This comment from Reid about Dean just says it all, sadly.

This is exactly what so many of the party are about...they want to avoid even the "perception" of liberal, progressive....because they think we have to appeal to the Republicans.

http://www.lasvegascitylife.com/articles/2005/01/06/cover_story/cover.txt

A front-runner hasn't been determined, but former Vermont governor Howard Dean is among the contenders. In late 2003, Dean implanted a backbone in the party at a time when not many candidates spoke out against the Bush administration. The Washington outsider led the pack for the Democratic nomination, but waged war on media conglomerates, screamed and imploded because of it. He had too many extreme positions to be "electable," pundits preached.

That seems to be Reid's sentiment with Dean for DNC chair. Reid is one of 450 committee leaders who will pick McAuliffe's successor.

"I'm not sure Howard Dean is the answer to our problems," Reid said. "What we need is not someone who only speaks to the progressive wing of the party, but all wings of the party."

And that wing is clearly rural America. Reid likes former Congressman Tim Roemer from Indiana for the committee's top post. As Reid put it, Roemer "is a moderate and from the right part of the country, the Midwest."

"For right or wrong, Howard Dean is recognized as part of the left, so to speak -- the total anti-war crowd," Reid said. "I'm not too sure we need more acrimony."

(OH, but wait, I thought Dean was DLC centrist, and all that good stuff. But, oh, he must really be that flaming liberal fruitcake after all. Guess what, the party is not going to change. They chose Reid, they picked him. They are going more right.)

The Total Anti-War Crowd? Is that a new term now?

It was stolen from us!

You can say we didn't in 2000 and won there too.

So we won in 2000 because Gore started speaking out. Of course he gave in to the Dems who said don't fight....I forgive him, now that I realize the pressure they put on.

went populist for a few minutes in 2000 his poll numbers jumped to a comfortable lead.
The investment bankers who purchased the Democratic Party in 1988 were not pleased.

Gore's poll numbers spiked when he started talking like a real Democrat. It was his mistake to listen to those who warn us not to engage in "class warfare". Why the heck are we Democrats if we're not going to talk about the rich people always trying to grab all the money?? The investment bankers did purchase the Party, didn't they? It's a travesty that the Dem's won't take a stand against excessive stock option expensing, for example, or really regulate the hedge fund industry.

The northeast BASE of the Democratic party is not the "right part of the country"? :mad:

You know, the coolest daddios and the heppest cats!

I'm such a bedwetting rupug bootlicker that I won't admit that I made a mistake" crowd. :eyes:

<snapping fingers>

What, are we supposed to be gung-ho war? Yay, war!? Let's rush straight out to a cool ol' war then, 'eh? Bring yer friends!? Let's go do some serious killing!?

Thanks but NO THANKS.

and I'm for Dean heading it, personally. I'm tired of spineless, clueless, gullible, easily cowed, utterly cowardly, wrongheaded, delusional, jackbootlicking people at the helm.

the invasion was a great success on all fronts.

It would be nice to have a Democrat who actually had a firm grasp of reality: The antiwar crowd was right and is proven more so with every passing hour.

EVERY passing moment!!!

:grr:

i said the war would be a complete disaster - i was totally wrong of course, it is a "catastrophic success", which somehow is no more comforting...

i now wear my "Give PEACE a chance" pin every day. Funny - the repukes I work with, all good fundamentalist, twice born types who SHOULD be all about peace and love (isn't that what Christ had in mind?) INSTEAD are having the joneses for another "shock'n'awe" campaign to finish off those dead enders who are messing up the perfect democracy we gave Iraq....

go figure? if bombing them into submission the first time created the exact opposite result, do we really have to keep trying it expecting the result to be different?

Don't they get it?? Detroit beats Boise. Columbus beats little bend, Nebraska. WE have the numbers-all we gotta do is get their votes to count, for chistsakes.

