Jackson Free Press

Former Vice President Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean for president today. AP reports: "Gore said Dean 'really is the only candidate who has been able to inspire at the grass--roots level all over the country.' He said the former Vermont governor also was the only Democratic candidate who made the correct judgment about the Iraq war. 'Our country has been weakened in its ability to fight the war against terror because of the catastrophic mistake the Bush administration made in taking us into war in Iraq,' Gore said."

Previous Comments

ID

136688

Comment

Joe Conason writes in Salon about why Al Gore's endorsement of Dean comes as a shock to Joe Lieberman, Gore's former running mate. Gore has changed, he said, and for the better: "[T]he experience of losing the presidency he had won seems to have changed him radically. The most obvious evidence of this change during the past year came in his powerful speeches against the war in Iraq and the erosion of civil liberties. A related signal is his close and continuing cooperation with MoveOn.org, which sponsored those speeches," [uurl= Conason writes. Those Gore comments are worth reading: On Freedom and Security On the right wing media More Conason: "Since then (Gore) has displayed little of the tentative, calculating style that did such damage to his political fortunes. In fact, the once-cautious, painfully moderate DLC Democrat from Carthage, Tenn., has sounded much more like the fiery candidate whose prospects he will do much to improve tomorrow. ... Agree with Gore or not, his endorsement of Dean is a principled, brave decision by someone with an intimate understanding of what has gone wrong with the political system to which he dedicated his life."

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-09T14:35:34-06:00

ID

136689

Comment

Salon has also posted the entire text of a campaign speech from Dean, here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/12/08/dean_speech/index.html It's an attack on the politics of divisiveness - and if he keeps talking like this, I'm voting for him. "The politics of the 21st century is going to begin with our common interests. If the president tries to divide us by race, we're going to talk about healthcare for every American. If Karl Rove tries to divide us by gender, we're going to talk about better schools for all of our children. If large corporate interests try to divide us by income, we're going to talk about better jobs and higher wages for every American. If any politician tries to win an election by turning America into a battle of us vs. them, we're going to respond with a politics that says that we're all in this together -- that we want to raise our children in a world in which they are not taught to hate one another, because our children are not born to hate one another. " "The politics of race and the politics of fear will be answered with the promise of community and a message of hope. And that's how we're going to win in 2004. "

Author

Kate

Date

2003-12-09T15:29:11-06:00

ID

136690

Comment

Great speech. He's moving up in my poll, too, Kate.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-12-09T16:45:21-06:00

ID

136691

Comment

I'm getting closer on this one, too. What I like about Dean is he's a pretty straight talker, and seems to make it real, so to speak. And if he messes up, he doesn't crawl under a rock; he explains himself and moves on. I hear that he's coming to Tougaloo; it'll be great to hear him live and see how he does with a local audience. To hell with the poilitics of divisiveness. This country can't take much more of it.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-09T16:56:35-06:00

ID

136692

Comment

I'll check out the text of the speech, but because I haven't particularly cared for Gore at least since his first run for the presidency in 1988, his endorsement of Dean has not yet changed my opinion of Dean & his electability.

Author

Ex

Date

2003-12-09T17:17:28-06:00

ID

136693

Comment

Does anyone care who Gore endorses? I couldn't help but wonder if Dean and camp weren't smiling through gritted teeth at Gore's endorsement.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-12-09T17:24:46-06:00

ID

136694

Comment

Nia: I think you're probably right in the sense that the average voter won't be terribly swayed by the Gore endorsement. On the other hand, I think what we're really seeing is some internal Democratic politics at work. Gore is still said to be considered a strong presence in the party and, since Clinton left office, the heir apparent of the DLC. But he's been moving more and more away from the corporate bandshell and more toward the populism of Dean, particularly on the war and the need to defeat Bush's economic policies. (If you haven't read Gore's MoveOn speech about security it's extrodinary, if not historic -- http://www.moveon.org/gore/speech2.html) I think the significance of the Gore endorsement at this time is twofold: 1.) It gives Dean considerable insider Democratic cred -- there are a lot of staffers, campaign folks and other Democratic Party folks who still look to Gore (next only to Clinton, perhaps) for leadership. Dean will probably get caucus and primary votes from Gore loyalists and he'll definitely get some new staffers and pundits. 2.) I think Lieberman -- who seemed shocked by this development -- and perhaps a few others will be pushed closer to dropping out as a result of the endorsement. With two huge unions and Gore going for Dean, he becomes much less the insurgent and more and more the "inevitable" candidate. (That's still not sewn up, of course, but even many of the campaigns were suprised that Dean had already won over Gore and see that it makes their road a lot harder.) So, while a Gore endorsement may not bring many swing votes in the general election, I think it's basically a grand slam in the world of Democratic "insider baseball." It may also be a considerable chess move for control of the Democratic party itself. So far, a lot of powerful interests that wouldn't have seemed very Dean-friendly have lined up with him, spurning loyalties (unions and Gephardt, Gore and Lieberman). This Dean guy must be pretty convincing in person. Some interesting links from DailyKos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/12/8/211857/514 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/12/9/44454/1082

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2003-12-09T20:09:20-06:00

ID

136695

Comment

It's over for everybody but Dean and Clark. Kerry and Gephardt are toast. The rest never had a shot anyway. Lieberman may survive as someone's running mate, but even that will require some remarkable developments. http://www.hotlicks.blogspot.com/2003_12_01_hotlicks_archive.html#107100579310599601

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-09T21:18:20-06:00

ID

136696

Comment

Nia, Does anyone care who Gore endorses? As you people constantly remind us, Gore got more popular votes than Bush in 2000. So I'd think, yeah, it's a safe bet somebody cares.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-09T22:03:10-06:00

ID

136697

Comment

Somebody may care about Gore's endorsement, as you say, Greg, but I'd want to be sure that I have it straight as to who that "you people" is that cares; otherwise, it might be difficult to know whether you are correct or incorrect. While you're at it, it would be so very helpful if you would identify the "us" in your statement as well. You are so well known (much bigger than Gore, I'm sure) that I might want to do a poll. All of "you people" might be sitting on the edges of their seats paying you rapt attention as you pound out these burning posts on your keyboard; or, conversely, they could just be shrugging and saying "get over yourself," but how would I find out if I couldn't identify who "you people" are?

Author

C.W.

Date

2003-12-09T22:27:58-06:00

ID

136698

Comment

Read Gore's statement today here: http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10920&news_iv_ctrl=1301 Here's another excerpt: "I would urge all of the other candidates and campaigns to keep their eyes on the prize. Here we are in Harlem. We need to keep our eyes on the prize. This nation cannot afford to have four more years of a Bush-Cheney administration. We can't afford to be divided among ourselves to the point that we lose sight of how important it is for America. What is going on in this Bush White House today is bad for our country. And it's slowly beginning to sink into more and more people out there. And we don't have the luxury of fighting among ourselves to the point where we seriously damage our ability to win on behalf of the American people this time around," Gore said." And remember the Blog for America site if anyone hasn't seen it, yet. It'll all abuzz today, of course, and they brought the bat back out in honor of Gore. Dean's people are definitely making the political process more fun, and inclusive, again. I love watching the grass-roots momentum build. I'm amazed at how many people have told me personally over the last two weeks that Dean is now their man. And some of those folks voted for Bush last time. http://www.blogforamerica.com/

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-09T23:03:04-06:00

ID

136699

Comment

Additional commentary... re battle for the Dem party... Dick Morris might not be your cup of tea, but he knows the game and the players http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/12928.htm re backstage plotting... Ron also knows his stuff http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49513-2003Dec9.html and lastly, Joe ain't happy http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50396-2003Dec9.html what interests me the most is whether Dean is really electable - his campaigns loosey goosey control structure is an accident waiting to happen - and the volatility of Dean has already caused waves... I heard one person theorize that Dean will get lots of primary commitments, implode and then Hillary will have ride to the rescue - via a draft movement- well, I'm gonna sit back and watch the fun

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-12-09T23:17:23-06:00

ID

136700

Comment

CW, "You people" = Gore voters, Nader voters, Bush haters, liberals, "progressives," greens "Us" = everyfrigginbody else

