Dean and the Democratic Party establishment

[pasadenaboy]

Let me start this with a caveat. I understand many people on this board do not support Dean for policy/personal reasons. I have no problem with that.

The question I want to ask is, do you think the anonymous attack ads, the attacks from congressional democrats, the DLC going apeshit against Dean, etc is indicitive that the Democratic Party establishmen is afraid that Dean is going to shake things up in the democratic party? Do they see him as a threat to the empire they have built up? Is the fact he doesn't have to beg the people who control the finances and supporters of the democratic party scare them?

I should be honest-one of the biggest reason I have decided to support Dean is because he is shaking up the party establishment. I have actually been disappointed the last couple of weeks as Dean appears to be trying to accomodate them more as he is becoming the frontrunner. I think we need a revolution in the party, and I am hoping Dean can shake the foundations.

What do others think?

[dorktv]

1. Dean is really going to rock the boat.

I think he is just trying to get those currently in power to chill out, even though he knows that is not going to happen.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[adadem]

5. Thank you n/t

[KittyWampus]

6. Thank You... Simple & Concise.

I would add that Dean IS DLC. He has never renounced his being a part of them nor has he apologised for participating in their efforts to move the Democratic Party & America's policies to the Right.

Just because his rhetoric and positions has moved Left since entering the race doesn't mean that he has honestly changed his views. Actions (Dean's actual record) speak louder than words.

I don't think Dean would "shake things up" other than to reward his own cronies.

In the end, his positions aren't all that different than the other candidates... except he's a bit further to the Right.

[madfloridian]

10. But if the others are not getting support from Democrats, how will they?

How will they beat W if they are not pulling in the Democrats? And they are not yet. They might.

[Padraig18]

14. That's the question they always ignore or dance around...

:shrug:

[QC]

25. Well, for the sake of argument, it is possible for a candidate to be

very popular within the party and electoral poison outside it.

For example, we nominated William Jennings Bryan in 1896, 1900, and 1908, and lost every time. Adlai Stevenson was nominated twice and lost both times. The GOP base loved Goldwater, but he got stomped in 1964. Mondale and Dukakis were both popular among Democrats and lost.

If getting the Democratic nomination were enough to get elected, we wouldn't need to have a general election.

[HFishbine]

37. On the flip side

No democratic nominee has ever won the general election without winning the democratic primary.

Some democrats who win the democratic nomination do not get elected president. All democrats who lose the democratic nomination do not get elected president.

[paulk]

28. where are the other Democrats not getting support?

I don't understand what you're getting at...

[madfloridian]

31. Polling numbers so far .

I don't always agree with them, but they are not showing huge support for some of the candidates among the Democratic voters.
Thus, if they do not do well among their base...how will they face Bush next year.

Anyone who runs as the nominee will be bashed unmercifully. They will need to have a huge turnout in their own party.

[Scott Lee]

22. Or rather, some just don't WANT Dean to beat Warchimp.

That would be for some severely disturbed personal reasons that defy definition.

[MIMStigator]

38. Not worried TERRIFIED

EOM

[TexasPatriot]

3. well

first - lets get 'apeshit' out of the post before someone locks it.

But on to the question in general, i think a lot of dems feel somewhat upset over losing in 2000... i mean we had peace and prosperity and we were running against a candidate who could barely string words together to make a subject verb sentence.

It was a tactical mistake - the Gore campaign should have run left rather than stay center (because the pub core was already energized over Monica). It was a mistake. But in this campaign - our core base is just as angry as theirs was (and to be honest, after some of the massive govt growth issues the pub base is pretty sedentary right now). If we run from a position that can be painted as left, we will help the pubs to bring their base to the polls in the fall.

A lot of people are supporting candidates based on our feelings of anger and frustration over the last election - and unless we re-examine that we're going to hurt our chances. It's the old adage - we're refighting the last war.

[dorktv]

4. I support Dean for his very good record in Vermont.

Nothing more nothing less.

[KittyWampus]

7. Dean Isn't Running On His Record In Vermont

He has done 180's on a host of Issues.

[dorktv]

9. Um...Have you heard a Dean speech lately? That is usually

what he talks about. "In Vermont I got 99% of the kids covered by health care, I made it a middle class Entitlement..." "I balenced the budget every year..." "I signed the civil unions law at 35% popularity"

[KittyWampus]

12. But Dean Ignores Everything He's Switched On

Affirmative Action based on Class not Race
Raising Social Security Age
Limiting a Patients Right to sue HMO's
DeRegulating Energy
Not Recognizing Native American Tribes unless they renounce Casinos
Tax Havens for corporations

[dorktv]

15. I have not heard about #5. And I do know that

he, like most doctors, change once they get different facts. And he wants re-regulation.

