Yo Howard, "You're Not Here to Make Policy".............

[DemocracyInaction]

Still chewing nails from hearing an interview with Paul Begala on Imus this a.m. Begala was being a real ass and complaining all over the place about the Dem Party. There was a bunch of whinning about how he and Carville weren't given the reins of the Kerry campaign, etc. (I'm sure they would have given us just a total overwhelming victory)......He was complaining about how we have big, deep problems, blah, blah. Then Imus asked him how he felt about Dean being elected as head of the DNC.

Begala paused and then said "time will tell" or "we'll see" (somethng of that nature) and then quickly added something. He said that one of the big Dems in Congress told Dean that he was there (as head of DNC)to raise money, coordinate activities, etc. BUT reminded him that he was NOT there to make policy!!! And, quite frankly, I do believe that that is exactly the message Begala was giving about how he really felt about Howard. Anyway, I suddenly saw a lot of red.

I have the gut feeling the big boys let Howard have the chairmanship to appease us of the grassroots and tap into the money we sent in this last campaign BUT that they have no interest in having Howard actually opening his mouth. I realize that the DNC chair is not a policy maker but just because this 'congressman' had to confront Dean in that way makes me believe they will try to gag him and/or when he speaks out, people like the Lieberman's among them, will be disagreeing with him publicly on the talk shows, etc.

Do these stupid people realize that their methods are not working and that we need to try something else?? I wasn't a Dean supporter; but I'm not an idiot who wants to keep pounding their head on the same concrete wall. I think the 'powers that be' know exactly what kind of candidate they want in '08 (if not one already being pushed for) and that that candidate will be another total loser in the national election! I wonder how long Dean will stay with this job?? If they start fighting him, I can see him telling them to go to hell and walk.

[Cocoa]

1. Begala and Carville are the big losers here

Begala went so far as to smear Dean over the bogus "scandal" involving Daily Kos, and Begala even agreed with Novak about Dean not being fit to lead the party (as if Novak's opinion is at all relevant).

I think Begala won't have much of a role in the DNC under Dean.

[Skidmore]

3. They are losers because they and those like them

will have to find new lines of work. It sucks to lose control. Bet Begala and Carville switch sides.

[DemocracyInaction]

5. Cocoa--that's real interesting

I think those two have hopes of working on someone else's (cough, cough) bid for the presidency and they do not want the Dems shaking any boats. They still live in the fable that our future lies with bringing all those moderate republicans over to our side----they don't realize that that will never happen because now it is a virtual religion NOT to ever vote Dem no matter what to those people. That's why I'm afraid of Dean being undercut and hunted by our own people. And that will definitely spell defeat "as far as the eye can see".

[Voltaire]

24. Not to worry

Folks like Carville and Begala have each other. Howard Dean has US!

I like our chances with US!

[Guaranteed]

28. They're finished. Why can't they just get over it?

No, seriously, Paul- sit down. You're done.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

51. Unfortunately,

the coup de grace has yet to come.

[Guaranteed]

54. What coup de grace is that? nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

55. The coupe de grace that exorcises

the Begalanistas from the Democratic soul.






Begalanese?
Begalanites?
Begalacans?
:shrug:

[Cha]

56. "begalacans"!

:D

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

57. Oh yeah:

[RapidCreek]

77. All he is responsible for is raising money? That's it, huh?

He's not making policy? He doesn't have the power to, if he so chooses? I don't know.....in todays world money talks and bullshit walks.

Thing is, I think Howard will be closely involved in setting policy, I think he'll be a major player and that's what worries me.....I'm not real sure if Howard is a "what you see, what you get" kinda' guy or not. His record seems to reflect a pretty corporate friendly mind set....which, I suppose, is not a terrible thing if that friendliness is equatable to all interests and judiciously implemented to the good of the whole. That's the thing though, is it and will it be?

Why make such a big deal of it anyway? Whether Dean is involved in setting policy is really not a major issue to most Americans...why are they attempting to make it one? What could we do about it if we had a problem with it anyway? Not much. So what will happen on down the line which might relate to this "situation" we've been introduced to?

The fact is, is that there is no clear Democratic Policy...or if there is, it is not one which is readily accessible or apparent either in form or function, at to the common man, like myself. So my question is this; Who, and I mean exactly who, by name, who is setting the policy for the Democratic Party? My second question is; What exactly is this policy, word for word?

All the bellicose pronouncements in the world are really just window dressing framing a view of nothing, until those questions are answered.



Peace and Inner Harmony,

RC

[mitchtv]

6. well , then Begala can continue to cheerlead for Bush in Iraq

CNN liberal to be sure

[FreedomAngel82]

65. Recently

Mr. Reid was talking about Dean and he said how he and Mrs. Pelosi were looking forward to working together with Dean and stand shoulder to shoulder. Why trust what paid news pundts say?