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-09T23:18:12-06:00

ID

136701

Comment

At least one neocon thinks Dean can win: http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/474ndwvi.asp I think the real test for Dean will be how deftly he moves to the center should he get the nomination. Some people do it better than others. If Gore's support proves to be the killing blow Dean needed, he may have a hard time doing that. He seems to be pretty cozy with the liberal activist-types who constitute the bulk of his support right now, unlike, say, Bill Clinton, who was always more comfy with the centrists and found a lot of support there. The center belongs to the likes of Lieberman and Clark, and this move by Gore does more than anything thus far to point that out. He's thrown down the gauntlet, and in the process drawn a sharp line between Howard Dean, and Lieberman and Clark. If you agree that there is, for instance, a significant minority of Clark supporters who would rather vote for Bush than Dean in the general election, then Dean really has his work cut out for him between the convention and the election. I don't believe he has it in him to run that far to the center.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-09T23:41:36-06:00

ID

136702

Comment

Fielding wrote: " I heard one person theorize that Dean will get lots of primary commitments, implode and then Hillary will have ride to the rescue - via a draft movement- well, I'm gonna sit back and watch the fun" That sounds like conservative wishful thinking to me. But time will tell. As for Dick Morris, I think he has a serious case of don't-get-it-itis. Maybe it comes from being such a case of yesterday's news. It sounds like he's the one looking for relevance -- in the NY Post, of all places. The attempt to marginalize Dean as a "liberal" (quote marks, as we all know, denote skepticism) is beginning to reek of a bit of desperation (as the attempt to marginalize always does). That will be the preferred tactic for Dean's opponents who don't want to engage him on issues that they aren't looking good on. I personally hope Bush supporters keep trying to whine about him being too liberal and keep ignoring the issues. Many members of the public are getting real sick of being ideologically stereotyped and bashed because they don't buy the entire RNC platform. This lack of respect is going to backfire at some point, perhaps in 2004. The question will be whether the public buys the "liberal" Dean myth, and I don't think they will. Too many of them are seeking an alternative to either-or politics and are looking for smart, centrist progressivism that isn't mean-spirited. Morris conveniently didn't mention that about a third of the American public is undecided, and another third is Republican. His llittle sleight of hand of saying that one-third of Americans are Dems, and not mentioning the other breakdown seems set to mislead about where political strength really is: up in the air.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-09T23:48:45-06:00

ID

136703

Comment

THIS JUST IN: Perched atop her Throne of Omniscience, Hillary Clinton looks down upon Gore and Dean, and is most alarmed.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-10T00:09:43-06:00

ID

136704

Comment

Greg: I think the real test for Dean will be how deftly he moves to the center should he get the nomination. Some people do it better than others. If Gore's support proves to be the killing blow Dean needed, he may have a hard time doing that. The age-old art of electoral seamanship: the politician who successfully woos the fervent party supporters always has to tack toward the center. He seems to be pretty cozy with the liberal activist-types who constitute the bulk of his support right now, unlike, say, Bill Clinton, who was always more comfy with the centrists and found a lot of support there. Clinton is IMO a rare bird. The party badly wanted to win the presidency in 1992 and determined someone palatable to the middle would be best. The Democrats aren't as desperate now (they are angry, but it's uncertain whether ire can fuel a campaign), so it's unlikely a centrist or moderate Democrat will get the presidential nomination.

Author

Ex

Date

2003-12-10T02:05:30-06:00

ID

136705

Comment

Gore voters, Nader voters, Bush haters, liberals, "progressives," greens are the ones who care that Gore endorsed Dean. Everyfriggingbodyelse doesn't care. Do I have your logic intact, Greg? Bear with me, there is an eventual point to this silly-seeming inquiry, and I want to make sure I've understood what you're saying.

Author

C.W.

Date

2003-12-10T09:20:52-06:00

ID

136706

Comment

CW, Settle down, Beavis. My only point was in response to Nia, who wondered if anyone really cared what Gore did. I said that since the man got more votes than Bush last time around, it was a safe bet that his endorsement is not exactly irrelevant. If you think his endorsement is worthless, I'm listening. If you think it means Dean is invincible no matter what Clark or Hillary do, I'm listening. Go.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-10T10:41:55-06:00

ID

136707

Comment

I got a kick out of the headline this morning saying that "the other Dems" are up in arms about Gore's backing Dean. Leiberman is understandably upset, but "the others" should just be quiet and stop making themselves look bad, 'scuse me, worse. Geez, and I'm not even a huge Dean fan.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-12-10T11:26:23-06:00

ID

136708

Comment

Donna, I know Dick Morris and while he has marginalized himself due to past actions, he certainly knows what he's talking about - that being said, he is a journalist/columnist now and has to come up with ideas - sometimes provocative - sometimes silly. I don't take everything he says seriously (or for that matter, many other columnists). The point I was trying to make was that he knows the players and he has posited a reasonable conclusion. He is not alone in his theories and conclusions as presented. As for the "wishful thinking" - well, we'll see. Regarding the labeling of Dean as a liberal, I'll make two points: a) labeling is a tried and true tactic that works politically - whether it will stick is, of course, part of your point; and b) after reading some of Dean's position papers and listening to him last night in the debate, I think labeling Dean as a "liberal" isn't entirely off base. Fianlly, Ex is absolutely correct when he states, "The age-old art of electoral seamanship: the politician who successfully woos the fervent party supporters always has to tack toward the center." I would add to the sentence that the tacking toward the center is for the general election.

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-12-10T11:53:49-06:00

ID

136709

Comment

Fielding, I have no doubt that Morris knows what he's talking about/doing. My point is that he's trying to help the GOP marginalize Dean as a card-carrying "liberal" (whatever that means--eye, meet beholder--and being that it's a four-letter word now and all) by *selectively* going along with the GOP program in this column. That's his right, but it doesn't mean that most Americans are going to buy the either-or game. They may, but they also may not. With the problems this president faces, though, the GOP needs such wedge issues to divide folks; it's going to have a tough time running on substance with the majority of Americans who haven't benefitted from it's top-down re-ordering of government. Must go do a school-judging thing now. I'll be back to talk more later. I'm really glad to have you back, Fielding. You are a conservative, and a gentleman, and it's great to have you blogging here. ;-D

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-10T12:57:21-06:00

ID

136710

Comment

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_12_07.html#002303 This is a very interesting piece from Josh Marshall about the current set of Dem hopefuls and the Gore endorsment. If you've never read Marshall, he's really informative.

Author

Chris

Date

2003-12-10T13:13:44-06:00

ID

136711

Comment

Thank you Donna - you're very kind. There are VERY few politicians who will be completely liberal or completely conservative, it is rarely in their own best self interest to be entirely the creature of one side or the other. Sure, you can point to examples of one or the other, but compromise is the heart and soul of American politics. One side or the other, on any given issue, will have to give some in order to get whatever policy they want into law. If you don't give even a little, it becomes monumentally difficult to get something passed. When and how you make your compromise can make the difference between victory and defeat for your policy. After all "80% of something is better than 100% of nothing"... To get back to the original subject of this post (or close to it anyway) - will the endorsement of Dean by Gore make him unbeatable? Maybe - it sure makes it tougher for the other candidates to make headway. If he ends up being the Dem nominee, he is beatable - and I think he will be beat, given present circumstances. However, Bush (43) can also be beaten if things turn super sour in Iraq or something else could happen - you never can tell what will happen 11 months from now. That's a long time in real life and an eternity in political terms.

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-12-10T13:16:36-06:00

ID

136712

Comment

Ex, I keep confusing you with other people. I thought Fielding's earlier post was you. Sorry! :-) Welcome back, Fielding, sincerely. :-) Thanks, Todd, for the insight. In my "they're all the same" thinking, I'd forgotten that somepeople think they're aren't all the same.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-12-10T13:21:34-06:00

ID

136713

Comment

Donna, God knows I don't want to appear ungentlemanly, so allow me to respectfully suggest that until there is a generally-accepted paradigm of political reference around here, there's little point in discussing the relative positions of candidates, and how those positions or the candidates' movement within the paradigm will affect their standing with voters. You've been loath to accept a traditional right/left paradigm, so may I impose upon you to outline one which will define our terribly polite future discussions?

