about his opportunistic war stance, I don't care. The reasons I don't like Dean are unrelated to the war. I have problems all over the map with him, due to guns, his economic conservatism, and corporate whoring, than I do with his inconsistencies on the war. "Out of context" is a non-argument by the way, it has no credibiity in a serious debate. Of course I think Dean would be an improvement over Bush, but I also think we can do even better than Dean. I don't want a weak improvement over Bush, I want the best. That is why we are all here on DU.

If you want another candidate, fine. But where does all this hatred of the man come from? Sounds like straight out of the GOP playbook.

Again with the charges of hatred!! How absurd, and unfounded. Find ANY post where I say "I hate Dean", and I will send YOU $2000. I am serious about both offers. I dislike his agenda, his priorities, his manner, and his odds. I do not dislike him. None of those things translates into hatred. I am a pacifist, and committed to fighting hate. I am also a patriot who loves my country enough that I want what's best for it, and getting rid of Bush is a great start, but replacing him with Howard Dean is not the second part of the solution I feel is best. We still won't have what is best for the country, or the world, at heart. It is a dangerous fallacy, a false dichotomy, to equate a dislike of Dean's agenda to that of being a Bush apologist.

Damn, I DO laugh my ass off when the ol' "GOP Playbook" utterance gets bandied about. It ranks alongside "Karl Rove sends people here to disrupt!" on my favorite absurd outburst list. I don't make it a habit to keep up with what goes on with their strategists, or what's in their Little Black Book. I hope you don't find that revelation too disheartening.

Why do Democrats eat their own? Just asking.

This too, is another favorite unfounded assertion. Dissent among candidate supporters, and candidates, especially before the primaries, is democracy at its finest and healthiest. It is a reliable barometer in measuring the state of the party, and where its leaders and activists want to take it. In order for people to hash out what they think is best for the country, and not just the party, these differences need to be aired. Sure, it gets ugly, and brutal. But if you can't stomach it, perhaps democracy and politics isn't for you. Dissent does not equal cannibalism. Just answering.


That was almost too easy.

[WilliamPitt]

23. Someone has someone else's face, I think

:)

[arendt]

24. Don't know this idiom. Say it 50-year old. n/t

[arendt]

25. fat-finger dupe

[Zomby Woof]

28. dammit

Do I have to send you a royalty check??? x(

[arendt]

27. So much spin, so little facts

Ah, yes, before we even begin, use the Newt-like word
"strange". Not quite "bizarre", but it gets the same
message across.

> The zealotry causes many of them to get overly hostile when
> confronted with the LIGHTEST criticism.

More JUDGEMENT and THREAT INFLATION. You define "lightest"
and "hostile". This is GOP spin on ALL Demcrats. Thanks
for keeping the meme alive.

> my so-called "demonization" of Dean (calling him a huckster?
> Um, that is hardly damning in the world of politics)

You can't even quote yourself without censorship.
Your exact quote was "faux-populist huckster". And,
that is an impugning of the man's basic character instead
of an objection to his positions. CHARACTER ASSASINATION
is the favorite sport of the GOP. Read my posts, I never
go after Dems in that manner. My objections are to policies.

You basically don't know what I've written on DU or you
don't want to acknowledge it because it cramps your rhetoric.

> the relentless bullying, unquestioning devotion, and overzealous
> haranguing by the Dean supporters against us very sincere and long-
> time loyal Democrats

Remember the title of this thread? I compared Dean to
Gene McCarthy. Is that "relentless bullying"? or
"overzealous harranging"? No. It is what I say it is -
political analysis. You chose to MISCHARACTERIZE it to
drag me into a flame war. Fine. I didn't start it.

> I will donate $2000 to the Dean campaign if you can find ANY post
> where I say I "hate Dean more than Bush". That is the silliest
> thing I have ever read, and on here, that is saying a lot. I hate
> no one. ...How in the hell does criticism of Dean equal hatred?

First, Character assasination is not criticism. Calling a man a
phony is not analysis of policy. I'm sure the GOP claim their
character assasination is "legitimate criticism" too.

And turn down the rhetorical volume. There's that Newt word
"strange' again.

How can soundbites out of context trump three years of looting, mayhem, and police state tactics?

> If you are referring to comments about his opportunistic war
> stance, I don't care.

BAIT AND SWITCH. You say you don't disagree with my statement,
then proceed to bash me for something completely different,
like it wasn't a total non sequitur.

> Again with the charges of hatred!! How absurd, and unfounded.

Another Newtie word, "absurd". I'm waiting for "sick" and
"pathetic". You aren't even arguing with me. The words
are just cover for the charachter assasination.

> Damn, I DO laugh my ass off when the ol' "GOP Playbook" utterance
> gets bandied about.

