An open letter to Howard Dean

[Old and In the Way]

Hello Howard-

Did you get a chance to see the Peace rally in Washington this weekend? The real one on Saturday.

Did the thought occur to you that the people are begging for some Democratic leadership? ANSWER is good, but it ain't the real answer. Might it not be in the interests of the Party, and us, to capitalize on this momentum? You guys (the DNC) could get the permits, you could do this regionally....good old fashioned Democratic barnburner-type rallies. Showcase the candidates for the 2006 race. Theme it - Demand Paper ballots. Demand a plan to end the occupation of Iraq. Demand Govenment Accountability.

Maybe Kristinn can do the same for the Republican Party :rofl:

Whaddaya say Howard? This is it Howard...it's now or never. We're game.

[Independent_Liberal]

1. Good letter.

I think Howard is somebody who gets it.

[SoDesuKa]

2. Official Boycott

I don't understand why established Democrats flee the antiwar movement the way Dracula flees the crucifix. Dean opposed the war, didn't he? Why the phobia?

[Old and In the Way]

8. Perhaps it is the sponsors of the Rally.....

Hate to say it, but the Republican Corporate media would have smeared any Democrat as a supporter of Neo-Stalinism or some such idiocy by appearing on ANSWER's stage. I think they feared the media consequences more than the opportunity to broadcast a message to millions. That's why they need to control the rally.

Of course, they need to finally admit the mistake of trusting GWB on his intentions with regards to Iraq. They were lied to. Admit it. Then go on the offensive.

[LittleClarkie]

28. Well, he said that the reasons for going were bogus

but his stance is similar to Clark's and Kerry's. More of a pottery barn position, really. Except that I think Bush is incapable of doing what is probably needed to get out of Iraq with any kind of dignity.

But no, Dean is not exactly a war protester. And he is certainly NOT an "out NOW!" person.

[welshTerrier2]

3. the Democrats have no choice but to react now

as the anti-war majority grows larger and larger and more and more active, the Democratic Party will "react" ... we will not continue to see the same kind of ad hoc policy from various Democrats nor will we see what essentially has been a non-policy from the Party itself ...

things are going to change very soon ... they have to ...

what's at issue here is not whether the Democrats will finally put something together but exactly what they will put together ... merely issuing some kind of unified message about all the things bush should be doing in Iraq "to win" is not going to win the Party any points ... the public is clearly looking for a major change in course and will not be tolerant of a "tip toe lack of passion" approach from the Democrats ...

Howard Dean and others need to understand the political imperatives NOW ... you are very correct to emphasize that's it now or never ... if Democrats don't lead the way with bold ideas, they will have squandered their very best issue for next year and beyond ... "at least we're not republicans" may get us some votes next year but it won't get us the mandate we'll have to have to make the huge, bold changes the country needs ...

[Old and In the Way]

7. "the public is clearly looking for a major change in course "

Totally agree....they need to put a contrasting vision to the Roil Republican Party that is killing this country in every way imaginable.

I think it needs to be sweeping, but easily explainable...I think my comments in post 6 would be a damn good start.

[abbeyco]

4. I hope Howard says "Game On!"

And comes up with something. We shouldn't have to beg for someone to take up the leadership role!

[autorank]

5. The 'leet don't mix with "the yardlings."

The limos couldn't make it to the good seats up front. Walking might have entailed meeting those who would not let them pass. Arriving early, well, that's just not fashionable.

We have Democratic leaders who are great: Conyers, Russ Holt, Rangel, Tubb Jones, Boxer, Clark, Byrd. These people have all spoken up, loudly and very much in the public eye. They didn't have to be there. The ones who need to establish credibility don't know they should be there...and there is no health in our party (that's an allusion, but accurate). In fact, we are the party, the "leaders" need to follow us.

[Old and In the Way]

6. I agree...they've become, as a group, incapable of leading.

They've been out of power for a decade. They've lost the institutional capacity to do it.

ANSWER is not the answer and I think this may effectively work to isolating out Democratic leaders and the base. The crazy thing is they could have put this rally on....and done it 10x better.

The big problem is that they need to 1st confess the errors of their ways. It's pretty simple, 4 step plan, really-

(1) Admit that Bush misled you on the causus belli...and become committed to ending the PNAC plan for world domination/endless war and war-profiteering.

(2) Commit to a new Democratic agenda that will restructure our energy security, creating independence from ME oil and face the post peak oil realities.

