Fellow Blogger Fans,

If I were one of those individuals, I would have an iffy feeling for sure but understand that Dean is both an asset and an X factor, if you will.  However, what is wrong with saying that Dean expresses himself in some ways and you in others and that you both do not agree on everything?  I mean, how many vicious things has the GOP propaganda machine (talk radio, fox news etc) said over the years about liberals that GOP politicians do not have to answer for or feel any pressure to do so? How many times have GOP pols have to answer for vicious attacks on liberals by Ann Coulter etc?

God knows Democrats need to be more aggressive in discrediting what a "CON - servative" means just as the GOP discredited the term "liberal" to a point liberals did not want to use it.  How can we achieve that division of labor, if you will, that the GOP has acomplished? We have to think about it because thats what we have to do. I mean, thats above my pay grade. So, ya'll hack at it.

For my part, what is wrong with saying,"Howard Dean and I both agree most of the time. Were both on the same team, if you will. However, he expresses himself in ways I may choose not to and we do not agree on everything. I do not feel the need to answer for the comments of this or that person." Something along those lines should be our goal.

Carlos

Wasn't there a deal cut before he became chairman that he would organize and stay under the radar?
Here's a line from a comment I just added to Kilgore's post from yesterday about the religious right. Dean wouldn't be in trouble if people laughed at his cracks. He needs much better writers and to remember that he can't trust his instincts. Mehlman didn't speak a single extemporaneous word in his MTP interview last Sunday.

And as an addendum, as I walk out the door, perhaps we ought to consider how the other side looks at situations like this? Reagan's first law was "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican." I don't think many Repubs were getting their panties in a bunch over how Mitt Romney would deal with Bush deriding Kerry as a "Massachusetts liberal"

Attack dog takes a swing.  Moderates distance themselves.  Attack dog's point has been scored and moderates looks independent, brave and reasonable.  And the dance continues . . .

 I don't recall Republicans pulling their (and each others') hair out when every elected R didn't rally to Bob Dornan's standard.

Dean is a bomb thrower and a fund-raiser, not a standard bearer.  We shouldn't pretend otherwise and we shouldn't ask elected officials to pretend otherwise, either.

Deaniacs, in my opinion, should simmer down.  Dean knows what he's doing, and he knows what Edwards and Biden need to do in response, I suspect.

Let the D's cluck their tongues who feel they need to cluck their tongues, and the volley ends there.  Blows were landed.  Move on (no pun intended). 

A)  What would Republicans do?  Blast their hyperbolic spokesperson, or use the opportunity to clarify and amplify their party's message? 

B)  Biden does far more damage among potential crossover voters by advocating the bankruptcy bill than Dean does by saying nasty things about Republicans.

C)  If undecided voters in the middle actually were driven to vote for a party because the opposition said nasty and untrue things about it, the Dems would win in a landslide.

D)  Anyone hear anything lately about SENATE MAJORITY LEADER BILL FRIST'S public comments that Richard Clarke was guilty of felony perjury? 

What people in Tenn. or Va. or wherever don't seem to realize is that many people in blue areas (myself and many I know) fear the Southern Republicans, not Republicans generally.  If you look at the consensus roster of Reasonable Republicans, the only one (off the top of my head) that is from the South is Lindsey Graham.  Generally speaking, we don't think it's possible to dislodge Republicans from national positions in southern states.  Even if it were possible, we're pretty sure that what we'd have to give up to gain such votes would be too costly.

In our hearts, we'd rather run against the South.  We look at the electoral map, and it looks easier to win in the Southwest and West.   The perceived libertarian sensibilities of those regions seem more in tune with our own, and, in particular, with our particular concerns about this Administration.  We remember the gloss from Micklethwaite that Republicans could lose their majority only if they were identified as too "Christian" or too "Southern."  We think there are long-standing prejudices against the South that make the tropes of running negative easier.  (We suspect that if being kinder to African-Americans makes sense for Republicans because it makes "soccer moms" more likely to view them as sufficiently congenial, then reviving the South's tragic past is likely to remind those same moms that the Southern Republicans weren't always (and may still not be) all that congenial.) We wonder why the DLC-types seem so committed to winning at the national level only by winning the South.

So, when Dr. Dean takes shots that anger Fox News, Republicans, and DLC-types,  we don't care.  Those votes were lost to us already.  To the extent those votes harden against us, fine.  It helps define the party, and it forces us to run in those areas and on those issues with which we are most comfortable.

The question from our side is why you all are so bound and determined to make Them (those in the South) like you.  It just seems sad, like the kid in high school who trailed around after the popular kids, accepting their kicks as a fair trade for their grudging acceptance.

I would be part of the "don't eat your own" crowd.  I like the fact that Dean is throwing a few bombs, but I don't think we need high profile Democrats like Biden to do the work of stirring the pot.

