Please recognize that even if you don't know about Dean, Frost who is his main competition, is not a good choice for DNC chair. You might want to contact your DNC voting members and ask them to vote for Dean.


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/28/dnc/index.html

SNIP...."Frost said that the Democrats should front some of their "most credible" voices on national security, singling out Rep. Jane Harman of California and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. For more liberal Democrats, that kind of suggestion is another nail in the Frost coffin: It was Lieberman, after all, who this week urged Democrats to deliver a "resounding vote" in favor of Condoleezza Rice to show national unity on the war in Iraq...."



SNIP...."Whether "moral values" turned the election or not, each of the candidates in the DNC race believes that Democrats must engage in a conversation with voters about values. For Frost, that means making sure voters know, among other things, that Democrats believe in God. For Dean and Rosenberg, it means explaining that "values" is more than just a code word for opposition to abortion and gay rights. In Sacramento last week at the DNC's Western Caucus meeting, Dean said that "moral values" mean telling the truth before sending young Americans to war, protecting the environment, building a better education system and not leaving a massive federal deficit for future generations. "So let us be the party of moral values, let us be the party of economic opportunity, let us stand up for equality in this country again," Dean told a cheering crowd of supporters. Fowler echoed those words later in the week in an interview with Salon, saying that Democrats should explain their values as "opportunity, access, getting a fair shake if you play by the rules, a strong family, a strong community and safe senior citizens."

I know, Lieberman is a moderate, not a conservative....;)

just knows how to pick the fights to fight. Pissing and moaning about rice was stupid. Nothing was going to get accomplished. Wasted political capital. We need to spend that capital on judicial nominations. Those are some fights we can win.

If Rice is going to dominate the media cycle for a few days, we should a least find a way to get our position out there. If grilling Rice does the job, then so be it. This generates capital, not wastes it.

with that remark, I think he just lost the position

Congratulations, Doctor.

during his reelection campaign and now he's an ex member of the House.

So therefore he recommends moving to the right?

Yeah it worked for him.

I don't get it. Is he grossly misjudging the DNC membership or does he know something?

end of statement.

Bake

and sing happy songs.

Frost can kiss my ass three ways from Sunday. Get out of here!!!!!!!1

nice to see you. Do you still have all the information about the 2000 election? I have often wished I had you as a resource when talking about that time.

PS... frost can kiss my ass too! I think he is going to be busy kissing asses in the next few weeks.

what information I have. If I have any, it's in my head.

and indexed for any discussion. You have always been the best sorce for what actually happened in Florida and pertinent laws .

confused with some intelligent person. I surely do love you.

to come up with that? Was that one of those.. "campaign with a picture of bush cause there are mostly republicans in my district"?

Frost should be taken to the woodshed over this remark.

Dean for DNC!

I'm not real sure in what time he belongs. But chairman of Democratic party...... hohohhahahhawhhoo ho ho

This is really too much. I've had a strong feeling over the last couple of weeks that it's going to be Frost. I've been trying to find good things about him in the eventuality that this comes to pass, but this is beyond the pale. If Frost gets in, the only conclustion I'll be able to reach is that it was engineered by powerful insiders with a whole lot of arm twisting. That's pretty hard to swallow.

a stupid idea. Joe is a strong supporter of the Iraqi War--a war which every day is becoming less popular and history will record that it has been a worthless war, imo.

I am surprised by this. Although I support Dean, my mom lives in Frost's old Tx district and I've always really liked him, last fall's commercials notwithstanding. I would've been happy with either as chair, but this comment is disturbing to me.

I do not think Lieberman's standing in the party is such that this was a good thing, regardless of what kind of chair you think we need. While it helped cement a segment of the party, IMO it would alienate a larger segment.

It will be interesting, especially since Ickes has come out today with a formal endorsement of Dean, including a statement about Dean's centrist tendencies. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=4&u=/ap/20050128/ap_on_re_us/democrats_chair

That's the last thing I would have expected.

Wow! Wasn't Ickes one of Hillary's guys?

He wasn't just "one of Hillary's guys," he was one of the "guys" Bill and Hill went to to try to prevent Dean from getting in. But he declined. So he was one of THOSE guys.

I am just astounded.

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

But I don't appreciate your tone, young lady!

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

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

:puke:

Easley's pick no shoo-in for party chairmanship

Raleigh lawyer faces tough opponent, dissatisfied activists

Two months after cruising to re-election, Democratic Gov. Mike Easley faces rebellion from an unlikely source -- his own party.