(3) Create a new economy that will emphasize job creation to implement this new energy strategy.

(4) Demand Voting Accountability and a massive GOTV drive

I hear a lot from 'Pubs saying Democrats have no ideas....OK, show them the ideas. Kerry had this agenda in his platform, but he undersized it and did a pisspoor job of marketing it.

Thing is, the Democrats have to do this soon....and get on a common message. They have to promote candidates in 2006 that will support the message 100%. If the candidate doesn't, he's not supported. They can do this through the internet and through regional rallies.

This is where Howard can make an impact.....

[autorank]

9. I agree totally.

If Howard is trying, good for him. I thought that the DNC Report on Ohio was a pathetic event, a disgrace to our party and the cause of civil and voting rights. It was slammed together on consultant letterhead, it had no coherent narrative, and it spend 100 of 200 pages arguing that we lost Ohio without reference to the best statistical evidence, the Ohio Exit polls which showed Kerry winning 51% to 48%. The Exit Poll is the only election event that day with a consistent paper trail.

Anyway, they need to do your Four Step Program and then an 8th step too!

[Le Taz Hot]

36. I think we can agree that ANSWER is not

an organization with which the Dems need to be associated.

Politically, the Democrats cannot actually organize an anti-war protest for at least 2 reasons:

1) There are Senators who voted "yes" on the IWR and will never admit it was a disastrous vote. A Democrat-sponsored anti-war gathering would, at least tacitly, be publicly condemning those Senators which the DNC should not do.

2) It would alienate those who don't want to believe that almost 2000 American soldiers have died for the accumulation of wealth for a few.

That being said, this IS politics and there are all kinds of ways the Dems can support the anti-war movement without appearing to directly support it. For example, ensuring that qualified anti-war candidates have access to local supporters, particularly those supporters who could donate, say, cheap real estate that could be used for campaign headquarters -- you know how it works.

People are hungry for jobs, affordable health care -- all those things TRADITIONAL Democrats (used to) care about. They care far less about terrorism but care very much about spending so many billions rebuilding the place we destroyed. They are, so to speak, "ripe for the picking."

I agree that Dean could probably be more aggressive in support of the anti-war movement and could probably be doing more regarding voter reform. OTOH, I am encouraged by his emphasis on local participation. It's how the Republicans did it (and that was after Nixon) and it's how we need to do it. I'm willing to cut him some slack for the time being as he's still new to the position. We'll see how it goes.

[AntiCoup2K4]

10. You think the Freeps ever considered that it's their "leader" who is.....

...to blame for the low turnout at their rallies?

I mean, would you really expect a bunch of homophobic rednecks to follow a GUY named "Kristinn"??

[Old and In the Way]

11. Right response, wrong thread!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4885660&mesg_id=4885660

LOL

[madfloridian]

12. Another open letter to Howard Dean...one of zillions.

God almighty, that man must be powerful...everyone is writing him letters.

Dear Howard Dean:

Just ignore all the letters and build the party.

Thanks.

[mandyky]

20. Not only that Dem Leadership in Congress told Dean

Hands off on policy. Iraq is a policy issue. So CC a copy of your letter to Dean to Pelosi and Reid.

[win_in_06]

13. Did any would-be Presidential candidate attend the march?

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. Even Kucinich stayed away

Perhaps ANSWER is too far to the left even for him. :shrug:

[MaineDem]

21. He was in Maine

His visit here had been scheduled for a long time.

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. I'm sure the other potential presidential candidates had previous

engagements as well.

[win_in_06]

26. Unlikely that every single one had a previous engagement that could

not be rearranged.

More likely that this event was seen as political dynamite for some reason.

[eridani]

32. He was in DC in the morning speaking at the Green Rally n/t

[Guaranteed]

14. Dean should have spoken up for the Cuban Five.

But, maybe when we get our shit together, maybe if we get more focused, more reasonable, maybe when we come back to EARTH, Dean will show up and speak to the world, with us.

Let's hope. Please.

[bklyncowgirl]

15. I like the idea very much but the Democrats have to get on the same page

One simple thing, as a first step would be to push a resolution in Congress that America has no longterm interest in Iraq. No military bases--no ongoing troop presence. Our policy is to withdraw our troops as soon as possible.

Set the conditions under which the U.S. will withdraw--Wes Clark has a plan that could be the basis for this. A tentative timetable for these conditions being met would be good.