Hell, Opus Dei engages in less self-flagellation than we do.
Yes, his remarks are from time to time intemperate. They are meant to be. He is trying to rally the troops by offering a little rhetorical red meat.  A job made more difficult by a fifth column of PCers afraid of offending the dittoheads of the world.
As a white male Christian living in a red state, I want the party to adopt a more aggressive posture. I am sick and tired of taking it.
If we continue with the smiling soft-shoe posturing offered up by the likes of Biden, we are going to be bullied into political irrelevance.

"Howard Dean's from Vermont, and maybe in Vermont there are no Republicans who get up for work every day.
But down here, things are different. There are Republicans who get up for work in the morning, there are Democrats who get up for work in the morning, there are people who are so fed up with the whole system they don't vote who get up for work in the morning. And I'm running to work for those people too."

 "I think the people Howard doesn't like are in the Republican leadership in Washington. They're out of touch with what's happening in the rest of the country. They talk about being fiscally responsible, but we can all see that's just talk -- look at the big deficits they've made. They talk about responisbility, but no one's taking responsibility for what's going on in Iraq, and no one's trying to change anything to protect our troops who are still dying. It's the Republican Leadership in Washington that Howard can't stand, because they're not very good leaders, and I can see why."

But by and large I don't think this stuff matters. We live in the world where people pay attention to what the party chair says, but even most voters in an off-year election don't pay attention to most of what the candidate says.

He can't organize if he's not "out there", if he's under the radar.  We tried the way of the high-paid folks in the expensive suits, and we lost.  Let's try something else.

Biden does far more damage among potential crossover voters by advocating the bankruptcy bill than Dean does by saying nasty things about Republicans.

What on EARTH are you smoking? Like two people outside of your liberal blog utopia know what the heck you are talking about.  Dean's leading the newscasts and the headlines in the heartland. 

Would someone please link to Dean's actual words, not what someone says that he said.

Thanks!

PS: I'm with BrianOC  Let's talk about what someone actually says, not what O'Reilly and Hannity say they said.

How about this:  Dean should make the same remarks, but focus them on the Republicans "in Washington."  That way, he's trying to drive a wedge between all but the most corrupt Republican voters and the bad guys they put in office.  My concern with the main stream Dem. leadership is that their criticism of Dean can be construed (mis-construed, I think, but no matter) as an endorsement of the Republican leadership.  The fact is that they ARE lazy, white, corrupt, pseudo-christian hypocrits that do not have the best , nterest of the country at heart.  We can't back off on that message and Dean is right to push that line.  He should just focus a little more closely on the politicians, so that Repub. voters don't think he's talking about them.  They are not bad, but we must make it very clear that their leaders are.

It's unbelievably simple.

"I wouldn't say it the way Howard did, and sure we can nitpick his rhetoric.  But Howard meant X and let's face it he's right about that."

How fucking stupid do Dem leaders have to be?

I hate to sound like Atrios on this, but seriously:  Democrats are going to self-punish and self-censor themselves due to fear of what Republicans, particularly the Radical Right, might say?  Or even will say?

First of all, that approach has been tried and hasn't worked.

Second, it leads the mushy middle to believe that the Democrats are weak and vacillating.

Finally, if the leaders of the Democratic Party can't speak the truth, what exactly are they going to say?   Parrot DLC talking points?

Back in the 1980s I had an ultraleftwing, Marxist polisci professor who told us he was probably going to vote for Ronald Reagan.  I asked him why and he said "because the Democrats don't have a single idea they believe in".  If that was how a person of strong convictions felt, how much more so the mushy middle?

sPh
 

Do all of us drink lattes?
Do we all drive volvos?
Are we all "against the troops"?
Do we all "hate America"?
Are none of us "people of faith"?

JESUS, people! Dr. Dean gave us the perfect opportunity to do the framing for a change, and what did we do? We crapped all over it.

Of course he wasn't talking about all Repulicans. How many people actually think he was? (That is, until we let the right wing machine tell everyone that's what he meant.)

How about, instead of smacking him down when asked about his comment, we said "it's obvious that Dr. Dean was speaking of the great strain this administration's policies have had on hard working, middle class Americans."

The stuff that Dean's been saying absolutely must be said. Whether this should be the role of the party chair is a valid question. It's even fair to ask if, from his position, whether his rhetoric does more harm than good.

OTOH, who is postitioned to heard? We don't have an army of screech monkeys dominating the AM radio band. On TV, we don't have an entire 'news network' dedicated to the Dem message. Our pundits are generally outnumbered by the other side. So my question is, who could be the mouthpiece for the fiery rhetoric?

In a perfect world, the party chair would not be my first choice. In today's real world, I don't see a viable alternative.

This doesn't mean every Dem has to line up to embrace Dean. But, neither does it mean they have to line up to attack him. There's plenty of room to get away from the fire breathing rhetoric, but still acknowledge the underlying issues.

