Dean Admires Gingrich, Not Clinton

[kerrygoddess]

From US News.com:

Howard Dean, the man Democrats are poised to name their new party chair, admires Newt Gingrich more than he does Bill Clinton. We learn this from Fox television's Major Garrett, who penned The Enduring Revolution: How the Contract With America Continues to Shape the Nation . Garrett interviewed Dean for the book on the GOP revolution that occurred during Clinton's first term. Dean says Gingrich and former Christian Coalition strategist Ralph Reed "created a real success for the right wing." Clinton, meanwhile, led the Dems into complacency and defeat

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/050214/whispers/14whisplead_2.htm

[imenja]

1. uh oh

Gingrich went down in flames. Not a good roll model.

[kerrygoddess]

2. Kinda weird isn't it?

[Negatron]

4. I think he was just saying that Gingrich succeeded.

And he did, at least for a while.

[Guaranteed]

44. His party sure did. Far as I can tell, they've been rolling over us

for years, now, in particular in Gingrich's area of focus.

Maybe, just maybe, we oughta take a TIP.

[fooj]

5. Just when you think things couldn't get any stranger...

Gingrich??? WTF?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

6. kinda total bullshit, yes

Essentially a blurb which makes a claim which isn't supported
with a direct quote, PLUS from a book written by a Fox stooge.
You truly believe Dean admires Gingrich more than Clinton? Sheesh.

[KittyWampus]

65. Exactly, The Mediawhores Play DU'ers For Fools Yet Again.

It's not like they're trying to divide Democrats and undermine Dean the DNC and the Democratic Party...

It's not like they'd paraphrase someone's statement to twist their meaning...

It's not like they'd use a partial quote taken out of context...

[merh]

122. But what he said was true and makes sense.

He is not talking values and principles, but their efforts for their respective parties and the effects they had on their respective parties.

Gingrich empowered and energized the repukes. They were the weak party, they didn't have the majority. His methods brought life to the party and gave them the power they still have today.

Clinton screwed the dems, I know this is not a popular statment, but it is true. He was a centralist that did his share of deregulating, promoting stupid trade agreements, and other "agenda" items that were not necessarily liberal and were harmful to the nation. In addition to his centralist ways, he was a nympho in the WH, despite the fact that he knew the RWers were watching him and would do anything to take him down. "Because he could" (his words), he got a blowjob in the oval office from a 23 yr old intern. How f*ckin' stupid was that? Then he was not completely honest about it until it was too late. Because of Clinton, the party has been hindered or hampered, well actually impotent!

I understand what Dean meant and I agree. I like him for DNC head more and more each day.

[imenja]

8. yeah, I'd prefer he'd pick Rove

if he wants to go for the Machiavellian ruthless type, Rove is a better bet. He stays behind the scenes and doesn't irritate people by his presence the way Gingrich did. Politicians aren't the appropriate roll model's for DNC chair anyway.

[calimary]

108. Not so fast. If you stop and analyze WHY he said this, and WHY

it is even thinkable to admire newt gangrene, then it does make some sense.

Say what you will about newtie (and I certainly have said plenty and plan to continue), he played a HUGE part in engineering the republi-CON takeover of the national agenda and the political bully pulpit. He actually provides a rather intriguing model to study, to see how he did it. To take a page from his playbook isn't traitorous, it's quite shrewd,

Yes, I find gingrich to be as vile an excuse for a human being as ever there was who slithered across the national zeitgeist and shat steaming piles on our precious founding documents and democratic belief systems. He's probably going straight to Hell when he dies, without any possible appeals. And there are few who would be more deserving.

BUT: we seriously and dispassionately need to study his track record. Make adjustments as needed, of course, but study it, and put its best parts into practice for OUR benefit.

He's the guy who started the "GOPAC" business with political action committees funneling large infusions of money and eager volunteers to the grassroots, taking root, and growing into towering trees. Well, okay, weeds.

newt was the guy who put together that little black book of lingo, slogans, buzz phrases, and the first baby steps toward what we now know as blast-faxed talking points and media domination. He had lists of words and phrases that had a positive connotation - and these were all to be used RELENTLESSLY and REPETITIVELY and PERPETUALLY, when describing republi-CONS or conservatives or wrong-wingers. He had corresponding lists of words and phrases that had negative connotations - and these were all to be used JUST AS RELENTLESSLY and REPETITIVELY and PERPETUALLY, to describe all things liberal and progressive and Democrat. THIS was KEY to how they demonized the word and the very concept of "liberal," how they made community responsibility and the idea of paying dues to support the miraculous experiment in democracy we all belong to and enjoy the fruits of - into "tax relief," turned equal rights advocates into "those manhating, bra-burning dykes," tolerance of other lifestyles into "witches" and "lezbos" and "fruits" and "faggots" and "abominations" and "child molesters" and turned women who simply expect to have the final say over their own bodies into "baby killers."

newt gingrich did that.

He spread his "bible of bile" all over everywhere. And, as he came into Congress on one of the Reagan waves, seized every chance for power like the seething opportunistic infection he really is. He personally engineered and conducted a world-class character assassination against Tom Foley, the Democrat who was Speaker of the House, by publicly slamming and demonizing him, questioning his sexuality, spreading all kinds of horrible lies and insinuations about him, and eventually getting him ousted. He behaved as a lout and a loudmouth and a rude, bloviating thug in Congress, arrogantly strutted himself as a "backbench bomb-thrower," and because he made so much noise and behaved so in-yer-face and attracted so much attention, he got a LOT of face-time in the media. And he used THAT and the politics of destruction against Foley and other opponents to propel himself into the Speakership in the House of Representatives, carrying a lot of other junior true believers up into power with him. They were smart enough to recognize coattails when they saw them. The only thing that finally killed him was when his greed and arrogance led him to overreach one time too many, and exposed him for the repulsive, pus-oozing, fork-tongued hypocrite he is. That was when he was busy presiding over the persecution of Bill Clinton for a blow job in a White House back office, when it suddenly was revealed how he had his own share of little twinkies on the side, cheating on his wives, his trail of broken marriages, and his heartless treatment of his soon-to-be-ex-wife, delivering her divorce papers while she was hospitalized, fighting cancer. It created such an uproar when critical mass was reached in the public about what a big glass house this rock-thrower lived in, that he actually, incredibly, commited one single uncharacteristically decent act: he resigned from the Speakership AND the House of Representatives entirely. Death by backbench bombthrowing.

