The ignorant media is falling right into Dean's trap!

[ecstatic]

As they report Dean's "outrageous" remarks every day, mainstream America is finally getting to hear our platform. Keep up the good work Dean!

On edit: Only thing left is for the Democrats to get a clear message, now that we are getting so much attention! LOL

[forgethell]

1. Golly!

No wonder we keep losing elections. Dean is an embarassment to the Democratic Party who will alienate the few remaining "moderates" that we could win over to our side. This type of attack dog politics does not win elections.

[NoPasaran]

2. Yeah, Newt Gingrich only had success

When he became Mister Nice Guy.

[forgethell]

4. Gingrich had a plan.

We don't. That's the difference.

[candy331]

48. Maybe you don't know the plans but does that mean that there is no

plan? I can tell you that plans are definitely made and are being made but you want hear them on the media in a positive light.

[forgethell]

57. I will eagerly

await positive developments in Dean's plans.

[demwing]

134. We? You got a mouse in your pocket? /nt

[Rainbowreflect]

3. The dem leaders have gotten so far kissing bush's butt!

:sarcasm:

[forgethell]

5. I really haven't noticed

a whole lot of kissing bush's butt by the Democrats. Perhaps you can enlighten me??

But anyway, we've been doing this attack dog stuff since the 60s, when we were in the majority. And where are we now??

I stand by my statement. This type of stuff does not win elections.

[ellenfl]

7. the dems have never ATTACKED . . . that's the

problem. the repugs play dirty and the dems take the high ground. it's about time we shoved back.

ellen fl

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[last1standing]

96. Are you saying that Dems used dirty tricks on Clarence Thomas?

If so, I'd like to know what they were.

[forgethell]

100. I'm not saying that they did, but

I'd be willing to bet a substantial sum of money that he thinks so.

[stickdog]

111. LBJ BEAT the crap out of Goldwater. Truman also won by giving them hell.

So your point is that attacking WINS elections, right?

Because if not, :wtf: are you on about?

[laugle]

89. You are right on,

If Kerry had attacked at the covention, and after the stink boat vets had raked him, he probably would have won! Unfortunately, he does not have what Bill Clinton did, Clinton, new very well, how to come back at them and beat them at their own game. Dale Carnegie, wrote a great book, sold 15,000,0000 copies; "How to win friends an influence people" one of the best books I ever read. It teaches you how to attack in an effective way. It's on e-bay now if you are interested.

[ellenfl]

121. my point exactly. the repugs perfected dirty politics.

this bunch has always played dirty (look at texas politics). the dems don't get nasty like the repugs do, even with their own (mccain, so. carolina).

of course, i also believe that darth rove planted the rather story . . . and bugged his own offices in texas to squash hightower and company.

the dems fight by marquis of queensbury rules. the repugs are street fighters.

also, i find the repugs to be particularly mean-spirited. just my opinion.

ellen fl

[laugle]

123. I agree, but

It's "Darth" Cheney and "Rasputin" Rove!!!! LOL

[MoonRiver]

9. "WE"?

Don't think so. :thumbsdown:

[Rainbowreflect]

15. Dems have been doing the "attack dog stuff"???

And I suppose you believe the repubs have been polite & kind to the dems?
I do not hear the MSM reporting any where near as ofter or as loud on the continued insults & attacks on the dems by this administration & their minions.

[forgethell]

17. No, the

REpublicans can play rough, too. It's politics.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

131. Yeah they can but I've yet to see

a negative reaction from you to any instance of such "playing rough" (what a lovely term, makes it seem like a friendly judo match)

[JRob]

18. Bankruptcy bill, Patriot Act amendment yesterday...

Biden's ass kissing speech to the DLC...

I'm sure there are additional examples.

[forgethell]

23. Simple bipartisanship.

That's the way things get done in Washington. When the republicans were seen as obstructionists it cost them dearly among the voters. Our "leaders" recognize something that some of you don't. If you are the minority party, you can't stop everything, all the time. The majority rules, always.

[JRob]

24. OK, what have they stopped? Because I see some pretty knarly...

stuff going through with "Simple bipartisanship." To me it's either "simple" appeasement or "simple" complicity...

[forgethell]

33. Stopped?

The Dems are the minority. "Go along to get along", an old Dem saying in Congress. I think it was Tip O'Neill, but I'm not sure.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[JRob]

50. Are you referring to me or forgethell? nt

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[forgethell]

56. You must mean the real one n/t

[benevolent dictator]

67. You just keep telling yourself that. *pats on head*

[Cha]

86. Then you haven't been

paying attention.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

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

[nadinbrzezinski]

153. seld delete

forgot do nto use their frames... ooops

[bitchkitty]

175. Well hello there sweetie pie!

The outing of Valerie Plame was a little vicious. Even a right wing demagogue would agree with that.

[Name removed]

188. Deleted message

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

[bobbieinok]

154. democrats attack dogs since the 60s????? not the last 40 years I

lived through........republicans constantly attacked democrats for anything and everything

only one dem attack.....LBJs little girl/atomic bomb ad, which was quickly pulled

the republicans have been doing variations of the 88 Willie Horton ad forever

[FreedomAngel82]

6. So they can say outrageous stuff

but we can't? Please. If anybody is turned off from Howard Dean because of what he says they're not really interested in democratic ideals after all.

[forgethell]

12. Sure we can.

This is America. But will it do us any good? I don't think so.

I never heard that outrageous insults of your opponent were a democratic ideal. What political philospher came up with that idea?

[benevolent dictator]

32. I bet it will do us a lot of good.

Show everyone we have conviction and we're not going to roll over and PLAY DEAD when the Repubs come through and insult us. Playing nice hasn't gotten us anything except a stolen election and a bunch of bad legislation going through.

[forgethell]

34. Right, then. n/t

[benevolent dictator]

43. It works for the Repukes don't it? nt.

[forgethell]

54. Nope.

They win despite it, not because of it. They plan their work, then work their plan. All we do is whine about what awful people they are. C'mon! We can do better than that.