An honest day's work? Point to Bush's tax policies that favor wealth over work.

White Chistians? Point to the religious fringe who pull Frist's strings.

The fact is fire breathing rhetoric will appeal to some, while a softer, rational approach will appeal to others. It's not an A or B choice. We need both.

Until we find a populist firebrand with a big enough megaphone, I'll take Dean just the way he is.

There are a lot of bad thing that can be said and should be said about Republicans, especially those in elected office. But, a generalized attack on all Republicans is not helpful, and announcing that White Christians have their own party - the Republican Party - is even less helpful. I felt very good about what Dean said, and have said worse myself, but I am not a spokesman for the party, and Dean is. He shouldn't have done that.

But, he did. Now the question is, should other Democrats have rushed in to distance themselves from what Dean said. Doing that was even less helpful than the comments, so, no they shouldn't have done so. Far better would have been for them to just laugh and say, "yes, that sounds like Dean!" Now, there is no news story.

This is exactly what the Democrats should be doing. Compromising with the current majority party has not worked at all over the past five years and won't work until the democrats start speaking boldly and standing firm. 

Howard Dean (and Harry Reid) are doing a magnificent job.  Yes, there will be momentary democratic backlash and that's to be expected, but the important thing to note is now they are talking about what they believe and not what they think we want the to believe.

Go Howard!

I might feel more sympathy for those governors/senators/etc. wasting precious media capital on responding to Dean's remarks if it was closer to an election, but in the off-season? In news stories that no one but highly partisan news junkies care about? Making scandals out of the conceit that every Democrat is responsible for what the other says is the fundamental organizing principle of the right wing message machine--why do we want to enable that by tacitly agreeing with it?

Let Governor X say what he or she wants about Dean--depending on their situation and politics, perhaps the "I don't share the chairman's ideas" is right, or maybe take a shot and go with "His rhetoric was excessive but he has a point". But forget all that party unity claptrap when it comes to small potatoes like this--the idea that the Democratic party will march lockstep behind some kind of Mehlman-style message and language discipline is a pipe-dream. Why pretend otherwise?

P.S. If you want the idea that Republicans are intolerant elitists to make its way into the national conversation, someone respectable, from time to time, actually has to say that. One can't go on about values and policy differences and hope the voters just infer your real point.

You know, I made a post a few days ago that Dean needed to learn to watch his mouth not because of the substance of what he says so much as how it's taken.  And I still kind of feel that way, because it is a reality that there is a loud right-wing media establishment looking to play his comments over and over again.

And I also was sort of sick of people defending Dean by attacking Biden's criticisms of him in seemingly same way that the Republicans attack all messengers in order to make themselves look not so bad by comparison.

However, your post has changed my mind about the second part.  I do see how a better response by the "mainstream" Democrats who didn't like the words could have turned the whole issue to the Dems advantage.

Thanks for this very useful post and here's proof that minds can be changed, even in politics.

The statements were blunt stereotypes, but I don’t think they were controversial coming from a DNC Chair. How many of your Virginians could even name the head of the RNC? Detractors have cherry picked remarks that were rallying cries to the choir. Why is the press focusing on some preaching from the head of the party? They are repeating the same old meme that Dean is out of control. Let’s face it, liberals will never get a fair shake from the liberal media.

I do have to say that what Dean is doing is a legitimate question for Democrats. Ken Melman is in the middle of an outreach program to widen the Republican tent (which does make Dean’s timing look bad). There is something to be said for pandering:

Mehlman (to Jewish group yesterday): “There is a proud tradition in the Jewish community of progressivism, of the idea of righteousness and justice. It was because of this tradition that the American Jewish community was at the forefront of the Civil Rights movement in the 60s. Now there is a new progressivism, a progressivism of the year 2005, and Republicans are at the forefront." (from Arrivenet) <http://press.arrivenet.com/pol/article.php/651320.html>

A lot of this boils down to the question of whether the votes to be won are part of a "vital center" or a "mushy middle".  JMM seems to be a firm believer in the "vital center" theory.

 The German military strategy and tactics that the behind-the-scenes guys of the Republican Party love to study, however, state pretty clearly:  when in a difficult situation, attack or retreat.  But don't fiddle about in the middle not making a decision.

My experience in business and politics tells me that is about right: voters in the center will drift this way and that, never making a decision until the last minute.  Then they will go with the candidate who appears strongest.  