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-10T13:29:42-06:00

ID

136714

Comment

Until then, let me also ask you all how Dean, if he indeed becomes the nominee, is supposed to win the election when he wants to raise taxes, wants to implement some vaguely-defined national health care system, and has no plan for combating terrorism. In that sense, he combines the most spectacular national-level Dem failures of the last 20 years (Mondale and Dukakis on taxes, Hillary on health care), with a giant nothingness on an issue of much concern to most Americans. In all seriousness, now... assuming that neither the economy nor the Iraq situation doesn't completely disintegrate, how is that supposed to be a recipe for victory? I know, I know - there's supposed to be this seething mass of unhappy voters who are just waiting to flip the lever for the right candidate. They're seething because they're frustrated. But what I'm wondering is: Why is it assumed that they're frustrated only with Bush, and not with the likes of Howard Dean, who, let's face it, is mostly an embodiment of the same old Democratic positions that we've been used to for decades?

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-10T13:45:07-06:00

ID

136715

Comment

Lieberman may be a "centrist" but only in the mushiest sense -- to my thinking he's almost a big-government Republican. His positions are very Tri-State -- he's reasonably indistinguishable from Pataki and Guiliani, for instance. In fact, I think Lieberman would make a great running mate -- for Bush. Dean has most of the support he would get from Lieberman already, who seems likely only to help with some socially conservative Dem voters and probably not enough to swing any Southern states, for instance. (Didn't work in 2000, with, perhaps, the exception of Florida.)

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2003-12-10T14:00:48-06:00

ID

136716

Comment

Todd said: "Lieberman may be a 'centrist' but only in the mushiest sense -- to my thinking he's almost a big-government Republican. His positions are very Tri-State -- he's reasonably indistinguishable from Pataki and Guiliani, for instance." Here's a hilarious send-up to Lieberman and his Republican tendancies: http://www.joseph2004.org/

Author

Nia

Date

2003-12-10T14:10:21-06:00

ID

136717

Comment

Why is it assumed that they're frustrated only with Bush, and not with the likes of Howard Dean, who, let's face it, is mostly an embodiment of the same old Democratic positions that we've been used to for decades? Well, for one, those positions (and others you're leaving out which have broad-based appeal with voters) have won the popular vote three elections running. (OK -- a plurality in '92.) And, regarding health care, for instance, we didn't have the same insurance crisis in 1993 that we have today. Universal health insurance polls well these days. Dean's tax policy argument is simple(perhaps simplistic) -- return us to the Clinton-era code so that we can pay down the debt and give help to the states so they can bring property taxes and state income taxes back in line. He'll probably get some Republican governors endorsing him if he makes that a sticking point. That said, I actually think that Clark has the better meme on this one -- Americans have been more than willing to tighten their belts since 9-11 and this president hasn't asked us to do it -- but it will be an issue. Economists all over the spectrum sugggest that we can't simply grow ourselves out of this current deficit -- I've got a Heritage Foundation Backgrounder right here in front of me that talks about how government spending levels per family are the most since WWII. Dean may be able to make an effective pitch as a small(er)-government Democrat that might just play next year. Growth on the top-end of the economy will need to trickle down pretty fast or Bush may still not be on top of the economy issue come Nov. 2004.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2003-12-10T14:17:40-06:00

ID

136718

Comment

"Bush may still not be on top of the economy issue come Nov. 2004." More than a few pundits are predicting that the temporary prop-up of the economy will crumble before then, leaving Bush with a crisis he can't spin his way out of. And though I'd love to see Bush look the fool that he is on economic policy, I really hope that doesn't happen. In NY anyway, more families than ever are showing up on the food pantry lines. Companies just aren't hiring. And there's some evidence, albeit anecdotal, that employment numbers are going down in NY because people are tired of applying for jobs that don't exist. I don't know if that same phenomenon is happening in other parts of the country. We can't grow ourselves out of this deficit partly because job creation numbers are still scarily low.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-12-10T14:27:05-06:00

ID

136719

Comment

Argh...that Lieberman post was supposed to be part-two of another one. I guess I lost it. The upshot of it hinged on this line: The center belongs to the likes of Lieberman and Clark, and this move by Gore does more than anything thus far to point that out. He's thrown down the gauntlet, and in the process drawn a sharp line between Howard Dean, and Lieberman and Clark. A sharp line between Dean and Lieberman? Sure. Dean and Clark? Er.... I think the characterization of Dean as "far left" compared to Clark is misguided. Read his site. Clark is just as "left" as Dean, except that (1) he was a General and (2) he will speak at conservative events for a fee. Now, the perception of Clark as a "centrist" can serve him nicely -- if he can push progressive taxation and higher-ed tax credits and be called a moderate patriot, then more power to him. I think that's why an (unscientific ;-) 97.4% of Dean supporters want Clark as his running mate. But back on the is Dean electable thread, Greg's Weekly Standard link has a great graf on that: "Thus, on domestic policy, Dean will characterize Bush as the deficit-expanding, Social Security-threatening, Constitution-amending (on marriage) radical, while positioning himself as a hard-headed, budget-balancing, federalism-respecting compassionate moderate. And on foreign and defense policy, look for Dean to say that he was and remains anti-Iraq war (as, he will point out, were lots of traditional centrist foreign policy types). But Dean will emphasize that he has never ruled out the use of force (including unilaterally). Indeed, he will say, he believes in military strength so strongly that he thinks we should increase the size of the Army by a division or two..." I would say that the news on both the economy and the war will need to *improve* to help Bush, not stay status quo. And Bush is getting it from the *right* on his tax-cut-and-spend policies...he won't lose those votes, but it gives his critics their talking points.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2003-12-10T14:27:11-06:00

ID

136720

Comment

In fact, I think Lieberman would make a great running mate -- for Bush. I've said for the past 2 years - Lieberman should join a party where he's welcome. I mean, he'd come in comfortably to the right of Arlen Specter or Lincoln Chafee.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-10T14:53:28-06:00

ID

136721

Comment

As I said to Greg, there is a point I'm moving toward. A couple, actually. Since he was saying that only "Gore voters, Nader voters, Bush haters, liberals, "progressives," greens" cared, and he showed he cared by jumping in on this discussion as well as saying that he thought it was relevant that Gore endorsed Dean, logically progressing (using his premise) it follows that he is a Gore voter, Nader voter, Bush hater, liberal, "progressive," or green. Since I don't care (nor does Nia, for different reasons), using his premise, it logically follows that neither she or I are "Gore voters, Nader voters, Bush haters, liberals, "progressives," or greens." The logic is not faulty, so why is the final outcome so patently wrong? The opening premise was based on a simplistic view that divides people into neat categories (i.e. if you believe this, you also believe this, this, this and this). The fault lies in the opening premise. That's the first point. Beside the point, but in explanation of my statement of disinterest - I voted for Gore with a great deal of reservation, because I would not vote for Bush. I don't care whether Gore endorsed Dean or not simply because I don't particularly like Dean as a candidate, but I am voting ABB this time (anybody but Bush) as I did three years ago. I can and do vote for Republicans who are moderate and have common sense (Dole, for example), but I will not vote for GWB, because he has neither virtue. I fit more than one of the descriptive words used to define this broad category of "you people." My second point is that Greg is not here to discuss this issue, he's here as an agitator. No sarcasm intended, just plain talk. He is one of those agitators who is not looking for a discussion, or even a keen debate, but simply for a chance to stroke his ego with cheap shots. Even though I fit in that group of "you people," there are issues that Greg and I might have agreed on. I followed the thread on gun control when I had time, and might have had an informative discussion with him on the subject, had he appeared willing to engage in such a dialogue. I venture to say that he and I may have agreed on more points on that subject than we disagreed and he might well have been able to influence my thoughts about those points on which we did not agree. It could have happened on other subjects as well. A progressive thinker, a person who voted for Gore because they found Bush repugnant, might be opposed to gun control, just might have a variety of independent thoughts that were not disagreeable to a person such as Greg, if he were able to listen to them. It could have happened on other subjects as well. Considering the blanket statements that are so habitual in Greg's postings, and his seeming inability to discern the complexities of both people and issues, it's not possible to take him seriously or to have a discussion, just two separate monologues. Greg doesn't need a blog, he just needs an editorial page. That said, I acknowledge my hypocrisy in complaining about an offthread post while I do the same. I apologize to the more serious posters who are trying to discuss the matter at hand, both for posting off thread and for my unnessesary (but satisfying) sarcasm in that post. I posted in here because I saw Greg's comment at the top of the "recent posts" while I was looking to see if there were any new articles on JFP and immediately thought "Again? What's with him?" Even my simple little Beavis brain was able to puzzle it out quickly. (I don't begrudge Greg that Beavis remark because I invited it by being sarcastic about him in my first post in this thread. I take no offense, but I do acknowledge it.) The rest of you continue on, and I will try to restrain myself from further offthread monologues.