Hate him as you will - it is CERTAINLY well-deserved. And I'm at your side in that. But learn from his upward climb. It is worthwhile to study what he did, how he strategized, how he spread the word, how he infected so many others, and how they bullied their way into power. He played hardball to win. And win, he did. We need to learn from his example. NOT by becoming the rat-bastard he is, but by using some of his techniques - to a better and more noble end. And it has to be that way, because I truly believe we are better and more noble people to begin with. When you're a rat-bastard, your success will lead to rat-bastard results. When you're not, you'll have success, too, but it won't be born from the belly of the Beast.

Hate to wallow even farther in the viper pit, but ralph reed is another one who needs to be studied, and a page lifted from his "bible," if you will. For the same reasons.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

117. Amen. Learn what works. Do it. There are lessons to learn in psy-ops.

Because this is what is used on us to create the brownshirt culture we must turn back into something more humane. This is how they got to so many people in the last 25 years:

http://www.tscm.com/CIA_PsyOps_Handbook.html
(Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare
Army Manual 33-1 1979)

The target groups for the Armed Propaganda Teams are not the persons with
sophisticated political knowledge, but rather those whose opinion are formed
from what they see and hear. The cadres should use persuasion to carry out
their mission. Some of the persuasive methods that they can use are the
following:

Interior Group/Exterior Group. It is a principle of psychology that we humans
have the tendency to form personal associations from "we" and "the others," or
"we" and "they", "friends" and "enemies," "fellow countrymen" and
"foreigners,""mestizos" and "gringos."

The Armed Propaganda Team can use this principle in its activities, so that
it is obvious that the "exterior" groups ("false" groups) are those of the
Sandinista regime, and that the "interior" groups ("true" groups) that fight
for the people are the Freedom Commandos.

We should inculcate this in the people in a subtle manner so that these
feelings seem to be born of themselves, spontaneously.

"Against" is much easier that "for." It is a principle of political science
that it is easier to persuade the people to vote against something or someone
than to persuade them to vote in favor of something or someone. Although
currently the regime has not given the Nicaraguan people the opportunity to
vote, it is known that the people will vote in opposition, so that the Armed
Propaganda Teams can use this principle in favor of our insurrectional
struggle. They should ensure that this campaign is directed specifically
against the government or its sympathizers, since the people should have
specific targets for their frustrations.

Primary Groups and Secondary Groups. Another principle of sociology is that
we humans forge or change our opinions from two sources: primarily, through our
association with our family, comrades, or intimate friends; and secondarily,
through distant associations such as acquaintances in churches, clubs or
committees, labor unions or governmental organizations. The Armed Propaganda
Team cadres should join the first groups in order to persuade them to follow
the policies of our movement, because it is from this type of group that the
opinions or changes of opinion come.

Techniques of Persuasion in Talks or Speeches:

Be Simple and Concise. You should avoid the use of difficult words or
expressions and prefer popular words and expressions, i.e. the language of the
people. In dealing with a person you should make use of concise language,
avoiding complicated words. It is important to remember that we use oratory
to make our people understand the reason for our struggle, and not to show off
our knowledge.

Use Lively and Realistic Examples. Avoid abstract concepts, such as are used in
universities in the advanced years, and in place of them, give concrete
examples such as children playing, horses galloping, birds in flight, etc.

Use Gestures to Communicate. Communication, in addition to being verbal, can be
through gestures, such as using our hands expressively, back movements, facial
expressions, focusing of our look and other aspects of "body language,"
projecting the individual personality in the message.

Use the Appropriate Tone of Voice. If, on addressing the people, you talk about
happiness, a happy tone should be used. If you talk of something sad, the tone
of the voice should be one of sadness; on talking of a heroic or brave act, the
voice should be animated, etc.

Above All, Be Natural, Imitation of others should be avoided, since the people,
especially simple people, easily distinguish a fake. The individual personality
should be projected when addressing the population.

>snip<

The result desired is a guerrilla who in a persuasive manner can justify all of
his acts whenever he is in contact with any member of the town/people, and
especially with himself and with his guerrilla companions by facing the
vicissitudes of guerrilla warfare.

This means that every guerrilla will come to have effective face-to-face
persuasion as a combatant-propagandist in his contact with the people, to the
point of giving 5-10 logical reasons why, e.g. a peasant should give him a
piece of cloth, or a needle and thread to mend his clothes. When behaves in
this manner, no type of propaganda of the enemy will be able to make a
"terrorist" of him in the eyes of the people.

[Capn Sunshine]

109. See post # 96

and wonder why someone feels motivated to further divide democrats by providing out of context quotes.

When talking about reshaping a message and converting a party from spineless losers to total control, yeah, I'd say Gingrich comes in for a few accolades.

[MADem]

3. Ah, yes, the old "divide and conquer" strategy

...from creepy US News, our very own American Pravda. Notice how, in the first little whisper article, they fail to mention that Frank "Pudding Boy" Luntz is a REPUBLICAN pollster.

I'd take anything from them with a cellar of salt. Context is everything, and they feel no shame in taking things out of context to suit their nefarious purposes....

[Zhade]

46. "Whispers" is even in the **url** for this hit piece!

Totally transparent, and yet some are falling for it.

[ElectroPrincess]

60. Yes, I stopped my subscription to US News during the run

up to the immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq.

Hey folks, it's going to be "a long cold winter" so please don't let our MSM (all of them!) feed you lies.

Listen to Air America Radio and Democracy Now. If you're fortunate you can get Canadian Broadcasts (NWI etc).

The propaganda aimed to trash *everything* about Dean hasn't even begun yet.

Hunker down and don't give up hope.