[Skwmom]

79. They are losers.

They were pushing for Edwards. Considering the Dems lost on the national security issue, I don't think they are fit to give anyone advice.

[NYCGirl]

2. I heard it and believe it or not, what he said is a distinct improvement

over what he usually says about Dr. Dean.

[Sandpiper]

4. Begala is a DLC tool

Angry that his time is over.

[DemocracyInaction]

7. Sandpiper---that reminded me of something else he said in that

interview. He was pissing all over the Kerry campaign and then stated that he had more "friends" in the Bush campaign (and proudly rattled them off and all the former business ties he has had with them) than he did in the Kerry campaign. Why do I have a feeling that if he and James were let into the Kerry campaign, they would have gone the extra mile to make good goddamn sure he lost!???

[FreedomAngel82]

66. Bingo

I could see that. A spy for the Bush/Cheney campaign.

[grasswire]

70. and a friend of Karl Rove

He openly admits that.

[yurbud]

8. Corporate whores versus the rest of us

those who are slamming Dean still want to catch whatever crumbs of corporate money the GOP doesn't eat, not realizing that those same corporations are asking electe Dems to shut up as they are led to the slaughter.

We need people who will speak up and stand for the rest of us.

If someone has specific differences of opinion with Dean, fine. But if they are just going to make these schoolgirl catty remarks, someone needs to telll them to shut the fuck up.

[crispini]

9. "Do not speak ill of a Democrat in public."

Hear that, Begala! DON'T SPEAK ILL OF A DEMOCRAT IN PUBLIC!

[Fleshdancer]

10. Oh, did the poor liddle widdle DC insider lose his influence???

And what the hell have YOU done for the Democratic Party lately Begala??? As far as I can see, getting pouty about the elected chairman isn't useful to me. Heaven forbid someone tries to do something that WORKS for all Democrats instead of what best benefits your ego.

[hermetic]

11. I just got this letter from Dean

Dear Me,
On Saturday, I was honored when your representatives on the Democratic National Committee elected me Chairman. And I can't wait to get started. But when they voted, it wasn't about me -- they were voting for a plan for the future of our party.

That plan came from people like you -- from conversations I had with ordinary Democrats across the country. When those 447 people voted in Washington this weekend, they united around that plan.

Now I'm asking you to do the same. Those 447 people were a good start, but make no mistake -- I know that this is also your party. And our plan to reform the party can only become a reality with your endorsement.

Please read our plan -- and commit to making it a reality:

http://www.democrats.org/plan

Your representatives in the DNC mandated bottom-up reform -- growing the Democratic Party in your neighborhood and every other community in America. They voted to compete in every state for every level of office. And they demanded a Democratic Party that stands up for itself and for an agenda that reflects our values.

They didn't elect me because they think I can accomplish these things. They elected me because I believe that only you can.

Every single one of us must take responsibility for building our party. It's not enough to simply vote for Democrats -- in order to win, every one of us must deliver our message and values into our own community.

That means changing the way we do business, and that's what this plan is about. The Republicans' biggest victory has been to convince many Democrats that we can only win by abandoning our values and doing what they say.

It's one of their favorite tactics -- just watch how right-wing pundits talk endlessly about the internal politics of our party. They try to divide Democrats by ideology just as they divide all Americans by race or gender or faith.

But there is no crisis of ideology in the Democratic Party, only a crisis of confidence. Bill Clinton once described the Democratic Party's problems in the era of George W. Bush, saying that in uncertain times people would rather have a leader who is strong and wrong than weak and right.

He's exactly right. And we become both weak and wrong when we abandon our core values for short-term political gain. But when we Democrats talk straight and stand up for ourselves, we have a huge advantage: We are both strong and right.

Millions of Americans became Democrats last year. They sensed that they live in a society where ordinary people's problems and interests don't matter to our government. They chose the Democratic Party because we represent commonsense reform.

And millions more will become Democrats this year as we protect the Democratic Party's greatest achievement. We will not allow George Bush to phase out Social Security -- a Democratic policy that cured an epidemic of poverty among seniors and provides the guarantee of retirement with dignity. Most importantly, millions of Democrats have become true stakeholders in our party. With grassroots action and small-dollar donations, you have taken our party's future into your own hands.

The stakes are too high to wait for others to lead. Every one of us has a personal responsibility for the future of our party -- and the future of our country.

This isn't my chairmanship -- it is ours. So let's get to work together.

[DemocracyInaction]

18. enuf--I couldn't help but think something as I was starting to read your

post. If the state chairs - representing their state organizations - get it and want to change our message and how we operate, and the grassroots people are calling for the same, etc., then why in fucking hell do we have these pricks prancing around the halls of Congress who want things to be as usual: ie., LOSING ALL THE TIME???!!! That tells me that a good many of the 'things' we have elected to Congress no more care about the problems of the American people than do the Republicans and Drug Companies/Oil Companies/Insurance Companies the own and run this nation (and them). Maybe when we shovel out the shit, it should include them. No wonder Unions have trouble getting their people out to vote and then half of them vote Republican. Most of the assholes couldn't identify with a 'worker' except the ones that clean their house or clean their pool. I'm totally disgusted.