Thanks but no thanks. And I'm VERY proudly anti-war. And yes, as other posters have indicated - everything we warned about, we looney, out-of-touch, pathetic anti-war types, CAME TRUE. Everything dreadful we warned about - HAS HAPPENED. WE turned out to be correct. NOT people like him. I hate to use the word "right" anymore, it's been so bastardized and perverted. But that's exactly what we were. We anti-war people - millions of us all over the world - were right. Did it, or has it, come out anything remotely close to how he and the other bush brigands and warmongers assured us it would? NO! It came out, and keeps coming out, the way WE WARNED that it would. In fact, it's getting worse, by the day, than we feared.

We. Were. Right. And I do NOT mind rubbing that in with people like him.

1 (800) 839 - 5276 - TOLL FREE to Capitol Hill. Tomorrow, I'm calling his office again, and reminding him YET AGAIN. I'm sorry he's our senate leader now. We just saw, today, who it really should be. Proud to say she's from California.

Do a lot of people here still labor under the assumption that the Democratic Party is actually interested in sticking up for "ordinary people" in any way, shape or form? They're not.

The Democratic Party is simply a slightly more gentle big-business party. The main difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties is that where Republicans want to represent big business and privilege ruthlessly, the Democrats want to do so with a smiley face and genial demeanor.

Harry Reid has no interest in representing "regular people". Nor do any of the other major players in the party. Sure, some of the unruly backbenchers -- like the Ohio triumvirate of Dennis Kucinich, Sherrod Brown and Marcy Kaptur -- actually believe that the Democrats should stand for the people, but that is why they are kept as backbenchers by the movers and shakers in the party. The movers and shakers simply want to maintain and extend their own power and privilege, first and foremost.

I've given up on the Democratic Party, at least on a national level. They don't represent me, and they certainly don't represent the vast majority of the poor, working class, or middle class in this country. I'll still pull a lever for them in the booth as opposed to a Republican, but I won't waste time and energy working to try and get them elected anytime soon.

Obviously, a consequence of being a liberal would be to object to imperialism which serves to concentrate wealth in the hands of the wealthy.

However, that's not how being anti-war was defined in the minds of voters. it was defined in terms of being for or against defending America against the slightest provocation.

I think that's what Reid is trying to articulate.

based on the way the Right framed the issue.

frame what it means to be liberal.

They would demand a 4 year commitment, demand he not run in 08, which he has already said he would not do if chair, demand he abandon DFA, and then marginalize him. It would be a good way to take him out of the picture. I fear that a lot.

don't give them any !*&#@ ideas. That was precisely MY fear all along. Happily (or not), they're not even ThAT clever -- all they know is how viscerally they fear and loathe Howard Dean.

Now, if he ever wakes up to that fact and gets real about things, we'll have a new party on our hands. :D

Dean's nature can be like a persistant terrier with a bone.

That tough outspoken resiliance is his greatest asset. Rough and tumble and he is still up for the game.

that self imploding bunch inside. I sure hope he soon realizes he will never be one of them and works for change with the millions of ordinary citizens who relish change.

Sigh...so sad, but so typical that we almost expect that kind of comment from our party's "leaders."

I personally have become disengaged from the party apparatus. I am watching it kind of at arm's length. They have to show me something for me to re-engage. The party chair election will let me know if they have earned my vote, or my shoeleather work for the party again.

For the first time in my life, after having my vote be a solid given for the Democrats since I first voted for Jimmy Carter, my vote is not a given anymore. Now they will have to prove themselves worthy of it, and they have to actually reflect my values to get it. And my values are not far left, they are remarkably centrist Democratic.

I know I'm not alone in feeling this way, which makes me think that if folks who are very center-left are having doubts about their commitment level to the party, this could be a watershed period for the party's future. Because those folks are the meat and potatoes of the party.

Gonna be interesting to watch what happens.

Early on, I supported Dean in the primaries. I even went to one of his rallies. One of the first things out of his mouth were these words: "I am not a pacifist". He went on to underline his support for the war in Afghanistan before pointing out what a mistake Iraq was.