[CTLawGuy]

7. Dean admires

Gingrich because he was willing to take a strong stand on issues and was willing to fight for those views, not because of WHAT Gingrich believed in.

Gingrich went down because his ideas ended up being way too radical.

Dean, however, is a fiscally responsible moderate.

[mistertrickster]

9. As well he should. Gingrich spearheaded the "contract with America,"

a real piece of work that, but very effective. Broke the Dems lock on the House.

There's a lot of Clinton worshipping on this site. He was a good president in terms of policy, but he was disaster for the party. He lied big-time about Monica. That "I did not have sex with that woman" was a total lie when all of America was watching and listening.

The Dems still haven't recovered. Gore would be president right now if Clinton hadn't taken the politically expedient tack (lying) he took.

I know it was a witch hunt, I know that Bush's lies are a million times worse than what Clinton did. But that doesn't change the results--eight years of Republican domination.

[ClarkUSA]

12. You're blaming Clinton for Gore not becoming President?

But not the disgusting Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, right? Boy, you certainly are playing tricks on Duers tonight, aren't you?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[President Jesus]

28. Clinton left office with a 59% approval, yet Gore distanced himself.

Give me a fucking break. Gore lost 9% of those that favored Clinton at the end of his term.

Forget Jeb and Cruella for a minute. Where did those ~9 million Clinton supporters go?

Clinton united people. Newt divided, viscerally. I sure hope that's not what Dean found admirable, because if it is, then I say fuck him.

[CWebster]

38. The unbearable truth that so many Democrats can't face up to

It's time they mustered up the courage to stare at it square in the eye.

Well said.

[demwing]

90. Self Delete

Im not playing into this thread

[never_get_over_it]

91. The Clinton connection and the Gore loss

is that Gore distanced himself from Clinton until the very last two weekends - Gore should have let the big dog off the leash to campaign and then Florida might have been a moot point. Clinton's popoularity went up during the impeachment

[keopeli]

10. Gingrich was incredibly politically savvy.

Gingrich was incredibly politically savvy, and noone on here should feign otherwise. He was killed politically by the monster he created. His private life ran contrary to his public espousals and his audience's ethics.

If this is Dean's position and he becomes chair, then the Democratic Party has just turned in the correct direction.

It's Gingrich's style of in-your-face reformist style politics that will win in 2006. And, if Dean succeeds at winning back the Senate or even house in 2006, he will be undefeatable as the Democratic Nominee in 2008.

And, as an added bonus, if Hillary can humble herself enough, she could run as his running-mate and the Dean/Clinton ticket would have a real chance...imho.

[calimary]

112. This is spot-on.

Besides, Dean has something our side is MISERABLY lacking. He has heat. Star-power. As even a UPI story carried by the Moonie Times recently said - Dean is going to make the Democrats interesting again. That's just for starters. That's EXACTLY what we need. And if he wants to study a successful track record and lift parts of it to propel US to success, then count me in with my whole body, heart and soul, mind and spirit. It IS the in-yer-face, not-gonna-take-it-lying-down back-atcha strategy that WILL turn things around for us. Voters seem to like fighters. They seem to gravitate to them whether they're fighting on the side of evil OR good. Remember what bush said - "you may not agree with me but you know where I stand." I'm old enough to remember that exact same ethic playing out with Ronald Reagan. Poll after poll after poll found the public disagreeing with his policies, but they fell for him time after time after time, because they thought he took a stand. When our guys waffle and wimper and won't fight back and won't stand strong and say what they believe in, come what may, all you're gonna get is people waving flip-flops at you and laughing at you and making hay out of voting "for 87 billion dollars before I voted against it." Dunno about you, but I've had MORE than enough of that shit.

Dean's a fighter. Dean's not afraid to say what needs to be said. Dean is not afraid to take a stand. I think people are gonna resonate with that. If NOTHING else, we'll get a LOT of mileage out of the different direction we've taken. Dean will have his face on TV a lot. He'll make a LOT of noise and attract a LOT of attention. And mark my words, he'll also attract a LOT of new converts, a LOT of increased membership, a LOT of new energy and commitment, and a WHOLE LOT of new dollars.

And this is a bad thing?


Oh yes - and by the way - if we start wasting time worrying about what USA Today or George Will or Pat Buchanan or limbaugh or novak or hannity or ANY of those schmucks think, or why they're denouncing it or pronouncing it DOA, then we deserve to be just what they're saying we'll be. But when was it decreed that we take our marching orders from them, or win their approval for the people we choose for our leadership or the policies or directions we follow? They are THE ENEMY. ARE we the party of George Will and Buchanan and limbaugh and the rest? Should we REALLY be so anxious to do what will make THEM happy and respond or conform to their criticism, or follow their advice? Or are we DEMOCRATS?

[ClarkUSA]

11. "Once DLC, always DLC" - is this what Deans means by "Republican-lite"?

Yeah, Dean's grudge against the Clintons ain't ever gonna die. Let's hear it for Dem unity. I can't wait for another four years of these kinds of remarks.

Newt Gingrich must be laughing his ass off.

[LittleClarkie]

20. Oh yes, LET'S hear it for Dem unity

(meaningful stare.)

[ClarkUSA]

124. I didn't give the interview nor am I about to be DNC Chair

You're staring at the wrong person.

[Guaranteed]

39. FUCK that. Dean is commenting on their party effectiveness.

While Clinton was flying solo, Gingrich was putting his party together from the ground up. And look where we are today.

Yes, Dean admires him for being smart enough to do that. So do I. He's a piece of garbage, but those guys KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

[calimary]

113. Hear, hear!

AMEN!

It was Clinton's charm, his charisma, and his almost magical ability to reach out to people and connect, to empathize, to make them feel as though he were one of them. But it only worked for him. That kind of charisma doesn't come by the case at the discount store.

Yes, Dean admires him for being smart enough to put his party together from the ground up. YES.

YES.

YES.

And YES.

And ABSOLUTELY YES he's a piece of garbage. The excrement from my dog and both my cats smells sweeter than he ever will. But he knew what he was doing. And we can, AND SHOULD, take a lesson or two from that.