[Eloriel]

49. And it's not just rhetoric with Dean, either

He means what he says. Every word of it. One of the most important reasons I was (and am) such a hot Dean supporter is his penchant for sharing power -- he absolutely, positively, FULLY intends to give Power back to The People. That's why they had to stop him, of course. Can't have that. (As Ted Rall, I think it was, said when they forced him out: at least they didn't kill him.)

(This major fact is also why I never could understand why the Kucitizens didn't get it about Dean - - I still can't. I didn't mind they preferred DK, I minded a LOT, and still do, that they didn't get it about Dean. His interest in returning power to The People is revolutionary and IMO far more important, far more far-reaching, than ANY so-called liberal policy position anyone could come up with. Oh well. :shrug: )

[IrateCitizen]

12. Beltway insiders are in a panic over Dean's election to DNC

They see their influence WANING. That's why they're up-in-arms, not because of some substantive policy disagreements. They stand to lose power and influence.

One of Dean's main goals is to decentralized the DNC by concentrating on getting solid operations up and running in all 50 states. A sidebar to this effort is taking the reins of power away from the consultants and giving them to the state chairs.

Begala and Carville are part of the problem in this culture within the Democratic Party. Personally, I think they, along with the whole damned crop of "professional consultants", should be put out to pasture.

[KoKo]

40. Indeed they are. The K -Street/Beltway Boys" are seeing their loss of

power, influence and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'s as a CRISIS.... After all they have little kiddies to send to Harvard/Yale and they are worried about their "Hedge Funds" going South. Their cushy life "on the dole" from Loser Dems is about to come to an End...and they are howling.

OMG! Howard DEAN!!! You CAN'T BE SERIOUS...they say....

ROFLMGO! But...I will say...I do give credit to Carvill and Begala for what they did in the past...It's just that they ended up drinking the Kool Aid and taking the baskets of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'s, from CNN and their INVESTMENTS (much of which Clinton had to sign on to) and so they NOW are WHORES...but at least Clinton wasn't "THE CHIMP!"

[ewagner]

96. But there's something more important

Begala and Carville and the others who have held a monopoly on the consulting fees for this party for the past 8-12 years are on their way out....it's for sure...Pelosi and Reid have made a good decision, but those who have held power and privilege won't go quietly...they will fight...and WE can't let Dean fight them alone! We've got to stand behind him and support him because he has enemies within the party.

Cheering for him isn't enough...we've got to roll up our sleeves and get to work....

[Cha]

58. Jon Stewert doesn't think much of begala,

either..about the same as tucker.

[Andromeda]

63. Exactly.

I think at one time Begala and Carville were beneficial to the Democratic party because they invented the "war room" and the quick-response team.

Republicans copied that and unfortunately one of the unintended consequences is that it's now working for them.

Clinton was elected largely because of Carville's, Begala's and Ron Brown's media skills.

Years of being Washington insiders has tainted them, however, and they've become buddy-buddy with many of the Republican movers and shakers -- Carville even married one.

Their priorities have become blurred and they have ceased to be effective because of it. Carville himself said that he thought the party's decisions should be made in smoke-filled back rooms under a cloak of secrecy.

[KoKo]

68. Good post...time to "move on" from them..they've "moved on from us."

and..in the end it's all about "follow the money." :-( but true. They had their "DAY IN THE SUN." And they live on it with "K-Street $$$$$$$$'s." But...they left us and I can sort of understand how Clinton let them down...whether Monica was a "Plant" or not...it still hurt their and Clinton's credibility.

So...the "rest of us" were left haning out in the cold..so the RWINGERS could eat on our cold carcasses...

I get it...not trashing them...but it's TIME to MOVE ON!!

[ClintonTyree]

13. These people do so at their own peril..................

for WE ARE the Party now, and if they can't or won't follow a winning strategy they do so at the risk of losing their precious seats. No more Mr.Fucking Nice Guy.

[JaneQPublic]

19. Democrats: "WE are the party now"

Well said. That should be the slogan for the new Democratic Party. Hell, I'd buy a T-shirt.

[DemocracyInaction]

14. Oh something else in that interview--is he going to work for Fox??

He was laughing around about how many jobs he has lost now that Crossfire is being cancelled. And then he yucked through a remark about Mr. So-&-So at Fox might as well not waste valuable time and fire him now....or some such thing. If he goes to Fox then we know Paul was the fox (excuse the pun) guarding the hen house. I'm so sick of bastards like these.

[Cha]

59. I see where Martin Frost is going

there.