Third--and more difficult--would be to admit that going to war with Iraq was the wrong thing to do. This of course would involve many Democrats admitting they were wrong or that they were duped.

Big rallies around the country would be great. Bring out the party's barnburner speakers and introduce the new candidates with enthusiasm and excitement.

Enthusiasm and excitement are something that have been sorely missing in the Democratic party for quite some time.

[mandyky]

16. Doesn't Dean have to support our party platform on the Iraq War?

Should we start there with special session rallies to revisit that?
If I remember right the Dem platform supports Iraq to some degree.

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. Here is what the platform says about Iraq:

Winning the peace in Iraq. More than a year ago, President Bush stood on an aircraft carrier under
a banner that proclaimed "mission accomplished." But today we know that the mission is not finished,
hostilities have not ended, and our men and women in uniform fight almost alone with the target squarely
on their backs.

People of good will disagree about whether America should have gone to war in Iraq, but this much
is clear: this Administration badly exaggerated its case, particularly with respect to weapons of mass
destruction and the connection between Saddam's government and al Qaeda. This Administration did
not build a true international coalition. This Administration disdained the United Nations weapons
inspection process and rushed to war without exhausting diplomatic alternatives. Ignoring the advice of
military leaders, this Administration did not send sufficient forces into Iraq to accomplish the mission.
And this Administration went into Iraq without a plan to win the peace.

Now this Administration has been forced to change course in order to correct this fundamental
mistake. They are now taking up the suggestions that many Democrats have been making for over a
year. And they must – because having gone to war, we cannot afford to fail at peace. We cannot allow
a failed state in Iraq that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in the
Middle East. And we must secure more help from an international community that shares a huge stake
in helping Iraq become a responsible member of that community, not a breeding ground for terror and
intolerance.

As a first step, we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. To do this right, we must
truly internationalize both politically and militarily: we cannot depend on a US-only presence. Other
nations have a vital interest in the outcome, and we must bring them in to commit troops and resources.

The Bush Administration has missed three great opportunities to do that. First, the President broke his
promise to build a legitimate coalition in Iraq by exhausting diplomacy before resorting to the use of
military force. Second, when the statue fell in Baghdad, Kofi Annan invited the United States to come
to the table to discuss international support – but we rejected his offer. Third, when the President
addressed the United Nations last fall, he once again refused to acknowledge the difficulties we faced in
Iraq and failed to elicit support from other nations.

The President has not given our troops the clarity of mission, the equipment or the international
support they need and deserve. We have a different approach based on a simple commitment: Troops
come first. Our helicopter pilots have flown battlefield missions without the best anti-missile systems. In
a Democratic Administration, that will change. Too many of our nation's finest troops have died in
attacks, because tens of thousands were deployed to Iraq without the best bulletproof vests, and there
is a shortage of armored vehicles on the ground. In a Democratic Administration, that will change.

Thousands of National Guardsmen and reservists have been forced to leave their families and jobs for
2004 Democratic National Platform – 9
more than a year – with no end in sight – because this Administration ignored the pressing need for a
true coalition. In a Democratic Administration, that will change.

To succeed, America must do the hard work of engaging the world's major political powers in this
mission. We must build a coalition of countries, including the other permanent members of the UN
Security Council, to share the political, economic, and military responsibilities of Iraq with the United
States.

To win over allies, we must share responsibility with those nations that answer our call, and treat
them with respect. We must lead, but we must listen. The rewards of respect are enormous. We must
convince NATO to take on a more significant role and contribute additional military forces. As other
countries, including Muslim majority countries, contribute troops, the United States will be able to
reduce its military presence in Iraq, and we intend to do this when appropriate so that the military
support needed by a sovereign Iraqi government will no longer be seen as the direct continuation of an
American military presence.

Second, we need to create an international High Commissioner to serve as the senior international
representative working with the Iraqi government. This Commissioner should be backed by a newly
broadened security coalition and charged with overseeing elections, assisting with drafting a
constitution, and coordinating reconstruction. The Commissioner should be highly regarded by the
international community, have the credibility to talk to all the Iraqi people, and work directly with Iraq's
interim government, the new U.S. Ambassador, and the international community.