More than 500 party activists from around the state will meet in Raleigh Saturday to elect a new chairman. Easley's choice is Raleigh lawyer Ed Turlington, who has helped run two presidential campaigns and served as both the party's executive director and a top aide to former Gov. Jim Hunt.

He faces a stiff challenge from Fayetteville lawyer Jerry Meek, currently first vice chairman. Party observers expect a close race as Meek taps a simmering disaffection with the state party among grass-roots activists.

<snip>

Supporters point to Turlington's national contacts and long resume, which includes chairing John Edwards' presidential campaign.

"He would probably be the most respected chair in the country," Easley told The Associated Press, "and ... start us moving in that direction -- fielding candidates who can win ... in a lot of the red states."

<more>


http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/breaking_news/10754805.htm

The election of the next state party chair was supposed to be tomorrow, Saturday Jan. 29, but had to be postponed until Feb. 19 because of a severe weather forecast.

This is an extremely interesting race to watch, because it so closely follows the internal struggle taking place on the national level. We have a governor who keeps his distance from the party and even ran ads on Rush Limbaugh's radio show last year touting the fact that "he wasn't like other Democrats". Note that he is backing John Edwards' main guy, someone with national ties that supposedly can "win in a lot of red states". Shall we then turn the party to the right and shut out the activists who protested the war and canvassed door to door to get the voters out? Or is this simply a precursor to another run on the presidency by either Gov. Easley or John Edwards?

Well, the barbarians are at the gate. The activists in the party are lining up in force behind Jerry Meek, while the elected officials and big donors are lining up behind corporate lobbyist/national campaign manager Ed Turlington. Too bad we couldn't have the showdown tomorrow as a harbinger of the election which is nothing less than the national party's struggle for its soul.

Everytime I see that * enabler I want to puke....

Christ Almighty are there no DEMOCRATS LEFT??? :grr:

Has no-one learned the lesson of the last three election cycles?

I'm at the point where i'm trying to figure who's the bigger moran, the redneck in that famous photo or the fucking nimrods in the Democratic party who think that if they do the same thing over and over and over again, one day the result will be different...

What a bunch of fucking idiots....

"Dean said that "moral values" mean telling the truth before sending young Americans to war, protecting the environment, building a better education system and not leaving a massive federal deficit for future generations. "So let us be the party of moral values, let us be the party of economic opportunity, let us stand up for equality in this country again"

Here here!

Please get that guy out of the Party. He's stinking up the joint.

The end.

I'm outta here

four more years of losing everything

On Page 3:

While Dean has been a more consistent opponent of the war in Iraq, Dean and Frost -- and, indeed, most of the DNC candidates -- agree far more often than they disagree on political issues and the way they should be framed. There's a
general consensus among the candidates that John Kerry lost in November because the Democrats were unable to persuade voters that they could be trusted with America's national security.

Nice that Dean and Frost and the rest understand this. Perhaps this "general consensus" will make a difference in 2008 because as long as rank-and-file Democrats don't get this, we will lose again in 2008 -- especially if the GOP's bonafide war hero McCain wins the 2008 nomination.

"It's national security, stupid."

The Democratic nominee in 2008 better have heavyweight creds in national security. Glad to see that Dean and Frost and the rest of them get it. Whoever becomes the DNC Chair will no doubt communicate this to those in the Democratic base that think a nominee with impregnable national security credentials is not all-important in the age of possible three-front wars.

Nothing. Nowhere does it say that Howard Dean believes we lost because of security.

PS...... no one believes americans will feel safer with Joementum speaking for the party.

between them. :P

KERRY couldn't convince people that HE would be a competent commander in chief.

Kerry was seen as a "flip-flopper" on the Iraq invasion. He continued to use noncommital language until the very end when he then adopted Wes Clark's position. Kerry's statement at the Grand Canyon stating that if he knew then what he knows know... was the turning point in his poll numbers. It was at that point that his numbers began to slide. If people were using "Iraq" as the criteria for whom they would vote for, why would they vote for Kerry if he said he would still vote for the invasion??? Kerry blew it. Not the "Democrats." Though, other Democrats may be tainted because of Kerry's weak position on the issue. Lieberman is just the other extreme. So is Dean. Wes Clark had the right position. But he couldn't get the nomination.