[isit2008yet]

15. So thats where Fat Limbaugh got his talking points

for today...because the retard said the same thing that Dean was just a fundraiser and not a policy maker. Mark my words; he'll get the reins and he will lead and people will follow. Dean is a strong activist, democrat and he won't take a backseat, do-nothing, figurehead position. He loves this party too much. I'm guessing your hearing a little sour grapes from Begala.

The party needs renewed spirit and that comes with new leadership. The talking heads, i.e. Lieberman and others, do not want to be or viewed as a divided party and will work together...they don't want another '04. My guess is that Dean will control, to some extent, the purse strings too...so its in the best interest of all dems to get along.

[ZinZen]

16. Paul Begala who was pummeled by Jon Stewart??

that corporate shill is feeling the pain of change in the Dem party as he and Carville's "influence" is being overshadowed by Dean at this moment.

Begala is wishing on a star if he thinks Dean is going to be quiet on policy issues. Dean is a magnet and has real charisma and influence, not those silly beltway boys.

[The Gigmeister]

17. Begala was right!

[NYCGirl]

20. Technically, the statement is true, not taking into effect the

job of Chairman is changing.

But I was referring to the frankly snarky tone of the interview referred to.

[mitchtv]

72. so is his wife-

Extreme right, Paul is only center right.

[LittleClarkie]

21. What I don't get is I thought they did come on to the Kerry campaign

toward the end, and I remember that the rapid response seemed to improve. I thought that it was reported that some Clinton people subplanted some of Kerry's original people. It was one of the things that made the Kerry campaign a bit different from Gore's, as some said at the time, since he was making adjustments when things weren't working and Gore hadn't.

But then, I think about what Carville said after the election. And what Bill suggested Kerry do during the election. Perhaps Kerry let them help, but didn't give them free rein, and that's what they resent. But how much more to the right would they have tried to drag him. And were they suggesting things like "support DOMA" and the like.

So perhaps there was a reason for NOT putting these people totally in charge. And it could have been a good one. Hard to tell unless somebody we trust writes a book.

[DemocracyInaction]

23. LittleClarkie--I got the info on that in this interview.

Begala said he went to see the Kerry campaign, told them that they had no message, blah, blah and offered to take over. They said they would call him. That was in June and he never got a call (maybe Novak and Carlson were right when they said that Carville and Begala really didn't want to see Kerry elected because they were tuning up for the Hillary campaign). He said the Carville at some point was broken down and crying-----I don't know if he meant that they 'listened' to James and didn't want him either. But anyway, now you know what happened to Begala. It also must have killed him because he loved all the talk about him going to work for the campaign in need, etc.

[LittleClarkie]

25. I could understand what they were saying about "having a narrative"

I wonder if Cahill stood in the way ultimately, or Shrum.

But I also still wonder what advice they wanted to give, and if it was politically good but morally questionable advice (as with DOMA). Perhaps they wanted to be more involved in "dirty tricks" than Kerry wanted.

Not to imply that Kerry's campaign didn't need help. But I guess I look at Carville sideways because at the end of the day, he doesn't seem to see a problem with being buds with Karl Rove (or in just saying he likes the guy). I find that vaguely ... off somehow. Like there's a moral compass issue in there somewhere.

Perhaps I'm not being fair to Carville and Begala. And I'm not up on what they did for Clinton (or what they might be doing for Hillary, for that matter.)

Carville crying? Does he hate Bush that much?

[sandnsea]

37. McCurry did, a couple of others

But I don't think Begala and Carville ever did. This was a campaign about national security, the majority of the Democratic Party knew that all along. I had the impression the Clinton people thought they could win on the economy. So while McCurry was great on getting a handle on the press, I still think the argument over the central issue of this campaign was the problem. He started turning it around in the debates because that's the first time people had heard HIM talk about national security. If he'd done more of that, earlier on, we might have had a different outcome. I don't think Begala and Carville would have gone that direction either. My best guess is that Kerry should have listened to nobody but his band of brothers, Teresa and Elizabeth.

[Hippo_Tron]

97. Shrum and Cahill were backbenched in September, Lockhardt took over

Begala and Carville played a smaller advisory role. From September on, the campaign improved.

The reason these people weren't put on in March or April (when they should've been) is because Shrum and Cahill won Kerry the nomination. However, as the nominee I think that he had an obligation to the millions of people counting on him to get Bush out of the White House to hire the best people and Bob Shrum with his 0 for 7 presidential election record is not the best.

[TomClash]

22. Begala

. . . can dish it out but can't take it. Clinton used him a decade ago to help take out Cuomo and he was pretty effective at it.

But he whines like a wet weasel when someone takes him on. It's his least endearing character trait.

[Adelante]

26. Dean's been saying the same thing, actually

He's concentrating on party building, raising money, and the nuts and bolts of winning elections. Party chair is not a policy-making position, as you say. He knows it, too. He's got a whole lot to get done and will be working his ass off on reforming the party structure and getting Dems elected. He'll have some public role, but it's not going to be what many DUers seem to have expected.


