It's Official: Howard Dean is DNC Chair.

CEDeoudes59

CEDeoudes59

USA HOCKEY
Awards
1
  • Established
The little screaming rat himself. In an effort to move slightly to the right, the DNC approves American Socialist Howard Dean.





Dean Chosen to Lead Democratic Party
By REUTERS

Published: February 12, 2005

Filed at 2:51 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Howard Dean, whose high-flying presidential bid collapsed in disarray one year ago, won the post of Democratic chairman on Saturday and promised an aggressive drive to mobilize voters and rebuild the party ``from the grass roots up.''

``Today will be the beginning of the re-emergence of the Democratic Party,'' the former Vermont governor told Democratic National Committee members after he was elected party chairman by acclamation.

Advertisement

``We are going to recognize that our strength lies at the grass roots,'' Dean said. ``Democrats will have to match or exceed the Republicans' ability to motivate voters.''

Dean promised to plunge immediately into the effort to broaden the party's appeal in all 50 states and lead Democrats back from a bruising election in November, when they lost the White House and more seats in both houses of Congress.

Some Democrats have questioned whether Dean, an early and fierce critic of President Bush and the Iraq war whose blunt talk often sparked controversy on the campaign trail, was the right choice to lead a Democratic resurgence in conservative Southern and mountain states.

But Dean countered those concerns in recent months by wooing party leaders with promises to focus on state operations, energize the grass roots and build an army of small donors similar to the one that supported his presidential bid.

``We cannot run 18-state presidential campaigns and expect to win,'' Dean told DNC members on Saturday. ``People will vote for Democratic candidates in Texas and Utah and West Virginia if we knock on their door, introduce ourselves and tell them what we believe. That's what organization allows us to do.''

Dean reminded party insiders that Republicans had been out of power for 40 years in Congress before reclaiming majorities in 1994.

``It won't take us that long, not if we stand up for what we believe in, organize at the local level, and recognize that this party's strength doesn't come from the consultants down, it comes from the grass roots up,'' Dean said.

``If we want to win nationally, we have to win locally,'' he said.

Dean told reporters he planned to make overtures to groups that have been hard on Democrats, including evangelical Christians. He said he expected to be on the road almost full time, with his biggest focus in the South and West.

Republican critics of Dean have welcomed his election as chairman, hoping it will feed the image of Democrats as a party of Northeastern liberals. But Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman took the high road.

``Howard Dean's energy and passion will add to the political discourse in this country, and he will be a strong leader for his party,'' Mehlman said.

The post offers vindication and a new role for Dean, the one-time presidential front-runner who attracted young voters to the party and broke Democratic records with his Internet-based fund raising before his campaign ran out of steam.

Dean said he would bring some of the innovative techniques of his presidential campaign to the Democratic post.

``We are going to use all of the power and potential of technology as part of an aggressive outreach to meet and include voters, to work with your state parties, and to get our message out,'' he said.

Dean's low-key acceptance speech on Saturday resurrected some of the themes of his presidential campaign. He criticized Bush for introducing a budget that ``deliberately conceals the cost of their fiscal recklessness.''

The proposal ignored the costs of the Iraq war while cutting education, children's health and veteran's benefits, Dean said. ``Republicans cannot be trusted with your money,'' he said, repeating a frequent line in his presidential campaign.
 
CEDeoudes59

CEDeoudes59

USA HOCKEY
Awards
1
  • Established
I know it doesn't matter THAT much, but this bitter moron will be great for quotes.
I guess the Democrats are officially the anti-war party now (Kerry wasn't sure which side he/they were on).
 
Chippewa

Chippewa

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
"Screaming rat"? Move the party to the RIGHT?

Sometimes political discourse is frustrating.
 

VanillaGorilla

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
It looks like they have reached some what of a consensus and bought into the Dean philosophy. Dean believes that it's not that the democrat party has gone too far to the left that they are loosing elections. He thinks they should go further left and not be embarrassed about it. I agree it would be nice if democrats would actually be honest and stand up and say they believe in socialism. I don't think that will translate into winning elections.
This is also an indication that the Clintons have lost some control of the party. If they had gotten one of their cronies in they would have completely controlled the funding of the DNC and would have most likely horded as much money as they could have for Hillary's presidential run. You can count on her sprinting to the middle and with dean as head of the DNC it will make her look more moderate than she really is.
 