Internal counter-attacks on Dean, and Democratic failure to respond to Republican attacks, makes Dems look weak in many peoples' eye.  So they mush over to the Republicans.

sPh 

I want to hear Republicans defending themselves for a change. How many times have you heard a Fox broadcast discussing whether the Dems really eat their young? They finally agree that they probably don't really eat their young, but they've talked about it so long that the viewer is saying, gee, I wonder if they really do eat their young. In the past few days there  has been a lot of commentary about the true fact that the Republicans are pretty much a party of white Christians. They're dragging out the usual best friends  to show they really aren't, not  really, but suddenly we have this topic of conversation. The Republicans  ran an election as the outsider party, obfuscating the fact they had been in charge for 4 years! How did they do that? I remember Jon Stewart's great send up of the Republican convention and all of its anger. "We've been in charge for 4 years and we're not going to take it anymore." I think we need a positive message of what we can do and a fierce attack on the Republicans for how they are damaging this country. Kind of like the Cinderella man needs his left hand.(Great, feel good movie if you haven't seen it.) I think moneyed interests are controlling too much of the Democrat's message. The incumbants and the power elite lobbies are wanting to be incharge again, but not change things too terribly much. Howard Dean is breath of fresh air. My criticism is for the other Democrats trying to tear him down and voting for the Bankruptcy bill.

John Edwards has the best approach. Without tearing Dean down he said calmly, I agree with Dean without agreeing with the words he used. John Edwards full blog post is here.

He didn't stab Dean in the back, instead, he said what he needed to say while reemphasizing Dr. Dean's point that the GOP is in fact the party of only white Christians.

It is a little odd to assume that we can court Republicans to our side by not offending them. Republicans can already be not offended by other Republicans, if that's what they want.

How did Reagan win his base from the Democrats? It wasn't by talking nicely about Democrats. He accused the Dems of being weak on the Cold War, and mired in economic malaise and he said it with enough force that enough moderate Democrats said, "You know, maybe he's right" and then switched sides to join him.

If we're going to reach moderate Republicans than we have to be not afraid to criticize. Because there are Republicans out there who can be persuaded to ask themselves "You know, I'm not a jobless corrupt Plutocrat, so why am I voting for jobless, corrupt Plutocrats?"

Or, we could be polite. In which case, those moderate Republicans will stay right where they are, among the people that not even their opponents have a nasty word for.

The alleged offensiveness of Dr. Dean's remarks pale in comparison to things that Republican party leaders say every week, yet you don't notice moderate Republicans feeling obligated to attack their fellow Republicans every time they do.

Republicans are smart enough to know that access to the media is a limited resource, and you want to use that access to advance your agenda, not that of your enemies. For example, Joe Biden could have asked to have the whole paragraph read back to him, then he could have pointed to Dean's complaint about Ohio voters forced to wait eight hours to vote.  He could then say something like "I wouldn't have used Howard's phrasing, but I fully agree with him that it's an outrage that Americans had to wait eight hours to vote; people who have to work for a living can't tolerate that." The interviewer will then keep bringing the topic back to Dean's outrage.  Biden could then have asked why the interviewer is more interested in stirring up a fight than in the outrage that Americans had to wait eight hours to vote. He could then have stuck like glue to this point.

But he didn't, because he's rather have the Russerts of the world keep him on their "go-to" list than have his party win elections.

He could then say something like "I wouldn't have used Howard's phrasing, but I fully agree with him that it's an outrage that Americans had to wait eight hours to vote; people who have to work for a living can't tolerate that." The interviewer will then keep bringing the topic back to Dean's outrage.  Biden could then have asked why the interviewer is more interested in stirring up a fight than in the outrage that Americans had to wait eight hours to vote. He could then have stuck like glue to this point.

This post deserves a 6 or 7.  Well done!

sPh 

Yes, Dean is leading headlines, and at my all Republican office in Mesquite, TX we just talked about it and what did I hear from my Republican coworkers? Finally, a Democrat with balls! Everyone in the room was nodding. That's six Republicans (two of whom are party activists) agreeing: love him or hate him, Dean says what he believes. They respect that.

<span class="Apple-style-span">"Here in Georgia, I live in a fairly affluent part of the sticks. Many of my friends and neighbors voted for... Bush in 2004... they can easily swing back in the next election. With comments like Dean's, that becomes less likely."</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">
</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">
</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">Are you suggesting that we're in danger of losing the affluent rural vote? Damn. It's more serious than I thought.</span&gt

I've got no problems with Dr. Dean being tough, and I'm not primarily concerned about potentially offending Republicans.  But there's a difference between being touch about things that matter and sounding like an idiot over things that aren't particularly important. 

And Dr. Dean's comments made me cringe internally because, as reported, at least, they sounded as dippy as the kind of things the wingnuts on the right say that make me wonder how anyone can take them seriously.  I'm fine with playing negative, but for goodness sakes don't play negative about things that aren't particularly important or are demonstrably false or just sound silly or out of touch with most people's day-to-day reality. 

We're the party that's smart, that's honest, that's evidence-based and reality-based.  I know people are angry and want to win, but it's not worth giving up these values.

We have a democratic woman governor here in Louisiana; she's fairly conservative, but she has to be to survive here.  I think writing off the South is a mistake.  Too many are hurting economically because of loss of jobs and low wages.  There's got to be some possiiblity  of a Dem constituency here.