Author

C.W.

Date

2003-12-10T14:59:58-06:00

ID

136722

Comment

One last thing that I just remember from my lost post -- Dean is remarkably, perhaps surprisingly, a solid states-rights proponent, which is how he gets his NRA props. (Not just guns, but civil unions, education and similar topics get an anti-federal response from him.) I'd look for that to keep coming up in his stump speeches and his media/debate answers as he "moves to the center."

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2003-12-10T15:04:53-06:00

ID

136723

Comment

Todd, ...those positions ... have won the popular vote three elections running. (OK -- a plurality in '92.) Not true. On the nitpicking side, I believe Clinton got only a plurality in '96 as well. But on the broader side, HillaryCare was the definition of a debacle, and taxes were a big factor in the defeat of Mondale and Dukakis. Clinton, on the other hand, did NOT win because of his stance on taxes. It's likely that he could have won by bigger margins had he run on a platform of lower taxes. Universal health insurance polls well these days. ...until you mention the strings that are attached. Presumably all rational people are in favor of everyone having health insurance, but look at the polls in which respondents are informed of exactly how the Democrats' various systems would work, and it's a completely different - and much uglier - picture. Economists all over the spectrum sugggest that we can't simply grow ourselves out of this current deficit -- I've got a Heritage Foundation Backgrounder right here in front of me that talks about how government spending levels per family are the most since WWII. EXACTLY. The problem has never - NEVER - been that taxes are too low. The problem has ALWAYS been that spending is too high. THAT is the single best thing Democrats can do to defeat George Bush: Run on a platform that lowers taxes a little, but lowers spending a lot. Problem is, Democrats have never met a tax hike they didn't like, and Dean isn't about to buck that trend.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-10T15:14:25-06:00

ID

136724

Comment

CW, Good grief. Since he was saying that only "Gore voters, Nader voters, Bush haters, liberals, "progressives," greens" cared, and he showed he cared by jumping in on this discussion as well as saying that he thought it was relevant that Gore endorsed Dean, logically progressing (using his premise) it follows that he is a Gore voter, Nader voter, Bush hater, liberal, "progressive," or green. ... The logic is not faulty, so why is the final outcome so patently wrong? No, the logic IS faulty, and here's why: In the context of the conversation, "to care" means that Gore's endorsement may play a part in one's decision to vote for Dean or not. It does not mean "to be interested in Democratic Party politics." Formally, it's called "equivocation," and an explanation can be found here: http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/equiv.php .

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-10T15:21:42-06:00

ID

136725

Comment

". . . return us to the Clinton-era code so that we can pay down the debt and give help to the states so they can bring property taxes and state income taxes back in line." Only a fool would believe that states would reduce property and/or state income taxes as a result of a federal income tax increase and some, supposed, highly unlikely, resulting downstream infusion to the states of unattached, free-to-spend dollars . If you have some alternative definition for 'back in line', let's hear it. Otherwise, those who actually pay taxes won't buy this argument. "He'll probably get some Republican governors endorsing him if he makes that a sticking point." Seriously doubt it. Certainly won't happen in Mississippi. Mississippi will go Bush in 2004. Guaranteed. So, which states with GOP governors will endorse Dean?

Author

VBell

Date

2003-12-10T15:22:10-06:00

ID

136726

Comment

I think this article might be of interest... http://www.techcentralstation.com/120903H.html "Today's endorsement is a transformational event in two respects; (1) it will make Gov. Dean the prohibitive favorite to win the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination and, (2) it will make you think differently about Al Gore. "

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-12-10T15:31:19-06:00

ID

136727

Comment

That second part's true for sure.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-12-10T15:33:48-06:00

ID

136728

Comment

Also on Gore and Lieberman: http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_12_07_corner-archive.asp#020848 "This is a huge thing Gore is doing and I think it's too soon to tell whether it's hugely smart or hugely dumb. Clearly, it was hugely nasty for at least one guy: Joe Lieberman. " Jonah Goldberg

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-12-10T15:37:23-06:00

ID

136729

Comment

ouch!! "I respect Al Gore," Kerry said in the statement, adding that he had endorsed Gore in 2000 and worked on his behalf. "But this election is about the future, not about the past."

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-12-10T15:39:46-06:00

ID

136730

Comment

CW, Considering the blanket statements that are so habitual in Greg's postings, and his seeming inability to discern the complexities of both people and issues, it's not possible to take him seriously or to have a discussion, just two separate monologues. I'll say to you the same thing I said to Kate earlier: You may not agree with the things I say. You obviously don't like the way I say them. But to say that I habitually make blanket assumptions, or that I have no grasp of complexity, shows either that you're not reading my posts at all, or you're just unable to process them. My second point is that Greg is not here to discuss this issue, he's here as an agitator. No sarcasm intended, just plain talk. He is one of those agitators who is not looking for a discussion, or even a keen debate, but simply for a chance to stroke his ego with cheap shots. Read my post just above: ...let me also ask you all how Dean, if he indeed becomes the nominee, is supposed to win the election when he wants to raise taxes, wants to implement some vaguely-defined national health care system, and has no plan for combating terrorism. In that sense, he combines the most spectacular national-level Dem failures of the last 20 years (Mondale and Dukakis on taxes, Hillary on health care), with a giant nothingness on an issue of much concern to most Americans. In all seriousness, now... assuming that neither the economy nor the Iraq situation doesn't completely disintegrate, how is that supposed to be a recipe for victory? I'd say that's fairly typical of my posts. It's a tough question, but it's hardly the words of someone who's here just to agitate. I'm asking a serious question, and as you can see from Todd's responses, he obviously thought it substantial enough and thought-provoking enough to spend some time on it.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-10T15:40:10-06:00

ID

136731

Comment

Sure, I agitate. So does Donna, and so does almost everyone else here. What I suspect is that having some sharp questions put to you for which you have no answers makes you uncomfortable, so instead of admitting that I have a good point, or admitting that you don't have an answer, you try to frame me as nothing more than an "agitator." Look - my posts are here for all to see (and imagine my surprise when a friend of mine yesterday said, "I saw your letter in the JFP"; guess I should take that dislcaimer at the bottom of these pages more seriously ;) )... flames, logic, typos, and all... AND legitimate questions and sound debate. If you'd like to make a point about anything, chime in. Greg doesn't need a blog, he just needs an editorial page.[/] It's embedded in every post I make: http://hotlicks.blogspot.com . :)

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-10T15:40:23-06:00

ID

136732

Comment

And lastly, from Obsidian Wings: "Howard Dean has a seven point plan on Iraq. It's a tough-talker, Dean's plan, the kind that should be popular among among lefty-blogohawks like myself. You've heard us pontificate before, haven't you? We always want more -- "more money, more troops, UN involvement" -- and all that rot. Well, Dean's plan is all that and the proverbial "bag o' chips." So, case closed, then? I'm a Deaniac? All that's left is to launch The Sims, find SimDean, and have my Hotpants64 character swear the standard online blood oath?** No. Dean's plan is commendable, but his commitment to it -- and the tough choices it requires -- is not. Dean's plan would commit more U.S. troops to Iraq, but Dean wonít pay for them. Or, perhaps he's now disowned that part of his plan, since he has recently argued that we should begin pulling out of Iraq. Apparently, other nations are going to stumble over themselves to take over once Dean is Prez." http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2003/12/you_cannot_live.html