[benevolent dictator]

69. So you honestly believe their 24/7 propaganda and smearing

has no effect on the opinions of the people who hear them? Get real!

We have gotten no where by playing nice. Unless in your "real" reality we also control the house, senate, white house, and judicial branch.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

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

[stickdog]

113. What outrageous insults? Being pretty much white & Christian? (nt)

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

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

[bitchkitty]

143. I'll take Howard's TRUTH

over Clinton's BUTT SMOOCHING any day.

[forgethell]

162. Clinton was President.

Howard failed spectacularly to even win his own party's nomination. I know many of you prefer your self-righteous fantasies. I like to win.

[bitchkitty]

168. Yea, well -

obviously you prefer someone who would grovel to the GOP. Maybe you're in the wrong party?

[forgethell]

170. I prefer not

to get bowled over election after election. And we do have to get along with them, they are at least half the country. Call it 'groveling' if that will let you keep your fantasies. I live in the real world. They have the power, and we don't. They get to enact their policies, just as we will when we finally win, again. But it won't be in 2006, at this rate.

[bitchkitty]

173. That's just cowardice

masked as pragmatism. Be brave, honey - kissing Bush ass since 2000 hasn't worked for any Democrat outside of Bill Clinton.

They're not fantasies. I've read the Constitution, I know my history, and how it's supposed to work. There's nothing in the Constitution about laying down and spreading them for a bunch of sleazy press whores, or being diplomatic with a pack of sociopathic wolves.

If you can dismiss my MAINSTREAM idealism as "fantasy" maybe you really should join the GOP. They're the ones who need a reality check, not Howard.

[forgethell]

178. But it did work for

Clinton, although I wouldn't call it, "kiss Bush ass". But the ramped-up rhetoric hasn't worked at all. Call it what you want. I call trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result to be "stupidity".

And I'm beginning to wonder if Democrats are not the Stupid Party. At least when it comes to winning elections. Maybe you did read in the Constitution about Congress makes the laws, and how Congress is elected? By the people, all the people, not just progressives.

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

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

[forgethell]

182. I haven't disagreed

with most of the positions, although I'm not as enthusiastic about some of them as about others. I disagree with a losing strategy. I advise a tactical retreat if one is needed. And I advise thinking about the problems instead of screaming "evil Republicans" all the time. In other words, I advise doing what is necessary to win.

Sorry that that is bitter medicine to you.

[bitchkitty]

185. Tactical retreat - now there's

a solution for you.

I'll bet you think we had a free and fair election, don't you, rascal?

[forgethell]

186. I certainly don't

think the case has been proven that we haven't.

[bitchkitty]

187. Surprise, surprise, surprise. n/t

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

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

[forgethell]

179. No, I

seldom get outraged by anything anymore. But a significant proportion of the voters were, and I think that is is unwise to do so.

[bitchkitty]

183. No, you get outraged by attacks on the GOP.

Why is that? The proportion of these outraged citizens is much less significant on a Democratic web site, and I expect that most of them have been manufactured by our media in their quest to Protect the Chimp. And yet, here you are, flailing away. It's quite amusing.

[forgethell]

184. Why?

Because I think it's stupid and harmful to the Democratic Party. I'm glad you find me amusing. I find the total denial of our relative power in this country to be amusing, or I would, if it were not so tragic. Dream on. The Lotuseaters have taken over DU. fortunately, there are still some hard-headed politicians in charge of the Democratic Party. Dean isn't one of them, however.:banghead:

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. We keep losing elections

because of GOP fraud.

Besides, it's about time someone started calling a spade or spade, or should I say fat, ugly, overweight, out of shape, born again, white American male Bushbot.

[forgethell]

13. The evidence

of such has been lacking, or it would be in court.

If we keep telling ourselves that, and fail to determine the real reasons that we are consistently out-voted, we will continue to lose, and continue to look everywhere but the right place for the answers.

[DoYouEverWonder]

30. There is plenty of evidence of fraud

but there is little you can do about it when the candidate that was most effected walks away.

[forgethell]

35. He walked away,

because he knew that he lost. I don't like saying it anymore than you like hearing it, but facts are facts.

[DoYouEverWonder]

87. You don't have any facts

because no one can prove who won this election.

Show me two counts of actual ballots that match and only then can we know who won. Oh, you can't recount ether votes? Then you can't prove who won.

[forgethell]

90. Oh, yeah, I do.

Bush is in the White House. The election was finalized and legal. It is up to YOU to prove Kerry won. Otherwise, the facts are that Bush won.

I hate to say it because I do have my doubts about 2000.

[DoYouEverWonder]

99. That doesn't not prove or disprove that there was fraud

the fact is that Bush won because the GOP cheated and fixed the election. That is a fact and there is tons of data to prove it.

[forgethell]

125. Sorry, no valid data

and no hard evidence. Wish there were.

[DoYouEverWonder]

138. There is a whole forum on DU just for the 2004 election

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203

You will find 100's if not 1000's of well researched examples of the numerous ways the 2004 election was rigged. There is plenty of hard evidence. Everything from a bogus terror alert in Ohio, that was preplanned, to ether votes that can't be verified, to operatives who 'help' old people fill out their absentee ballots and that's just the tip of the iceburg.

Just because Kerry choose not to fight back, doesn't meant that wrong doing didn't occur. I was mugged once and I choose not to report the crime, that doesn't mean the crime didn't occur.

[benevolent dictator]

105. It's pretty much impossible for the exit polls

- which are used as a measure of an elections credibility - to all have been that far off and all in favor of Bush. It's something like 4 TRILLION to 1 that they would be.

Just because it was finalized doesn't make it legal.

[forgethell]

126. Legal is

what the courts say it was. They haven't been asked, which pretty much indicates that there was no real evidence.