Nullifidian

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
Honestly I have yet to see a party leader that actually dictates party policy. The only thing the chair does is raise money. Dean is good at that. I think the Dems made a smart move putting him in place.

Do I agree with his philosophies? Hell no. He like virtually all other politicians (both Republicna and Democrat) is about porkbarrelling and big government.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Null is right. I know plenty of Republicans who were happy about Dean getting the position because they thought it guaranteed them a win. He's a great organizer and fund raiser, and those are going to be his primary duties at the DNC. Hilary will look moderate compared to him. Republicans who realize this will stay away from the issue. Those who don't will shoot themselves in the foot.
 

VanillaGorilla

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Null is right. I know plenty of Republicans who were happy about Dean getting the position because they thought it guaranteed them a win. He's a great organizer and fund raiser, and those are going to be his primary duties at the DNC. Hilary will look moderate compared to him. Republicans who realize this will stay away from the issue. Those who don't will shoot themselves in the foot.
I agree with you that republicans should not be gloating about it. That is exactly the point.... Hillary is pretty much running no matter what. By faking she is a moderate and being at odds with the far left it will make her look better to allot of people.
 
CEDeoudes59

CEDeoudes59

USA HOCKEY
Awards
1
  • Established
I don't see how Hillary has a chance. I really don't. She's a slightly more feminine version of John Kerry. Running on her husbands name isn't going to do it. Bush Sr. would have probably beaten Clinton if not for H.Ross Perot. (i think, I was like 12 years old at the time, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about).
 

VanillaGorilla

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
I don't see how Hillary has a chance. I really don't. She's a slightly more feminine version of John Kerry. Running on her husbands name isn't going to do it. Bush Sr. would have probably beaten Clinton if not for H.Ross Perot. (i think, I was like 12 years old at the time, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about).
Many, Many democrats own her so she probably won't have a problem getting the nomination. Why wouldn't they stick with the same model that worked for them in 92 and 96? If you see her run, you will likely see a conservative third party candidate run as well.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Many, Many democrats own her so she probably won't have a problem getting the nomination. Why wouldn't they stick with the same model that worked for them in 92 and 96? If you see her run, you will likely see a conservative third party candidate run as well.
Don't ignore the "First Woman in the White House" angle either. I know Republican women who say they would vote for her just because of that. Which is why I'm kind of hoping that Cheney either resigns or dies, and Rice gets pulled in as vice president and runs for president. Would nullify that angle a bit, but that's hoping for a severe long shot.
 

Nullifidian

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
Don't ignore the "First Woman in the White House" angle either. I know Republican women who say they would vote for her just because of that. Which is why I'm kind of hoping that Cheney either resigns or dies, and Rice gets pulled in as vice president and runs for president. Would nullify that angle a bit, but that's hoping for a severe long shot.
Rice could never win. The Republican Party relies on the South. Rice would get no Southern states. I know folks like to think we've come a long way but the fact remains there are a metric crapton of racist bastards still living in this country. It's the same reason Lieberman could never win an election no matter what his platform was. Half the US sees him as "Jew Jewberman". Yes, those people sicken me.
 

VanillaGorilla

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Rice could never win. The Republican Party relies on the South. Rice would get no Southern states. I know folks like to think we've come a long way but the fact remains there are a metric crapton of racist bastards still living in this country. It's the same reason Lieberman could never win an election no matter what his platform was. Half the US sees him as "Jew Jewberman". Yes, those people sicken me.
Null will you stop with the jew and leiberman stuff, it simply isn't true. Lieberman can't win the democratic nomination not because he's a jew but because he isn't a socialist. He is one of the few moderate democrats left.
 

VanillaGorilla

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Don't ignore the "First Woman in the White House" angle either. I know Republican women who say they would vote for her just because of that. Which is why I'm kind of hoping that Cheney either resigns or dies, and Rice gets pulled in as vice president and runs for president. Would nullify that angle a bit, but that's hoping for a severe long shot.
If they were smart they would have Cheney step down for health reasons or something. I don't think Rice would beat Hillary though.
 