So why this perception from Reid and so many others? Sad to say, but I think it really has to do with some of Howard's supporters. Dean himself might very well be a sensible centrist, but many of the least persuasive, least effective, people on our side have glommed onto him as a symbol for everything that really pisses them off: fellow Democrats who don't walk in lockstep with their every silly conspiracy theory, grandstanding political gesture (e.g. "Impeach Bush - In the Majority GOP Congress"), disparagement of the troops (not just the President), and contempt for that Compromiser in Chief, Bill Clinton.

(For numerous examples, just keep reading the D.U.)

I think for Dean to shed this perception, he's going to have to meet and greet a lot of his fellow Democrats. But even that might not be enough.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Keep on doing that, and you will lose more than you have already in the halls of your conservatism.

Keep on, you are helping the Greens. And if Dean stays with DFA, you will just need to watch the exodus from the party to that group!

Keep it up, your ideology is doing wonders for those of us who see what is really going on.

I am so damn tired of the "conservatives" labeling me a nutcase Dean supporter, that if he goes as DNC chair, we will think about becoming Greens or Independents.

There will be no change at all.

This moderate old me, I am proud. The more you make us look unstable the more rational and determined we become.

Did you read what I wrote? I don't really have a problem with Dean himself, at all. I supported him before he lost to Kerry. Then I supported Kerry.

But there is a difference between a Deaner and a Deaniac. The former is a Democrat who calls upon his fellow Democrats to support Howard Dean. The latter is a kool-aid drinker who somehow sees Dean as this Messianic figure that will simultaneously rid the Democratic party of centrists and cause it to win landslides in the general election.

Keep on doing that, and you will lose more than you have already in the halls of your conservatism.

Keep doing what? Defending fellow Democrats? No. Sorry. You started this fight by jumping all over Reid because he has an unfortunately too-common perception of Dean. All I did was point out that Dean is a lot better than his supporters, and Reid probably doesn't know the man.

Nor will I stop defending myself. I am just as much a Democrat as you are. Actually more so: if Kucinich was the party's choice, you would not see me throw some -holding my breath turning blue threatening to leave because I didn't get exactly what I want- temper tantrum. Instead, I'd be out there canvassing and phone-banking for the man, like I do all my Democratic candidates.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Who did that?

But if you're really unclear about it, go read the GD and GD: Politics forums on a daily basis. There is an active thread attacking Democrats on the top of the page nearly every hour of every day. With more vituperation than you often find on the Free Republic.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

And I've done a lot of posting around here. So I think you may be making some very unwarranted assumptions.

old reich wing tactic adopted long ago by the DLC, but I am getting redundant.

;-)

That is the damn problem. You may attack me all you want, it does not do anything but make me madder.

I am tired of being treated as a fool and fringe lunatic. I am probably one of the most practical, sensible, and well-educated folks on this forum....and I am damned tired of being talked down to by the DLC types who think they are so superior.

Go ahead, my friend, you are making the case for change all by yourself.

I stated that there are far too many Dean supporters who are doing the man they admire much more harm than good. And that that is the source of Reid's misconception.

You yourself decided you fit in that category by the way you immediately drew umbrage at my comment. Not me. I do criticize you for attacking Reid - yet another Democrat - but did not categorize you with people that are counterproductive.

You also threatened to become a Green if Dean doesn't get the DNC chairmanship, and I also criticize you for that. Every day in this forum I get attacked for "not being a Democrat", yet outright Green recruiting goes uncommented upon (not to mention un-Alerted). I am the one who is constantly disparaged for my views, not you.

Finally, may I point out, my friend, that the DNC Chairmanship is no great prize. This, because Democrats are not, by and large, a top down organization. If Dean became Chair, he will get to do things every other chair has done: go to conferences nobody sees, schmooze with behind the scenes Democratic donors, and make pronouncements everybody will completely ignore. If you leave the party over him missing out on that, then, well, Godspeed.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

I have never attacked you, I only attack the DLC leaders who pander to the right.