This is spot on. Dean should stay on the attack, but on message.

I don't agree with one part of your comment.  If he talks about the Republican leadership, he should say so.  In the "honest living" comment he was talking about why it was that Republican voters could stand in line longer than Democratic voters.  Unless the lines were made up of bands of roving House and Senate members, he was talking about all Republicans.

Having worked for vulnerable Democratic members of Congress, comments like Dr.Dean's make it harder for these folks to comfortably be identified as Democrats.  I'm all for calling the Administration, Congress, and the various scoundrels at the RNC what they are, but painting people who vote Republican with the same broad brush only exaserbates the problems we have in bringing in new people to even consider voting Democratic.

Could the animus of the old line Democratic Party aparatchiki toward Dean reach any greater depth of absurdity and self immoliating stupidity? A party engaged in a struggle for its own political life and the life of the Nation is forming circular firing squads because the party chair said some nasty things about the opposition? 

It's time to face the facts of political life in the U.S. circa 2005. The post-war liberal consensus that governed our politics for 35 years is dead. It's passing was signaled by the advent of Reaganism. It was a long time passing but it has passed on.

Biden, Kerry and Co. have never managed to get their minds around this central reality. They  behave as though the Congress and Senate remain the pragmatic boys and gentleman's clubs that Cold War Liberalism built . They  continue to practice the tactics of so-called moderation and compromise even though the GOP is interested in neither.  In practical terms such a policy amounts to endlessly giving ground to the radical right. The GOP and their reactionary constituencies aren't interested in politics as usual. The are interested in destroying the opposition and consolidating their dominance for the foreseeable future.  Under current circumstances a politics based on maintaining the status quo is an invitation to political suicide.

So instead of using the current flap to frame the debate in terms  of the GOP fatcats and theocrats, the Dem establishment prefers to turn its guns on Dean and by extension the grassroots insurgency that he symbolizes. Evidently they consider both him and the activist base greater threats to their perqs and privileges than the GOP. 

If the Social Security fight had been left to the likes of these, the Dem Senate leadership would be sharing a handshaking photo-op with Bush as he signed the phase out bill, hailing it as a triumph of bi-partisanship. 

Ironically, the fact that there's a lot of thoughtful commentary posted here about Dean and his remarks lends creedence to the idea that, even if one dislikes the choice of words or the seeming carelessness with which Dean speaks his mind, the things he has said that have sparked controversy are relevant points of interest from which meaingful new dialog can emerge.

Certainly, despite many who've apparently taken umbrage at Dean's remarks about the White Christian make up of the republican party, can anyone dispute that the republican party by and large has become quite beholden to the extremist religious right wing? Can anyone deny that this is an extremely relevant issue deserving of much more examination and analysis?

Dean's crack about many Repubs having not worked an honest day in their life? An injudicious remark of blunderbuss nature; scattering accusatory shot across a far wider target area than it should have. But, do we deny that the interests of the extremely wealthy, (many of whom, in fact have never worked a day in their lives), are served by this republican dominated congressional agenda to a greater degree than ever before in history? Do we challenge the idea that the wealthy are benefitting from Republican policies at the expense of the rest of us?

Whatever one may think of Mr. Dean, someone needs to be addressing these issues in a forceful way, in a way that gets attention.  As to the questions about how a Democratic elected official or candidate in a marginal district might be affected by such talk, I would say that each of these candidates has an excellent opportunity to address the underlying issues referenced by Dean's remarks in a more thorough, less confrontational way. And we all know that anytime a candidate can come across as being articulate and direct when addressing a subject that has resonance with the public, it's to that candidate's advantage. So, if these candidates can sound more respectful and more reasonable than Dr. Dean, in my book, that's a good thing.

As a sort of disclaimer, I don't ike Mr. Dean particularly, and he never would have been my first choice to run against the imbecile Bush. But I very much do like what he's doing now and I think the main problem for the Democrats in all this is not Mr. Deans remarks, but rather the remarks leveled against him by several prominent members of his own party. These critics don't seem to grasp the simple fact that their own strategies and tactics have failed the party miserably through several successive electoral cycles, and that criticism from them is virtually irrelevant, more indicative of their own self-delusional sense of their own importance than it is a valid  critique of Dean. 

What was Mark Warner's first act as Governor of Virginia? To get in an huge public war in the media with Former VA Gov. Douglas Wilder. This is the second big story Warner has gotten himself connected to that is has the potential for huge impacts regarding the Democratic Party and race relations. Warner has already thrown away any chance he ever had for getting any African-American support in the South by running to the TV and newspapers to ignite a very public feud with Wilder. Why do you think Warner isn't running against Allen? Blacks in VA are so ticked off at him over the Wilder mess they won't show up and vote for him back in VA. Now Warner has publically stuck himself into another situation he has no business in in which race is the underlying theme. You guys see the pattern forming here?