Do you want to win, or don't you? If you don't win, you can't govern. And you can't send future newt-wannabes back to the unemployment line where they belong, either.

[ClarkUSA]

125. Dean didn't have to diss Clinton while admiring Gingrich's brilliance

And Clinton did a whole hell of a lot during his 8 years as President, including presiding over the largest pickup in Democratic House seats in the history of the Congress.

I don't see anybody saying how hard it is to become a two-term President. It's easy to have 20/20 hindsight and talk from the sidelines.

[ieoeja]

127. Did he dis Clinton?

There is only statement in quotes in that blurb. And Clinton isn't in it.

[ieoeja]

129. "Largest pickup in Democratic House seats in the history of the Congress"

After presiding over the loss of Democratic control of the House for the first time since the Great Depression.

And speaking of the Great Depression, are you saying the gains in '96 or '98 were larger than the gains in '32? I don't know the numbers, but I find that a little hard to believe.

[janx]

104. "Dean's grudge against the Clintons" ??

:silly:

What in the world are you talking about?

[pacifictiger]

13. Oh Puleeeze!

Sounds like more 'lets get Dean' stuff. Especially considering the Faux source.
I'd be willing to bet that Howard took note of Newt's (appropriate toady name) 'GOP revolution' STRATEGY for getting votes, not his politics.
Yep, they're all out to get Howard because he's going to rock the Beltway boat.

[coloradodem2005]

14. Clinton won the battle, but the Democrats lost the war.

The Republicans made gains under Clinton in the house and senate. Gingrich was the leader of that. And even though he was defeated, the Republican momentum kept going. When it came to just Gingrich and Clinton, Clinton won and Gingrich lost big. But in the end, the Democrats have been defeated.

[rooboy]

15. This is a NON-THREAD.

It's a review of an opinion piece by a right winger. I don't see any quote where Dean expresses admiration of Gingrich at all. If I say Hitler was effective in invading Poland, it doesn't mean I admire him.

There are about 2 sentences crammed in amongst a bunch of other crap, and it is not even an article about Dean.

Jesus.
:mad:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

16. Not even a review, it's a BLURB...

The OP went even further than the blurb, making it sound
like Dean does NOT admire Clinton, which even the blurb for a Fox stooge's book doesn't claim. A few folks here sure are eager to swallow the RW bait ...

[Zhade]

48. Consider the source. It's not like she's unbiased here.

Didn't think anyone would stoop to this kind of yellow journalism bullshit, though. Pretty sad.

[Freddie Stubbs]

72. You can admire a person's ability, but

still despise their political views.

[Nederland]

100. Its consistent though

Dean admiring Gingrich is consistent with what we heard during the campaign. For example:

"The party has to change to meet the new situation. It's been a long time since Democrats were totally shut out of the government. We don't know how to be a true opposition party — to do the sort of guerrilla warfare that Newt Gingrich did."

--Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager.

[ulysses]

121. and he's absolutely right.

The OP is more than a little misleading, though. It's one thing to admire Gingrich's strategy, very much another to admire him as a person.

[NVMojo]

17. maybe he is getting ready for the Bush announcement of a cabinet

seat for the Big Dog that Hillary was talking about recently ...the idea is going around and it is probably making more than one Dem ill ...

[shance]

18. Did anyone notice the quotation marks around Gingrich and Ralph Reed

and conveniently absent were quotes around the "complacency and defeat" comment?

Looks like Karl's has his columnists writing the summary pages too.

I saw Governor Dean speak about three weeks ago and he specifically stated how how so few leaders can compare to someone like Bill Clinton and few have the presidential gifts and traits like he does. He also complimented Clinton on his many contributions to the party.

I would imagine that's why we are missing those quote marks around the complacency and defeat comment.

Because he didn't say it.

I feel certain we are going to be seeing lots more fiction being written via the White House in the days ahead regarding Governor Dean, as well as any other Democratic/Republican leaders speaking the truth.

[CWebster]

40. You can tell he is the force they fear the most

After all, Dean can actually attract a crowd, whereas they have to hire or bus them in for Bush.

[Zhade]

50. Going to highlight this for the ones who don't get it yet...

Because he didn't say it.

[calimary]

114. That's because they're probably scared to death of him.

He's the last person they want to meet in a dark alley and he's their worst nightmare. Just be mindful in the days, weeks, and months ahead, that they'll be doing anything they think they can get away with to chip away at him and make him less of an adversary. We HAVE TO STAY STRONG and resist ALL of this. They're trying to tear him down now so they won't have to deal with the grief he's going to rain down on them later.

All it proves is just how shaken they are by the fact that this guy just won't go away. Especially when they thought for sure they'd nailed his coffin shut after Kerry took over the top spot. They were hoping against hope that Howard Dean would be just another has-been, another rut in the road that they'd left far behind, much to their relief. They were WRONG. And they're scared now. If nothing else, this is truly lovely for its unexpectedness. The enemy (and make NO mistake, that's EXACTLY what they are) did NOT expect Howard Dean to rise again. They thought they'd killed him and scattered his followers permanently. We saw that with the Pharisees and their hitmen friends who do crucifixions almost two thousand years ago, too.

Let the games begin.

[mazzarro]

19. People - this is not as bad as some on this forum will make it

Dean is simply and clearly identifying the kind of tact that it will take to bring back the democratic party into the game. We can all admit that Gingrich's political savy did a lot for the reThugs. Then when you couple that with KKKarl Rove election and political machinations, we get this seemingly unending reThuglican control of the govenment. We will be remiss if we do not learn what makes our opponent succeed and how to emulate and neutralize their strenghts. Beside the possible propagandistic slant in the article, we should welcome the fact that Dean is scanning the horizon to identify the lanscape properly rather just closet himself with a few assumptions and so-called experts. We should also accept the fact that Clinton's bequeathal to the democratic party has been so much the bane of the party's problems and hardships in elections since his presidency.

