Dean's goal: "wean the Democrats from their dependence on big money"

This is exactly what it is about. This is why Democrats have quit standing up for things. They are too dependent on big money to be able to take stands on issues. If we are not so dependent on corporations, we can have more change at the grassroots level, not so much top down.

http://www.progressive.org/webex04/wx121004.html

SNIP..."They (big money guys in the party) want an obsequious leader who can suck up to big donors and blur the distinctions between the two parties.

But as Dean said earlier this week, "We cannot win by being 'Republican-lite,' " adding, "There's only one thing Republican power brokers want more than for us to lurch to the left--and that's for us to lurch to the right."

He wants to wean the Democrats from their dependence on big money, and so he favors Internet fundraising and meet-ups and a vast base of small donors.

And rather than issuing top-down directives, he favors building at the grassroots and nurturing a sense of community among Democrats. He's a reformer at heart, and that includes "internal reform in the Democratic Party," he said.

On substance, he is unapologetic. As he put it, "at what point did it become a radical notion to stand up for what we believe?"

So it really goes back to the funding....that is the issue.

of my primary support.

Yay Dean, if no other democrats will stand up for what they believe, I am glad he will.

the Republicans control most of the media and most of the voting machines.

Dean is jumping in with the crowd that puts the blame on the Democrats, whether they say the candidate is too far left or too far right, it distracts from the actual problem.

The Democratic platform and the Dem nominee were nowhere close to being anything like Republican-Lite. The Democratic platform and the Democratic nominee were nowhere close to being radicall left. Yet that is what too many are trying to say. They are wrong.

Pointing fingers in any direction other than the media and voting machines is not addressing the real problems.

but I don't think the platform was so hot. I remember watching them craft it, and thinking they weren't doing a very good job. I also don't think that the repubs control most of the media. I think most of the media is just lousy on its own.

you're saying that the current Democratic Hierarchy isn't in bed with the Corporations just as much as the Reslugs? I'd have to respectfully debate that point with you.
The DNC/DLC machine sucks on many of the same teats as the Reslugs. We have to take back our party and make it beholding to us, not whoever writes the biggest checks.
Dean is taking the Party in the right direction, and if the Dem Machine ignores him or pushes him aside they do so at the cost of alienating their base.
The time for real reform has come. Step one in transforming the Democratic Party back to winners is to chase the money changers from the Temple.
The Media won't make that much difference in a grass roots campaign. Our message will get out. Hell, we almost won it this year even with the MSM is the Slug's back pocket. The voting machines must be error and hack free, I agree. There are hoards of good people working on that right now and this WILL be corrected. The American people will not fall for the same trick again. We have to ever vigilant for the Slug's NEXT dirty trick though, they'll try anything to steal an election, that fact is clearly evident.
Keep your stick on the ice, we're all in this together.

the Democrats are even CLOSE to being as much in bed with the corporations as the Republicans. They aren't even in the same ballpark.

Anyone who claims that they are the same is either very ignorant or hoping that centrist voters will hear there is no distinction between the two parties and feel comfortable voting for Republicans.

We are there now because our Democrats in congress allowed it.

above. The GOP controls most of the media and most of the voting machines.

make the continuing fraud seem plausible to most. We have to do something about both.

is because of exactly what Howard Dean is talking about. Where did they get the power to own the system? They were handed that power by gutless democrats who would not fight back and win elections.

Kerry vote for IWR, for the Patriot ACT for NCLB... he said he would not be redistributing wealth (a code for socialist)he said he would Give James Baker a job in his administration and he entertained the idea of McCain being his VP. If that is not a republican lite politician, nothing is.

First, I disagree with the premise that Bush is in power because the Republicans control the media and the elections. The media certainly failed in criticizing Bush on his failures, but then again, largely so did the Democrats. As Mark Hertsgaard points our in his book, In The Eagle's Shadow, political discourse in this country is largely determined by the Beltway consensus. Therefore, media criticism of a leader is largely determined by the stridency of the criticism from the opposition party. With many prominent Democrats falling over themselves to support the President after 9/11 (even JK, in the first debate, lauded Bush for the way he handled the immediate aftermath of 9/11), the media simply followed suit.