CEDeoudes59

CEDeoudes59

USA HOCKEY
Awards
1
  • Established
Liberman is an 'Orthodox Jew' who believes in abortion. He's all over the map, and not really a good choice.
But his pro-war, pro-America stance puts him at odds with the leaders his Anti-America Socialist party.
 
CEDeoudes59

CEDeoudes59

USA HOCKEY
Awards
1
  • Established
i'm not voting for McCain.
 

Nullifidian

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
I used to like MacCain. But then he tried to threaten MLB with legislation dictating how they should run their PRIVATE BUSINESS. That's bullshit. More Big Government bullshit.
 

Number 5

Member
Awards
0
Dean isn't that liberal and in hindsight he would probably have been a better presedential candidate than Kerry. Maybe the Republicans realized this because they (Club for Growth in particular) ran $1 million worth of ads in the dem primaries to knock Dean out of it. The Right consider Dean a threat because he's a populist, good at raising money and (unlike Kerry) he's not afraid to take the fight to the Republicans.

-5
 

The Experiment

Board Supporter
Awards
1
  • Established
I hope there is an independent candidate like Perot. Preferrably someone thats a little more Libertarian. Too much authoritarianism in politics today.
 

Brooklyn

Member
Awards
0
Dean > Kerry

Dean would have actually fought in the election, instead of just looking like an old man who needed to justify and defend himself. I'm all for a good fight. He was ridiculed for trying to rally his supporters (who were extremely loud at that moment), but yet when Bush does everything possible to impersonate Alfred E. Neuman he's being "down-to-earth" and "a man of the people." The man doesn't know the people. He only knows the rich people. Democracy is about balance. Let's see some.
 

VanillaGorilla

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Dean would have actually fought in the election, instead of just looking like an old man who needed to justify and defend himself. I'm all for a good fight. He was ridiculed for trying to rally his supporters (who were extremely loud at that moment), but yet when Bush does everything possible to impersonate Alfred E. Neuman he's being "down-to-earth" and "a man of the people." The man doesn't know the people. He only knows the rich people. Democracy is about balance. Let's see some.
Now dean is being loud without his supporters. The democrats are running away from him like a leper.
 

Brooklyn

Member
Awards
0
I'm not going to speculate on whether Democrats at a base level dislike Dean's accusations. If those in party leadership are shaken by his hard line stance, they would do well to evaluate that many similar statements are made routinely by Republicans regarding Democrats. Democrats (the politicians) are on the losing end because they act like pussies when it comes to hard line debate and standing for what they believe. If Dean causes controversy, at least he is doing something to shake things up. Complacency is what got the Democrats into this mess. Fighting is better than making excuses.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Democrats (the politicians) are on the losing end because they act like pussies when it comes to hard line debate and standing for what they believe. If Dean causes controversy, at least he is doing something to shake things up. Complacency is what got the Democrats into this mess. Fighting is better than making excuses.
Is it not just possible that they're on the losing end because enough og a majority of people in this country disagree with them? As for Bush being a friend to the rich, I've yet to see a politician who wasn't, Repubican or Democrat. The poor can't finance campaigns very well, nor provide spoils to loyal cronies.
 

VanillaGorilla

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
I'm not going to speculate on whether Democrats at a base level dislike Dean's accusations. If those in party leadership are shaken by his hard line stance, they would do well to evaluate that many similar statements are made routinely by Republicans regarding Democrats. Democrats (the politicians) are on the losing end because they act like pussies when it comes to hard line debate and standing for what they believe. If Dean causes controversy, at least he is doing something to shake things up. Complacency is what got the Democrats into this mess. Fighting is better than making excuses.
It's not at a base level. Both Edwards and Biden both made comments and distanced themselves from Dean. Dean is arrogant and not very bright politically. He often says things he shouldn't. Democrats are loosing because they have gone too far to the left not because they aren't standing up for what they believe in. What do you think would happen if they stood up and said we are for higher taxes, bigger government, racial preferences, turning U.S sovereignty over to the UN, and socialized medicine ect. What they would be doing is basically telling everyone that they are socialists, which they are. The default position of liberals is that government can fix all your problems or the solution to all problems is to set up a giant bureaucratic government program. What you are seeing with presidential hopefuls with Edwards, Biden, and Hillary is distancing themselves from the far left that has taken over the democratic party. If they did what you suggest, you would see an R in back of every politician in the country with the exception of Massachusetts and California.
 