[benevolent dictator]

106. Self delete, duplicate post nt.

[Jane Austin]

155. "The evidence of such has been lacking, or it would"The evidence of such

would be in court"

If this weren't so naive and sad, it would be funny.

Have you ever had a really important legal cause that you needed to go to court on?

If you have, you might have found out that, by the rules of evidence, the truth is often not allowed to be uttered in court.

It's backward reasoning to think that merit is what gets a matter to court or not.



(Edited to correct faulty cut and paste.)

[forgethell]

160. So your hypotheses

is the election was stolen? What, in your opinion, would disprove it? In other words, is it a testable hypotheses, or a matter of faith like, oh, creationism?

[musiclawyer]

14. Wrong

attack dog always wins. Look at whose in charge now. It's the plan of attack that matters. And the Doctor has a plan . I spoke to him at a fundraiser two years ago. Did you?

[forgethell]

16. It's the issues

that matter, always. The republicans have presented their side far better and more convincingly than we. I don't really know how to explain that, but it wasn't by calling John Kerry a "moron" like we did Bush. Now they did call him some other things, but 1) it wasn't the party leaders, and 2) they managed to convince enough Americans, while we didn't. Again, I lack an explanation.

[benevolent dictator]

39. It's not the issues, if it were the issues

then the shrub would have been voted out for driving the economy, environment, education system, and our troops into the ground.

Most of mainstream America doesn't pay attention to the issues (I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain the filibuster and why it's important and why the Dems didn't want those judges to go through.) They pay attention to Bill O'Riley saying liberals are wimps and wusses not going to protect us. They pay attention to insults and slurs and drama, that's what people like. They don't want to read up on the economy unless the article has some asshole calling some other guy an asshole. That's how it works.

When all you hear is Rush and O'Riley calling the one party stupid dumb asses all day long, pretty soon you just might start to think the other side is full of stupid wussy dumb asses.

[forgethell]

51. Of course it's the issues,

it always is. I think our mistake is in trying to make the repubs address our issues our way. The "framing" debate. They will address our issues their way, as is their right. Then they will add in their issues, which we do not try to address at all, other than by saying that they are not real issues. But they are. And the Republicans are winning because we refuse to take a public stand on the issues. Instead, we wuss around them.

[benevolent dictator]

72. Reframing OUR SIDE is not the same.

We're not trying to get them to use OUR frame, we want the Dems to stop using THE REPUBLICAN frame. There is a HUGE difference.

So... it's about the issues, and that's why Bush won, right? Because people just LOVE the way he's handling the war, the economy, the environment, our education system, our energy policy...the list goes on.

I call bullshit.

People don't even know what the filibuster is, you expect them to know about any of the rest of the issues? You know, the ones that effect their daily lives. They only know what the media tells them, and the media quotes Republican talking points and smear campaigns.

[stickdog]

116. The Repukes are winning the framing battle, but their issues are good for

the top 2% and bad for the bottom 98%.

Dems need to frame the issue in a way that makes that clear. However, Dems have their own problems with the realities of corporate power and lobbyist influence -- and they don't own a vast media empire and dozens of high powered think-tanks like the right does -- so the challenge is easier identified than met.

[ellenfl]

122. the repugs stick to the inflamatory issues. they had

absolutely nothing for healthcare, the economy, education except vague promises to make all 'better', while of course, they were going to do the opposite of what they didn't promise.

imo, they essentially said, trust us, you'll get yours . . . and we all did.

ellen fl

[forgethell]

127. Maybe so, but

they have a right to focus on the issues they think are important, same as us. I'm not saying they're right, as some of you seem to think. What I'm saying is that we have to find some way to address these other issues,too. So far, we haven't.

[ellenfl]

146. i stand corrected . . .

you're absolutely right, the repugs issues are NOT healthcare, the economy (except how it affects their pockets) or the environment. however, they give lip service to those issues while inflaming with the issues that ultimately do not affect them . . . until they come 'out of the closet', become pregnant or terminally ill.

ellen fl

[forgethell]

161. Okey, dokey.

We will spend a long time in the minority just so long as we think that people cannot decide for themselves what is important to them.

[ellenfl]

166. i'm not saying they can't decide, i'm saying

that the repugs gave them hot-button issues and did not tell them the cost of their myopia. unfortunately, the dems didn't do much to inform us either. however, it's hard to get past the 'talking points' and sound bytes that you see and read in the msm and many of us did not do any research.

ellen fl

[forgethell]

171. I'll give you an metaphor.

I think the Republicans are striking the resonant frequency of the American voter's spirit. They give their "talking points" and it rings with them. We, on the other hand, keep lecturing them. It's like a muffler on their spirit.

What we have to do, in the long run, is to stop moralizing, nobody likes to be lectured to, and explain our policies in a way that shows the voter exactly how our policies will benefit him. Simple, direct. Everybody votes their own interests first.

The reason this will be long term is that most people instinctively know both Murphy's Law and Occam's Razor, which state, respectively, that anything than can go wrong will go wrong, and the simplest explanation that explains all the facts is most probably the correct one. Our explanations run to volumes. We have some intellectual giants to match those of the conservatives (and, yes, they do have them). Let them get busy.

[stickdog]

115. You're nuts. Dems win hands down on the issues. Every poll shows as

much. Again, what country are you living in?

[forgethell]

128. The one where

Bush is President, the Republicans control both branches of Congress, and Janice Rogers Brown is confirmed. Maybe if we looked at the real reasons we've lost so much lately, we could do something about that.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

132. Do YOU have any idea of what such reasons are?

All I read from you are generic platitudes about "real reasons" and "issues" and "why we (sic) lose so much."

I'm sure you DO have an opinion about such whys and hows. Let's hear it.

[forgethell]

135. Indeed I do.

I think the Republicans have successfully used our support of certain social issues against us, and unless we either abandon them (temporarily) or find a way to neutralize the Republicans on these positions, we will continue to lose. We may be right, but unless we are in power there isn't much we can do about them except whine here on DU.