Second, I don't think that Dean wants to pull the party "left" or "center". He's a populist, first and foremost. What it seems he wants to do is to continue the momentum he started with his campaign and change the Democratic Party from a top-down operation run by career hacks to one that gets its funding and energy from a broad and active grassroots. Personally, I find little to argue with in this approach.

Pointing fingers in any direction other than the media and voting machines is not addressing the real problems.

I think this is extremely short-sighted. The current state of the media is a bipartisan blame. Or are you forgetting that it was Clinton that pushed for and signed the 1996 Telecommunications act? Now, if we're going to talk about RW talk radio, that's another matter -- but it's largely a result of the right organizing while the left was asleep at the switch.

As for the voting machines, I agree with your concerns, but I'm not one of those people who thinks that Bush stole the election outright on massive voter fraud. Even if he did, there's not much we can do about it now other than to ensure it doesn't happen again. I also think that Dean would be a prime choice to help push this fight, for things like nationalized voting standards, open source code for electronic machines, taking the partisan element out of election certification, and so forth.

In short, I really don't find anything that you're complaining about present in the remarks that Dean made. I also know that you harbored a visceral dislike for Dean during the primaries, and I'm wondering if that bias is somewhat clouding your judgement in this case.

I have come to believe that Dean has become a more real voice than he was during the primaries because I believe his supporters changed him INTO a REAL voice for progressive policy. Before, I felt like he made some awfully sudden shifts in his own positions and exaggerations of other candidates' positions that struck me as disingenuous. When HE changed and became more sincere about his leftward positioning, I changed my attitude towards him and left all resentments behind. You didn't hear one peep from me about the scream or any other bogus mudslinging at Dean. In fact, I pointed out that the media was trying to make Dean look crazy to keep Kerry from using Dean on the campaign trail and to keep the Dem party divided. Thankfully, ALL the Democratic candidates acted like a team for the general election which showed their real character. (Except Joe wasn't so hot.)

I sincerely disagree with ANYONE who thinks the Democratic platform is too far right or too far left. I sincerely disagree with ANYONE who claims that the Democrats are just as much in bed with corporations as the Republicans. If that were true, I would be in the Socialist Party and not give the Democrats another thought. But...IT IS NOWHERE CLOSE TO BEING TRUE.

If it WERE true then why on earth would the corporations so overwhelmingly favor the Republicans while fighting Democrats and their proposals so fiercely?

... I fail to see what the rest of your post has anything to do with either the article itself, or my first post in response to yours.

Really, I'm confused by the way I feel like you're yelling at me for things I didn't say in this thread.

It wouldn't even occur to me to yell at you, IC.

My point in the op was that too many are blaming the Dem party and its positions, either saying they are too far right, or too far left, when the fact is that the Dems cover a wide spectrum of beliefs pretty damn well and better than any other party.

What they don't get past is the rightwing control of most of the media and certainly CAN'T get past computerized voting that shifts their votes into the R column.

Because half of them don't take our concerns, about the media and vote fraud and numerous other issues, seriously. THAT is what we need to change.

them because they rely on old-fashioned reporting from the news media.

It's amazing to me that many people who even WORK in newsrooms have not seen the reality of these problems. The issue has not been pieced together enough to break through the clouds for them.

Until there is a journalist with impeccable credibility to piece the story together, it will remain cloudy.

I thought Dean would have explained BBV to Kerry and his campaign since they patched things up pretty quickly and worked together throughout the general election. But, I realize that even he must still not see the issue in all its gory reality. If he had, I am sure he would have worked his ass off to spotlight it BEFORE the election.

GOP control of media and the voting machines, not with Democratic flaws.

But our platform could have been a lot better and I am extremely disappointed in how John Kerry caved before the votes were all counted.