[Scott Lee]

23. Ignores, or acknowledges?

And I take exception to some of your assumptions - like the "switch" on recognizing Native tribes. The Abenaki weren't kept from such recognition due to Dean not liking casinos. They didn't file the correct paperwork on the timeframe so designated by law. I don't think Dean can be faulted for that one.

[auburnblu]

30. Renouncing casinos?

He was for asking Native Americans to renounce the idea of establishing a casino before he would recognize them???

[madfloridian]

8. I think it has something to do with America's remapping the Mideast.

Dean has said he supports preemptive war if danger is coming to our country. He is quite clear on that. He thinks Iraq is wrong.

We went to Iraq because as the PNAC documents say "Iraq is the immediate justification". And Iraq is also referred to as the "gateway to the middle east" at their site.

I don't think Dean is for that mideast remapping that those boys want. I have a feeling that might be one reason behind the opposition.

I may be totally off base, but I know that Dean is not dovish. He believes in a strong military and protecting our country.

So why?....that would be one explanation....that he would not go along with their dreams of New American Century. At least not on their ruthless terms. Would the others? I don't know.

I am just thinking out loud. It is definitely a power struggle, just not clearly defined.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

11. But what good is it?

What good will it to to shake the party establishment if in the process we loose the election?

Four more years of Bush & Co and we may find there is but one party...and it won't be democratic, by name or by definition.

It's not the Democratic empire that we need to worry about. It may not be perfect but it beats the heck out of the party of the current pretender in chief.

Maybe the democratic base has evolved into more than the far left...and that's a good thing IMHO. When was the last time the democrats won a presidency by appealing only to that far left base?

[tsipple]

17. If Not Dean, Who?

John Kerry is broke.

Wesley Clark and every other Democratic candidate (except Dean) will be handicapped by spending limits until July, 2004, because he failed to opt out of the federal matching funds system. He'll have the same problem Bob Dole had running against Clinton: unanswered TV ads that define him before he gets to tell America about himself.

So somebody please tell me how your guy (or gal) can possibly beat Bush?

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

24. Money talks?

If we base the "who can win" question on money, honey...Bush controls his empire for another four years.

And speaking of matching funds...

Forgive me if I have a problem trusting someone who says one thing and then does another.

I'll never understand the "give up attitude" that buys into the very thing we, as true American patriots are fighting against...the idea that only the rich win.

I think we all agree that any of the Dem candidates are light years better than Bush...an armadillo would be better than Bush for cripes sake.

So I'm sorry, I don't get this idea that we should pick our nominee based on how much money he has. If we aren't willing to fight for the man we think is best qualified then why should we deserve to win...and even if we win have we sold our soul to do it?

I see all the talk about the Democratic Base...does that base stand for what is right...or what can be bought? If it's what can be bought then what is it that makes it any different from the repukes?

I'm sorry, I just don't see the logic in this.

[tsipple]

26. Answer to "Money talks?" Question

Yes.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

27. What a sad sad attitude

And is that, yes, Bush controls his empire for another four years.

Or yes, only the rich win.

Or maybe yes, we sold our soul to do it.

If it's simply that money talks...keep in mind that if we want to change America, as we all claim...we might be better served to listen to what that money is saying...Dean's money, at this time, has said very little that impresses me. You see, unlike Dr. Dean, I think we all need each other...he seems to think he only needs the vaunted "base".

I pity us all if people are blinded by the dollar signs in their eyes.

[tsipple]

35. Didn't Say I Liked It

But that's the honest answer. Of course money matters. We operate under existing rules.

Dean's answer to that problem is:

1. Compete by raising large amounts of money from large numbers of donors in small increments.

2. Opt out of the spending limit handicap.

3. Spend wisely and frugally.

4. Wage the campaign using game-changing techniques, such as alternate methods of communication that bypass the expensive traditional media.

Do any other Democratic candidates have an answer to this problem of money in politics, i.e. the marriage of economic power to political power that's so firmly entrenched? I'll answer that question by saying no, not that I've observed -- although I'm willing to see evidence to the contrary.

[auburnblu]

33. At this point in 92 who thought Clinton would beat Bush

I think that Gephardt or Clark would be strong candidates. The general election will be much different than the primaries. I think Kerry honestly would have a tough time though. He's done some amazing things. But his tax the rich and energy conservation policies could be attacked in a heartbeat. He's been married for the last decade to someone that has a private jet, how many unecessary trips have they taken over the last decade, I'm guessing plenty. He and his wife probably waste more fuel than 99% of the country every year. And his tax the rich, well I'm assuming Theresa Heinz has some savy tax folks helping her out.