Hillary has the right idea. A run to the center. Unfortunately, it won't do her any good as she has too long a paper trail, with video, and her past will come back to haunt her. Another, less well-known and less abhorred candidate might be able to make it work. My choice would be Obama.

[stickdog]

140. Wrong. All we have to do is reframe the debate. We don't 'like' abortions.

We just don't see how the government can overrule the pregnant woman and her doctor on such a complex, sensitive and personal family issue.

We aren't in favor of "special rights" for anyone. We simply feel that the golden rule applies to every human being, just like Jesus did.

Finally, gun laws are best left to individual states because some states need much tougher gun laws than others.

More reframing:

[forgethell]

141. Conservatives, "fundies"

if you will, don't give a rat's ass if you 'like' abortions or not. They want them illegal. They agree that gun laws, like most others in their opinion, should be left to the states. But if you have a choice between voting for a candidate who agrees with you on one issue, and whose sincerity you doubt, and another who agrees with you on most, or all, of the issues important to you, who you gonna choose?

Finally, conservative "moral" values are not liberal "moral" values. They, at least the ones I know, have some concern for the poor, but don't think it is a government function. They are more concerned with, well, never mind, I need no more flaming at this time. Just this will I say, to the conservative Christians Jesus is not a philosopher.

I support the "re-framing" of the issues, if it can be done. I just don't think it can. If that's our plan, well, the Children of Israel spent 40 years in the wilderness, and so did the Republicans. I guess we can stand it if we have to. But I don't think we're going to enjoy it.

[stickdog]

151. Die hard fundies are a lost cause. But a lot of folks just sympathize

with fundies on some issues. Religion/morality concerns are only a COMPONENT of the vast majority of Americans' politics. Most non-fundy true believers realize that economic, foreign and civil rights policies have SOME impact on their lives.

So we lessen the hit we take -- that we're irreligous, Godless, homosexual abortionists who hate families and guns and love Stalin and Satan -- on "moral" issues by reframing the debate in terms of the traditional religious and American values that underpin our supposedly "immoral" policies -- and then we concentrate on jobs, health care, education, the environment, controlling globalization and restraining the most destructive elements of hypercapitalism (like rampant oursourcing and loan shark credit card scams), putting American first (before Iraqis, for example) and balancing the budget -- all very important and winning issues.

[forgethell]

163. See, here's where I think

you are wrong: '...framing the debate in terms of the traditional religious and American values that underpin our supposedly "immoral" policies '. The conservatives don't really care how we talk about our policies and ideas. Claiming traditional American values for ourselves will not work unless we can show the results that they expect from the applications of those values. Ideas have consequences, and they look around and don't like what they see. In other words, they expect society to function in a certain way, and when it does not, they vote for somebody new. Do they want the same thing out of society and the government that we do? I don't think so.

And that's where we make our mistake. We think it is the claiming of values that is going to win their votes. It's not. Unlike us, they seem to be able to determine that our values are not the same, nor are the results we want from government.

So, we have two choices. We can change, or we can work to change them.

[stickdog]

167. What kind of results do they want? Gays & unwed mothers in jail?

A radical Christian theocracy? What?

There is a lot of common ground on values with social moderates and mild social conservatives. But not with rapture nutbags. They are lost causes.

[forgethell]

169. OK, then

why are they winning elections and we are not? By which I mean, how are they convincing the social moderates and mild social conservatives?

But you use hyperbole. Where are the calls by the Republican party to throw gays or unwed mothers in jail? As I understand it, they oppose gay marriage and abortion. There is a considerable difference.

[stickdog]

172. Well, what would they do to gays who marry or women who have abortions?

I highly doubt that I was exaggerating.

[forgethell]

174. If it was illegal,

as it now is, for gays to marry, they just wouldn't marry. They could call themselves "married", or whatever. They just wouldn't get the civil benefits, such as they now are.

As far as abortions go, I think most of the penalties will go to the providers. But you may have a slightly better argument in this case. Still, the rhetoric is not for jailing either gays or women.

Hell, I thought it was the Republicans who spread fear.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

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

[forgethell]

164. Welcome to DU.

A welcoming place. But the temperature gets a little warm, sometimes.

[Warpy]

20. Yeah, right

"Moderates" have such a great track record.

[Larkspur]

21. What planet have you been on for the last 4 years?

The Repukes didn't take the WH and Congress by being Mr & Miss Manners. They slandered, slimmed and punched Democrats out of the way -- Remember milquetoast Tom Daschle. He was booted out in 2004 thanks to a constant aggressive Repuke attack. Remember, Max Cleland the handicapped Vietnam Vet. He was roasted as bing unpatriotic by a chickenhawk.

Nice guys and gals finish last in politics. If Dems won't defend themselves by going on the offensive against the Repukes, then the Dems don't deserve to have any power.

[forgethell]

22. Never said the Republicans

were nice guys. What I said was that these tactics don't win elections. The Rs had a plan; we didn't. We used mindless lashing out as a substitute for a clear policy position, and we lost.

[Larkspur]

38. Dean has a plan and has been executing it since he became DNC Chair

He's rebuilding the Dem Party from the grassroots up. He's on pace to breaking the DNC fundraising mid-year and non-election year record set in 2001. He's got the Repukes and the DLC running scared because Dean is the catalyst for paradigm change -- first within the Dem Party and then the country.

[forgethell]

55. Well, we'll see.

I'm always willing to change my opinions when the evidence indicates I am wrong. Fortunately, that doesn't happen very often.

[Larkspur]

108. When he was chair of the Dem Gov Association, he got more Dems

elected governor than before or after his term as DGA chair, so I think he's following a similar path with the DNC that he did with the DGA.