[Hardrada]

21. I agree.

The DLC idea of centrism moves the Dems further and further right as the repugs shift way over. Also the lack of ideological rage with which the Far Right fuels its advances. You can organize and rally around love and reason but it is easier, and primarily, FASTER, to organize around hatred. The repugs learned this long ago. I think Dean is aware of this problematic (for Dems) situation also.

[Guaranteed]

43. And they're going way out of their way to do it.

It's pretty fucking disgusting, in my mind.

Get with the program, folks. Stop trying to cause problems.

[marcologico]

22. Why am I not surprised. n/t

[CWebster]

42. And why aren't we? nt

[regnaD kciN]

23. Let's see...this is from a Faux News reporter...

...as filtered through U.S. Skews and World Distort.

Are we going to start relying on Newsmax as a source next?

[JVS]

24. The fox who stole the chickens is smarter than the dog that failed to...

protect the chickens.

[President Jesus]

27. I'm sorry. Who was elected pres twice and who was booted from...

...office by his own party?

Newt explits hate. Sorry...nothing admirable there.

[JVS]

30. Who presided over his own party's loss of congress?

Who can still look back and see his own party's domination of congress that he helped bring about?

Clinton left nothing behind. Gingrich left a robust party behind

See also #14

[BlueInRed]

31. Am I correct about this?

As I recall, we got our butts kicked in Congress in 94, after the health care stuff and Gingrich's contract scam and lost a ton of seats in Congress.

In 96 (still Clinton's term), we gained seats in Congress, I think in both houses, but I'm not sure.

In 98 (still Clinton's term), we gained seats in Congress too.

I think we gained seats in the House in 2000 as well (what should have been Gore's term).

We got clobbered in 02 with the "me too, like they said" campaign.

We got clobbered some more in 04, partially from redistricting scams and partially for other reasons. (Not trying to start a war on the reasons we got clobbered, either.)

So, if my memory is correct about the seats in Congress, while we got walloped in 94, for the remainder of Clinton's term, we gradually gained back those lost seats. We also gained back seats in the stolen election of 2000. It has only been since Clinton and Gore stepped off the stage completely that we have started getting walloped again.

If I am incorrect and we lost seats in 96 and 98 (the Clinton years) or 2000, feel free to correct me. I'm just working off memory.

[JVS]

32. Who controls every branch of government? Who controls squat?

Gingrich served his party better than Clinton served us

[BlueInRed]

33. That wasn't the question, it was about numbers

I was seeking confirmation on the numbers. The commentary I can assess for myself.

If you can refute the numbers and the years, great. If not, I'm sure someone else will either confirm or refute my recollection on the numbers.

I'm not trying to engage you on how you feel about Clinton, as that is pretty obvious already. I'm trying to confirm hard facts about the way the numbers played out in Congress each election year for the past decade and a half, nothing more, nothing less.

[JVS]

49. I'm not sure about the numbers, but even a gain that brings no majority...

is not a significant victory. Particularly in the house where all seats are up for grabs every 2 years. Gaining a few seats in the house but without a majority is really just losing an election cycle by less. If you are willing to accept milder defeats as victory, so be it, but most of us would prefer the genuine article. There are no point-spreads in politics

[BlueInRed]

66. Sorry, I disagree

So Clinton mishandled the situation in 94. However, he learned his lesson and helped regain ground in the House and Senate during his entire term. In 2000 (which should have been Gore's term), we had control of the Senate and were close to taking the House back. This all occurred while Clinton endured eight years of investigating that only revealed he was a philanderer.

I am not going to blame Clinton for losses in the House and Senate that occurred after he left. The 2000 election was about Monica, but we didn't lose seats that election. And actually, we didn't "lose" the presidency either. It wasn't until 2002 that the trend headed downward.

In my view, the numbers and trends speak for themselves. Other than 94, we gained seats under Clinton. After he left, we started losing ground again.

It is much like having a star quarterback who always manages to pull the game out in the end. Then the star quarterback gets injured, a new one is sent in, and the replacement can't win any games. I'm not going to blame the original quarterback because his replacement is incapable of winning. The problem is our team lacked depth and when the star exited the stage, there was no one of sufficient stature and talent to take his place. Clinton bears no responsibility for the Congressional campaigns of 2002 and 2004, which are the first elections since 1994 that we lost ground on.

I don't buy the anti-Clinton argument. The people responsible for our current situation are the D leaders who managed (or should I say mangled) the 2002 and 2004 Congressional campaigns, not Clinton.

Clinton and Dean are both fine in my book.

[President Jesus]

26. Newt is almost singlehandedly responsible for our polarized country

Sure, there has always been a spirited rivalry between the GOP and Dems, sometimes even nasty. But no one exploited this better than Newt. Starting in the early 90s. he (and his henchmen of pundits, columnsists, and radio personalities--many groomed by the Heritage Foundation) successfully turned partisan rivalry into a near holy war of hate. The "Contact With America" is simply a hollow front...the true power behind Newt's movement is hate and greed.

Yes, this has helped them gain a minute edge in the House and Senate, and a razor-thin edge in the electoral college. But how sustainable is a majority fueled by visceral emotion and not in reality or facts? And a bigger question: how good has this been for the country?

If Dean thinks this is the direction the Democrats should go in, he is a total asshole, and bad not just bad for the party, but for the country.

[Roxy66]

88. FOX News started around the same time..and spewed hate 24/7

[BlueInRed]

29. I take this as saying that

he admires the way Gingrich and crew sold their ideas to the public and created a media force to be reckoned with.

And I also think that Democrats in Congress in the 90s relied so heavily on Clinton's amazing verbal skills and veto pen that some of them forgot how to frame arguments out of lack of practice. I think a lot of Democrats just kind of sat back and let Clinton do the talking, and then when he was gone, there was a huge void that didn't get filled by equally strong and articulate Democratic voices.

I imagine part of my impression comes from having heard Dean talk about the success of the Republicans in using framing techniques. My guess is the stuff about Gingrich was taken from a discussion on framing issues. JIMO.

An aside, when I was typing this, I kept typing "Grinch" instead of "Gingrich". I wonder if that was a freudian slip of sorts!