Brooklyn

Member
Awards
0
Is it not just possible that they're on the losing end because enough og a majority of people in this country disagree with them?
I disagree. Considering the last presidential election was essentially decided by Texas, I don't think Americans are that much on the side of the Republicans. I do, however, think that Americans in general are not very political-minded and Republicans have done a far better job of organization and promotion, particularly since Bush Sr.'s term in office. In a society which is ruled by consumerism, proper promotion becomes the watermark of political success. This is where Dean is attempting to make changes, at a fundamental level of organization. It will take time to see if it works.

The poor can't finance campaigns very well, nor provide spoils to loyal cronies.
True. I never defended Democrats based upon their campaign financing. However, Democrats have traditionally been of the party which seeks the support of unions and trade organizations as opposed to directly appealing to large corporations. Have they been good representatives of their constituents? No, but half of that is due to bowing to Republican lawmakers or special interests. If that is the case, and they are losing the support of the middle and lower class vote due to supporting Republican interests which mainly support the upper classes (which current polls show Americans believe the president is doing) then shouldn't their solution be to re-evaluate their target base constituency, regroup and reorganize with a greater focus on their core party values? An aggressive approach is necessary to effect this, and that is why Dean was chosen.
 

Brooklyn

Member
Awards
0
It's not at a base level. Both Edwards and Biden both made comments and distanced themselves from Dean.
Exactly. I said I won't speculate about his base. Edwards and Biden are not his base. We'll see how voters react, not other politicians.

Republicans are supposedly against big government, and this may have been the case - in 1994. But it's not, now. Now when the 9/11 Commission members, including Republican Tom Kean are stating that the Bush administration have done little to follow up on their recommendations regarding national security, including the establishment of a Federal civil liberties protection board, is "less government" really what will work? And if it's less government that we need, is it more big business? I don't call the Patriot Act "less government." I don't call privatizing Social Security "less government." I don't call "No Child Left Behind" (which in reality has left many a child behind) "less government." Everything Bush has done is in strict opposition to the supposed ideas that were set forth by the Republican Congress in 1994, including balancing the budget. Hey, I'm all for lower taxes, but not if it's going to create a huge deficit. Everything the Republicans have been doing this time around is to increase the role of government in everyday life. Military recruitment is at an all-time low, why? Because Americans are unpatriotic? No, because these kids don't want to die for a war we didn't belong in. I don't support ultraliberal thinking and I don't support ultraconservative thinking. The concept of democracy is balance. Currently things are looking rather unbalanced, and polls suggest this.
 

VanillaGorilla

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Exactly. I said I won't speculate about his base. Edwards and Biden are not his base. We'll see how voters react, not other politicians.
Voters? Had it been Dean who got the nomination he would have got his ass handed to him. Rove would have had a field day with all the things Dean has said in the past. He had his records sealed when he was governor....... I could make about 50 commercials with just that alone. Currently the dems are getting beaten pretty badly at raising money which is what Dean is supposed to be doing. He apparently is ignoring corporations and is just going after personal donations. All he seems to be doing is making as ass of himself at speeches. The fact that his own party is running away from him isn't a good sign. The people that voted for Dean is mostly college kids. That is his base but that base won't win elections.

