Sen. Breaux: Dean Win like Sun Won't Shine Again

John B. Breaux, a moderate Democratic who represented Louisiana for 31 years in the Senate said on CNN just now that Howard Dean cannot win.
Regarding Dean’s rhetoric that he can win by side-stepping issues of “guns, gays, and God” Breaux said: “saying you can take those issues off the table is like saying the sun won’t shine”.

IS SOMEONE LISTENING?

I will vote for Dean if he wins the nomination. But why are we
doing this to ourselves. DEAN IS NOT A GUY I FEEL LIKE GIVING BLOOD FOR.

For the life of me, I can understand letting the elephants into the tent but I don't think it's wise to feed'em.

to Breaux and all his ilk - nothing but repukes, infiltrating and destroying the Democratic Party

Or does Dean know that better than Breaux.

Kind of funny how many of these 'elephants in donkey suits' are from the South. Maybe it takes a certain outlook to win there.

Whether or not we agree with their policies, Democrats who have won in the South should be looked upon as assets in a Presidential race when we are trying to woo Southern voters.

we better get used to no more filabusters in the senate if this keeps up.

But, he saw Dean's numbers rising and knew what it meant for the rest of the ticket. We have a great candidate down here in SC who is nervous as you can get that Dean is at the top of the ticket. I wish internal Dem state polls were made public, because then people might be forced to understand the whole picture.

if that is the case forget the south. The party will work at taking back some of the midwest.

then?

Guess he knows he doesnt have what it takes to win!

but keep flailing away at that point. :+

One good reason to vote for him.

so no, I'm not listening. Guess he forgot the people determine who wins elections.

They were both active in the DLC.

Carter, Clinton, Gore all had Breaux's support. The fact that Dean does not is evidence that we have a problem.

The fact that none of the other candidates raised their hands to the same question is evidence that we have TWO problems. A "southern" one AND poor candidates. They should have ALL raised their hands.

I am voting for Dean... :hi:

Having a reasonable chance of winning IS.

Or Clark would be the clear leader in the polls and uin contributions.

Things can't be done with the same busines as usual network. The entrenched corporate interests, they are the same ones telling you what defines a reasonable chance of winning.

I keep telling you, your main flaw in the Clark campaign is letting the enemy define the battle for you.

You'd think a general would recognize such a strategic error; but then again HE HAS NO POLITICAL EXPERIENCE DOES HE?

Breaux has a job in the next Bush Administration (if there is one.) I first gravitated to Dean not only because I liked what he stood for, but I believed, and still do, that he has the best chance to beat Bush. Karl Rove is the architect of the "just like McGovern" crap, and it is being echoed by DINO's like Breaux.

He helped to re-elect Mary Landrieu. He is no GOP operative or sympathizer.

He has consistently voted to support the Administration, and every President in recent history has appointed some people from the other party.

Breaux is not Zell Miller...

Which dem should put guns, gays and God on the table and how does that help us?

Implying you will ignore issues voters care about is political suicide. Especially when the issues you WILL take on are tax increases and the like.

A winning candidate will at least have to make noise toward being "pro marriage" and "pro-God". Dean won't have a problem with guns.

like Lieberman is nominated. The Democratic base will sit on their hands.

By the way, Dean is challenging Southerners to avoid falling in the trap of always voting "Guns, Gays, and God" and to vote for better education and health care for their children.

And as we all know, of course, Clark is THE most electable Democrat. ;-)

DTH

this arguement is not washing much anymore. If you compare national polls in match-ups against Bush--Dean has been gaining ground and Clark after the brief euphoria when he first got into the race has been losing ground. State polls such as the key state of Florida indicate that both Dean and Clark would do equally well against Bush. Even in a state like Montana where all the democrats are losing rather decisively against Bush a recent poll indicates that Dean actually is doing better.

