Smacked up side the head by a Republican!

A long time friend totally shocked me yesterday with a revalation I would never have believed. She said she voted for Bush (no surprise there) but she said she considered him the lesser of two evils, because she couldn't vote for the man she really wanted to see in the White House.

She felt there was no meaningful difference between Kerry and Bush, and she wanted to see someone who was not politics as usuall get elected. She, a staunch Republican, wanted to vote for Howard Dean because she thought he was the only candidate who could have made any difference at all.

When she saw they way the Dems railroaded Dean out of the race she came to the conclusion that the Democrats are just as corrupt and power hungry as the Republicans so it didn't make one bit of difference.

That has always been my conclusion too, but to hear it from a faithful Republican was just more thanb I expected to ever hear.

She doesn't sound like a republican to me.

I bet she will spend the next four years rethinking her party affiliation.

Btw, I don't think Sen. Kerry is corrupt, either. But, it is obvious to anyone that Dean isn't.

but not a winner either.

We all voted for a real winner, eh?

No offense to John Kerry or his supporters, but this "Dean Can't Win" bullshit is tired.

Two points--

1)There's a difference between DIDN'T win and COULDN'T win

2)Of all the candidates, Dean and Clark have most improved their pre-election standings. I would include Edwards, except for the fact that before the election he lost his job as a result of the race. In that sense, Edwards lost more than any other candidate, and that's too bad. He should be moving up the political ladder, not off. I hope that we have not seen the last of John Edwards, but I'm certain that we have not seen the last of Howard Dean.

First, if we go charging off in Dean’s direction, we are doomed.

Moreover, Dean is a proven loser. He had everything going for him in the primaries. He was ahead in everything that was measurable. If you blow a lead like he had it means you are not ready to play with the big boys.

I also disagree with respect to Clark. We need a fresh start. Someone like Mark Warner or Bill Richardson will seek and win the nomination (imho).

Was that your intent?

You will see.

Dean was the one candidate that I thought was not corrupt and oozed honesty. Kerry = Soros = Clinton = more crooked politics for my party. I ended up voting for Kerry (held my nose and needed a shower afterwards) but believe me, if Nader had been on the ballot in my state, I would never have voted for Kerry. I don't know about Warner, but Richardson is another crook.

Please, enlighten me.

I trust him.

I was glad to vote Kerry in the GE.

I'm just tired of hearing the "Dean is a proven loser" meme.

It's false, disruptive, and just plain silly.

Is that how you think, how your logic goes -- the winner is the winner and to be lauded no matter how he got there, even by crooked means? Are you a "winning is the only thing" kinda guy or gal? Someone who celebrates chicanery and dirty tricks if it creates a win?

Some people are like that and I've seen a few right here at DU. Are you one of them?

Because Dean wasn't ALLOWED to win or lose on his own steam. Nossirreee, the DNC, Kerry and Gephardt and some of their rowdy friends, Clark, Clinton, and oh yes, Edwards and Kucinich all engaged in either dirty tricks or tawdry backroom deals to do Dean in. Vilsack and Sheheen wdid their parts putting their political "machines" in gear as well, esp. Vilsack. Further, the front-loaded primaries (by DESIGN) gave Dean too little time to pick up steam again after Iowa for New Hampshire, which he WAS doing until he ran out of time. The front-loaded primaries are a tool of the DNC to make sure they (and the DLC) get to exercise sufficient control over who is the eventual nominee.

So YOU can call Dean a "loser" if you want to, but it says far more about you than it does him. I think he's a winner who was robbed, and cared enough about his country and the horrible things happening to it under Bush, and his party, to put on a brave and happy face and campaign for the jerk who did him in with dirty tricks.

Do you have the slightest clue as to what Dean's direction really is?

Explain to me what you think Dean's "direction" is, and why you think it "dangerous" and maybe I can take your post more seriously.

there are about Kerry. And I wouldn't call either of them corrupt. I just dispute "Obviously not corrupt" for either. I like both, but both have had rumours about them.

after Kerry had the nomination it was anybody but Bush from there on out.

and they supplied the MSM with that cherrypicked audio and video that effectively torpedoed his campaign.

Those conservative old election losing hacks sure do want to cling to power, even if it destroys not only the party, but also the entire country.

You have a right to your opinion but I can't help but feel this feuls the fire of the opposition. I just don't understand why some keep refighting the primary. It is counterproductive.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Why do some people continually re fight the primary? Dean didn't have the loyalty you claim as was demonstrated by the fact he didn't win the primary. Even the university centers in Iowa didn't vote for Dean. I like Dean. But he was too conservative for me.The Democrats preferred Kerry. And many people here on DU and in the Party are still loyal to Kerry. I am, and I am proud that both men are in our party. And calling me a "stinking Bush clone " is probably a personal attack. I was only suggesting that they like to see us eat our own and whether you like it or not , both Kerry and Dean are our own. And you have the right to criticize either,a fact which I stated in my previous post. You are way over the top in your characterization of me ,however. I suggest you reread your post and apply it closer to home.