"The proper place for the day-to-day battles is Congress," Dean said in response to a question about his opposition to the war in Iraq. "My views are well known, but most of the policy pronouncements will be coming from the leaders in Congress and not from me."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/02/15/politics/p100203S44.DTL


In his meeting with Reid and others, Dean promised to better coordinate the party's message so that the chairman doesn't detract from what its elected officials are trying to say. He has told members of Congress that he will focus almost exclusively on helping recruit and elect Democratic candidates to office.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=472594&page=1

[greenohio]

34. Tis true.

DNC chair does make policy...Dean has said it himself.

[Adelante]

50. Can you show me?

Because it appears from what I've been reading he is saying the opposite.

As I understand it, when there's a Democratic president, that's who sets policy; when there is a Democratic nominee, that's who sets policy; at other times it's the Democratic leadership in Congress. The role of the chair is to carry out policy, not set it.

I don't say he wouldn't have influence on policy, and I'm sure he will, but it's not his job. He may hope to change this, and he may, but it's not what he's saying now.

I actually think this was the tradeoff, he gets to make the structural changes he sees are needed in order to win elections; he keeps out of the policy end. Just my surmise, this part, it's just sounding this way.

Do you have a link where he said the DNC chair makes policy? :hi:

[greenohio]

69. You are right.

It was a mistype. DNC does NOT make policy...as Dean has said. Fingers got ahead of the the head.

[Guaranteed]

27. Tough shit for the DLCers, I guess.

They can say what they want, but the people have spoken.

[BlueInRed]

29. So what have Carville or Begala EVER been elected to...

As far as I can tell, they both make their money off of this stuff, but have never been elected to public office. So who in the hell are they to tell Dean, a former Governor and chair of the DNC, he can't talk about policy.

And do they tell the former President, Bill Clinton, HE can't talk about policy because he's no longer in office? I think NOT.

Yo, Begala, you're not supposed to set policy EITHER.

[blm]

30. Actually, Dean has since met with Dem leaders in Congress and they are

happy with Dean now. It was always just a matter of reversing the lies that the media has been piling on for the last two years.

[Guaranteed]

31. I think our Congresspeople will do well working with Dean,

if they want to have a say in things. :)

[leyton]

32. Carville and Begala *should* have been given control of the Kerry campaign

They have a much better record than Shrum et al at winning campaigns, and we wanted Kerry to win, didn't we?

However, Carville and Begala should realize that though they made Bill Clinton President, they made no lasting contribution to the Democratic party, as evidenced by our loss of the House, Senate, and White House. That's why Dean should be - and is - chair.

[bdiddy04]

44. they won a campaign

The rest of the guys are losers. Dean even lost. So I think any democrat that can win is a good thing.

[Cha]

60. Dean "won" Governorship of

Vermont for 11 years and he "won" the Chairmanship of the DNC.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[katinmn]

35. I'm on the monthly plan, GrovelBot!

I recommend it. Then you never have to think about it.

[bush_is_wacko]

36. Actually that IS what the DNC head does. Policy is supposed to be a

mutually decided issue. Anything less would be, well, the bush administration! Why though would they worry about Dean's policies?! I don't find him in the least to far left or right. I think he is pretty dead on with his views. This is just more rhetoric as far as I'm concerned. ANY publicity is GOOD publicity type stuff. Our politicians seem to have forgotten that the people that donated large amounts to their campaigns represent only a FRACTION of those that voted them in office. I hope Dean reminds them of this!

[Eloriel]

53. DNC CHair ought to be involved in crafting STRATEGY and

POLICY should fit into the overall STRATEGY, it seems to me.

And no matter how I think about it, I can't really see how there won't be some overlap with policy for Dean -- not necessarily that he would craft it, esp. not all by himself, but that he might be involved in helping nudge it in certain directions.

For example, I always thought his position on guns was brilliant -- in actuality it satisfied everyone in pragmatic terms AND took the issue completely off the table, neutered it as one of the GOP's favorite wedge issues. (For those who may not be familiar with his gun position, he said keep and enforce what we have, close gunshow loophole (?), and then let states determine what if anything they need further.)

And I think the grassroots folks who supported Dean would like to see some of his policy positions become part of the Party platform as well.

However, let's face it. There's LOTS he can do without getting near policy for a while. And I trust him implicitly to make the most of his new position.

[bush_is_wacko]

91. Me too. And I am sure he'll put his two cents worth in. If he's smart

and I KNOW he is! He'll get opinions from grassroots organizations on policy and present them front and center so the party can see how many SUPPORT him. Dean really is a great choice for this position! He wants the party to represent the people more than any other candidate I can possibly think of. Let's face it, all the other candidates HAD to drop out. They were getting letter's and emails from people like me telling them Dean was the man.