You have been totally insulting to the people who support Howard Dean. I find it outrageous to attack the messengers.

First, having identified myself as Dean supporter in the primaries, I can hardly have been "insulting to the people who support Howard Dean". I don't insult myself. At least not intentionally.

I will admit to feeling a certain dismay on how Dean - who still appeals to me as a "centrist who fights" - has been adopted by some of the party's most counterproductive leftists as their poster-child (a bizarre pairing, if ever I've seen one).

That, even more than his "scream", has made Dean inviable as a Presidential candidate. Right now, Iowa Democratic activists and voters who actually show up at caucuses, simply won't reconsider him. Especially with a bunch of just-got-involved-yesterday newbie Deaniacs sneering "you're not real Democrats" in the faces of people who've spent up to 50 years manning the phone banks every election - or are saying the Democratic party needs to be destroyed (yup - a real winner there).

Nor would Dean be more "powerful outside the Democratic party". Taking the Nader route would make him wither and die, and he knows it.

In fact, the most powerful position Dean could have is former DNC chair. Why former? Because that's what you have to do when you resign to become a Presidential Candidate, after having successfully engineered a Democratic congressional comeback in '06. Let me tell you, if that happened, he would have a chance.

That's why (if you've been paying close attention) Dean is trying to win the DNC Chair without making a commitment to remain there. If he did, he could probably walk in to the position, since there are a lot of people who like him in an "energize the base" role that are terrified of him doing another "scream" equivalent at the top of the ticket.

But I predict that if he can't become Chair on his own terms, he won't take it at all. Instead, he'll go off to head DFA - trying to use it as a base for a new run at the Whitehouse.

Of course, to do that, he'll need to somehow move his most vocal activists from the counterproductive force they are now into a focused, persuasive organization. And if he does that, he deserves the nomination.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Are you actually saying the DFA group was not productive? Is that what you are saying?

I am finding it harder and harder to understand the attacks on me, when it is Reid who called Dean a liberal, or the perception thereof.

When you decide to stop treating me like a teen kid who has no sense, I will respond.

If the party folks do not believe we were "productive" then you should ask our local DEC..... OK?

He allowed them to back him down on the earlier remarks on the caucuses. He should have presented his case and not backed down.

No, I am quite sure he is not welcome back in Iowa. Vilsack asked to not even come back there during the primaries. Trouble is, we have a daughter, son-in-law, and granddaughter there who are active Democrats, and they KNOW what went on.

You know, your demeanor toward those of us who have worked so hard during the primaries, who ran candidates locally, got petition cards signed, dominated the editorial pages of the local paper....is simply disgusting.

Then we will talk.

It's bad enough to have crap like that thrown at leftist by republicans, but by a fellow Democrat?

The vast majority of liberals do NOT disparage our troops and simply want them out of harm's way at home. Nice right wing talking point from a fellow "Democrat".

The vast majority of liberals do not want Democrats to march in lockstep on conspiracy theories- we want Democrats to march in lockstep in opposition to Bush's Social Security destruction plan, in support for tougher workplace safety laws, in support of living wages for our workers, in opposition to wars based on lies, and in support of progressive taxation. If "conservative" Democrats can't get behind those issues and the party speak in one voice, then yes, it's time for the divorce.

But again, thanks for spreading the right wing talking points. Because we really don't hear that enough already. :eyes:

No one is saying that the people who do things counterproductive to the Democratic party are in any way a majority. They're a very vocal minority.

But just as it is right for you to say that all Democrats need to identify some core things that we will fight on, period - it is also right for me to point out that adhering to kook theories harms the party, as does attacks against Democratic leaning voters who fail some arbitrary rigid litmus test of ideology.

We will either be big-tent winners, or little-tent losers.