I guess it depends, some polls Clark does marginally better and others Dean does marginally better--but most of them are within the moe.

swing voters. I think bush is the worst president we have had in the last 30 years and would take any democrat over him. However, the dems need to get a candidate that is going to have the broadest appeal to win the election, and I think Clark is the best bet to get bush out of office.

He is the WORST pResdient we EVER had. Period.

I desperately want Chimpy out of there, but I', not gonna do it by voting for a Republican in Democratic clothing. I'd rather vote for a real Democrat and lose than vote for a DINO and win.

include Gore, Clinton and Carter.

LOL. That should be a clue to you.

and drop Clark if they think whomever Breux annoints will win! LOL

He's a republican. If the best we can do in the south is people like Breaux, we deserve to lose there.

campaign on. If the Democrats are going to have any chance to take bush out of office, they have to have someone that can compete with the repubs in the south.

which has been what the Dems have been doing in the south since the mid sixties...

We gave up the field to the repugs...

Too many of you seem so eager to compete on the issues the repugs pick for you....hmmmmmm, where have I heard that before....oh, yeah...that great DLC startegy that has lost us the House, Senate and most state governments for the last ten years....

All the major electoral shifts have occured when one of the parties changes the dimension upon ehich the debate occurs.....Tha is what Dean wants to do...

He is not trying to ignore the issues, he is going to talk to all the people in this country and use our common economic interests....instead of politics of us versus them...to appeal to the voters...

So you guys go with the old style politics.....they've worked so well in the past...we are going to rewrite the issues that the parties will compete on...and who knows....we may win everything else, and the repugs will just win the old confederacy....it worked pretty good for Wallace.....

...and almost always votes with the far right on policies destructive to the people and their Constitution. America will be better off with him GONE.

He has to walk a fine line and represent the people of a Catholic state where the oil industry is still very important. He is good at making deals and getting money back to Louisiana. He is indeed a conservative Democrat but it's still miles better than a conservative Republican like Vitter or Terrell who will be able to negotiate nothing. I honestly believe Terrell is little more than a moron. A classic GOP empty suit, just a female version this time for variety.

Well, just my opinion anyway.

their era will be over.

because Republicans will sweep the 5 open democratic southern senate seats so no more southern DINO senators to kick around any more.

exploding the myth that southern senators have to suck.

Senators since the New Deal ended. But Dean is somehow going to change the political landscape to the point where Southerners stop sending a certain type of person to Washington? Is this sarcasm?

do anything. If you don't wanna vote for Dean then don't. Simple as that.

I hope Dean can win if he is the nominee but I think it will be uphill battle in the south.

What is the deal here with Breaux anyway? Is he going to be the VP?

I think Clark/Breaux could be a winning ticket.

Would in LA for sure. Probably pick up another Southern state or 2 also.

I saw the CNN interview as well. Breau was impessive personally.
His domestic policy record is not Rebublican, rather similar to Dean's Vermont record.

A winning combo for the DLC to convince the "moderates" that the party is "too liberal" and "can't win in the south". Well, with pseudo Democrats like Breaux and Zell (not to mention Lieberman) the Dems can't win in the North and West.

Another kiss for BushCorp from a southern "Democrat". Good riddance to him. If he's replaced by a repug, at least we'll be getting stabbed in the chest rather than the back.

He has only been in the Senate since 1986. Sounds like that 'fuzzy math' to me.

Many years before that, but I could be wrong.

He was right up there with the Republicans signing away our future with the so-called Medicare Reform. Bush cited Breaux in his speech about the medicare bill. Why would any democrat heed his advice?

disses someone who might provide him employment? Part of the circular firing squad known as party leadership I suppose.

This is my first Saddam media event post. If this is an example of self discipline by those who understand the real stakes in the fight against Bushco tyranny then God help you in October when some piece or replica of Osama is ushered out for more irrelevant cheerleading.

The most enthiusiasm and hoopla I have seen in a large percentage is is within media circles. The blood stained pom poms are waving, the volcano spew of hype is erupting.