At the same time, U.S. and international policies must take into consideration the best interests of the
Iraqi people. The Iraqi people desperately need financial and technical assistance that is not swallowed
up by bureaucracy and no-bid contracts, but instead goes directly into grassroots organizations. They
need to see the tangible benefits of reconstruction: jobs, infrastructure, and services. They should also
receive the full benefits of their own oil production as quickly as possible, so as to rebuild their country
and help themselves as individuals, while also reducing the costs of security and reconstruction on the
American taxpayer and the cost of gasoline to American consumers.
And they need to be able to
communicate their concerns to international authorities without feeling they are being disrespected in
their own country.

America also needs a massive training effort to build Iraqi security forces that can actually provide
security for the Iraqi people. It must be done in the field and on the job as well as in the classroom.

Units cannot be put on the street without backup from international security forces. This is a task we
must do in partnership with other nations, not just on our own. And this is a task in which we must
succeed. If we fail to create viable Iraqi security forces – military and police – there is no successful exit
for us and other nations.

The challenges in Iraq are great, but the opportunity is also significant. Under John Kerry and John
Edwards, we will meet those challenges, win the peace in Iraq, and help to create new hope and
opportunity for the entire Middle East.

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

[mandyky]

19. Yes, we need to revise the platform then

Bush is not internationalizing - he is losing support.
Democrats need to address the issue of the Guard and Reserves and how their use is hurting military families, and post Katrina, leaving us without needed help for natural disasters.

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. The platform is a product of the Democratic National Convention

We won't have another one until 2008.

[welshTerrier2]

24. that's a horrible process ...

how does a political party speak to the nation on what it believes? is it OK to build a static document that is updated only once every four years? or would one argue that the views of the party should be expressed in an ad hoc fashion by its elite members?

The Democratic Party's platform is badly out of date ... take this gem for example: "We must convince NATO to take on a more significant role and contribute additional military forces."

Is this the view we currently want to present to the American people?

The point of all this is that the Democratic Party appears weak because we are a fuzzy collection of individuals with no unifying theme ... we get ad hoc pronouncements of positions that often contradict each other ... instead of having each speech contribute to the "core beliefs", perhaps seasoning the main entree with a slightly different flavor, we become a party of individuals often serving up different entrees ...

This is not to argue that we should demand regimented control with every Democrat marching in lockstep ... but the Party does lack message discipline and our processes need to change if we are to become more effective ...

[MaineDem]

27. States are working on their platforms now

Get involved. Contact your state party office and volunteer for the Platform Committee.

This is how we get our points of view heard. From the states to the national convention. It starts in each state.

I can't think of any way to change the national Platform process. Any ideas?

[Old and In the Way]

29. Hi MaineDem.

It really is irrelevant with regards to the 2006 midterms. What the Democrats need to do is get together and hash out a simple, but sweeping vision that can be imprinted on every candidate running in 2006 and understood by every voter. We really need to have a consistant message that prioritizes national issues in this cycle. We can't be nailed with "no message" accusations by the Republicans this time.

See my points about. We need a simplified recap that shows a positive vision for our future and one that contrasts to the Republican "deadend" future that their policies are driving us to.

This could be done with state collaboration with the National DNC Committee now.

[MaineDem]

35. The DNC and states are working on a message now

I think there's a Messaging Project link at the mainedems.org website.

The states have been or are working on getting input into what our message should be. Howard Dean has directed them to do it. The DNC is meeting in December to go over it and come up with an actual message that candidates and parties can agree to follow.

This sounds like what you're saying. I agree with you; this is vital for us to do.

I do know that the Maine Platform Committee will be distributing questionnaires to the counties shortly looking for input into the state's platform. It will probably be on the website at some point as well.

[welshTerrier2]

30. i watched as delegates were shouted down from the podium

Massachusetts, where i live, holds platform hearings all over the state ... maybe 5 or 10 meetings at different locations ... no one knows about them; no one attends; no candidate is bound by the platform ... and we keep electing republican governors ... when people tried to speak up on issues at last April's state convention, they were shouted down from the podium ... it was a very ugly scene and i know many were alienated by the Party's arrogance and insensitivity ...

i'll have to give the idea of a platform process more thought ... the goal, it seems to me, should be to actively involve as many Democrats as possible ... and the platform should be a living document ... it should be the "public speaking manual" to serve as a guide for a bit more "message discipline" ... it needs a mechanism to allow for regular updating ...

maybe a Democratic monthly survey for those willing to participate with that frequency and maybe a quarterly or annual survey for those who "can't be bothered" that much ... and the results of the survey should be published on the DNC's website ... and from those results, a platform can be shaped ... how's that sound??

i've also been unsuccessfully calling for regular town meetings between elected Democrats and their constituents ... without a more democratic Democratic Party, we ain't going nowhere ...

if the party represents the views of the people, instead of telling us what we should think, they might just do a little better ...