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-12-10T15:42:10-06:00

ID

136733

Comment

Todd, I would say that the news on both the economy and the war will need to *improve* to help Bush, not stay status quo. Certainly more jobs, and the head of Saddam Hussein on pike, would help. But the Dow has been slowly creeping up toward 10,000 lately (remember, in early summer it was below 8,000), and there are good things happening in Iraq now that will manifest themselves later. They are the result of a steady - albeit very slow - improvement in the situation, not a deterioration. And Bush is getting it from the *right* on his tax-cut-and-spend policies...he won't lose those votes, but it gives his critics their talking points. On that, and on the previous point, I have to ask a couple of pointed question (sorry CW... cover your ears): So Iraq has proved to be difficult... what are the Democrats' plans to make it better? So the economy could be better... well we can always say that, no matter how good or bad things are. But when the average voter/small investor looks at the Democratic alternative, do you think he clasps his hands and looks heavenward, praying for November 2004 to come now now now, so he can throw that bum Bush out of office? The greater point I'm trying to make is: So far no Democrat has put together a platform that a plurality of people appear to want to embrace. Every calculation about next November turns on how bad things might go for Bush. In other words, a Democratic victory in '04 is depends very little on what Democrats want to do and where they want to take the country, but with how good or bad a job George Bush is doing at the time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this another way of saying that the '04 election is Bush's to lose? I'm not even saying that this is a disease that strikes only Democrats, just that so far they seem to be doing nothing to cure it.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-10T16:13:46-06:00

ID

136734

Comment

The greater point I'm trying to make is: So far no Democrat has put together a platform that a plurality of people appear to want to embrace. I know that *you* don't want to embrace it, but I'm not quite yet ready to take your word on what everyfrigginbody else thinks. If you're trying to make the greater point, go ahead. Every calculation about next November turns on how bad things might go for Bush. In other words, a Democratic victory in '04 is depends very little on what Democrats want to do and where they want to take the country, but with how good or bad a job George Bush is doing at the time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this another way of saying that the '04 election is Bush's to lose? Absolutely. As is nearly any race against a presidential incumbent, pretty much by definition. (Which, by the way, is the key problem in walking out the Mondale campaign as some sort of harbinger for '04. Bush is not Reagan.) If Bush walked on water, then no one would raise money against him, no one could beat him and they'd put up someone like Mondale, who got the nomination as a sort of a career cappin' nod of appreciation. (Dole also comes to mind.) I think the biggest mistake you're making is assuming that the presidential campaigns have yet *started*. This past year has been a fairly fiercly contested primary, not a general election campaign. Currently, the candidates are basically posturing to raise money. When the full force of the Democratic party machine is put behind one candidate then you'll start to see the strategy. And it won't be Gore's campaign -- there's very little to lose in this election, unlike the past two, and the tenor of the country is such that I think it will accept a "we need big ideas" campaign like healthcare reform, etc. No, "HillaryCare" (shorthand derisive terminology noted) didn't make it, but then again the "Contract with America" didn't exactly become the rule of the land, either. Many of its reforms happened incrementally or as compromise; some not at all, some perhaps in the future. That's what's next for healthcare and the economy, IMHO.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2003-12-10T16:45:52-06:00

ID

136735

Comment

Fielding: Fianlly, Ex is absolutely correct when he states, "The age-old art of electoral seamanship: the politician who successfully woos the fervent party supporters always has to tack toward the center." I would add to the sentence that the tacking toward the center is for the general election. Thanks & I like your addition-- makes it clearer. Which brings up the question: Is it too early for Dean to plan for the general election? Nia: Ex, I keep confusing you with other people. I thought Fielding's earlier post was you. Sorry! :-) De nada. I should have made a comment about locks again. *grin* Donna: The question will be whether the public buys the "liberal" Dean myth, and I don't think they will. Too many of them are seeking an alternative to either-or politics and are looking for smart, centrist progressivism that isn't mean-spirited. When it comes to politics, voters like to use labels and simplify politicians. Quoting an MSNBC.com article: "A team at the University of Rome and Stanford University in California won the psychology prize for their report, published in the deadly serious journal Nature in 1997, showing that voters judge politicians on two personality characteristics, as compared to five determinants of personality in most social interactions." And, yes, they won an Ig Nobel. It remains to be seen what labels stick on what politicians in the 2004 elections.

Author

Ex

Date

2003-12-10T16:48:15-06:00

ID

136736

Comment

Ex, I agree with you that labels come easy to people, and the media LOVE them, but it doesn't mean that the public as a whole doesn't get tired of them, especially when they're used in such simplistic, unthinking ways as they are so often today: "You don't agree me and Bush, you're just a damned liberal!" Yeah, whatever. What's perhaps most interesting to me right now is how much the national GOP seems to be undercutting their own campaign against "liberalism." Many people, who aren't on the fringes of social conservatism, have been suspicious of "liberals" because of their, real or perceived, tendency to spend tax money more easily ("tax and spend"). That is certainly a major reason that I have been critical of a traditional "liberal" mindset. I like a quote from populist Jim Hightower (who like I, is perfectly willing to criticize both major parties) from an interview we ran a couple issues back: "Liberalism would say there are poor people and therefore we have to have programs to assist poor people. Populists try to look at the system and say, 'Why are there poor people and why don't we fix the system so they're not?'" The truth is, the party in power right now is not proving to be fiscally responsible or supporters of small government. They are already losing their edge with moderates who want smart government spending. I think it's time people start asking people point-blank what they mean when they use labels like "liberal" and "conservative." The meanings behind the labels are becoming less certain by the day. A narrow-minded adherence to the two-party paradigm that argues that *they are what they are, damn it; pick one* indicates an incomprehension of political history and how easily parties can shift and remake themselves. We are so obviously at a place in the country when a very large number of people -- at least a third -- don't like what the parties have become. The handwringing over Howard Dean being such a leftist (presumably because he supported civil unions) is simply missing the point and accepting the sound bites from both sides that have needed to discredit him (the GOP and the other Dems running against Dean). And it's incredibly simplistic and superficial. I think the growing passion of Dean's *campaign* and its grass-roots nature shows how many people really want to have more of a role in the political process. I think both the DLC and the RNC ignore this season of discontent at their own peril. And simply calling Dean a "liberal" may not have the pay-off it once would have had. I suspect more and more people are going to start saying back, "Now, what exactly do you mean by that label?" I sure hope so, anyway.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-10T17:14:24-06:00

ID

136737

Comment

But when the average voter/small investor looks at the Democratic alternative, do you think he clasps his hands and looks heavenward, praying for November 2004 to come now now now, so he can throw that bum Bush out of office? First, I'm pretty sure not all voters are small investors -- particularly those who don't have jobs or who are underemployed -- so you may be looking at this whole thing through 401k-tinted glasses. I'd imagine that some voters will probably look at the Bush record on fiscal management and decide that a Democrat in the White House -- perhaps even while maintaining a Republican Congress -- is a good move.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2003-12-10T17:20:46-06:00

ID

136738

Comment

Isn't the average voter a "she?" With 'locks? :-) Just curious.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-12-10T17:41:32-06:00

ID

136739

Comment

There you go again, Nia. Trying to turn yourself into the average voter. You "progressives" are all alike. ;-D

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-10T17:46:10-06:00

ID

136740

Comment

Greg: I'd say that's fairly typical of my posts. It's a tough question, but it's hardly the words of someone who's here just to agitate. I'm asking a serious question, and as you can see from Todd's responses, he obviously thought it substantial enough and thought-provoking enough to spend some time on it. As the nominal moderator here, and because you invoked me above, let me say for the record that I think you're often a bit too dismissive to the point of arrogance. The trait that's most obvious to me is you rarely if ever give people props when they have a point -- you just run with whatever you think you can win on. The occasional "atta-boy" probably wouldn't kill you if you could do it sincerely. But I figure that boils down to "debate" (in the presidential sense, not the respectable one) vs. "discussion." Some of us would love a discussion; you want a debate. I don't accuse you of a being a troll -- we certainly have those, and they're obvious by comparison. I think you offer interesting arguments that are challenging and worth responding to. I think you'd get a better reaction out of folks if you were a little less gratuitously sarcastic and grandstanding, but you're not the first person I've ever seen with that sort of online "voice." If you'd *like* to have conversations instead of debates, however, you might consider that you tend to alienate a lot of folks and reign it in a bit. That's my $.02. Sorry for going OT. I'm thinking through some different strategies/improvements for the blogs (perhaps a dedicated forum for more general and OT discussions, for instance) that we might all discuss in the near future.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2003-12-10T17:47:11-06:00

ID

136741

Comment

First, I'm pretty sure not all voters are small investors And, before I get slapped for this one, I meant "I'm pretty sure not all average voters are small investors..."