Republicans are supposedly against big government, and this may have been the case - in 1994. But it's not, now. Now when the 9/11 Commission members, including Republican Tom Kean are stating that the Bush administration have done little to follow up on their recommendations regarding national security, including the establishment of a Federal civil liberties protection board, is "less government" really what will work? And if it's less government that we need, is it more big business? I don't call the Patriot Act "less government." I don't call privatizing Social Security "less government." I don't call "No Child Left Behind" (which in reality has left many a child behind) "less government." Everything Bush has done is in strict opposition to the supposed ideas that were set forth by the Republican Congress in 1994, including balancing the budget. Hey, I'm all for lower taxes, but not if it's going to create a huge deficit. Everything the Republicans have been doing this time around is to increase the role of government in everyday life. Military recruitment is at an all-time low, why? Because Americans are unpatriotic? No, because these kids don't want to die for a war we didn't belong in. I don't support ultraliberal thinking and I don't support ultraconservative thinking. The concept of democracy is balance. Currently things are looking rather unbalanced, and polls suggest this.
I have said many times in here that Bush is not a conservative. We are rapidly becoming a one party system The democrats are socialists and the republicans are socialist -lite. As far as 9-11 many people are concerned with the boarders which is why you have an organization like the minute men stepping up and watching the boarder. Neither side wants to do anything about it. After 9-11 the INS should have undergone a huge overhaul. Instead we have more layers of bureaucrats and the problem with bureaucracy is they are wasteful inefficient and slow to respond. As far as tax cuts and a balanced budget there are two sides to the equation. When you are having financial problems you have two choices, make more money and stop spending so much. The problem is that nobody wants to cut spending. The minute anyone suggests to cut a government program elderly are homeless and children will starve. So republicans pretend that cutting spending doesn't exist, cut taxes, and created a deficit. Democrats pretend there is no such thing as government spending and want to raise taxes and create more and more government programs. I am all for 100 % privatizing social security and the government not spending money on needles for junkies, faith based charities, or corporate welfare and abolishing the IRS. Government spending and the size of government is out of control and because of that taxes are out of control. So do not misconstrued what I previously said as an endorsement of the Bush Administration. The Bush administration and the republican party isn't acting like conservatives at all. I just disagree with you that democrats should stand up and say we are socialists vote for us when the reality is that is the reason they have been loosing elections to begin with.

The concept of democracy is balance. Currently things are looking rather unbalanced, and polls suggest this.
We are not a democracy we are a constitutional republic. The whole premise of the constitution is that government power comes from the people and to limit government power over the people.
 

jrkarp

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Voters? Had it been Dean who got the nomination he would have got his ass handed to him. Rove would have had a field day with all the things Dean has said in the past.
Agreed. I was salivating at the thought of Bush running against Dean. It would've been a landslide.

He had his records sealed when he was governor....... I could make about 50 commercials with just that alone. Currently the dems are getting beaten pretty badly at raising money which is what Dean is supposed to be doing. He apparently is ignoring corporations and is just going after personal donations. All he seems to be doing is making as ass of himself at speeches. The fact that his own party is running away from him isn't a good sign. The people that voted for Dean is mostly college kids. That is his base but that base won't win elections.
I just saw something on TV the other day while I was doing cardio about the amount of money each party has raised, and the Republicans are beating the Dems like 3-1, and that's not including over $10M left over from the last campaign. All Dean is doing is alienating people. Most Dems are treating him like a senile relative at Thanksgiving dinner.

/karp
 
CROWLER

CROWLER

Anabolic Innovations Owner
Awards
1
  • Established
LOL I never thought the Dems would be so stupid as to put Dean in that position.

DAMN This is good news. I LOVE IT!



CROWLER
 

PastorofMuppets

Member
Awards
0
I really don't understand how the 9-11 Commission somehow was twisted into the end all be all of terrorism strategy and public policy regarding such.

The 9-11 commission's job was to evaluate the failures that led up to 9-11. Somehow it turned into this thing where they are making sweeping recommendations regarding intelligence and public policy.

And woe to the politician or agency that did not follow the recommendation of the 9-11 commission, because everyone knows that the 9-11 people are infallible.....jeesh.
 

Brooklyn

Member
Awards
0
The 9-11 commission's job was to evaluate the failures that led up to 9-11. Somehow it turned into this thing where they are making sweeping recommendations regarding intelligence and public policy.
The 9-11 commission's job was to evaluate the failures that led up to 9-11 - AND make recommendations as to where our system needed to be fixed to avoid the failures of national security that made the events of 9/11 to be possible. Their final report was actually quite generous in failing to directly blame certain parties such as Bush for at the least, completely ignoring intel memos like "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside America."