I even wrote my own states candidate and told him I would not support him OVER Dean. Wellington Webb can't hold a candle to Dean!

[calimary]

38. Yo DNC "Insiders" - YOU are not the ones who got asked to the dance.

YOU got told to sit down and shut up.

So WHY DON'T YOU?

[MissMarple]

39. Well, I dare say, they are feeling a bit left out. And it's about time.

[Teaser]

41. He's right.

Howard isn't there to make policy. Howard knows that, and is fine with it. In fact, he wants it that way.

If you thought it would be otherwise, you have failed to understand what the head of the DNC does.

[DemocracyInaction]

92. Teaser - I think you read my post ass-backwards

Begala said that it was some big Congressman that told Dean he was not there to make policy. I said that I knew the DNC chair's job is NOT to make policy but I wondered why they felt the need to stress that to Dean. The man isn't an idiot. He knows that. That's why I said that it kind of smells to me that they want to make sure that Dean is muzzled.

[Larkspur]

42. By reforming the Dem Party, Dean will indirectly affect policy

He's not going to battle the Dem Ninnies on the Hill over the nuts and bolts of policy, but he will be publicly defending core Democratic principles and promoting the election of fiscally responsible and socially progressive Democrats who will help shape policy directly.

[fnottr]

45. Exactly

Dean knows he isn't going to dictate policy per se, but rather he is going to shift the focus of the party back to the states, and I believe that will greatly affect the nature of who gets nominated to run....and that could change policy, as the washington insiders tend to have somewhat different views than the grassroots.

[simcha_6]

43. We can make it work

Dean's heading the DNC will allow us to endorse and support more liberal, strong-willed candidates for office, and eventually, if all goes well, those new ones who do make policy will take over from the weaker wills currently making Democratic policy.

Check this editorial out.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/15/opinion/15krugman.html?th>

[DemocracyInaction]

93. Simcha---Exactly!!! And I think that is why these insiders are

so nervous about Dean. Why did this 'certain' Congressman have to stress "no policy making" to Dean?? Why did they specifically broker a deal with Dean that he would not run in '08 when that is just a basic, matter of fact assumption, etc. These 'corporate' Democrats (and unfortunately there are a number of them)do not want to see grassroots candidates showing up who are out really and actually fighting Union battles and the like. They want to play the voters but do not want to play in Congress for those voters. Dean's reaching out to the state organizations and building good candidates scares these certain 'fixtures' of the Dem Party.

[Placebo]

46. If Dean wanted to speak his mind and try and set policy...

he should have run for another elected office, not DNC chair. But since he's there, he is really just a vehicle, spokesman, and fundraiser for the real elected officials and candidates, and I'm happy that given his public comments of late he seems to be content with his new subservient role.

[Cha]

61. Yeah, right...Dean-

"subservient".

[Guaranteed]

76. Hey, man....that's the leader of your party you're talking about. nt

[Dr Fate]

47. Begala needs to learn the 11th Commandment:

As another DUer pointed out:

Do not speak ill of DEMS in public!!!

[KoKo]

74. Begala has had a bad habit of that on "Crossfire." I don't know if he

caved and was looking for "other work" like Brazille...but he didn't help us any in the last election.

[Catchawave]

48. In my opinion,

I don't trust any of the Dem pundits who were in place (BN04...before Nov04)) in the media anymore. As far as I'm concerned, they can all go away, what a letdown they all were :(

[janx]

52. Media talking heads/consultants--

have been part of the problem!

[Cha]

62. Like Jon Stewert said..

regarding begala and tucker.

We need our own tv station..

SNIPS~

Conservatives insist that the major problem with American politics is the bias of the liberal mainstream media, but the liberal mainstream media is a childish myth, not unlike unicorns or leprechauns or William Bennett’s virtue. The real problem is that democracy becomes a farce when votes are cast based on corporate propaganda, and in a nation where a network anchorman recently was fired for telling the truth about his employer’s amoral political benefactor, corporate propaganda is the coin of the realm.

As George Soros and other wealthy Democrats analyze the best ways to subsidize the improvement of the American political system, they should realize that nothing would improve this country more than having a powerful liberal media to counteract the reportorial charlatans of the Fortune 500. If journalists were allowed to expose the Republican Party’s blatant criminality, the conservative movement would quickly be discredited and disempowered. As a result, there would be no wars of conquest resulting in massive loss of innocent human life. The Treasury would not be looted for the benefit of multinational conglomerates. Federal judgeships would not be reserved for segregationists and theocrats. The environment would not be used as an industrial septic tank.


More at..
http://makethemaccountable.com/podvin/more/050214_TheLiberalMedia.htm

[lyonn]

75. That was an excellent article

Who's got the money to implement the plan?

[CWebster]

82. The Heinz-Kerrys?

Or, is it all about them?

[Trish1168]

98. The problem isn't that deep....they have to steal elections

in order to win them. If the exit polls were right, Kerry would have won with a pretty good margin.