And in the workplace not a peep. But the politicians- as in Craven Surrender 2000, are already hobbling the horses, bubbling over with nonsense, adding a show of ignorance and self-flagellation in service of the worst Chief Executive in history.

Too bad we have no real politicians in too many quarters of the official Party, not enough courage and foresight among those styled as leaders. And if some do, the chief goal is a jealous snarling frenzy of cowardice to stop those who do.

I note shortly before Saddam's bad hair day, the Washington Post in one of their subtle analyses drove a neat wedge into the party- one based on facts that are true but a subtle hammer that does neither the Party nor the grass roots innovators any good at all.

That Internet grass roots and the punching bag of the fat old Party both received CIA style psychological damage from the paper most dedicated to that style of anti-Democratic tactic. Flattery and fear did the rest- and them came another fake event. The bannerline standards flew again. The suckers hopped aboard in the typical order of precedence.

The Iraqis aren't changing. The people(ours, theirs) are only interested in ending something Bush cannot, will not let go of. No primaries have been held yet. Everyone is as dumb or as effective as they were yesterday, but the usual suspects, politicians and campaign organizers who should know better, rushed out to swallow the hemlock and betray their Party, their people, their nation- and common sense.

Bush has and always will be a show pony presidency masking corporate takeover and general misery. The vast majority majoority of humanity that ewants to survive and thrive does not have to put up with that except for the cowardice and stupidity infecting the top echelons of leadership. To be fair I think that is a world wide phenomenon, but if the people could see the future misery these insinuators and lesser beings have caused for their own advancement, the normally placid feckless and despairing throngs would be mobbing various establishment headquarters looking for real heads to take.

Truth is still there. The bill will come due. Responsibility is universal. The removal of the worst of humanity that cannot lead us through the worst of times is only step one. The alarm bell is ringing but too many people think it is Saturday, vacation time.
Time to do some shaking? Time to stop wringing the hands and put them to work?

Thank you so much for posting this. The inability of people to see the bigger picture, particularly those employed as our "leaders" is the most frustrating aspect of my life right now.
I think you must be a writer. You wrote so eloquently on this subject.

Does he really think it's going to be about those issues? If it is about guns, why wouldn't the south love Dean's NRA rating? Hmmm.

Like Zell- announce your retirement and nuke your party...oops, I meant your party's frontrunner.

He went against the Clinton administration on important votes when they counted. I'm glad he's retiring - maybe we can get someone who stands up for the base out there in LA

republican enabling Bush* sycophant thinks. Some days are cloudy and the sun doesn't shine. The south is a much more urban place that it was even in 1992.

The Republicans have not won the popular vote for president since 1988. We can take a sufficient portion of the south on real issues to prevail in 2004.

cockroaches.

Most of you are reacting as if Breaux has said that Dean can't win. He didn't say that. He said that Dean can't duck certain issues.

And he can't. In every POTUS election, there is a primary issue, (National Security this time.), a secondary issue, (The Economy) and a whole bunch of 3rd tier issues. But for some people, one of the 3rd tier issues will, for that person, be THE PRIMARY ISSUE. For some, it will decide their vote.

A Presidential candidate must address all of the issues. There is no way that he can sidestep any of the 3rd tier issues. And gays, guns, and God WILL come up and the people for whom those issues are important will want to know where the candidate stands.

Here is the quote: “saying you can take those issues off the table is like saying the sun won’t shine”. He is NOT saying that Dean can'at win, he is saying that Dean WILL have to address those issues to, if he wants to win.

He specifically said that to win the Dems had better find
another candidate and said Lieberman or Clark may have a chance.

but there's no link so I don't know WHAT the poster really heard.

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

1. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include profanity, excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation. Inflammatory rhetoric should also be avoided.

3. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

4. If you wish to start a vanity thread (ie: a discussion thread in which the sole purpose is to share your personal opinion) you must state your opinion in a non-inflammatory manner which respects differences in opinion and facilitates actual discussion.

5. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.