We need a tougher platform and a tougher candidate next time. Dean is certainly not my idea of a tougher or better candidate.

Of course, when I speak of "next time," I have to laugh and remind myself of reality. Given the situation with the media and the voting machines, I think democracy is dead in the United States.

Kerry got a fair hearing. His message was simply not sufficiently compelling. It was good enough for me, but I am just one voter and in all honesty was going to vote for any democrat to the left of Atilla the Hun. In short, my opinion was rather biased against Bush.

Despite all the evidence of problems on election day, there remains insufficient evidence to prove that BBV problems decided it.

Even if such evidence arises in Ohio, we will still lose the popular vote by about 3 million and have deepened the hole we are in as far as congress is concerned.

I do not fault people for the feeling that this result is unfair. Most of us worked too hard to feel otherwise.

That being said, a sober look at the results and some well considered reform will help us to avoid more experiences like this.

that you find your bitter way into EVERY S-I-N-G-L-E dean thread and reply at the top?

are you ever NOT on du and obsessing over dean?

any post of mine into something unrecognizable?

Maybe you just read my posts through bitter-colored glasses?

Try reading the posts and replying to EXACTLY what they say without applying your own prejudices.

...came up with this idea of taking money from corporations as a way to wean themselves off of depending on activists, especially in the area of identity politics, for funding. Now I think we're all activists in some way or another here, but I think it's not hard to see:

1. Activists are in constant danger of taking positions that are too radical and of using disingenuous rhetoric to further their goals.
2. It may be hard to reconcile specific demands of too many different activist groups, which may be using demands as leverage for funding (think of all the people here who threaten to secede if _____ demand isn't met, and it's almost always just a few demands if not just one).

I don't believe that he's saying that 'we hate all corporations' or anything like that. He is merely asking for emotional ownership of the party..by the grassroots..and that makes sense to me.

and exactly what MoveOn has been doing in earnest.

It's also what the GOP has been doing FALSELY with their grassroots propaganda campaign. They make the rightwing Christians FEEL like they're in control to get their vote while the corporations are the ones who actually wield the power.

...getting money from a broad base of people is a better idea.

You can either include moderate people like my husband and me, or you can cater to corporations.

The extreme left activists groups are attacking Dean more than the DLC is....he is not left-leaning and never has been. He is "moderate."

You are over-reacting a little here.

I'd say you can probably easily think of some instances where people get carried away. It happened to Dean himself during the debates when Sharpton attacked him for some pretty disingenuous stuff. And the fact that Sharpton was taking financial help and talking points from a Republican operative show us that the Republicans would love for us to slip into that trap.

But I do think Dean's ideas are good, because having a broad base of individual contributions would avoid this problem, rather than having to piece together funding from groups that have specific demands. And I was a Dean supporter up until he suspended the campaign, initially because of his moderate record. I'm just saying that people should understand what the DLC was actually doing.

The DLC needed more money. So they left their base behind. And now they have the money, but they are struggling to win.

They lost their values to get the money. I guess that makes them a winner.

hehe

Most of the real change that has ever happened in America was pushed by radicals before their ideas ever became mainstream. Taking the practical moderate approach if fine for those that follow trends started by activists but not for those that want to change the direction of society.

but let me add that getting those ideas enacted has always required moderate voices as well, The wisest people recognize that you have to persuade people, and act accordingly. It takes both radical activists and moderate activists to change society.

these are the activists you are talking about. They also make up the base of the party.

You're right that they make up the base of the party, but generally they do so as individuals, not as activists. Very few people are activists. By activists I mean the people that really really get into politics and participate in an organization with specific political demands. It's not hard to see that sometimes they go off the deep end with groupthink, disingenuous talking points, or secession threats doing so. I gave the example of Sharpton and how this worked against Dean.

Now I do appreciate what Dean is doing because it invites people to participate in one party as individual contributors.

and follow the party even when it abandons it's ideals. I don't think Sharpton or a lot of people who actually believe in something strongly will or should go along with that. I'm glad Sharpton was there to call Dean out with some things. It kept Dean honest.

to keep Dean honest. Yeh, how about that funding. How about all the flack about the blacks in his staff in VT. How about that?