To Dean's credit, I will acknowledge that other than Sharpton, the other candidates can't fire up a crowd or voters like Dean. My favorite, Joey L, love the guy, but he's not dynamic.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

36. John Kerry is broke?

I think If JK needs money he will know where to find it. And damn good thing too.

[pasadenaboy]

21. That is a very good question

to which good people can disagree.

I see it this way; Our current no message triangulation approach on every issue has branded us (quite rightly) a party without ideas. Why, because our institutional leaders are so reactive to polling data and campaign contributors that we have very little real leadership.

The party needs to be revitalized. Unless we have a unifying purpose and mission, winning the white house will not do us any good. We must solve the "vision" thing. That's the problem.

Seriously, what common philosophy do all of the candidates share? I can't think of even one. Maybe protecting social security. But that's not enough to rally a party around.

Until we address this elephant in the room, we are not going to be an effective national party.

[auburnblu]

13. He's smart to reach out

I do believe that say Hillary, Gephardt and Kerry view him as a threat to the establishment. They have all been planning for a Presidential run for a loooong time and out of nowhere here comes Howard Dean. Dean speaks his mind without going to some of the other established leaders for an okay first. Like him or not, Dean comes accross as a straight shooter, waaaaay more so than Kerry or Gephardt. The challenge Dean may have is that there still is a lot of undecideds. In the latest poll in Georgia Dean was in front, but with only 17% of the vote. 42% are undecided. Dean is looking like a winner right now.

However a major problem with his campaign, if it is viewed as too against the part establishment, is what happens when Joey L and Edwards and some of the others start dropping out. If all nine candidates stay in the race all the way, which won't be the case, Dean would definitely win. Dean is going to have a huge challenge in keeping his base energized while reaching out to those who would support say a more establishment candidate. So I think he's smart to do so now.

[Padraig18]

16. Welcome to DU, auburnblu!

:hi:

[MasonJar]

18. We all just want to beat Bush. Let's hammer him instead of

each other. He makes it so easy to do. More letters to the editors, more get out the vote effort, register everyone in sight, talk up our nominee, whoever he is. I will say that I hope it is not Lieberman; he has really lost it this week.

[DFLforever]

19. Accommodate? is that what's prompted the vicious attacks of the last

week by opponents and the seeding of the ABD and Stop Dean gangs?

I agree with the main thrust of your post though...some of these Dems are afraid not that Dean will lose the general election, as they assert, but that if Dean does win either the nomination or the general or both, they'll lose their control and influence. That's where your'll find the real fear factor in this election, imo.

Unlike Al Gore, he's been able to establish an independent source of funding to this point...that's gotta scare them bad. He can afford to not tow the me-too-line of some of the other candidates and doesn't have to sport the bland and boring campaign style we're so familiar with in the other contenders.


edit: word change

[Scott Lee]

20. Power never likes to be threatened. That includes the DLC.

The DLC is an entrenched, fossilized oligarchy that has, for the most part, lost tough with the democratic principles that made the Democratic Party from its inception. Of course the kingmakers are going to repel any effort to shit on their canope plate. They have it great - why take that away?

Dean's opponents have been vocal about him actually "being" an insider. You know, at one time this may have been true. But consider that Boris Yeltsin was once deeply entrenched in the CCCP; and we all know how that turned out.

[molly]

29. I don't think Dean is strong enough or honest enough

for any kind of revolution.

[auburnblu]

32. What has Dean been so dishonest about?

Kerry is trying to play both sides on the Iraq issue, saying a unilateral attack may be needed several years back and voting for the resolution last year and now acting like he opposed the resolution.

[slinkerwink]

34. welcome to the Dean campaign!

:hi:

[jmaier]

39. I'm still looking

for some actual evidence that the DLC is going "apeshit" against Dean. The DLC is a collection of individuals with a shared political philosophy -- it's basically a platform think tank. It is not a political party and it's only strength is in the collective action of its members, when they do in fact ACT collectively.

The DLC even has members who have endorsed Dean as well as other candidates, notably Kerry and Lieberman. You read their published positions on the issues and other than being strong pro-free trade they are generally progressive.

I think that they are being turned into "the enemy" as a pretty underhanded tactic for stirring up more leftist activists. If any Dem runs for the Presidency without being able to garner the vast majority of votes from regular old Joe democrats who feel comfortable with DLC viewpoints, that person is going to get LANDSLIDED in 2004.

[denverbill]

40. Dean has already rocked the boat.

If the Democratic Party doesn't need corporate cash to compete, Democratic legislators can actually vote for policies that help people, rather than placating their corporate masters.

That's also one of the biggest reasons Dean is at the top of my list, and IMO, it's why Nader has decided not to run if Dean is nominated.