Is he taking a dive? Unbelievable.

does he have to say things this STUPID!

What was he thinking?

:eyes:

but I understand what he saying: Harman and Lieberman play well in Peoria.

I never cease to be amazed by the willful ignorance of some DU'ers.
What Frost ACTUALLY said was that Democrats who are credible on national security matters -- including Lieberman, but not exclusively Lieberman -- should be given a more visible role. That's a far cry from what the person who started this thread would have DU'ers believe.

Personally, I think Frosts position makes sense. When voters assess the credibility of each party on national security matters, I would much rather have them think of Lieberman than Dean. The electorate may be divided on Iraq, but the GOP enjoys a substantial advantage when it comes to perceptions as to which party can best defend our national security. That's because the Democratic Party continues to be perceived by many as the party of war protestors and pacifists. Howard Dean, whose core political base seems to consist largely of war protestors and pacifists, certainly won't do anything to change this.

...wouldn't that be such a goddamned shame?

The longer the Democratic Party is identified in the public mind as the party of war protestors and pacifists, the longer the Republican Party will dominate our government.

The simple truth is that very large segment of American electorate simply doesn't trust the Democratic Party to keep them safe. And if the Democratic Party can't pass that threshhold test, it can't win elections, no matter how appealing its economic or social policy agenda may be.

Of course, if you're a pacifist/war protestor type, and it certainly sounds like you are, you probably can't comprehend this. Hell, many Vietnam era war protestors still haven't figure out just how much damage their activities and the McCarthy and McGovern campaigns did to the Democratic Party.

Most of the country thinks the war was a bad idea. Most of the country is right about that.

The Vietnam War wasn't especially popular either. That didn't prevent the American electorate from making Richard Nixon president -- TWICE. And ever since then, the Democrats have suffered from a credibiltiy gap on national security issues.

The fact is that Howard Dean and his supporters simply aren't going to be able to convince the American electorate that the Democratic Party will keep them safe, any more than George McGovern and his supporters in 1972 were able to. Hell, I'm a lifelong Democrat, and even I can't take Howard Dean seriously on national security issues.

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

National Security is not only NOT THE most pressing and important issue for Most Americans, the Democrats' positions on most of the other issues are preferred by Most Americans. Poll after poll shows that.

So taking a single issue -- one of your favorite issues, one would presume, Dolstein -- and maing it "the reason we lost" is either ill-informed or intellectually dishonest to start with. Further, we didn't lose. So that's ill-informed or intellectually dishonest times two.

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

Vietnam was a worthless war which had nothing to do with America, just like this clusterfuck in Iraq. If I hadn't been 9 years old when that shit ended in 1975, I would have been protesting that one too.

I wouldn't have protested World War II. That was a war. That was a threat. See the difference?

So yes, I firmly believe the Democratic party should oppose STUPID wars.

many military retirees. They still feel betrayed by the "hippie war protesting commies." They have this absolute belief that if they had been given more time, more money, more young men for cannon fodder, they would have "won" Viet-Nam.

They absolutely believe the press is "liberal." They have no thought for the young people of tomorrow. They have tri-care medical for life, and a social security check, military retirement, and if they worked civil service, a civil service retirement check.

They hate welfare, medicaid and social entitlement programs, including the hot lunch program at school.

They constantly whine about taxes, and how they are paying for everything.

They support torture, and proclaim that the "bleeding hearts" are making America weak.

They support Bush.

They support Veteran Rights for Viet-Nam Vets, but not the Iraqi Vets (National Guard is not real soldiers.)

They disrupt Democratic meetings pulling out Viet-Nam prisoners of war like Bud Day.

This election, as I viewed it from within this old Red Sea, WAS about Viet-Nam and their need to justify it. IT was about THEM. They are still angry at the protesters. It is a wound that never healed. They are a large part of Bush's base, an invisible part.

Many of them came home and protested the war, remember? Many of them wised up later.

BUT, for those who didn't, there's a very powerful incentive not to. And that is admitting you were lied to, used, betrayed and USED by your country, and that you were stupid/naive/dumb/innocent enough to allow that to happen. The worse the experience over there, to a certain extent, the more urgent it might be to not be honest with oneself.

Yes, Vietnam divided the country and yes there are still divisions. Please respect that, as well as all of us who lived thru that trying era and still carry our wounds, of whatever sort they are.

retirees, the 20+ from that era that I am on an email list with. That I observed at Democratic meetings. Many of my generation are Viet Vet, living and working. They are entirely different from the retirees.