[mandyky]

34. I'd say Dean admires both for different reasons

Dean plans on using the Newt & Ralph Reed model the GOP has used over the past 20 to grow their party.

He has made his admiration for Clinton clear in past speeches.

You also have to consider the source - this is from a Fox interview..

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[The Backlash Cometh]

36. I read, "How the Contract with America continues to SLAP the nation"

[CWebster]

37. Highly suspect quote or context

Dean goes out of way to pay homage to Clinton.

[Guaranteed]

41. I'm sorry, but why EXACTLY are people here trying to undermine our

new party chairman????

[Zhade]

45. Anyone stupid enough to buy this should check #3 and #6.

Please tell me you're not dumb enough to believe this source quoting something out of context.

HELLO. FOX scumbag involved! Lack of credibility, anyone?

[Guaranteed]

47. That's not even the issue. I expect Dean DID say something like this,

but some "Democrats" here just feel the need to stab our party's chairman in the back while he's trying to fix our problems by distorting what he said and blowing it out of proportion. Pretty fucking funny.

[CWebster]

53. Note the opportunity to bash Dean--

Yet, I have learned to stay off their Kerry luv fest threads. You would think they would return the courtesy for the sake of party strength.

[bklyncowgirl]

51. Dean admires Gingrich's skills not his policies--there's a big difference

He also got criticized for saying that he "hates the Republicans and everything they stand for" but admires their political operation and got accused of being too harsh by some of the same people who are trashing him on this thread.

The point I think is to look at the sort of political institutions and alliances that conservatives have built up over the years and apply the lessons learned from their successes to build up an effective opposition. If you don't see the wisdom in that, then I guess you just prefer to keep on doing what we've been doing and eventually we'll get another Bill Clinton who'll not only have incredible political skills but the good fortune to run against a divided right wing.

Bill Clinton is an incredible politician on a personal level but the Republicans have built up a machine that can run a mediocrity like George W. Bush and win. The Democrats have to do the same.

I have my doubts personal about Howard Dean and his motivations as I do any politician, but on this matter the man is dead on right and taking quotes out of context to make it seem that he said something he did not is simply not right.

[Guaranteed]

52. Great post. Too deep for some here, apparently. nt

[NewJeffCT]

84. good post

I'd even hesitate to credit George W. Bush with being even a mediocrity. Bush is abysmal and still won. And, even if you think he stole the election it was close enough for them to steal when Kerry was far more intelligent and far more qualified than George W. Bush. Barry Goldwater probably spun over in his grave several times during the campaign season...

Reagan was a mediocrity - at least he had the guts to stand up and take the blame for things if they went bad - the Marines getting killed in Beirut and Iran-Contra. Bush is not even man enough to do that.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

119. The Repubs are selling cow patties as cheeseburgers using psychology.

And it works. Read the history of manipulation and sales. It is used in politics to sell war and torture. And it works.

http://www.rense.com/general12/believe.htm
(Why Americans Will Believe Almost Anything by Tim O'Shea)

>snip<

In Trust Us We're Experts, Stauber and Rampton pull together some compelling data describing the science of creating public opinion in America. They trace modern public influence back to the early part of the last century, highlighting the work of guys like Edward L. Bernays, the Father of Spin.

From his own amazing chronicle Propaganda, we learn how Edward L. Bernays took the ideas of his famous uncle Sigmund Freud himself and applied them to the emerging science of mass persuasion. The only difference was that instead of using these principles to uncover hidden themes in the human unconscious, the way Freudian psychology does, Bernays used these same ideas to mask agendas and to create illusions that deceive and misrepresent, for marketing purposes.

As 1920s spin pioneers like Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays gained more experience, they began to formulate rules and guidelines for creating public opinion.

They learned quickly that mob psychology must focus on emotion, not facts. Since the mob is incapable of rational thought, motivation must be based not on logic but on presentation.

Here are some of the axioms of the new science of PR:

* technology is a religion unto itself
* if people are incapable of rational thought, real democracy is dangerous
* important decisions should be left to experts
* when reframing issues, stay away from substance; create images
* never state a clearly demonstrable lie

CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD PROPAGANDA

As the science of mass control evolved, PR firms developed further guidelines for effective copy. Here are some of the gems:

- dehumanize the attacked party by labeling and name calling

- speak in glittering generalities using emotionally positive words

- when covering something up, don't use plain English; stall for time; distract

- get endorsements from celebrities, churches, sports figures, street people...anyone who has no expertise in the subject at hand

- the 'plain folks' ruse: us billionaires are just like you

- when minimizing outrage, don't say anything memorable

- when minimizing outrage, point out the benefits of what just happened

- when minimizing outrage, avoid moral issues

>snip<

I say we fight the propaganda with Proper-ganda, using communication tools that are proven to work but deliver the TRUTH instead of LIES.

[welshTerrier2]

54. i'm not a "Deanie" but this is a cheap shot

the OP is quoting a right-wing author ... the only actual quote from Dean provided in the article was that Gingrich "created a real success for the right wing." No quote from Dean supports the assertion in the OP that Dean "admired" Gingrich ... if he actually expressed an "admiration" at all, it appears to have been for Gingrich's success, not for the policies he espoused ... your post makes it seem otherwise ..

and also, no quote in the article made any reference to Clinton whatsoever ... the statement "Clinton, meanwhile, led the Dems into complacency and defeat." were the author's "FOX" words, not Dean's ...

it seems like a pretty cheap shot to busy yourself quoting a right-wing author who failed to support the "FOX" words he used without providing any support for what Dean actually said ... if you have a case against Dean to make, then make it, but don't use unsupported FOX authors as a source when they provide no basis for their allegations ...

[CWebster]

55. Who needs Republicans to smear us, eh? nt

[Guaranteed]

56. But, hey, at least he didn't say he hated them, because you know

that would be HORRIBLE too. :shrug:

[marcologico]

57. Guys, attack the message, not the messenger, okay?

Not everybody admires Fang but try not to take it personally.

[Guaranteed]

59. No, this is bullshit. Dean's trying to fix things, and this is

how people repay him. Sorry if I don't feel so sympathetic to these ungrateful backstabbers.