Your pick.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

If our party had stood for us the last few years, we would not be in this mess.

Some unnamed members of the party have obviously failed your litmus test. You don't say where, but it hardly matters. If you draw lines hard enough, you'll find that practically no one agrees with you.

Now it's fine if you want to do that. But it's awfully lonely being a political party of one. And it's hardly "crap" to point that out.

Here's another uncomfortable fact: 30% of Democratic voters were in favor of the Iraq war. While I'm not one of them (I've never felt much Joementum myself), I have to ask you, do you want the party to declare itself too good for their votes? They do agree with us on other issues, you know.

Or corporate contributions. Leftists attack the DLC for pursuing donations from businesses, and yet simultaneously, via choosetheblue, are trying to boycott corporations because they haven't given the Democrats enough. Well? Which is it? What other support is the Democratic party too good for?

And how is trying to be a big tent party putting us in a "mess"?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Shall I post Rosenberg's quote on that? Or should I be kind and let it be.

They needed better funding than their base could give, and they got in bed with corporations. There is all kinds of research here about it.

I am sick of being attacked.

I am sorry, but that was just so funny. This "kook" thinks that is just hilarious....all that while you make fun of those of us who worked very hard this year.

How dare you?

I am NO nutcase, sir. Thanks a lot for that wonderful characterization. I have been against this war from the beginning, I was for Dean from the beginning, though of course I voted for Kerry.

You know why I liked Dean? HE SAID WHAT I FELT and HE WASN'T AFRAID TO SAY IT.

Damn straight.

He has fire in his belly and that's exactly the fuck what we need.

Do you think this is an attempt to distinguish between Dems who were both anti-Afghanistan invasion and anti-Iraq vs. Dems who were pro-Afghanistan but anti-Iraq? Insertion of "total" in his statement is interesting.

He does not care, he does not know.

anti-war, any war. I think they all live in my county. Howard Dean is NOT one of them.

Zigler states that: "On the issue of Iraq, it's tough to pinpoint whether Reid supports the effort or not."

I'll take Dean's outspoken, clearly stated opinions over the middlish mush I'm hearing from many in the Democratic leadership, like Reid.

regardless of your views on Dr. Dean, let's be very clear about his position on Iraq ... he was very opposed to what bush did but he did NOT set "imminent threat" as a pre-condition for invasion.

source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/09/030907-kucinich.htm

Sept. 29, 2002, DEAN -- "If You Don't Do This...We Will Go Into Iraq"

On CBS "Face the Nation": After saying that the administration "had not yet made" its case that Saddam was an immediate threat, and that if we attack Iraq, "it's got to be gone about in a very different way," Dean also states: "It's very simple. Here's what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the UN Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline, saying, 'If you don't do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq.'"

Yes, you are right.

I was against this war period, apparently unlike Dean who now I'm told believes we just didn't make our case right? Fascinating.

We did go and present to the UN Security Council.
We did get a resolution that forced the inspectors back in.
There was a deadline to show what happened to the weapons in which the national community agreed at the time that what Saddam presented was a sham.
The resolutions did say that there would be consequences in language that Bill Clinton even said presented war as an option.

In Deans mind that justified the war? Yet, he ran as an anti-war candidate. He is one complex man.

I oppose preemptive war, Dean should too.

He said that as the centrist, "compromising" Democrats move to the center to try to meet the Repukes, the Repukes will keep moving to the right, AND then it will look like the Repukes are the ones with the correct ideas since the Democrats seem to be trying to emulate them. We should be moving away from them, to the LEFT, not to the right!!!!!

Truth be told, even with all the voting fraud, almost half of all the voters in the states that went for Bush, voted for kerry!!!!
If this had been a fair campaign, and fair election,(mediawise and voter suppression..based on what Kerry represented)...He would have won!! There is no point in trying to be Repub lite!! They did not really win with those values!! They knew they would have had to steal it, and they did!!

of the right wingnuts.