Most of the country isn't that far to the right. The culture divide (while somewhat real) is mostly hype. People in red states are just trying to get by and raise kids....the same as in blue states. The corpocracy needs to play it up in order to make it believable to us that the majority are right wing crazies like them, and that the democrats are 'out of touch'. Its just not true.

And those (in the narrow minded minority) that believe that 'liberals' are quasi-communists with a radical secular agenda to take God out of society and promote gays and abortions will come to find out real soon (when the economy tanks because it sinks under the weight of our corrupt government) that those issues were distractions. The corrupt regime says..."look over there at those outrageous abortion loving- gay loving radicals", while all the time robbing everyone blind. And just wait until they figure out that the police state that's being created is not for the terrorists.

Its going to be an interesting (and scary) four years.

[candy331]

64. I wonder how long Dean will stay with this job?

I wonder how long Dean will stay with this job?? If they start fighting him, I can see him telling them to go to hell and walk.

I sure hope you are right. I don't want to post negative so I try to keep these thoughts to myself but I don't have a good feeling about Dean as Chair. He gives me hope and I do wish him success but I am prepared for the opposite.

[Adelante]

67. I think he'll do a great job as chair

I just don't think policy is going to be a major area for him. He will have influence, but not real power over policy, is what I mean. I don't see a fight coming out of it, because it looks like he's already agreed. But I think the other stuff, the organizing, the nuts and bolts of party structure and elections, pulling in candidates, and strengthening the state level, the fundraising, he will find very rewarding. Don't forget he ran the Governors association, so this type of executive work is not new to him. I think he will do a great job.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. Sorry, but he's right about not being given reins of the Kerry campaign

Carville, Begala, and Lockhardt are the best that we have and had they been brought on board earlier and given more control I think that there's a great chance that Kerry would be president.

[loudsue]

80. Sorry, Hippo, but I totally disagree.....

They are MOLES, and are in bed with the corporatists. They don't give a shit about WE, THE PEOPLE.... which is what Dean is making sure the American people understand: The Democrats ARE the party of WE, THE PEOPLE, as opposed to the republican party, who support, WE, THE CORPORATISTS.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Hippo_Tron]

95. I wasn't arguing that Begala was right about Dean

But he was completely right about how he and Carville should've run the Kerry campaign.

Carville, Begala, and Lockhardt are the most brilliant political minds in the Democratic party. They got a Governor from nowhere nominated and elected in an electoral landslide. They managed to frame an election where the debate was not about "family values" (which the GOP always thrives on) but about economic issues.

But instead of hiring these guys, Kerry hried Bob Shrum. Bob Shrum is a looser who now has a presidential election record of 0 for 8. It became obvious to Kerry that shrum didn't know what he was doing by September when he was down by 10 points after the GOP convention. He bounced back and it was a tied race but that was only after he fired Shrum and hired Lockhardt and began consulting with Carville and Begala. Now imagine what would've happened if Lockhardt, Carville, and Begala had been running the campaign from March or April. Kerry would've had a significant lead all throughout the summer and the GOP convention would not have been nearly enough to save Bush. After winning all three debates the election would've been pretty much over. Kerry would've won by a comfortable margin if not a landslide and the Osama tapes wouldn't have done jack shit.

[robbedvoter]

86. Kerry won. he is not president because he gave it away afterwards.

Our votes were robbed, and the leftover sold out.

[Hippo_Tron]

94. Kerry had it stolen because it was close enough to steal

Polls showed a dead heat in Ohio and with the non paper-trail diebold machines, you can sure as hell bet that a few thousand votes here and there could be changed.

If Carville, Begala, and Lockhardt had been running the campaign, Kerry would've been five points up in Ohio. Had they tried to steal a five point race, you can damn well bet that Kerry would've challenged the results and Blackwell et al would've been easily caught.

There's a reason that Kerry fired Shrum and Cahill take a backseat to Lockhardt in September, because he was down 10 points after the GOP convention. Had Lockhardt, Carville, and Begala been running it from the beginning, he would've been up in the polls by election day instead of in a dead heat.

The problem is that now these people have another four years to continue to refine their techniques. It may be very possible

[Trish1168]

99. The exit poll differences were bigger than you suggest

They showed 26 states with an average difference of 5%. This is huge. I agree that the democrats need a larger margin to offset the cheating (at the very least to make it more obvious). But then, in my mind, the cheating was obvious in 2004. I guess the margin has to be closer to 20% to make it clear.

It could happen when we get into an economic depression. Its a comin'.

[Hippo_Tron]

101. You have a link to this?

I don't remember there being 26 winnable states period.

[Geek_Girl]

73. He's Right Dean Job is not to Set Policy

His job is to grow and strengthen the democratic party.

But we elect our representatives to set policy. If we don't like the policy then we don't vote for them. It's that simple.