[marcologico]

73. Uh, maybe, but not everybody sees it that way. All I'm saying is

why do you guys have to attack other DUers personally?

One thing I admire about Kerry is that he plays a clean game, meaning no personal attacks, and after all this time I've never seen any evidence to the contrary, and I'm sure if it existed I would have.

And I do NOT consider Dean "a DUer." He's a politician, we're voters, and that makes him fair game. Likewise Kerry.

[sendero]

86. Yes..

.... he never really even attacks a Rep, and that's why he is still a senator.

[marcologico]

95. No, but he attacks their policies. And smear jobs left Deano in the corn

patch. Reps might eat it up, but I don't see it as a winning strategy for us.

[Rose Siding]

103. More whining about "you guys"

As long as the phrasing of the attack is directed broadly it's ok, right?

All you anti-reform dems must be having a real tough time knowing Dean will chair the DNC.

[CWebster]

62. Sometimes I wish we had voted for that karma system...

[IndianaGreen]

58. Last time I saw Clinton, he was standing next to Poppy Bush

Great friends the two have become. The ruling class is telling us dumb sheep that everything is fine with America.

[John_H]

68. Last time I saw Nader he was having breakfast with Norquist. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

77. Is That The Effete Looking Fella Who Wears A Beard To Look Manly?

eom

[John_H]

69. Last time I saw Nader he was having breakfast with Norquist. n/t

[RetroLounge]

61. "We learn this from Fox television's Major Garrett"

Wow, and what does Drudge think of this?

:eyes:

RL

[John_H]

71. Hey DNC Press Kids: how about using this one to wack FOX?

Jes, darlinks, I know we customarily ignore this so as "not to draw attention to it" as per the judo chess handbook. but what if we, for once, fought this one like the other guys would fight it?

Since we know this is out of context at best we (after fining out what dean actually said, natch) demand a tape from ol' Major. Maybe have Dean do it. See, major's made up shit before and gotten nailed.

Be interesting to see what happens, eh?

[KittyWampus]

63. DU'ers Take The Mediawhores' Bait YET AGAIN! No Direct Quote

and what DOES have quotes is a partial sentence.

Hellooooooooooooooooooo...

:eyes:

[Pepperbelly]

64. there is much about this discussion that is amusing ...

First, even though I support Dr. Dean for DNC chair, I do note that had this article been about virtually any opponent of Dr. Dean, some of his supporters would be hyperventilating about DLCs and DINOs and whatever else they could put their tongues (or keyboards) to.

Second, I am seeing people here actually DEFEND Gingrich over Clinton. :eyes:

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[American Tragedy]

70. Here we go again.

Seems like Dean has a way of expressing ideas that are obviously legitimate and have already been said by a hundred different people before, but he phrases them in the most inept, unpolitic, foot-in-mouth way possible, thus guaranteeing a distracting, totally unnecessary soundbyte to confront at every interview.

I have to admit, I can't decide if this is actually a characteristic of Dean in particular, or just another casuality of a vindictive media that deliberately tries to sow scandal by distorting language and context. This is the unbearable struggle of every politician for the past twenty years, and I guess he and everybody else will just have to figure it out.

[zulchzulu]

74. Is that a jab at Clinton for backing others or does Dean want to have...

..led the Dems into complacency and defeat...too?

Why mention a low-life like Newt and use him as a role model? Um...Howard? Dude...

[lojasmo]

75. I piss on this thread from a considerable height EOM

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

78. Dean is absolutely correct in this

and hopefully, he';ll be able to lead the Democrats to a similar succes in 2006.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. If You Think The Dems Will Pick Up Fifty Four House Seats

In 06 with the current system of gerrymandered districts I have a bridge I want to sell you....


It will be years if not decades before the Democrats can take back the House or Senate...

[Walt Starr]

89. We don't need to pick up 54 seats

Just a few, my friend, just a few. And Dean could make that a reality.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

80. I See Nothing To Admire About That Portly Mother Fucker

eom

[Q]

81. Garrett has been a lying, RWing talking head for many years...

...and the very fact that he now works for Fox says alot about his character. He is no more a 'journalist' than Armstrong Williams.

This is a one parapgraph blurb in which the word 'admire' is a quote from Garrett, not Dean. In other words...this is another hit piece meant to divide Dems and make Dean look 'strange'.

Many Democrats are beginning to realize that Clinton hurt the Democratic party more than he helped it. The legacy of the Clinton DLC continues to divide the party to this day.

[Ripley]

82. Not meant to make Dean look "strange" but "weird."

See post #2. I guess alerting doesn't work in this forum. I don't normally come in here, because it is so full of operatives, but DAMN.

[meow2u3]

83. Dean to take pages out of Newt's playbook?

Sounds so to me.

Let's hope Dean succeeds in using the repunks' own tactics against them and afterwards, watch them shit so many bricks they can build their own shithouse.
hee, hee, hee

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. Gingrich Isn't A Demigod...

He rode an historical wave that began with Nixon's southern strategy....


If you look at the House and Senate the lion's share of Democratic losses are in the south...


Isn't Gingrich the genius who suggested folks one day will honeymoon on the space shuttle... That's smart trying to get a piece in zero gravity....


Yeah, and he said we should go back to having orphanages....

[meow2u3]

98. I never suggested the Grinch was one

I was suggesting that Grinch was a master at propaganda, and that Dean would use Newtie's own propaganda tactics against the repunks and in the Dems' favor.

[Roxy66]

85. Are you guys really surprised? I questioned his appointment as DNC

chair here, on DU, the other day..and I may as well have been the anti-christ. he should not be using Gingrich as a role model. I really do not want to see our party lowering it's self to lies , deception and dirty tricks!!!

[AntiCoup2K4]

94. You mean like they did in Iowa last year?

No, of course there would never be "lies , deception and dirty tricks" in this party, and definitely not from the DLC types :eyes:

[demwing]

92. This thread is the shits

spreading bullshit Republican propaganda about Dean AND Clinton.

Kerrygoddess -- you should be ashamed.