We need to get Mark Warner the hell out of the national spotlight before he really damages us with a monumental frack up on a national platform. You don't need to be a psychic to see Mark Warner is a disaster waiting to happen.

The alleged offensiveness of Dr. Dean's remarks pale in comparison to things that Republican party leaders say every week, yet you don't notice moderate Republicans feeling obligated to attack their fellow Republicans every time they do.

Can you cite some recent examples?? 

The problem is inept Dems who don't know what to say when a mic is put in front of their face.

Republicans do this with ease.

It's time Dems like Biden took a Framing class. Maybe Frank Luntz is available.

Personally, I think Dean stepped a bit too far w/ the white, male Christians comment. However, that does not mean that Dem leaders need to clamber over each other to tell the Press they think he's wrong. I'm sure Howard carries a cell phone. Call him. Let him know how you feel. Don't step up to the FNC microphone.



Looking at the congress-people who have burned Dean in the press lately, I would say that they got their marching orders from K Street. Certain interests there really want to see Dean marginalized. I mean, small contributions from individual donors?!?!? How will business interests get face time?

We wonder why the DLC-types seem so committed to winning at the national level only by winning the South.

Because the only Democratic presidents that have managed to get elected in the last 40 years came from the South.  Look at a map with electoral votes by state.  It's nearly impossible for someone to get elected without getting at least part of the South

Dean's crassness lends a kind of legitimacy to the Democratic message in this post-9/11 time when everybody is so f--cking SERIOUS about everything all the time.

He makes it sound as though Democrats really think that what they're talking about is important--like, life-or-death important.
This is, I think, a talent that no one else on our side brings to the table.

I think about it this way--a perfect line from one of my conservative-leaning friends: "After listening to Dean, watching Bush makes me roll my eyes."

So Dean is, at the very least, effective at bursting the Bush bubble.

Yeah, it was great that Blanco pulled out her NRA membership card in one of the debates 

Listen to yourselves, Dean supporters. Go back and read over your comments here.

You moan about how the media is against us and take things out of context. Shouldn't we have a DNC chaiman savay enough to control the mesage, not one who falls into their trap day after day?

You talk about how Dean is attacking the Republicans, but where is the attack focused? On irrelevances compared to the other stuff that is going on. While Dean is monopolizing Democratic headlines defending his zany statements (and notice, he's defending, NOT attacking), Bush is out on the stump pushing the Patriot Act extensions and Social Security privatization. How does that add up to a victory for us?

Look back over your comments here and see how many times someone has clarified what Dean meant to say, and then ask yourself, if we amateurs here have a better grasp of phrasing and issues, why are we applauding Dean? ARe we unable to admit just how mediocre his performance has been?

If you will step back and take an honest look at Dean and the way he is representing the Democratic Party, you will have to admit that he is not doing a very good job. The party will be better off if he steps aside.

 

Daniel Greenbaum echoes my thoughts on this subject.

While Republicans may feel their good name is being drug through the gutter, many Democrats are seeing one of their own, showing he has a backbone and no longer is willing to take the abuse the Republican Party has been dishing out for the past 6 years.

The only real difference I could see between Dean's comments and the countless Republican one's is that Den's are more general, casting all Republican's in the same light whereas the Republican are more personal character assinations and issue realted.

 Perhaps Dean should direct his witt to specific House and Senate personalities and issues rather than paint the entire Republican party with tar while someone else gathers the feathers.

 As for those Democrats in Red States,  a different tactic is necessary. Dean has definitely alienated those red-State Republicans, that much  we know. Perhaps they can employ a well-used Republican tactic of re-painting the issue. However, instead of using the Republican bait-n-switch (falsehoods for the truth), they can use the truth about how well the Republican effort to re-organize the Government, Policy, Soical Security and so forth has utterly failed, or will fail to produce the expect results the republican said would occur. Paint their follys as a rush to judgement without taking the necessary care to ensure that no one falls between the cracks.

Most of the posts above (I admit I haven't read all of them) don't answer the question posed. So, OK, I'm a wannabee senator from Tennessee or something, and people ask me what I think of Dean's statement.
Here's what I do: I give my own opinion on the issue raised without commenting on Dean at all. Maybe I say, "I'm sure a lot of Republicans work pretty hard for their living." Or maybe I say, "I've always gotten along pretty well with Republicans."
That covers all the legitimate concerns such a candidate has. There's no need to comment on whether Dean does or doesn't represent the party well. If an questioner absolutely won't let up about wanting you to say something about Dean, you say: "Well, he's got his own point of view and you can always count on him to say what he thinks."
Above all NEVER NEVER NEVER repeat the Republican talking points about another Democrat. Even if you totally disagree with what the Democrat is saying and even if you want to disagree publicly -- disagree in your own words, not Karl Rove's words.