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2003-12-10T17:50:14-06:00

ID

136742

Comment

Hahahaha, okay, I walked right into that one! BTW, I don't have 'locks! I just don't comb my nappy hair! :-) But seriously, do a larger percentage of women vote than do men?

Author

Nia

Date

2003-12-10T18:02:46-06:00

ID

136743

Comment

"I think the biggest mistake you're making is assuming that the presidential campaigns have yet *started*." I think the biggest mistake you're making Stauffer is assuming that this campaign hasn't started or has been, and will be, remotely like any other ever seen by this Union. You're weak on the historical revelance. 2004 will be the most defining election for the Democratic Party than any election since FDR, but then again I wouldn't expect you 'progressives' (derisive) to understand that. Its not about Gore or H. Clinton. Its about the Party that will be left behind after the loss. Gore and B. Clinton didn't go to San Francisco for the mayoral campaign for nothing. Pull your heads out. Of the sand, of course.

Author

VBell

Date

2003-12-10T18:23:22-06:00

ID

136744

Comment

Well, Nia, it was hard to resist. I don't know if more women are voting these days. We're certainly a sought-after demographic ... at least in theory. Where's Philip-our-numbers-man when you need him? Phil-llllip! We miss you, dude.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-10T20:46:59-06:00

ID

136745

Comment

Introduction: Hello everyone. My name is Dustin, and I guess you could call me a Dean supporter. (Though over all I agree with C.W. -- Anybody But Bush.) Since you've all gracefully covered most of the Gore endorsement, as well as several other.. err.. topics.. I'd like to inquire about something irrelevant but mentioned by someone: Is Dean really coming to Tougaloo? There was a scheduled Democratic debate between the then ten nomination contenders to take place there a while back but it was scrapped. If anyone can tell me if he's actually coming, I'd greatly appreciate it. BTW: I've been an avid reader of JFP for some time. I may be posting here more often. - Dustin

Author

Dustin

Date

2003-12-10T22:39:58-06:00

ID

136746

Comment

Hey Dustin, welcome to the site. I hope you'll join us more often. I'm the one who mentioned Tougaloo, and honestly I may be spreading rumor. I had heard just recently that he was coming, but need to check it out. I'll keep you posted here. If anyone else knows, meantime, let us know. He really shouldcome to Tougaloo, should any of you actual Dean-Heads be reading this. While he's at it, he ought to come to the Neshoba County Fair, should he win the nomination. After all, he said he wanted to talk to the guys with the Confederate flags. He shore can find some there. ;-)

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-10T22:51:26-06:00

ID

136747

Comment

Donna, I'm still around, just that I've been really really busy. You haven't see the last of me, I promise. Anyway, about the women voters. I have no exact figures, but this report about women voters in Iowa might give some clues. http://www.state.ia.us/dhr/sw/pdf/6-Politics.pdf The short answer for the decline in female participation seems to be that women's issues aren't addressed frequently.

Author

Philip

Date

2003-12-10T22:56:38-06:00

ID

136748

Comment

Cool. Thanks, Philip. Glad to see you still hanging out. You spoiled us with your great research skills; it would be tragic to lose you. (Oh, and we like your personlity, too. ) We'll be here when you loosen up a bit.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-10T23:01:08-06:00

ID

136749

Comment

Philip, you're the man.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-12-11T00:08:55-06:00

ID

136750

Comment

Yes, Philip says so much in so few words, no? I particularly like: "The short answer for the decline in female participation seems to be that women's issues aren't addressed frequently."

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-11T00:17:04-06:00

ID

136751

Comment

The phrase of the day seems to be "Jilted Joe" (as in Lieberman). http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/12/10/debate/index_np.html

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-11T01:02:05-06:00

ID

136752

Comment

The New York Times is reporting Thursday that the Bush campaign is turning its focus on Dean as the likely opponent: "President Bush's political advisers are now all but certain that Howard Dean will be the Democratic presidential nominee and they are planning a campaign that takes account of what they see as Dr. Dean's strengths and weaknesses, Republicans with ties to the White House said." ... "Still, Dr. Dean's ability to energize Democrats and potentially attract new voters, while raising large sums of money without the benefit of an established national reputation, has generated some concern within the Bush campaign, where much of the early betting had been on Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri as the most likely nominee. The campaign continues to warn against overconfidence among its supporters by stressing that the 2004 race could be as close as the one in 2000." "They do not underestimate Dean, because Dean is able to stir the energy in the Democratic party grass roots," said Deal W. Hudson, the editor of Crisis Magazine and an influential religious conservative who is in regular contact with the White House. "That makes him potentially the most formidable of the Democratic nominees." Read the entire story.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-11T01:10:25-06:00

ID

136753

Comment

For more Dean-related stories in the NYT, see this newstracker.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-11T01:12:58-06:00

ID

136754

Comment

Can someone please fill me in? What exactly is meant by "women's issues"?

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-11T01:27:27-06:00

ID

136755

Comment

Washington Times today: Republicans plan to try to "McGovern-ize" Dean on "radical" issues like civil unions and universal health care. But even the right is admitting that it may be a tough race for Bush. "Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, however, says Republican attempts to portray Mr. Dean as a fire-breathing McGovernite might be difficult. 'Dean clearly is a phenomenon, but not necessarily a Goldwater or a McGovern,' said Mr. Gingrich, Georgia Republican. 'Dean is more clever and tougher.'" http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031210-112846-9401r.htm I'm with you, Fielding, but perhaps for different reasons: I think this may be a fun election season.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-11T03:02:03-06:00

ID

136756

Comment

Oh, I absolutely believe it will be a fun and interesting campaign season, Donna. I got a lot of work to do today and tommorow, but I'll try to chime in w/ some added material later...

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-12-11T10:55:18-06:00

ID

136757

Comment

For us Nina fans: "And we're consolin', poor Joe...."

Author

Nia

Date

2003-12-11T10:57:52-06:00

ID

136758

Comment

What rather amazes me is the assertion above that the Bush camp actually thought Gephardt would be the nominee! I never thought that; talk about more wooden than the old Gore. Reminds me of all my NYC friends who actually thought Tsongas had a chance at the nomination. But, who knows, maybe Gephardt will come roarin' through. Yeah, right.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-11T12:02:46-06:00

ID

136759

Comment

Good one, Nia. ;-)

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-11T12:03:38-06:00

ID

136760

Comment

Dean supporters are "immature and insane," according Miss Ann Coulter: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11256

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-11T12:15:40-06:00

ID

136761

Comment

Someone (you know who you are) said to me yesterday that they thought Gephardt would be the nominee, too. I was shocked. The rationale being that if things start to look better in Iraq/Afghanistan, then Gephardt will be able to say that he voted for the war, and in doing so will keep the Dems and attract as well many of the ABB folks.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-12-11T13:05:59-06:00

ID

136762

Comment

Donna, I would hesitate to classify anyone intrested enough in politics to get personally involved as insane - weird is probably close enough, but all joking aside, the NYT article shows the Dean campaign head as stating "Trippi likes to say that in the Internet model he has adopted for the campaign, the power lies with the people at ''the edges of the network,'' rather than the center. When people from the unofficial campaign call and ask permission to undertake an activity on behalf of Dean, they are told they don't need permission. " source: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/magazine/07DEAN.html?pagewanted=all This is a recipie for disaster for Dean - while as a conservative and Bush supporter you might think I would relish such a flop on the Dem side, I would honestly prefer to have a debate on the ideas and ideals on which the candidates base their campaign. I understand your desire for a viable third party candidate to promote your progressive ideals - but I don't think that'll happen for a good many years to come. Perhaps the recent ruling by the SupCt will give third party boosters the ability to promote their convictions via 527 entities, but I'm guessing the funds now excluded from the Reps & Dems will find their way to these less regulated, less accountable organizations.