[lojasmo]

120. "Kerrygoddess -- you should be ashamed."

Just thought it ought to be in a subject title.

[blm]

93. I'm all for it. Gingrich DEFINED Dems in the media. He was DECEPTIVE and

it worked, unfortunately, because the media LET HIM GET AWAY WITH THE LIES.

If Dean can get even HALF the truth out about the Republicans and their REAL agenda, he will be a success in my book. It will be hard with a GOPcontrolled media who caters to the rightwing talking points for their corporate masters.

[cestpaspossible]

96. "We learn this from Fox television's Major Garrett"

who would never, ever, offer a selective quote or an out of context paraphrase designed to divide Democrats.

[kodi]

97. Dean reminds me of Bob Gibson, & his brush-back pitches to the chin

Dean was correct about Gingrich's effectiveness in building a Congressional organization to capture the Congress for the GOP and articulating a vision for GOP supporters that they could mouth mantra-like.

Clinton was Clinton and his (and Morris') triangulaton strategies cut off many Congressional Democrats at the knees.

As was said earlier, Clinton won his battle but in doing so, the Democrats lost the war.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

99. Dean is right. Clinton did lead the party to complacency and defeat.

Clinton was a mediocrity with a glib tongue and a knack for salesmanship. The Democrats have been losing since he took office due to the good fortune of Perot running and keeping because Dole was close to being a non-candidate.

The DLC/DNC still cling to his notion that being a party without a platform other than "not as bas as the Republicans" is winner, despite the continual losses.

[BurtWorm]

101. Kinda true what he says.

Isn't it?

[zulchzulu]

102. Neither Newt or Bill could keep their dick in their pants...but...

..It's who the media decided to go after.

Newt was boinking his intern at the same time Bill was "not" having sex. Bill got trapped while Newt got a free pass.

Both Newt and Bill had about the same song and dance routine...Bill moving "to the center" and Newt moving "to the middle" at least with platitudes and cornball bumpersticker politics...all the while both were for NAFTA and cutting benefits for the poor.

[theboss]

105. Newt won the most staggering political victory in history

Why wouldn't you admire that? I'm not talking about the policies that resulted. I'm simply talking about the genious of nationalizing the local House and Senate races, ending 40-year Democratic control, and changing the balance of power for over a decade.

We are still dealing with '94.

[Norquist Nemesis]

106. Umm...Who says Dean said?

I'm considering the source first and Faux anything doesn't make the list of non-biased, credible information.

The real question, IMO: WHY IS THIS "NEWS"? Is corporate media launching a last chance all out hit on Dean trying to prevent him from being DNC Chair?

They really never do stop. *sigh*

[madfloridian]

107. You misquoted. See my post of Dean's views on Clinton.

I was going to post his views on the last decades, so I just added a little about Clinton. Dean admires him, but he is very clear about what happened to our party by moving to the right.

[NYCGirl]

110. This picture was taken right before they got into a fistfight:

:eyes:

[madfloridian]

111. I love that picture.

That girl was referred by the photographer as an au pair for the children, and I remember thinking...they could have at least put her name.

[NYCGirl]

115. His kids were so cute...Paul looks just like his dad. NT

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[lonestarnot]

118. Not to be believed! Major Garrett! Faux Snooze! n/t

[brainshrub]

123. Dammit Dean, stop telling it like it is!

The truth hurts to much.

Gingrich, for all his loathsome qualities, is a brilliant political strategist.

[jswordy]

126. ROFLMAO! DIS THE SOURCES FOR THIS!!!

ROFL...I mean, I'm scanning down the thread going, "Shit, they ALWAYS SAY the news media ia so biased, so rightist, so bought and paid for, etc."

U.S. News, which as a former subscriber I can tell you is at least Lieberman right and maybe a bit moreso, learns from freakin' FAUX NEWS' shill Major Garrett something Garrett claims he got from an interview with Howard Dean.

UNDER EDIT: I did indeed find some people smart enough to see throught this bullshit here, so I had to alter my post! Good for all of you!

[WilliamPitt]

128. Another example of two-dimensional black-and-white DU groupthink

in this thread.

Dean is wise to admire Gingrich, because Gingrich managed to wrestle congress out of the Democratic hammerlock that had existed for 40 years. One succeeds by emulating the victors. I hope Dean is also an admirer of Ralph Reed, perhaps the most effective grassroots political organizer of this generation.

But wait, Gingrich is bad, and Reed is bad, so Dean wanting to model a Democratic insurgency on their model must be bad, too.

No wonder we lose so much. Sheesh.

[merh]

130. I agree with you!

:shrug: Why do folks take the bait?

I hope that Dean is as successful as Gingrich and doesn't make the same silly mistakes that Clinton made. No matter what shape our economy was in at the end of Clinton's presidency, the fact of the matter is the democratic party is weak and Clinton is partially, if not wholly responsible for that. Why is it our candidates have to fight the "moral majority agenda" - why does that matter? Think about it gang, who willingly fell victim to their game?

[NYCGirl]

131. Right you are, Will.

Also about Reed (from an interview last June):

Rick Folbaum: ...and Republicans...

Howard Dean: True.

Rick Folbaum: ...to try to figure out a way to band your party together. What have you learned?

Howard Dean: Well, I think that Newt Gingrich and Ralph Reed were very, very effective in organizing the Republicans. I think that particularly Gingrich never let a seat in Congress go uncontested, almost, and we need to start doing that. We also need to form a credible opposition party. That was one of Gingrich's great strengths. He turned the Republicans into a really feisty, tough opposition party, and then it became the majority. Democrats have gotta do that and I think we're on our way to doing it.

http://www.crocuta.net/Dean

[A-Schwarzenegger]

132. BZZZZZT.

My problem is that nowhere in the material referenced
or quoted is there a single word from Dean about Clinton,
yet the OP claims that Dean does not admire Clinton, period.
The title/post was either a deliberate attempt to divide, or
simply an inadvertent slip of the keyboard, mm-hm.

Try this to wash the bad taste out:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1574061

[Moderator]

133. I'm locking this thread

reason:

flamebait/ incorrect headline