Ah, "INNOCULATION" - a classic Rush tactic: We dittoheads
aren't going to fall for this trick because Rush warned us about
you sneaky liberals.

The end of your post is degenerating into a pile of GOP
cliches, and you know it. So you throw out this innoculation.

>>Why do Democrats eat their own? Just asking.

> This too, is another favorite unfounded assertion

Classic PROJECTION. Your statement is itself an unfounded
assertion.

I challenge you to do a poll in GD. Ask people "Do Democrats
eat their own?". My prediction is "yes" will win in a landside.

----

Your entire response is self-righteous outrage, based on
excerpting phrases and applying standard boilerplate.

You have not added one whit to the discussion of my analysis.
Your only intention has been to provoke a fight.
I have itemized the rhetorical tricks you have used.

I do analysis, but that doesn't mean I don't know rhetoric
when i see it. You will probably spin this back at me as
'outrage' and 'hatred', so I'm innoculating myself against
it. Have fun with that, it can be an infinite regress.

i'm not wasting any more cycles on this utterly predictable
and content-free exchange.

arendt

[Zomby Woof]

30. LOL

I never felt outrage at all, only amusement - the entire time. :D

You used "meme", compared me to Newt and Rush, and confused editing with censorship. Your counter-argument just fell like a house of cards on those grounds alone.

[arendt]

36. Empty rhetoric is all I hear n/t

[arendt]

16. Front page kick n/t

n/t

[arendt]

17. kick n/t

n/t

[Julien Sorel]

26. Johnson won the New Hampshire primary in 1968.

McCarthy finished second. I also don't think that Dean has shown anyone 'wants out of this war,' since Dean himself has said he doesn't want out. Kucinich and Sharpton are the only ones who want out. They don't seem to be polling very well.

Frankly, I find your post nearly incoherent and factually incorrect. I don't understand the comparison to 1968 -- there's no substantial anti-war movement, no real movement at all in fact.

[arendt]

32. My bad. Johnson won, then promptly quit.

> Frankly, I find your post nearly incoherent and factually incorrect.

I try to get facts right. I acknowledged one error. Are there
more?

I myself acknowledged that the analogy went only so far.
I myself said it "short circuited" rather quickly.
The reason I put it up at all is because I'm tired of
the Dean-is-McGovern total bullshit. Frankly, the
in-the-primary fueding is more reminiscent of 68 than
of 72. By 72, the fight was inside the party structure
and at the convention.

A higher level response to your question of "coherence":
We are to the point in GD where someone posted a sarcastic
thread and it was taken seriously because the flame wars
are so out of control. Your claim to find this thread incoherent
is arguable(i.e., acceptable); and your statements are
factual. So, I'm satisfied with your response. I'm sorry;
I'm writing this stuff faster than is my preference.
Coherence suffers, especially when culling flames from
genuine criticism (I have put yours in the latter category.)


> I don't understand the comparison to 1968 -- there's no substantial > anti-war movement, no real movement at all in fact.

Now, this is useful feedback. You honestly believe that
the Feb 15 demonstrations were not part of a substantial
anti-war movement AT THAT TIME. And that is when Dean
stood up and that is when he began to get support.

It may just be that the Dean Campaign has sucked in all
the antiwar people, who know that being openly antiwar
in Ashcroft's America will get you in Guantanamo or get
your head busted like in Miami; while working for Dean
will just get you flamed by impotent Dems.

arendt

[arendt]

33. Dupe, sorry

[Hope4]

31. Gene had a wife that want to be a first lady

He would have open his files.

He would have told Gore to wait.

[arendt]

34. Ah, more character assasination. I love it.

> Gene had a wife that want to be a first lady

Yes. Let's start in on two dedicated Doctors
while giving the drunk, the vehicular homicide,
and the two underage drunks in the WH a free
ride.

I don't see anyone doing this kind of character
assasination on any of the other Dem candidates.
This is the kind of stuff that Dems hated when
it was done to Chelsea Clinton. Dean's wife
doesn't want to bake cookies. She wants to
stay out of the limelight. Fine with me. Nobody
can accuse of her of running the WH, like they
did Hilary or Nancy Reagan for that matter.

> He would have open his files.

Why are the Dems fixated on Dean opening
his files and not on Bush opening the ones
he ILLEGALLY closed.

The whole file thing is an invention. Every
gov of VT has his papers sealed for six years.
Dean asked for ten or twelve.

The point is MOOT because they want the papers
opened NOW. Even the normal SIX years would
be irrelevant.

Basically people are beating Dean up for
doing what every governor did.

> Told Gore to Wait:

Beaten to death.

See my thread on "We're All Outsiders Now".

arendt

[arendt]

35. Another dupe, sorry, keyboard is going flaky