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-12-11T13:14:58-06:00

ID

136763

Comment

This is a recipie for disaster for Dean Why? while as a conservative and Bush supporter you might think I would relish such a flop on the Dem side, I would honestly prefer to have a debate on the ideas and ideals on which the candidates base their campaign. Why are a somewhat decentralized campaign and a "debate on the ideas and ideals" mutually exclusive?

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2003-12-11T15:48:11-06:00

ID

136764

Comment

Because, Todd, running a political campaign - one that wins at any rate - is akin to running a military campaign. There needs to be a head guy - general or candidate - who sets the goal. Then the XO or the campaign manager plans how to get to that goal. He assigns the colonels and majors or politically speaking the regional coordinators who give the orders to the subordinates wo implement those orders. The troops and volunteers/low paid staff do the grunt work - squad level and precinct level. By allowing a decentralized structure to run this presidential campaign, Dean and Trippi run the serious risk of subordinates who are not familiar with campaign laws doing something that will blow up in the candidate / Dean's face. For example, if Downtown Jacksonians for Dean holds a fundraiser and doesn't keep meticulous records of where the money came from and what it was spent on - this is an invitation for the Bush camp to do a little opposition research and generate major embaressment for Dean. I'm not saying this specific scenario will occur; but, something like it WILL happen - to the delight of the Bushies (myself included). "Why are a somewhat decentralized campaign and a "debate on the ideas and ideals" mutually exclusive?" Perhaps I wasn't clear, I don't see them as "mutually exclusive" - but having a centralized coordinated message on one side is a clear advantage in my eyes...

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-12-11T16:38:48-06:00

ID

136765

Comment

Fielding's right. Having had relatives & friends of the family run for political office, I would stress that the necessity for a centralized organization during a election campaign cannot be overemphasized.

Author

Ex

Date

2003-12-11T18:30:59-06:00

ID

136766

Comment

Fielding: I don't know the Dean campaign from the inside, but I don't get the impression that you could raise $25+ million without some sort of organization -- CO, XO, etc. If the metaphor is supposed to hold together (and I'm not sure a military metaphor is the only one that fits a political campaign) then you could see this as a citizen-soldier militia -- you have professional commanders at the top who recruit and train sergeants who have the task of mustering the raw recruits and keeping them in formation. I suppose they could run into some sort of finance law problem or fraud of some kind -- I don't know what safeguards they have in place for that. I'm not sure the embarrassment would be insurmountable -- in fact, the publicity of an overly zealous Deanista raising half a billion dollars selling hams (or whatever) might be worth publicly handing the money back. :-) But I wouldn't automatically assume that a lack of an iron-fisted message control by definition means a lack of *sophistication*. I think the Dean campaign is extrodinarily sophisticated in how it uses the Internet and how it "markets" to younger voters -- no other campaign I've seen is using the Internet in a way that seem authentic and able to build such loyalty for a relatively unknown candidate. And the campaign uses some high-tech stuff -- broadband video and audio, DVDs, print-on-demand -- to keep their footsoliders "on message." I'd say what we're seeing is some of the more sophisticated grassroots organizing that's come along in many years. (Something the Dean campaign will likely exploit for good PR as it starts to close in and focus the message after the primary.) Part of that is technology, but part of it is being brave enough to trust your supporters and give them a little slack in the leash to get creative.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2003-12-11T18:55:50-06:00

ID

136767

Comment

Fielding, Man, you just don't get it, man. That whole heirarchical thing is wack, dude. A general? Somebody giving commands to "colonels and majors"? That is, like, sooooo top-down. We will never be truly free until we learn that the feelings of the disenfranchised matter as much as the whims of the "boss man." Why should what the candidate thinks matter more than the guy standing on the street handing out brochures? I mean, that whole "this guy's in charge, that guy takes orders" thing is so outmoded. Don't you see? That's how we got into this mess in the first place. We need a NEW PARADIGM, dude. You can live by the OLD rules, man, but I'm staying right here, 'cause Donna's gonna give us a new way to do things, and you'll see - there won't be any "left" or "right," "liberal" or "conservative," there'll just be "progressive," and "played."

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-11T19:11:51-06:00

ID

136768

Comment

I too am amazed that anyone would think Gephardt would win the nomination. Him getting it would be a shocker to me - Gephardt has been so ineffectual (and he looks like his hair and expression were painted on) I'm a bit surprised he's gotten as far as he has. I have to admit that I've seen him in person once, though, and he seemed fairly personable and handsome in a very stiff sort of way. He's like a blonde ringer for a Superman fullsize pasteboard cutout. And Todd, you are right about a lot of Dean's campaign tactics, but I'm afraid that Fielding is right about his campaign having a high potential for blowing up in his face. I hadn't realized it was being run quite as loosely as your post indicates. Dean may be on to something there, but only up to a point. He needs to have a handle on what his supporters are doing, and they ought to have to answer to someone who has a background in the basics (although certainly not anyone with the iron hand of a Rove). A little slack is good thing, but giving too darn much slack to just anybody who comes along is disaster waiting to happen. His hightech grassroots efforts are another thing altogether, and so far, he appears to have used them brilliantly. I confess that I have a hard time liking Dean. He comes across as arrogant (to me, anyway). Still, ABB.

Author

C.W.

Date

2003-12-11T19:19:26-06:00

ID

136769

Comment

C.W., I think I missed the part where it was said that Dean's campaign is being run by anarchists with no one in charge of that $25 million! I'll have to read that Times piece again. ;-D Has it occurred to anyone that, of course, there are strong captains in this campaign, but they're simply involving their supporters more in a grass-roots (and, yes, public relations) way; there's a lot of daylight between the GOP machine as it is now and, er, campaign anarchy. I'd say if you think for one minute that this is a loosy-goosy operation at the Dean HQ (or HQs ), you're perhaps drinking a bit too much of that bottom-up grape Koolaid. Sure, mistakes will be made and "crises" occur during the campaign (Bush's drunk-driving revelation comes to mind), but I suspect Gingrich was right when he warned that Dean is smart and tough. I doubt it's going to benefit anyone of any party to underestimate the potential of this campaign, whether you like Dean or not. And, Fielding, I definitely do not believe that all conventional political "wisdom" is going to apply this year, for better or worse. There are simply too many people out there sick of politics as usual.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-11T20:23:04-06:00

ID

136770

Comment

And Todd, you are right about a lot of Dean's campaign tactics, but I'm afraid that Fielding is right about his campaign having a high potential for blowing up in his face. I hadn't realized it was being run quite as loosely as your post indicates. I can see what you're saying, although I should stress that I don't really *know* what sort of strictures Dean's campaign places on his people. I would have thought my post suggested there was more control, not less (at least, in contrast to the NYTimes piece that Fielding posted -- which was very entertaining, by the way). I'm also wary that the Dean campaign might implode -- not really because of the way they handle supporters, but over whether or not Dean has the temperment and poise he needs. He needs to have a handle on what his supporters are doing, and they ought to have to answer to someone who has a background in the basics (although certainly not anyone with the iron hand of a Rove). This is my exact guess at what happens. They have online tools for tons of stuff -- letter writing, meetings, "house parties" and appearances. I think the point isn't that Dean's campaign doesn't have control over it's *volunteers* (in the traditional campaign sense) -- I think the point is that it's non-volunteer supporters still feel plugging into the campaign. Rove may have control over his candidate and his campaign staff -- which I believe Dean does, as well -- but he can't control his constituency or supporters. (Volunteers, yes, supporters, no. Not unless they implant a chip or something.) His hightech grassroots efforts are another thing altogether, and so far, he appears to have used them brilliantly. I think this is most of what's going on -- Meetup meetings, flash mobs, sign holding, etc. As far as corrupting the message, I don't really see how Bush manages his message any better -- I hear from conservatives often who say Bush is for something (sound fiscal management, for instance) when all of my senses scream that he isn't for that sort of thing at all. You can't keep a supporter from projecting her beliefs onto a candidate. I confess that I have a hard time liking Dean. He comes across as arrogant (to me, anyway). Yeah, I see that, too, particularly on TV. And he's probably too combative with reporters. I think Clark clearly has the better TV presence and Dean a better stage presence.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2003-12-11T20:27:12-06:00