I scrolled down till this post and it said pretty much what my main points are.

The folks that think bad things about Dems are not going to wake up some day and say, "Gee, that 354-post-long discussion about the talking points of the Republican Party being against middle-class folks like myself made so much sense. I am switching my party affiliation."

But the big middle who hear "the Republicans are a white, Christian Party" are going to either question it, complain about it, rant about it, or get curious. Same with the other Dean lines.

He is starting the Buzz. 

Remember all those Republicans who cringed when some genius started painting Democrats as socialist, elitest snob, book larnin', Christ hatin', gay sexin', porno peddlin' hater's of OUR way of life?

Neither do I.

My point is that with Howard Dean you get essentially a George W. Bush dressed up like a jackass instead of an elephant. The methods they use are similar (that's what many in the Democratic Party find so attractive, though they would never admit it), and I don't like either version. 

Well that's just the way I've tried to imagine it, and if I'm a team player with the big picture in mind, I think I phone or e-mail Dr. Dean and explain to him why such comments make my life difficult. If I'm smart, I invite Dr. Dean to join me in meeting with the people I'm trying to win over.

Here's the breakdown acc. to Pew Research http://people-press.org/
 
30% Republican
70% Democrat + Independent   (34%  +  36%)

[from the kind of representation we are getting, who would've guessed that 34% of us are Democrats and 30% Republicans?]
 
No doubt, an alliance with Independents does hold the promise of saving the republic.
 
I wouldn't mind the Democrat Invertebrata using their tentacles to sting Dean for saying something that might offend Independents, if they had uttered even one effing word since Bill's last Lewinsky to point out to Independents that we all (34% + 36%) ought to be offended by the scale of mendacity and corruption supporting the Republican stranglehold on our government.
 

Dean spoke the truth.
There are no African American Republicans in Congress. The GOP is a white man's party in a very real sense.
The GOP is now controlled by its religious fringe.
The GOP's actions and policies work counter to the interests of the lower and middle class workers in this country.
It is not at all surprising that people like Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman, who voted for the bankruptcy bill, are angry at Dean. Who cares?
The GOP runs on fear - fear of terrorsim, fear of gays, fear of immigrants - and uses that fear to pit people who SHOULD be working together against each other.
Dean said we weren't safer after Saddam was captured - he was right. Dean said the war was a bad idea - he was right. Dean said white voters with Confederate flags on their trucks were voting against their interests when they vote GOP - he was right.
The same clowns who criticized him for THOSE statements are criticizing him now.
The GOP is hell-bent on further enriching the rich, and who gives 2 shits about the poor or middle class?
Dismantle Social Security? Gut the EPA? How much deficit spending?
The GOP has lied us into an illegal war that has killed 1600+ Americans, maimed 10,000 more, and killed 100,000 Iraqis. A civil war is brewing in Iraq, we have no exit strategy, and no help is coming. And al Qaeda, which runs attacks on US soil on an 8 year cycle, is still active and gaining experienced recruits every day. 4 years from now we should expect another 911 attempt. What has Bush done to make us safer?
Fuck the GOP. The more times Dean calls them out, the better. Biden and Lieberman need to wake the hell up.

Your point is understood.  Now, as I asked above, what is your plan?  Who do you prefer for DNC Chairman, and how will that person deal with Norquist?

Thanks.

sPh 

This discussion thread and dozens (probably hundreds) like it on the net are mirrored by similar discussions at work, at home and at play.
"Dean is catching heat" my gay colleague said this morning when I came into work.
"I know it, and he's right on the money!" I replied.
"He sure is", said my friend, and we had a good laugh about the GOP (and Biden's) response.
Dean wasn't mumbling. He made cogent, accurate statements about the GOP.
Dean is standing up for the voters, and it shows. He's not afraid to catch flack, and he's not afraid to speak his mind.
If Joe Biden or Joe Lieberman or Warner are the guys who decide what a spokesman should or shouldn't say, then we can get ready for a couple decades more of GOP domination. Because those guys are clowns. TV personalities who play a fake role, and don't care a whit about the poor, the middle class, or the war.
The GOP has been beating us senseless for 20 years. It's about time we fought back. Fuck 'em.
It doesn't matter if Biden looks good, or cool, or sounds tough on TV. What matters is that we have a party chair not afraid to differentiate the Dems from the GOoPers, and is willing to use sound-bite-friendly speech to do so.
You know what? The GOP really IS the party of white religious wackos. It really IS run by a bunch of people who've never worked for a living. You think Bush has ever worked? You think Dobson or Ralph Reed or Grover Norquist ever worked an honest day's labor in their lives?
Show me where any of those goofball rich fatcats has EVER been concerned about making ends meet.
God Bless Howard Dean for speaking the truth.