[stickdog]

118. The EVIDENCE already dictates that 90% of what you've said is bs.

But, please, keep patting yourself on the back for your unique ability to ignore history and reality.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

129. In my experience

It's much harder to acknowledge insults from one's side towards the other than the other way around. Make of that what you will.

And check your PM.

[sendero]

25. Wow...

.... you'd need a shovel the size of a Mack truck to move that bullshit.

Republicans run a 24/7 smear machine from the bottom (hate radio) to the top (the pResident) and it never won them an election?

What fucking alternate universe are you living in?

[forgethell]

36. the real one. n/t

[benevolent dictator]

42. The real one? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA nt.

[Cats Against Frist]

58. No, really, answer the question

The right runs a hate and division machine, and it's how they've consolidated and increased their power. How do you explain that?

[forgethell]

60. And the voters had

nothing to do with it??

[Cats Against Frist]

68. The GOP base was BRAINWASHED --

IS brainwashed. What do you think the logical result of Pigbaugh and Crappity, and Mammon Jesus preachers shoving emotional, shallow, false binaries down the throats of people who believe in the tooth fairy and hate anyone with brown skin? It results in them walking to the voting booth and casting a vote against the evil scourge of people like me -- with my goddamn latte and my MFA. My knowledge of Wallace Stevens could rip them from their trailers and kill them.

:rofl: :eyes:

[forgethell]

74. I think is the consistent

misunderstanding of and contempt for the voters who trend Republican that costs us at the polls. They vote their interests, same as anybody else, and if we cannot appeal to their interests, we don't get their votes.

I love the self-righteousness of many in the Democratic party. :sarcasm:

[benevolent dictator]

76. "They vote their interests" Whatever, and that's why the middle class

votes for Bush, because his tax cuts to DO MUCH for the middle class? Right?

Whatever.

[Cats Against Frist]

80. Actually, they vote AGAINST their real interests

and preoccupy themselves with cultural supremacy and paranoid, delusional fantasies of fang-toothed gays, liberals who are carrying a latte in one hand and a Koran in the other, coming to tear their flabby asses out of their cardboard houses.

That's rational, right?

Even if they honestly thought that the GOP was about smaller government, freedom or world peace -- they're just idiots, because the GOP is authoritarian, big government, anti-freedom and almighty dollar. They're using the tooth-fairy devotees for their mushy brains.

What are their interests, exactly?

[forgethell]

83. I guessing here that

they can decide what their real interests are better than we can.

However, if the cultural issues are not real issues, why don't we give up our positions?? Because they are real issues to us, and I would assume to them also.

[Cats Against Frist]

92. OK, I'm going to stop trying to be "cute"

The issues that the GOP uses to get their voters to the voting booth, are issues that go against the spirit of freedom and equality, and portray a very narrow, paternalistic, superstitious, outmoded worldview. Few of them are actually materially threatened by lack of prayer in school, gays marrying, abortion rights, etc., but they vote this, because of idealism. Then, on the other hand, GM closes a bunch of plants, they're STILL paying the fed almost as much as they ever were, their wages are stagnant, the administration is making a mockery out of the country -- and all they've done is trade one form of authoritarianism for another -- so all the rhetoric about freedom and liberty is T-O-T-A-L bullshit. Then, on top of that, the power elite in the GOP are more interested in using their own seething hate and fear to divide them, and marginalize their neighbors, than they actually are getting the country to conform to these so-called "core 'murican values."

The only value is "money," and the GOP base are money's bitches.

[benevolent dictator]

107. Their so called "real" interests don't really effect them

like same sex marriage, if they don't like it, they don't have to have one!

But things like the tax cuts, which don't benefit them, are issues that effect them and are either in their interest or not. Let me let you in on a secret, the Bush administrations tax cuts are not in their best interest. Neither are their policies on education, environment, corporate welfare, or just about any other issue.

The point is that most don't pay enough attention to realize that, they just know that Rush says all Democrats are baby-killing scum and by golly, they believe him.

[lojasmo]

139. They vote their prejudice and their ignorance.

The republicans' rhetoric plays to their intolerance and ignorance. It's harder for Dean et. al. to utilize rhetoric to sway the democratic electorate because we're (a little) less easily fooled.

[forgethell]

142. Maybe so, but

they can vote on anything they want to. If we want their votes we have to address their issues. what's so hard to understnd about that?

[lojasmo]

189. We are (dean is) EOM

[benevolent dictator]

29. Oh... so Republicans can be attackers and win elections but we can't?

Sorry, I forgot only THEY were allowed to say outrageous things all the time and we have to play nice so we don't alienate the "moderates."

Thank you for reminding us of our strategy to play nice, it's worked so well! That's why we're in control of all three branches of government, right? Our "play nice" strategy?

Personally, I love what Dean is doing. More power to him!

[forgethell]

37. The Rrepublicans won

because they had a plan. Their rhetoric was not simply "hate-filled" but was used to support their points. Our is just negative personal stuff that doesn't address the issues.

[benevolent dictator]

45. How do you KNOW Dean doesn't have a plan??

Just because he didn't call you up and personally tell you about it... :eyes:

[forgethell]

62. Because I

haven't seen any public evidence of a coherent strategy yet. He may well have a plan. Let's see it in action.

[Cha]

93. That doesn't mean

a thing..just because you can't see what it is.

[forgethell]

95. True enough, except to me, it doesn't.

Doesn't mean I'm wrong, either. I'll just have to wait and see like the rest of you.

[Cats Against Frist]

61. "Freedom Fries?" ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME???

Walking into a press conference carrying golf clubs, when Clinton was golfing because THEY shut down the government? Give me a fucking break?

They have a hate and propaganda machine, crafted from Joe Bob's truck radio, all the way up to their right-wing, elitist AEI tower -- that constantly calls us communists, socialists and America haters.

What the fuck are you smoking, dude?

[forgethell]

65. Sorry, I can't

find the "freedom fries" reference. I fail to connect it with anything I have said.