Tom Kean, head of the 9/11 Commission, is a Republican, and was probably New Jersey's most fair governor in the last 30 years. The 9/11 commission suggestions have been almost ignored by the Bush administration, much like the idea that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 was ignored earlier. Bush does not read newspapers. He does not pay much attention to the nightly news. He does not care about fixing national security, any more than Rumsfeld cares about our troops dying in Iraq. Everyone was so concerned about "How did this happen, and how do we stop it from happening again" after 9/11/2001. Now it's almost 4 years later, and are we really much more secure? Hell no. That's what the 9/11 Commission is saying, and anyone who gives a damn about the country should try taking a listen. They didn't just make this stuff up out of thin air. I was 15 miles from the Twin Towers on 9/11. If you werent there, you probably don't know what it's like and it may not be that big of a deal to you. I do not want to experience something like that again. I also do not prefer someone like John Ashcroft's idea of a police state.

The presidential election was supposedly decided by the issue of national security and the state which has been most affected by a lack of national security voted against Bush. Token gestures don't solve our problems. Those 9/11 Commission recommendations may not prevent another terrorist attack, but they might improve our odds, and that's worth the effort.
 

VanillaGorilla

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
LOL I never thought the Dems would be so stupid as to put Dean in that position.
All Dean is doing is alienating people. Most Dems are treating him like a senile relative at Thanksgiving dinner.
Can you imagine what the media reaction would be if the head of the RNC was saying the same kinds of things that dean is saying?
 

VanillaGorilla

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
The 9-11 commission's job was to evaluate the failures that led up to 9-11 - AND make recommendations as to where our system needed to be fixed to avoid the failures of national security that made the events of 9/11 to be possible. Their final report was actually quite generous in failing to directly blame certain parties such as Bush for at the least, completely ignoring intel memos like "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside America."
The commission had some major credibility problems. If you going to point a finger at Bush you are going to have to point a finger at Clinton. Clinton had at least three opportunities to get bin laden but failed to do so. One of the times the Sudanese offered him to us on a silver platter but Clinton declined to take him. He denied this but was caught on tape talking about it. Another time we knew the exact time and location where Bin Laden would be but bubba didn't want to drop a bomb on the place because we mistakenly drop a bomb on the Chinese embassy prior to that. I don't recall that being a big deal in the 9-11 report. Also , Jamie Gorelick a 9-11 comity member helped create more of a wall between the FBI and the CIA in a memo she wrote in 1995 as deputy attorney general, which of coarse didn't make it in the report.
 

Brooklyn

Member
Awards
0
Give it time

"Though the Republican National Committee has raised money at a rate of 2-to-1 on Democrats in the first quarter of 2005, Dean himself has been effective. In the first four months, under Dean's stewardship, the DNC has raised nearly $19 million -- more than under any other Democratic chairman in an off-election year. "

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/06/07/dean/
 

jrkarp

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
That's good for him. But he's still raised half of what the Republicans have raised. And that's a problem for him and his party.

/karp
 

VanillaGorilla

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Though the Republican National Committee has raised money at a rate of 2-to-1 on Democrats in the first quarter of 2005, Dean himself has been effective. In the first four months, under Dean's stewardship, the DNC has raised nearly $19 million -- more than under any other Democratic chairman in an off-election year. "

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/06/07/dean/
Salon isn't exactly non biased. Posting something from them whould be the equivelent of expecting a non biased opinion about the Bush administration from Rush or someone like that. There was a divide in the democrat party, one school of thought basically says we should not be assumed , we should tell people we are socialist we believe in high taxes and big government and be proud of that. These people think the reason why the dems are loosing elections is because they believe in all those things but come election time they basically lie about it. They think if they come right out and say what they believe they will start winning again. The other school of thought is the democrats have been taken over by the fringe far left of the democratic party. They think that the reason they are loosing is because they have drifted too far to the left and have aligned themselves with fringe movements such as homosexual activist groups and far left minority groups, which puts them at odds with middle America who don't support these groups or issues. They see no room for moderates in the party like Zell Miller or Lieberman or old school democrats like JFK. They people who believe that they should continue to go in the direction of the far left are obviously are going to like Dean (like salon) even though if the head of the RNC said the same things they would wet their pants because they would be so upset. The dems who believe that the party has gone too far left aren't going to like him because they think he is hurting the party. The fact that Nancy Pelosi who is pretty far left is distancing her self from Dean is pretty telling.
 

Similar threads


Top