He was a 12 year vet of the Navy. He did four tours in Viet Nam, three of them on battle ships which took fire.
He went to war a republican and came back a democrat and a war protestor. That was the story for many people.
I have another friend who was a leftie and signed up to go because he thought he would be drafted anyway. He came back a leftie Jesus freak. Not everyone fits into the boxes.

retirees, many of whom I have asked...were you there. My father was. Most of those I talked to were not. But they were to a man against Kerry because he lied to congress. Those things did not go on. We were not in Cambodia. Well, before he died, my father started openning up and told me things that did go on, and that we were in Cambodia.

I personally see a lot of differences between a Viet-Nam Vet and a Viet-Nam Era retiree.

I hate war, but I think we have to defend ourselves and also others when there is clear danger to the world and ethnic cleansing going on. Neither of those circumstances was true of this Iraq war.
I also would not have protested WWII. I would have been proud of my sons for going. But if they reinstate the draft for this war or the idiotic imaginary "war on terror" my sons are going to Canada if I have to drug them and drag them there myself.

--out of everybody 24/7. Only if the entire population is shaking in terror all the time can they properly evaluate appropriate safety measures. If we keep accepting the Rethug frame, all we do is reinforce their perceptions of us.

So glad you happy about the damage that Vietnam did in Asia and here as well, and for what? Of course the people that prosecuted the war didn't do that damage--it was entirely the fault of the people who had the temerity to point at the damage.

Our military strength is currently the biggest threat to the safety of our population that has ever existed in our history. It's like trying to protect the heels of your socks because that area is more vulnerable to wear by sewing a couple of thick sailcloth canvas patches onto the heels with heavy hemp twine. All you will accomplish is tearing the shit out of the rest of the sock, and it will hurt like hell as well.

Whatever happened to "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself?" When Kucinich sermonized on getting back to being America the Brave by confronting the ridiculous fear level that is currently the norm, he was called weak, and a pacifist.

Sorry, pal. The silly pink fluffy bunny idealists these days are the so called 'realists,' who refuse to recognize that the primary strategic reality of the 21st century is that domination is expensive and Fucking Shit Up is extremely cheap.

So let's just bankrupt ourselves trying to conquer a resource base that is inexorably dwindling anyway. Let's not even consider throwing every intellectual and physical resource we have into inventing the post-oil economy as an alternative. That way we will be all snug and safe when Peak Oil comes crashing down on us. And I'm Marie of Roumania.

more unambiguous about the war and his vote. One of the turning points in Kerry's campaign was when he stated at the Grand Canyon that knowing what he knows now he still would have voted for the authorization. That was the first big mistep of the campaign. The second one was not addressing the Swiftboat Vets smears.

I don't think that the connection can be made that one has to be a hawk to be seen as strong on national security. That's the side that Lieberman comes down on.

People like Kerry and Wes Clark can make their case for being strong without being hawkish. Kerry blew it though. He pandered too long to the Lieberman position. And it cost him and us dearly. At the end of the campaign Kerry adopted the Wes Clark position and began to recoup his loses from the Grand Canyon misstep. But he didn't have enough time to fully recover. And it only made him look like a flip flopper again.

to go along with Bush's foreign policy idiocy. :eyes:

and advocate dropping the bomb on Iran we could finally win an election.

that some fool is out there advocating precisely that position. :scared:

advocating the very thing. I am a pragmatic democrat. I accept that some democrats are to the right of me and that is fine. However there is a limit! If we aren't far enough to the right by now, we never will be.
However democratic party principals is not their motivation. Being able to skim money off the top of the corporate suck up fund they manage is the point. If corporattion stop giving them money to dispense to willing party whores, how will they make a living? They have to get a real job.

sentence as "strong on national security," he needs to retire from the party.

Forget it.

His pro-war position makes him something less than credible to a great many Democrats.

I don't understand why being pro-war is necessary to be seen as credible on national security. That's a very dangerous connection to insist upon.

edited to fix grammar!

didn't it? :shrug:

Kerry's message was muddled, but it certainly wasn't thhe same as Lieberman's, which was basically the same as Bush on the war.

but while part of the problem is the message (and I partly agree about the perception that Dean is weak on defense, although I think that's completely unfair), partly it must be about good policy as well.