If you want to change policy support and vote for those candidates that support your values and don't support the candidates that go against your core principles.

[JI7]

78. i wish Kerry HAD given control of the campaign to Carville and Begala

[CWebster]

81. It is all for show

They are going to mouth the words, but Dean's DNC acceptance speech was all about "policy" or, in other words, what the Democrats stand for. He IS the man with the plan and the grassroots connection. If he is traveling around the country to rally support and raise funds, he isn't going to be peddling no insider DLC trash. The rest of the lot doesn't have a clue - they have repeatedly demonstrated their cluelessness, but they must put on the pretense they are calling the shots.

A party of millionaires, standing in front of a crowd, joking about how they qualify for Bush's tax cuts is not gonna cut it. A party of Washington insiders dictating policy to some middle class making more than 500k a year while 40% of Americans depend on Social Security as their sole retirement, is not gonna cut up. Elitist politicians, dabbling in issues like a ladies social, preaching that we need to beef up the military while only the poor sacrifice their lives and see opportunities for their children slashed at the same time, are not gonna cut it.

The only thing that will cut it for the Democrats is a strong populist message appealing to class issues of economic opportunity and military figures and blue-blooded insiders can't deliver the message.

Sorry, Dean does carry the message, that is why we rally around him as opposed to them.

[SCDem]

83. My Congressman (Spratt-SC) was on Diane Rehm show

on Monday and said that Dean was going to make a great Chair that the Democratic has already been impacted positively with the people that Dean has brought to the table and the large number of small donors and the fact that he knows how to and is disciplined to stick to a budget. And some might say my Congressman is a DINO, which I don't agree, but even he endorsed and said great things about Dean and Deaniacs in the interview.

So there Mr. Begala :P

[zulchzulu]

84. Dean has stated he is not setting policy already

""We will not set the agenda. That will be set by Democratic congressional leaders."

"I'm not going to get into policy issues. I think my views on Iraq are well-known, but I think the day-to-day battles over what goes on in Iraq, the proper place for that is the Congress and the Democratic leadership of Congress, and I don't see any need for me to make pronouncements on an issue I won't be voting on."

- Howard Dean, Feb. 13, 2005

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050213-121441-4897r.htm

[CWebster]

85. yeah, yeah, yeah

He better, or we won't be sending in our nickels and dimes.

[John_H]

87. What did Begala say that was factually wrong?

Begala is an opportunistic twit who sybolizes everything wrong with the DNC's consultant culture buy here's essentially what he said.

1)He said the dems don't fight hard enough.

2)He said we don't have a unified message.

3)He said bush is a fool.

4)He said Dean is not DNC chair to make policy.

DLC st0oge or not he's right. Once again, Dean worshipers kneejerk hero worship their way into sounding like they don't think about things very hard. Do we really WANT a party chairman, no matter who it is, deeply involved in policymaking?

Think about it for two seconds.

[CWebster]

88. yes.

If we know what is good for us.

but you can pretend it isn't the case if it is the illusion that pleases you.

[Larkspur]

90. True, Dean won't set policy himself, but he'll help elect fiscally

responsible and socially progressive Dems who will.

Also, he will be setting the tone as he goes around promoting core Democratic principles.

[JaneQPublic]

89. Washington consultants shouldn't make policy, either.

And making policy was exactly what Carville and Begalla were trying to do after 9/11 and before the 2002 elections when they coached Democrats to "Hug Bush on Defense," i.e., embrace whatever he wanted on Terrorism, Iraq, etc.

As a result, several Democratic incumbents ran campaign ads bragging about how often they voted with Bush -- on the Patriot Act, Iraq War Resolution, etc. Ultimately, they all went down in defeat because more people voted for real Republicans than people who just voted like them.

[Trish1168]

100. Other Dems should follow Dean's example

Dean is popul-ar because he's a popul-ist. And if anyone doubts his popularity, they haven't been surfing. Any candidate who supports people over politics and corporations will win by big margins.

People want a populist REFORMER. Bring back fair media...stop corporate subsidies...make the vote fair...stop the police state and bring back civil liberties....make trade fair (not free)...change the inverse tax structure...make corporations pay taxes (60% pay nothing)....help out the middle class by educating our kids...and having clean air/water and alternative energy would also be nice.

Its oh so simple. Anyone who talks reform will win BIG.

Get it DEMS!!! Yeah, I'm talking to YOU.... you politicians who surf the DU (if there are any)!!

[quaker bill]

102. Yeah, right

Pelosi and Reid announced today that they are seeking a "broader range" of consultants with "ideas from outside of Washington". Where would a concept like that have come from? One wonders... (not)

Howard is not there to make policy, however, the 447 people that elected him by acclaimation are. The large number of folks that showed up and voted many of these Dean supporters on to the national committee are also there to make policy.

Howard does not have to do all that much, because we have his back. If this was not the case, he would not have become Chairman.