[Old and In the Way]

38. This is where Dean ought to be leveraging the Internet.

Why not have an internet based national convention? Give all registered Democrats as of 11/4/04 a password to access a site built strictly for voting on messages? It could be in the form of multiple choice opinion poll based on the ideas put forth by the State/National chairs.

Wouldn't this be participatory Democracy at it's finest? Get a national message based on the combined input of millions of Democrats.

Dean knows the value of the internet...why not take it to another level to help define the message for those that are running for national office?

[flyarm]

31. I WAS A DELEGATE TO NATIONAL CONVENTION...

and byt the time we were elected the platform was a done deal..we got no say over the platform other than to sign and say yea..its a joke..the days where delegates really voted the platform et al ..are long gone..its mostly a bogus process today...sad but true...we were even told basically "stay nicey nice"..i can honestly say the only speaker i heard that even began to evoke my feelings and emotions was sharpton...he had me screaming approval...the rest..it was boring and so polite i wanted to gag! i thought i was at a concert most of the time..a hollywood production instead of a seat at our governments heart...of "WE THE PEOPLE"...

ITS ALL WINDOW DRESSING NOW!

fly

[Marleyb]

25. another open letter to Dean....

they seem to be going around...

This letter is in response to one sent by the DNC regarding the Roberts confirmation for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (original letter posted below my response.)

Dear Mr. Dean,

Although the Roberts confirmation is indeed an important issue, I think a much more important issue is voter fraud. What went down in Ohio on Nov 3, 2004 and after, is a frontal assault on our cherished Democracy. Why did Kerry concede and why did only 47 house reps led by John Conyers, and one Senator, Barbara Boxer, speak out on this before the chambers? The evidence supports the fact that our elections appear to be fixed now. It makes all other arguments and issues moot. Bush’s support can drop to 20% and incumbant republicans need not worry as long as the fix is in. As long as the Democrats are making no real effort to address THAT issue, why should I send any money? Why should I vote? Why should I participate in our “so-called” democracy when it is a lie. Do you think I’m the only one who feels this way?

The only explanation that makes a shred of sense to me as to why the Democrats have been so quiet on this is that because you are also in the corporations pocket’s, maintaining the status quo is your most important constituency, and speaking out on this issue would be rocking the boat at your own peril. I’m not convinced of this argument, but I’m surely stumped to come up with a better explanation for the Democrats inaction. I think not rocking the boat will lead to your peril; it certainly has regarding my personal support for the Democratic Party. As terrible as Bush and the neocons are, watching the Dems sleepwalk while the neocons literally get away with murder is almost as bad. I know you had four decades in the majority and now an entire decade in the minority, but you guys need to learn how to act like an opposition party. Watching your fiery rhetoric during the last presidential campaign, you would seem to be an ideal person to lead this fight. But I ain’t seen much from you yet.

One person, one vote. Make it a reality again.

Justis Suffram Disaffected Democrat
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=8473

[ladylibertee]

33. I think he'd SCREAM at the opportunity.LOL

[JNelson6563]

34. Hmmm, let's see

Keep pouring heart and soul into party building or put together lots of protests that accomplish little but to make the participants fell good.....hmmmm......lemme think about that.

Apparently the weak and sickly condition of county and state Democratic parties across this country is Dean's top priority. I know in my miniscule-in-comparison leadership role I have been appalled at what I see. In fourteen counties, guess who the biggest losers are? Those who focus on "visibility" efforts that consist of participating in local parades. No mailings, no fundraisers, no real party building efforts. In more than one instnace these are the same counties fortunate enough to have a stellar candidate step up for, say, county clerk, only to find their local party has absolutely nothing to offer them in the way of support or even a strong voting base.

Yes, protests are lots of fun but nothing makes a statement like winning elections. Protests don't go very far in that regard.

Julie

[_Winston_Smith_101]

37. Re. Excellent Idea!

The Democrats need to get behind Mother Sheehan and the anti-war activitists and take off the kid gloves in this illegal Republican war!