If I had my choice, I'd ask Wes Clark to take over. How would he handle the Republicans? ... head on, as is his custom, except that he would have national security gravitas that would get us an immediate hearing. It would be hard for Republicans to diminish Clark, and the media respects Wes, too. No one can accuse Wes Clark of being "weak" and, based on the strength of a patriot he eminates, he could raise both domestic and foreign issues with ease, and talk with authority. Wes would be in a prime position to attack administration policy on Iraq, for instance. Anyway, I think we need Wes as Chairman for the next few years.

I'd rather have Wes as President.

So would I, but that can't happen until 2008. For the next few years, Wes could help give the Democratic Party an image of gravitas and strength in the minds of the American electorate, and, as he is doing now, he could help many local Democratic candidates, especially in Red States, which would strengthen the whole effort in 2008.

Some say that Dean is a voice of the grassroots, but in fact the good doctor is not popular with the Democratic rank and file.  A Wall Street Journal poll conducted in January 2005 showed that only 27% of the Democratic rank and file have a favorable view of Dr. Dean.  A USA Today poll of around the same time had only two respondents out of over 400 registered Democrats named Dean as their top choice for the presidency in 2008.  This in a poll where name recognition supposedly counts above all else! 

I don't know of any polls that have been taken since then, but it appears that Dean does not connect with the party's "base," but with a small and noisy faction. 

No Democratic politician has bashed or trashed Dean, suggested he should step down, or criticized anything about the way he was doing his job other than a few or the statements he made.   The comments that have been made by the other Dems have been pretty mild, especially when one recalls that Dean called the whole lot "a bunch of cockroaches." 

Some of the followers of Dean take any kind of criticism, no matter how constructive, into some kind of an "attack."  

Should these kinds of discussion take place behind closed doors? I have no way of knowing for sure, but I imagine they already have.  Those who are now openly critical of him (or some of them) have already expressed their concerns to him in private, and only after he continues to make these ill-considered remarks again and again do they speak up in public.   (These are not all "conservative" Dems, by the way; one of the first to speak up was Barney Frank, one of the most outspoken liberals in the Congress.) 

At some point, somebody has to say something in public and hope that the good doctor gets the message and learns a little bit of that "message discipline" that he likes to talk about. 

In most instances, there's more than a kernel of truth to Dean's utterances.  And there's nothing wrong with fiery partisan rhetoric.  But he phrases things is such a way that the headline is inevitably "Dean sticks his foot in it again."  And there's no question that the press has latched onto this meme about Dean's verbal gaffes and are just waiting for his next slip-up.  Wherever he goes,  he says many, many things, but the press pick the one that best supports that meme.   Some of the supposedly controversial statements do not seem out of bounds for partisan rhetoric, but others -- the one about the GOP being the party of white Christians, for example -- can only serve to make the party look bad. 

Your post has nothing to do with this discussion, which is why I gave it a low rating.  It appears to me to be a deliberate attempt to steer  the discussion on a different, and not complimentary, path.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

 sPh

Top post of thread...

"...But please, please, try to imagine yourself the Democrat Governor of Virginia, or a wannabe Senator from Tennessee, and you read ..."

Who is the Democratic Governor of Virginia?

Mark Warner.

First sentence of the post I replied to...

"Yes, but is the most of the backlash coming from Ford and Warner, or from Biden and Pelosi?"

Which was about this comment by Mark Warner to the LOS ANGELES TIMES.

"...Warner, speaking at lunch to Los Angeles Times reporters and editors, argued that Democrats cannot simply cater to their liberal base if they are to succeed on a national scale.

"I think Republicans are a majority party in the country at this point," said Warner, who is in the final year of his four-year term and is considered a possible contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. Under the state's term limits, he cannot run for a consecutive second term.

"While we have to do all we can to activate every person who is part of the traditional Democratic family, ultimately we also have to go and convince some folks who have been voting Republican," he said.

Warner's comments come at a time of turmoil among Democrats over the state of their party, which is still groping for direction in the wake of their decisive losses in Congress and the White House elections of 2004. One focal point of controversy has been Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, whose sharp-tongued partisanship has met with criticism from some moderate and southern Democrats...."

"...Warner said that part of his party's problem arises from its positioning on social issues, which he believes have left rural and small town voters with a "sense of some Democrats' belittling their lives, their culture and their values."

Warner said he experienced that sentiment personally during a trip to California, where he felt some people were condescending to him because he came from Virginia.

"You little Virginia Democrat, how can you understand the great opportunities we have,' " Warner said, in characterizing their attitude. "I came out saying, `That's why America hates Democrats.'"

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-060905warner_la
t,0,3844000.story?coll=la-home-headlines

sphealey, Mark Warner just said "America hates Democrats" in the LA Times, and you are calling me a troll for calling Warner for his pattern of causing very public feuds with Democrats in the media? Are you kidding me?

What the hell is Mark Warner doing talking to the LA Times if he's not trying to stir up a national shitstorm?