And the Democratic party made a *big mistake*.

only Dean

Looks like things worked out well for him.

For every one of her..there are five democrats who wouldn't have voted for Dean. It was sort of a losing proposition. Dean has done an excellent job of getting his message out since the election has been over. I doubt he would have been as successful during the election.

Dean would have only garnered something like 20% of the Democratic vote. Right.

Dean/Clark would have won it.

candidates. Not Republican-lite ones, because nobody buys that crap.

I had the same experience as the original poster, talking with a neighbor. It seems that what attracts some people is a candidate's commitment to their principles and their ability to articulate that commitment. Dean did very well there.

I didn't say these were smart people (who fail to examine the issues or history), or that they were aware of the political and social happenings around them, but Dean did bring a passion to things, and was great at motivating the grassroots, and found a new way to link progressives and progressive funding - the internet.

That's why I agree with you. We should passionately stand by our populist and caring principles. And screw moving to the center. I now identify myself as a progressive ... a progressive Democrat. I'll have no part of people thinking that I'm Rethuglican light.

but IT'S WAY OVER THERE , ON THE "LEFT" of where we are today.

nt

and can detect the stench of a crook and fraud.

Republican Green and independent. While the Green party members voted for Kerry or Cobb the republicans and indpendents voted for bush or stayed home.
You just can't convince some people in the democratic party that authenticity or original thought matters even when voters outside of their circles keep saying it over and over.

Many republicans in MN voted for Wellstone and it wasn't because they agreed with him but because they trusted that he was who he said he was.

calling Dean a pacifist and saying he want skiing during Vietnam and blah-blah-blah, would she still have voted for him?

who disliked Bush vote for him because they thought it was the lesser of two evils. The lesson here is that negativity DOES work. Call someone a flip-flopper enough times and the label sticks. Had the Dems put Dean in front he would've been slaughtered. Remember the yell he made after the Iowa(?) primaries?

That it turned out that the media covering Dean that night deliberately used technical means to make that "Yell" sound much louder and more unhinged than it actually was?

(on another note, I loved the ATC piece in which somebody did a great bit of editing, having Dean's howl suddenly segue into James Brown's
"I FEEL GOOD."

It was pushed by Chris Lehane.

... your Republican friend voted for the worst possible candidate of all, the Republican....

In essence, you are saying, in her opinion, George W. Bush was second only to Howard Dean?

The mind boggles....

sorry, but I'm not buying what you're selling here.

:cry:

Bush and Co. would have SLAUGHTERED him one on one. This realization on the part of most Dem primary voters, and not any kind of "railroading", doomed the Dean candidacy.

Most of us wanted to nominate someone who at least had a CHANCE of winning. Even if he represented the proverbial half a loaf.

Dean was a fighter, he would have called Bush on his lies, on the Abu Ghraib scandal, Kerry wasnt even willing to call Bush the incontrovertable liar he is as it might offend someone. I actually think Kerry would have been a better president for my politics than Dean but I think Dean would have been a better campaigner. That said, Kucinich was my choice though I dont think he had a chance, seems like every politician I really like has that problem

Dean took a stand. Bush took a stand. Kerry waffled. Bush's stand might have sucked ass, but he took one. And to them, it was important to know where the pResident actually stood, agree with him or not.

:cry:

Considering...

Considering Kerry was a lackluster candidate? Considering what? The poster??

What are you bravely inferring from way far away so elusively? (Which BTW, kinda reminds me of Kerry)

Julie

Hey, are you still slandering a fellow DU-er and author? I haven't checked the other place lately.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda can be such a comfort (I hope that wasn't too obtuse for ya)

How long have you been a fiction writer? That is of course required when taking sides with the indefensible so I understand your choice of tactic, though I cannot muster any regard or respect for it or its practitioners. (Read it over once or twice, you'll get it)

At least I come right out with what I have to say, I don't fearfully hide behind implications and snide little snipes.

Of course, he that you refer to in this latest little heather-fit prefers to do his dirtiest work via PM. If you don't believe me I'd be happy to provide examples I've saved.....

Yours for the asking, if you'd like to see your hero's bile out here for all to see.....

Julie--always willing to accomodate

You do know that posting the alleged "bile", is a violation of this board's rules, don't you? In the spirit of the season, I'm just trying to be helpful.

Boo!

haha

Check my PM in response to your own bile-filled, hateful little message. You may be surprised to see a civil, grown-up response to your baseless charge-filled hissy fit.

:toast:

BTW, your hate spewing via PM runs counter-intuitive to your claims of intended "helpfulness" here on the public boards. Just an FYI.