Lieberman's policy on the war was frankly misguided and his defense of the war, which is quite likely one of the worst decisions made by a president in recent years, is extremely troubling.

If Americans believe that this war is part of the fight against terrorism, they are WRONG and mistaken, and I'd rather have someone like Dean that atleast KNOWS that this was wrong, rather than someone like Lieberman, who will likely defend this war for the rest of his life.

And I find your comment about not being able to ta take Dean seriously on defense, really idiotic. Why? Because he knew right from the beginihng that a war against someone that had no terrorist links and connections to 9/11 was a bad idea?

Dean wasn't my first choice or even my third in the primaries but having Lieberman the "voice" of the party is literally having an apologist for the admin's disasterous foreign policy.

sinker and whole fucking ocean. YOu have a lot of fucking gall calling us ignorant while ignoring the fact that not ONCE has Lieberman cited all the LIES that took us to war.....I think the pot met the kettle on this string of posts.

BTW...I don't think they have a substantial advantage....this past election they had a 3 million person advantage bolstered by a bunch of homophobic laws.

there's a difference, and a careful look at just some of the metrics coming out of this election, along with even a modicum of an understanding about those confarned machines would convince most people that there was election fraud all across the nation -- that the 3.5 million VOTES were manufactured as part of the immunity that would give in precisely the way you've referred to it, among others.

We keep losing elections. We have to be the opposition party, not the go along to get along party. It is getting us nowhere fast. I truly think that Barbara Boxer turned the tide on this and that we will find that this war is producing more and more war protestors. I saw what happened during the Vietnam War and this is looking a lot like it.

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

-- Lieberman's office, but I doubt there's anything there.

Lieberman is kaput. He's an annoyance but no longer a very influential voice in our party. Probably more Republicans like him at this point than Democrats.

He's a sell-out. Got no use for 'im and none for Frost if that's his pipeline.

I would NOT trust him with the reins.

he will be re-elected by a lot of repugs

which has been going on since 9/11.

You don't need to bomb the heck out of innocent countries to provide safety for your own citizens. In fact, this killing on Bush's part is only making us less safe.

What we need to do is frame our message in this manner.

... of the Democratic Party. Of course the DLCers like Frost want a Corporate Dem like Lieberman to be the voice.

Specifically, I'm saying he is a problem because he undermines the Dems with his hawkish support for *'s wars. I don't want him as the Democratic voice on Iraq.

Certainly not the Democrats!

Frost cooked his duck with that comment I hope.

What kind of idiocy is this? The right isn't going to call off the dogs if we suck up to them. Hell, that shouldn't even be a question; the very act is a betrayal of everything that's good and decent in life.

Aaaaaaah! Will the madness never stop? Is attaining power so important that ANYTHING can be jettisoned just to sleaze into power? One needs to stand for something, and appeasing paranoid blockheads is not only not possible, but antithetical to reason.

So many who should know better have learned nothing.

at this point.

Did anyone see those ads where he had picture after picture of him with Bush and other republicans? It's like he was running away from being a Democrat.

Lieberman is way more liberal than Frost

Frost wants to send the party right into the hands of the DLC corporatists. The K Street boys will rule then.

That's what I want to know.

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

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

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

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

What is Frost thinking?!

a kinder, Gentler DLC.

We will have to wait and see if they are sucessful. I think the people in the hinterlands are sick of the DC manipulation.

Holy Cow. Frost is way worse than I imagined. Aaarg, gives me the shivers. Un-freakin-believable.

Any Dem this side of Zell Miller and John Breaux ought to smarten up QUICK on this issue: Dean is looking more and more and more like the ONLY viable candidate.

You've got to be kidding.
Mr. Frost, you need to WAKE THE FUCK UP.

nuff said.

Zell Miller is a castrated mountain hilbilly who does not have a highly evolved brain. He doesn't have balls, he's just a raving lunatic. And now Fox pays him.

and those bastards know it.

Lieberman indeed! :puke:

And things certainly seem to be heating up! :toast:

Here's to retaking that chair so we can retake the party and our contry next!


To the people! :bounce: :toast: :toast: :bounce:

...barf.

support Dean. Also e mailed about 10 friends with a link to the state party. I know at least 1 did.

Joementum would lead us right into PNAC's arms - just like his buddy Will Marshall is trying to do.

Man, thanks for the laugh. Thankfully, this will NEVER happen.

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

If holy joe is the voice of democratic party I want NO part of it anymore!