It was they who defined Dean as some kind of wild leftist; some Dems just ignorantly followed suit.

So yes, you're right; it's exactly the kind of thing Lakoff warns against.

We could just as easily and ignorantly say, "Kerry isn't a traitor to his country, but unfortunately, the media have portrayed him as a traitor to his country, so he should not be representing Democrats."

this guy will sell us down the fucking river.

The Pacific Northwest that will probably be a lot Greener thanks to the likes of Reid and Roemer.

Alabama.

And the only person connected to the national Democratic Party who gave a damn about local Democrats running for office here was Howard Dean.

All these so-called party leaders who want someone to appeal to Southern voters and other moderates can't be bothered to show up down here to try to get people elected.

I am in Texas and I echo what you say completely re: Dean.

to have to, ONCE AGAIN, get their political a**es handed to them before they realize that they serve "the people" not big corporations' interests reflected within the DLC.

I've had it. I'll vote Green next time, so long as Nader isn't heading the ticket.

rather work for a Party that honestly places their constituent's values and wellbeing higher than their quest for power and money. That's what has corrupted the entire Democratic Machine - lots of that mean green.

I notice that Reid is not expected to defend his words, but I am attacked as the messenger by some on this thread.

That is a right wing tactic. Attack the person who criticizes, ignore the criticism.

MOTHER FUCKER.

$#%*(*$#(@#&%(@*$@(#*&%@$)(#*($*)(%*@)($@&%(#$UV OEFJ REIOGEROCTI350t43

u59435v9utoierjgioretnyvnwtuj 43

FUCK THIS SHIT.

REID IS A SORRY ASS SON OF A BITCH.

#$*%(*$#%&%(@&$#%*#$(%*$#@%(

My GOD. Oh yes, let's totally SUCK repuke ass SOME MORE. LET'S SEE HOW FAR IT GETS US.

Hey Reid, you know what the definition of insanity is?

DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND EXPECTING DIFFERENT RESULTS.

His and other ACCOMODATING, CONCILIATORY "OH CAN I HELP YOU KILL ME A LITTLE FASTER?" Dems' WAYS and METHODS have REALLY WORKED SO FAR, HAVEN'T THEY?

HUH? HAVEN'T THEY?????????

I believe this quote from the article sums it up:

Sen. Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, believes Reid was elected to his post because of the party's minority status. If Democrats were the majority, Reid's would not be the leader.

Too much cold medicine here, I don't get it. If the Dems were a majority party, they would have picked someone with a spine?

Don't you need someone with a spine the MOST when you are a minority party?

the party believes this is the road they must take to get back a majority. I don't agree with it but that's how I interpreted the quote.

the corporations first wing ...

He must think that ** is a uniter, not a divider, too.

It's shaping up to look like a new party is what they are causing ... whether it's intentional or not.

He is so wrong for the leadership role. I heard him speak a bit for the first time in a Daily Show clip ... very, very, sadly, weak. That voice won't resonate the growing angst from the crowd below.

says "we don't need the acrimony" ?

Good GRIEF!

You hit the nail on the head, my friend.

Exactly.

What a hypocrite.

I noticed that we didn't seem a lot of success for the democratic party with their "moderate" philosophy in the last election. I'm thinking its time for a new plan. Unfortunately Reid hasn't figured that out.

Something else to consider is the fact that Bush couldn't have done as much damage the first 4 years if the democrats had stood up and said no. They didn't and it seemed to me that, with the exception of Cleland, the biggest democratic lackies were the first to be targeted by the republicans and they were the first to lose their seats.

We really don't have much more, if any, time to wait for the democratic party hierarchy to "get it".

Gee, I'd take his opinion with a large grain of salt. (or a large glass of Maalox.)

The others will follow.

The anti-war democrats gave and gave big to the party. We also gave the party enthusiasm and turned out the vote.

If Reid wishes to pretend we don't exist, let him do so. I'm getting in info from possible relocation to Mexido daily.