[Cats Against Frist]

71. Just recounting the juvenile behavior of the GOP House

Whipping up the dorkfucks with emotional idiocy. It wasn't directed at the Democrats, but at France, but, you know -- Communist France, Osama Bin Laden, Howard Dean and my Wal-Mart shopping, SUV-driving Democrat Mother are like *this.*

So, if you don't see the connection, you must think that the GOP doesn't spew hatred...

[forgethell]

78. I'll agree that

that was a pretty childish thing. I think it was more annoyance with France than hatred, however. I guess it depends on the meaning of hatred. You make a lot of assumptions and stunning leaps of logic, but yes, I see where you are coming from. It still had nothing to do with anything I said.

[Jane Austin]

156. "The Republicans won because they had a plan."

And a good one it was, too.

Turn the Swiftboat Liars loose on Kerry and count on his good manners not to hit back.

[iwantmycountryback]

31. I can't remember having a person speaking this plainly in opposition

What proof do you have that he will make us lose? Certainly no one recently has ever spoken like Dean. Besides, he's not stupid. If he thought what he was saying would hurt, he wouldn't say it. He's said plenty of "outrageous" things since he became Chairman, and he doesn't care what CNN says about him

[forgethell]

41. Because

emotionalism always loses to intelligent planning.

But I could be wrong. We'll get an idea in 2006, if the Dem leadership doesn't toss him first. Which they are making sounds like they have it in mind.

Remember: Even a fish wouldn't get into trouble if it kept its mouth shut

[benevolent dictator]

46. It would if a bigger fish came up behind it and chomped down. Mouth shut

or not.

[forgethell]

59. Well, you can only

stretch an metaphor so far. But the big fish will chomp just as fst if the little fish has it mouth open. Why is it adding frictional drag to its escape efforts??

[Beetwasher]

47. LOL!!

Holy shit are you full of crap.

Emotinalism always loses to careful planning? On what planet?

That's all the Repubs do is throw out emotional hot button issues and hateful, divisive rhetoric. That IS their "plan" that you keep regurgitating about. Pray tell, what was their plan if not just spouting hateful, divisive rhetoric???

"Remember: Even a fish wouldn't get into trouble if it kept its mouth shut"

WTF are you talking about? Are you on drugs? Why the fuck should Dean, Chairman of the party keep his mouth shut? It's his job to talk about this shit. Duh.

[forgethell]

63. I eagerly await

the Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008. but I'm not holding my breath for them, either.

[Beetwasher]

66. Why Don't You Answer My Question?

What exactly was the Repubs "Intelligent Planning"? Aside from hating gays and smearing Kerry? What was it?

"I eagerly await the Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008."

Uh huh, sure you are. :eyes:

Who the fuck do you think you're fooling w/ your bullshit?

[forgethell]

70. Well, they turned

out their vote. They made the courts an issue. they made taxes an issue. Mostly they ran on Iraq. Now, in our opinion every one of these positions may have been wrong. but they were effective. They played offense well, we didn't. Yes, they may have smeared Kerry, but we managed to smear Bush with the National Guard stuff. I will not address the truth or falsity of either smear, but they were both personal smears not related to the issues. Service as a low level military officer has no real bearing on either the issues, or the ability of a person to carry out the duties of the President.

Now, does that answer your question in a way that you can understand?:eyes: :tinfoilhat:

[Cats Against Frist]

73. I think it was relevant -- the service thing

maybe not to the duties of the presidency, but just informative, in general. One candidate was a supposed "tough guy," but was really a douche in a flight-suit, with a chainsaw on his fake ranch, born rich in "effete" Connecticut & was too busy being a pansy and a cokehead to serve, while his French-loving, America Hating, Windsurfing, full-sentence-using "pussy" of a challenger was kicking ass in Nam.

I'm no fan of John Kerry, but this is the litmus test, IMHO, to weed out the brainwashed v. the nonbrainwashed.

[benevolent dictator]

75. You don't think serving in a war,

even as a low level officer, would shape you in any way? Might have an effect on the type of person - and President - you become?

You don't think chickening out of a war and being MIA during your service time doesn't say anything about your character?

[forgethell]

82. Character, maybe,

policy, no. I listen to what they say, myself. I don't figure any politicain is going to be any better than he claims in his campaign. It wouold have been much better for the Bush NG thing if Dan Rather hadn't been a hapless pawn of Karl Rove, IMO.

Sometimes I wonder why Democrats think we are the smarter party, seeing as how the Republicans keep stealing our elections and leading us into public relations disaster with remarkably consistent success. :sarcasm:

[benevolent dictator]

109. Oh, I forgot, a person's character

has no effect on the type of policy they'll set. Sorry.

[Beetwasher]

77. No, It Shows That You're Full Of Shit Actually

Because they did none of those things. They didn't run on Iraq, they ran FROM Iraq and hardly mentioned it. And they didn't make taxes OR the courts issues at all. Where do you get this shit from? Were you paying attention during the election? :eyes: That's total bullshit. They smeared Kerry w/ the swiftboat vets and bashed gay marriage and scared people w/ terror alerts. That's it. All hot button emotional and divisive issues, exactly the thing you say shouldn't win elections and shouldn't be used. What planet do you live on?

[forgethell]

85. "All hot button emotional and divisive issues"

but still issues that somehow we have to find a way around in orer to win.

[Beetwasher]

88. So You Admit You're Full Of Shit Then?

Because according to you, the Repubs won w/ intelligent planning, not divisive, hateful smears.

That's if you even accept the premise that they did actually win the most votes, and didn't win through fraud. That's very debatable.

[forgethell]

94. No, but I will admit

that you are becoming offensive, so after this comment I'm through.

The two are not mutually contradictory. They could have the hateful smears AND the intelligent planning. The planning won for them. All we have, at least that I can see, are the hateful smears. I wouldn't mind them so much, although I think they demean us more than they do the Republicans, if I saw anything else that the national Democratic Party has. I truly am not looking forward to 2006 or 2008.