:hi: Julie

Just curious. I don't hate Dean, and I support Kerry. It seems some feel they can say whatever they want about Kerry but Dean must be sancrospect. Why???

I don't answer for the posts of others but you won't find a slam from me. You will find some facts that may displease you but no "slam".

Julie

Gee, one day I hope to see one of those that obliterates all the allegations about Kerry-the-not-so-great-candidate.

But no, all I ever see is brown-shirt type responses. Cite Kerry flaw you're just "bashing him".

*sigh*

And they say we at DU are so above the poor sods at FR. Hmmm mmmm.

Julie

His positions on why to fight in Iraq shift as much as the desert sands...his positions on whether or not a strong dollar is a good thing, shifts, his positions on abortion have shifted, his positions on whether or not to have a Dept of Homeland Security shifted, his personal choice of a religious affiliation shifts, his position on whether it is important to go after Osama shift...are we negotiating with Korea or not? He was for the Viet Nam war, bur wouldn't fight in it. He is against government involvement in business, yet made his millions largely through the use of government using the power of imminent domain and transferring public wealth and investment to his own pocket. Was he for or against the investigation of 9/11 and the security failures? Depends on when you ask the question. Remember when going to Mars and fighting steroid abuse in baseball were supposed to be major agendas of this country?

The only position Bush can be counted on is to line the pockets of his families "associates". Oh, and he doesn't like Michael Moore....

WTF, where is this fantasy coming from he is resolute?

Bush....regardless of the party politics, what about the policies Bush would implement???

A great many people vote purely on personality, values, etc with virtually zero consideration to policy issues.

I know a lot of single issue voters on firearms who prefer Democrats in all other ways. I have spoken to lots of people who voted for Bush who said they would have voted for Dean if they'd had the opportunity.

Months of Rovian attacks might well have changed their minds. But that we will never know.

Last time I checked I was able to access more than one site in the interenet...let me check....

Yep, I can go to more than one.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

who by the way, did not express an opinion, but only related an incident. I know two Repubs who would have voted for Dean - one stayed home the election and the other voted Bush. I loved (still do) Howard Dean, and it made me very angry to see him steamrolled by Kerry/Gephardt in Iowa.

So tell me, am I a freeper then? A troll?

And incidentally, isn't it against the rules to accuse people of such?

I had republican friends who really liked Dean, I'm not sure if they would've voted for him, but they didn't see Dean as a 'liberal'...they saw him as a patriot and a uniter.

Whether Kerry or Dean would have made the better candidate--doesn't she realize how much worse Bush is? Ignoring terrorist warnings before 9/11, starting an illegal war, draining the economy, trying to wreck education & the environment....

This is all right with her? Of course, it may be all right with you, as well.

Yeah, it's not so much that Dean is better than Kerry or whatever.

Look at what Bush is doing! He currently is trying to strip more money from the states for Medicaid to which the state governors are bipartisan in their reply. They don't want Bush to take more money away from Medicaid. The governor of Arkansas said "You don't take a wheelchair away from a child with muscular dystrophy". That's exactly what Bush wants to do. He's still hellbent on banning gay marriages, though I suppose he'll wait a while longer before he gets into it again. And he wanted to deny people with cancer the compensation they deserve from building nuclear weapons. these are people that didn't know exactly what they were building, but now they have cancer from the exposure. He is so lacking in compassion. He is so lacking in actually thinking about others. He's the most selfish person I think I've ever known of. He refused to sign the Kyoto treaty because it'll hurt "U.S. Economy"...what he really meant is that it'll hurt the pocket books of his CEO friends. Company profits are up, but the trickle down to the employees is not happening. But yet, he cares more about money than he does making sure our kids have a decent environment.

It's not about Dean. It's not about Kerry. It's not about Clinton. It's about getting the biggest asshole that ever became President out of the office he doesn't deserve! (Okay, maybe 2nd biggest asshole behind Nixon)...

He's a bigger asshole than Nixon ever thought about being. He may just be the 'World's Biggest Asshole' and that would be a vote I would definitely give him. But aside from that, he gets no votes and no props from me.

the primary system.

It needs to be changed. By the time the primaries roll around to my state, it's already been decided who'll be the candidate, and so there isn't much incentive to vote in the primary. I don't feel I had a choice this time about who the democratic candidate would be.

then she should have followed Monty Brewster's advice.

None of the Above.

She enabled evil with her vote. She might have thought Kerry was worse (which means she is deluded) but she also saw Bush as an evil and then enabled it.

She should have not voted at all.

Rp

Most Republicans I know laugh at the thought of Dean as the head of our party, and would never in a million years vote for him, or atleast admit to doing so.

It doesnt pass the laugh or smell tests.

cause he had Jomentum. But alas, we had Kerry.

that they would have voted for dean. that he was the man that they could stand behind to go against bush. listen to what dean had to offer and the way he spoke i knew he would do well in the south with the southern and texas male