That was really keeping Dean honest. I remember that debate. Sharpton made a fool of himself.

On Edit, I have info on Sharpton's GOP funding...so let me know.

It's always very difficult for black candidates for any office to raise much money. They don't typically get support from upper-class liberals and corporations like a lot of white Democrats. I'm sure you could gather a long list of people that contributed to Dean who have also contributed to Republicans so I think it's a moot point.

Sharpton's points about the number of African-Americans on Dean's staff and his confederate flag comment were important. If he had gotten the nomination Dean would have needed to deal with those issues and it was better for him to be forced to do it in the primary. Dean had the right idea with the confederate flag comment but he said it in the wrong way. Someone had to point that out. I'm also glad Sharpton and Kucinich were there to point out that Dean's approach for dealing with the Iraq war was no different that Kerry, Lieberman or Gephardt's approach, except that Dean could brag about opposing it sooner. Most people thought Sharpton was the best part of the debates.

Dean was clear on his stance on Iraq. Vermont has very few blacks, and that was totally uncalled for.

If you think this is ok, for him to be funded by this guy, then I question you on it.

This Roger Stone? Sleeping with the GOP?
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0405/barrett.php

This Roger Stone?
http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/09/15_recount.html

Or this Roger Stone?
http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/09/the_source_of_the_fake_memos_roger_stone.php

SNIp..."This would be just the latest in a long and illustrious career as a Republican dirty-trickster, starting in the service of Richard Nixon at 19 years old. Roger Stone was responsible for shutting down the Miami-Dade County recount in the 2000 election. During the primaries, he was the svengali behind the Al Sharpton campaign, and according to the NY Times, was responsible for Sharpton's attacks on Howard Dean."

It has little to do with Dean, really. It has to do with the things we are losing as a country because we no longer really have a two-party system.

My husband and I for months have only contributed to DFA, and we stopped our monthly donations to the DNC. It is up to them if we start donating again.

It has little to do with whether Dean is chair or not. It has to do with change. DFA offers a viable alternative.

A Democratic Party that was actually Democratic. What a silly idea. We can't have "leaders" whose focus isn't on enriching themselves.

The "centrists" would be ever so upset at such an idea.

and I mostly like him, but I never and still don't see him as a substantial alternative to "corporate" dems. I like Clinton, too, but both of them were on exactly the wrong side of what I consider to be the worst capitulation to the corporate sector, NAFTA.

And it's not factually true that Dems "can't win" being republican lite. What about Clinton?

Remember, I like Clinton, but if he's not republican lite, then what does republican lite mean?

from smaller donors, and because he is open-minded and pragmatic...he is not an ideologue. Corporate Dems are slaves to the ideology of corporations...which is profit first.

is that it assumes that everything is static...that conventional wisdom and what worked in the past, even recent past, still holds true. A lot has changed since Clinton was President and some of that change is because of some of the policies he went along with.

In 1996, he was facing a terrible Presidential candidate in Bob Dole, along with having Perot on for the ride to take away some of the white male vote.

Remember, Clinton NEVER won a majority of the vote. He won with a plurality both times.

in the primaries, Harken and Jerry Brown were the "old liberals," Clinton was a "new dem."

In the general election, Perot was the populist.

Prior to the election, picking up on Ross Perot's criticisms of NAFTA, Clinton publicly denounced the Bush administration's advance of NAFTA. He said something to the effect of, "We should ensure that Mexico raises its labor and environmental standards prior to us entering NAFTA with them as a partner. This will ensure that the agreement helps us raise each other up, as opposed to pulling each other down."

Then, once elected, he reneged on this statement (in what was to be a string of betrayals) and pushed NAFTA through without those labor and environmental standards being raised.

Also, didn't Clinton campaign on the idea of a national health care plan?