[Beetwasher]

98. LOL! Yes, Run Away! You're Eyes Must Be Brown

Funny, that you see intelligent planning on their end and ONLY hateful smears on the Dems side. I wonder why that is?

You are so full of shit your eyes must be brown. You have yet to give me an example of their intelligent planning. So far all you've shovelled is bullshit claiming they ran on issues that they never touched and totally ignoring the vicious, emotional smears they ACTUALLY ran on.

Run away little boy. You can't handle the big leagues.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

133. You wonder?

I don't.

[AX10]

158. We need both. We need Dean and Co to organize and...

get us on a positive message/effective while our echo chamber (being built as we speak) a.k.a talk radio, internet, etc...to do the negative attacking. We need to make our noise machine stronger, I agree. But we need both to be done.

[ellenfl]

124. i think he/she meant 'intelligent design'. eom

[ima_sinnic]

81. yeah it's SO "embarassing" to speak the truth when asked a direct

question about diversity. The article doesn't say so specifically, but I assume the question was about diversity within the 2 parties. "(The Republican party) is pretty much a white Christian party." Is that not the TRUTH?

yeah, he should have said, oh the Republican party comprises every race, every income level, every religion, every age, gender and sexual preference in direct proportion to their occurence in the national population.

sheesh :eyes:

[RetroLounge]

112. Missing something?

RL

[rman]

148. Yeah, Repubs win every time by appealing to moderates.

Not because of attack dog politics, oh no they don't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

152. Ok playing nice guy has won us exactly how many elections?

Truly we need to call these mother fuckers what they are... and call them on their actions....

But you go ahead and continue playing nice guy

[wicket]

8. For so long Dems have been attacked for not having a spine

Now that Dean is throwing the crap right back at the Repukes and standing up to them- he's being attacked. Some people just want their cake and eat it too!

[faithnotgreed]

19. wicket - with all due respect i feel this is a false argument

its not that dean is throwing stuff right back at the republicans. he is making inflammatory statements but the key is that they have little to do with what is going on in the white house

he can throw all kinds of stuff right at them. we all know there is endless amounts of vile stuff that they are doing that they should be called out on
iraq
medicare
veterans benefits
education
health insurance

they are raping and pillaging. dean could easily pick any of these topics and hammer them if thats his job. why spend time on coming from the side when he could go at them full-on? thats what i would support
but i havent heard of him talking about the dsm. and about iraq he said recently that we need to stay put and hopes bush policy is wildly successful

theres so much to choose from to hit them hard with. so why divert attention from the real issues? we know the white house does that but i dont understand why we help them

dean is too great and hard working. we need him. americans need him to speak for our pain and the devastation this country (and now world) are going through at the hands of bush

thats what i want and need to see from our leaders. where are they? conyers and waxman are out there but they dont get coverage of course. boxer on occasion is shown with her fists flying. so its possible. if we had a real cohesive plan (as the OP and forgethell point out) then we could win every single time

[ima_sinnic]

79. excuse me, but he was ANSWERING "A QUESTION ABOUT

DIVERSITY during a forum with minority leaders and journalists."

So he should get on a soapbox about Iraq, about DSM, about medicare or veterans benefits or any other irrelevant thing in your list in answer to a question about DIVERSITY? He was characterizing the composition of the Republican party. "It's pretty much a white Christian party." What he HELL is the problem with that? It's the truth, isn't it?

[Cha]

97. Couple a good points..

ima_sinnic!

[faithnotgreed]

101. wow... may i ask where that came from? i was responding to wicket

who asked a general question why dean isnt allowed to throw stuff right back at the hard right. i responded directly to that statement (i feel that was a false or misleading argument) and would not think for a moment that dean shouldnt answer any question he is asked

and of course bringing up those issues is not answering a question about diversity. im sorry that you got that from my response. that specific topic wasnt directly what wicket (and then i) was speaking about
mine was a general statement about deans comments over a period of time. and im saddened that again this is basically reduced to a debate about our leaders and their comments. we shouldnt still be doing that at this point.

one more important point (to me): they arent Christian by any means! thats a little teasing there but i am sorry that we perpetuate the myth by calling them Christians

im glad dr dean is out there fighting. ive said before he has worked harder than just about any other democrat we could think of. im proud he is on our side

peace friend... i think we all want the same thing.

[ima_sinnic]

102. all right, all right, sorry

... I guess I just skimmed your post and by then was upset by the many nay-saying posts that had preceded it.
sorry.

[faithnotgreed]

104. i completely understand.... thank you ima sinnic

[theboss]

26. We have a platform??!?!?

The hell you say!

[enough already]

27. I love that Dean is going after these jerks, but

But I fear the press is in the process of crucifying him again, with more than a little help from our own party. I hope I'm wrong and he can hang tough.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

130. Maybe he'll draw all Republican fire

while other, smoother-talking Dems go win elections.

[forgethell]

136. Well, I hope so,

but my money would be on the stink he stirs sticking to us all.

[ProgressiveDepot.com]

28. Media loves a story

and Howard Dean gives it to them. I don't know if he's setting a trap exactly, but calling out the GOP is right on, even if they squawk a lot about it and try to act as if they are oh so shocked that someone would say such things. Calling them out is the only way to stop them.

[Rainscents]

40. F%$king Ed Schultz... He is trashing Dean again!

He is another Democrat corporate whore!

[napi21]

49. Yes, I'm listening to Schultz. I like his show, but he's wrong today!

I think Dean has figured out that if you aren't controversial, you can't get the media attention. Sure he's upsetting some people, but the core of his comments are right!

We do need a plan to push, but I think that should come a little later...a little closer to the elections.

[Larkspur]

64. Dean has got to help setup the Dem state parties in "red" states first

so that the Dem message has some sort of infrastructure to get out to the public.

[Puglover]

103. Ed Schultz

is being a piece of SHIT today. I'm normally okay with him but today he is being a fucking tool for the Repukes. God how I wish we had Randi on the radio in Minneapolis instead Mr. Meat Eatting Gun Toting Schultz.

[kerrygoddess]

53. Our Platform?

Can you provide an outline? Maybe I'm just not hearing it in what he's saying. Sorry.

[Disturbed]

91. "We managed to smear Bush with the National Guard stuff."

WTF? There was an attempt to get the "facts" out about w's AWOL out, which the Rethugs quite cleverly sidetracked with their plant of "suspicious" docs that became the story instead of w's duck out.

Dean tell the truth and the Rethugs whine and think it's Hell. Seems to me that the majority of the Dem Party are spineless appeasers to the Rethug agenda.

[Dr Fate]

84. Great- then he should talk about the God-damned UK memo then.

Oh I forgot, the Iraq War is "old news" and "not a concern for swing voters" or some bull-shit.

[ecstatic]

114. Exactly! Now that he has their attention, he can bring up the DSM nt

[Pryderi]

137. Dean should talk about DSM tomorrow, b4 the MSM runs away.

[stickdog]

119. Well, Repuke-loving trolls are certainly worried about Dean's approach.

So are all the DINO corpocrats. And so are the media whores. So that's a very good sign.

[wryter2000]

145. You are so right!

I sat in front of the TV set howling in laughter last night at the CBS Evening News as they went on and on and on and spent several minutes speaking to Dean directly. They gave him a huge audience to repeat the truth over and over. He couldn't have asked for better publicity for his message.

As Plaid Adder said the other day, he's crazy like a fox.

[jsw_81]

147. You can't be serious

Yeah, Dean's brilliant plan is working just like in the primaries! First you lose Iowa, then New Hampshire, then Wisconsin, then California...what a brilliant plan that was!

And now, a year later, Dean's being attacked by several prominent Democrats including Obama, Richardson, Biden and Pelosi. Brilliant Dr. Dean, just brilliant! </sarcasm>

[MsTryska]

150. you know i find it hilarious....

that everybody is up in arms about what Dean says.

first of all, he's absolutely right.


secondly - wasn't delay just talking about how Democrats have no ideas and no class just a couple of weeks back?

[jbuist]

157. Wow, just wow!

You get a guy on the website saying that maybe you should rethink how you present your message and you lambast the guy, saying that the public is stupid for not voting Democratic, the Republicans are evil, and the election was stolen.

Uhh... sounds like message you've had since 2000!

I'll admit it: I voted for Bush.

That is a decision that I REGRET to this day. It took a while, but I saw the error in my ways. Granted, I wouldn't have voted Kerry, either, knowing what I know now, but this I can say for certain:

Bush is NOT good for this country.

Unless one party or the other makes some solid reforms I will not vote for either of them ever again. The presidential seat was the only Republican vote I made, actually, the rest were Libertarian.

So, take this as some neutral advice. Actually, failing my libertarian utopia that I now I won't see, I'd like to see a Democratic president in 2008 if we've still got a Republican House/Senate. Now, if the House/Senate goes Democratic then I want a Republican president. I -like- gridlock.

For Dean to get up and say that the Republican party is the party of "white Christians" does NOT help you. Do you seriously want to alienate every white Christian out there? That's NOT productive. Attack the policy, not the VOTING POPULATION!

This guy is a MORON! I'm sorry, but you cannot attack the voting populace. The Republicans are attacking the ELECTORATS left and right. Hey, that works, guys! Attack those up for office, don't slander the freaking voting public!

The Republicans were hell-bent on making John Kerry look like a whishy-washy French-friendly guy during the presidential election. It was a smear campaign. Hint: It worked.

To counter that you CANNOT go forth with a program that says that anybody that voted for Bush is a freaking moron. You might think that, and frankly you might be right, but you don't win public opinion polls by calling the majority a bunch of idiots.

I'm sorry, but that's just not how it works.

Somebody on this thread commented that 2% of the population benefits from Republicans and the other 98% should be voting Democratic. Well, I think that's skewed, but if you really do believe that then you must admit: You've got to be running a pretty crappy campaign to not get all of that 98% vote.

Oh, but they're just too STUPID to vote for you. Keep telling them that, guys... people love to hear how stupid they are!

Keep on trucking down that path and this country is headed to Hell in a Handbasket, because I sure as heck do not want to see a ONE party system. You think Democrats represent 98% of the population? Well, then act like that, convice the population of that, and win a freaking election.

I wish you the best of luck, but this thread does not give me much confidence. Nor do Dean's recent comments. I'm white. I'm Christian. I'm supposed to vote Republican, right?

Dangerous thing to have the head of your party spouting off like that. Ya know, alienating one giant pool of the populace and all.

[Guaranteed]

159. You're hearing the truth- for once.

If you don't like it, go back to Faux News. We're going with what's right. And we ARE going to win. It's going to take awhile to undo the damage the DLC did, but we will win with straightforward leadership.

The Republicans have won by attacking gays, liberals, non-Christians, blacks- hell, you name it, if it isn't WHITE CHRISTIAN, they've attacked them. And it's because people believe them.

Dean isn't fucking around. He can be trusted. He's a leader. People like that. It wins votes.

[MsTryska]

165. did you mean to respond to me?

all i said was Dean was right. And he is. I had the pleasure of seeing him speak just a few nights ago, and he couldn't have been more on the money. (btw - he doesn't hate christians - he has a better understanding of scripture than quite a few thumping the bible right nolw, and he made it plain at his speech)

[bitchkitty]

177. ROFLMAO!

"I'll admit it: I voted for Bush."

And yet here you are, expecting to convince real Democrats of the rightness of your position.

[janx]

181. HAHAHAHA!

Get used to it. He and we are not going away.

By the way, libertarians love Dean. Get your act straight.