I stand by my initial ascertation. I would hardly say that Clinton governed as a populist. But he sure as hell RAN as one in 1992. That doesn't mean that Perot didn't also run a populist campaign, nor does it mean that Clinton ran as a liberal. Populists can come from all parts of the political spectrum.

and would have transferred a great deal of power to wealthy people.

Democrats need to be really careful about what they think is liberal.

Liberal isn't an attitude or a lifestyle. It's a belief that economic, political and cultural power needs to flow down to the people and outward, rather than up to the top, concentrated in the hands of a few people.

Brown may have been Governor Moonbeam, or whatever, but that didn't make him liberal.

And everything Clinton believed in did push power down to the people and outward. Sister Souljah and Ricky Ray Rector notwithstanding, Clinton was advocating policies that would give black women who had a problem with the cops and black male captial defendants more power, which was going to reduce the chance that they'd be harassed by the police or would end up on death row.

That's what makes a liberal.

Had Jerry Brown been elected and had he pushed through a flat tax, we would have gotten a much worse hourglass economy much sooner, with many more people relegated to poverty and few guaranteed huge wealth, and we would have been using the criminal justice system much more as the "valve" for which to deal with disaffection and structural poverty (ie, someone making trouble because they can't get a job? Lock 'em up).

back to how this started, I was challenging Dean's statement that a repub lite "can't win."

I still maintain that Clinton in the 1992 election could by the standard of Dean's rhetoric be called a repub lite, but even if you disagree with that, you admit that he very soon became one once in office.

But then Dean still seems to be wrong. Clinton had considerable success once in office, and his success increased the more he "triangulated."

But I could be thinking too much. Maybe what we need in this media environment is someone who "sounds good" but whose statements don't stand up to close scrutiny.

about the entire Dean movement. He's very correct when he identifies problems with the party and being Republican-lite. I've just never been able to see him as representing anything very different from that. He's better in small degree but nothing dramatically different in terms of issues.

Remember when the GOP was nearly defunct?

And then along comes this wacko backbencher named Newt with this ludicrous Contract For America, and it works. It was a great gimmick. We could request Dean builds A Progressive America statement out of the discussions at the grassroots.

You mentioned control of the media. Why not re-write the laws to require, in the name of democracy, the break-up of the MSM. Now, that idea would never come out of Washington, but it would sure as hell resonate with the grassroot.

2005 will see the revolution of the grassroots activists.

I commend Dean for how he built this army of small donors. However, the party needs big donors as well.

Wean from "dependence on."

is local level organizing like the Republicans have with the fundamentalist Christian churches. How much do you suppose that cost them? Not much, I suspect. What avenues are we looking at to be able to compete at that level?

and Dean did a great job of finally tapping into small donors. Its the best thing he's done for the party.

As long as we are dependent on big money, then we are nothing but a political movement.

When we are the small doners, then we are the voice of democracy.

It's a powerful paradigm shift that has never been possible, until now.

And anyway, need I remind you that the people who told you we need that money to win elections live in Washington?

we don't have enough money to compete. Running campaigns are very expensive. WE can be more selective.

:hi:

I love everything he says. That's what drew me to him in the first place, nearly two years ago.

I agree, and I've been saying that for a couple of years now. We (the Dems at the top) muffle our voices for fear of antagonizing big money.

Schrew that.

The party raised over 200 million dollars, mostly from small-time donors.

So, no. The problem has more to do with message than contributors.

Put on your thinking cap.

He's for government of, by and for the people rather than government of, by and for the corporations.

dole, but it really is heading that way whether we want it to or not. Just look at the difference between rep vs dem contributions. The repugs have been in power long enough to create a system that forces corps to give to them if they want any access to government. Those that don't are punished by having the doors completely shut to them. It's become so prevalent that corporations won't even hire lobbyists unless they are repugs.

And if you really think there is any other issue more important than removing electronic voting, you haven't been paying attention. Unless these machines are removed from the process, democracy is done and you are just spinning your wheels discussing how to appeal to more people.

Dean is one of the few people that truly understands what we are up against.