ID

136771

Comment

Y'all wrote: "I confess that I have a hard time liking Dean. He comes across as arrogant (to me, anyway)." "Yeah, I see that, too, particularly on TV. And he's probably too combative with reporters. I think Clark clearly has the better TV presence and Dean a better stage presence." Isn't this the same problem with Bush -- he comes across arrogant and uncomfortable socially (and rather dumb) on TV, but people say he's personable and smarter-seeming in real life? If Dean and Bush are the candidates, the debates sure will be interesting. ;-)

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-11T20:31:27-06:00

ID

136772

Comment

I mean, that whole "this guy's in charge, that guy takes orders" thing is so outmoded. Don't you see? That's how we got into this mess in the first place. We need a NEW PARADIGM, dude. You can live by the OLD rules, man, but I'm staying right here, 'cause Donna's gonna give us a new way to do things, and you'll see - there won't be any "left" or "right," "liberal" or "conservative," there'll just be "progressive," and "played." Good grief, Greg. As a technology guy, I would have thought you could appreciate the idea of decentralizing some creative energy. After all, you probably know all those great stories of early technological innovation that were driven by, say, Wang or Xerox or IBM -- the real top-down guys who had a handle on how to change the world. Thank the Maker no one was tinkering away in a garage somewhere coming up with new thinking. Hell, even the Army isn't top-down anymore. Haven't you heard their slogan -- "Army of One?" ;-)

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2003-12-11T20:35:01-06:00

ID

136773

Comment

OK, a reminder to anyone looking at this tonight in or near Jackson. Get off the computer now, and come join us all at Hal & Mal's for the Operation Shoestring benefit featuring Bobby Rush and 12 other great acts. For only $10, you can have a great time and help a bunch of young people who need a leg up. Come on over, all. Cheers!

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-11T20:39:53-06:00

ID

136774

Comment

Todd, OK, I'l give you that "Army of One" thing. Good thing their agency is only in charge of their commercials... But you illustrate my point about mushy egalitarianism with your examples of Silicon Valley rebels. If you've ever really read up on guys like Gates and Jobs (especially, read "The Journey is the Reward" about Jobs), you find that in addition to being iconoclasts and lone wolves, they're also great leaders. They devise and propagate well thought-out messages, and they brook no dissent from the help. Same thing can be said of all sorts of guys like that, from TR to Che. In other words, just because you're a rebel doesn't mean you're an egalitarian, by any means. Indeed, I'd say quite the opposite. Part of Fielding's point, if I may filter it through my own, um... unique perspective, I believe is this: It's hard enough to win when it's only the candidate himself out there making gaffes. Think of Dean's "Confederate flag" remark, or his recent accusation that the Saudis warned Bush of 9/11 - which is not simply an accusation of an impeachable offense, but of treason. Think of Dukakis riding in the tank, or his bizarre response to Bernard Shaw's Kitty-rape question. Or think of Barbour's comment about Head Start and the whorehouse. But so many of Dean's supporters are the types who, for example, go to A.N.S.W.E.R. rallies. So if it's hard enough to win when the candidate himself is out there on a wing, making it up as he goes, imagine the risks you're leaving yourself open for when the most motivated segment of your grass-roots base, the ones you've gleefully "empowered," spend their weekends building giant puppets, painting banners calling Bush a Nazi, and replacing the stars in the American flag with little swastikas. Myself, I think Dean will realize this before something really stupid happens, but if his good behavior is pre-empted by lunatic supporters whose danger he's failed to recognize, then it casts serious doubt on his judgement in general.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-12T00:16:20-06:00

ID

136775

Comment

Todd, my bad. It was Fielding's quote from the Times I was referring to when talking about how loose it was. Got myself all bumfuzzled. :-)

Author

C.W.

Date

2003-12-12T01:51:47-06:00

ID

136776

Comment

Donna: I'd say if you think for one minute that this is a loosy-goosy operation at the Dean HQ (or HQs ), you're perhaps drinking a bit too much of that bottom-up grape Koolaid. Well, Donna, I'm speaking from a position of near total ignorance, that's what's showing thru, not bottom-up grape Koolaid. [smile] Most of what I know about Dean's campaign is what I've read in posts here (and whatever flights of fancy I might have taken while I was reading). I'd much rather speak from the bottom of a glass of wine than grape koolaid (euwwwww, koolaid), make the flights of fancy much more fun. Yes, as you say, a perception of arrogance is one of the problems Bush has (although I think it's a heck of a lot more than a perception). Which is a good reason to run someone against him who doesn't come off that way. My dislike of Dean has more to do with gut feeling than logic, and it's taken me years to put a little trust in gut feeling, but I do. No matter, it would take someone truly outrageously idiotic and a few other unpleasant things to make me vote for Bush. I believe he's that dangerous to the freedoms we were once used to, he's that disastrous to the economic and social future of this country that he is an unvotable for me and many other folks. I just don't know if there are enough of us. What happens between now and November 2004 will decide that, and it's something that needs to be worked on. Waiting for it to just happen is more deadly than letting Dean's volunteers run wild (if that's really what's happening).

Author

C.W.

Date

2003-12-12T02:13:27-06:00

ID

136777

Comment

My my my - so many things come to mind in response... Todd, as you are already aware, an analogy is just that, an analogy, and they are never perfect. Political campaigns aren't run as strictly as a military operation, but I thought the analogy was apt. The primary thought was - if you have people in your campaign structure who are doing whatever they think might be appropriate to win support for a candidate, you have a high probablilty that someone will make a significant mistake. You also have the chance that someone will do somethingt spectacular that really energizes and motivates supporters - but I think a large mistake is more likely. Perhaps it won't be in the campaign finance arena - maybe it will be in another area - like encouraging support from a major liability.

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-12-12T11:43:46-06:00

ID

136778

Comment

Fielding: I get your point completely. I'm just saying that I think we're reading too much into this decentralized thing -- there *are* COs and XOs in the campaign, but the technology allows for supporters who are more loosely affiliated to participate as volunteers without showing up at party HQ with a napsack and a dream. Instead, they can send out a message saying "Dean will be speaking in downtown Atlanta at the corner of Peachtree Pkwy and Peachtree Ave" and a few thousand folks will show up. Or send letters or wave signs or canvas or whatever. You know -- the same sort of thing that Haley Barbour used students from Oral Roberts University to do in Fondren ;-)

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2003-12-12T11:53:39-06:00

ID

136779

Comment

C.W., I should apologize for aiming my last post directly at you, especially being that it was a bit ornery. It was really meant as a response to the general way the conversation was going about the whole "colonels and majors" thing, and wasn't directed at anything you said in particular. Sometimes I'm just amazed at the lengths people go to pit one side or extreme (strict military top-down operation) against the other (anarchy; my word), when so clearly--whether you're talking about high-tech innovation or political/social movements, it takes both unfettered creativity to come up with good ideas and then smart heirarchy to make it reality. It's silly and disingenuious to try to distill a viewpoint of balance (yes, I'm Libra) into something it's not -- and I know you weren't trying to do that.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-12T12:01:14-06:00

ID

136780

Comment

There's gotta' be a disproportionately high number of Libra's on this board. Add me and Philip to that list.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-12-12T12:26:14-06:00

ID

136781

Comment

In other words, just because you're a rebel doesn't mean you're an egalitarian, by any means. Indeed, I'd say quite the opposite. Greg...c'mon man, I didn't say the candidate should be a rebel. My point is that if you want creative solutions to issues such as "How do we get young people to vote for this candidate?" Then you'd be well served to look at other situations that fostered creativity among young people. It's common sense, really. But so many of Dean's supporters are the types who, for example, go to A.N.S.W.E.R. rallies. So if it's hard enough to win when the candidate himself is out there on a wing, making it up as he goes, imagine the risks you're leaving yourself open for when the most motivated segment of your grass-roots base, the ones you've gleefully "empowered," spend their weekends building giant puppets, painting banners calling Bush a Nazi, and replacing the stars in the American flag with little swastikas. This is sheer, unadulterated FUD. "So many?" Is that an official tally? What if I said "So many of Bush's supporters are radical anti-abortionists/NRA nutcases who stake out clinics at about 100 paces testing their breath control?" It would resonate with the same level of truth, except it, admittedly, doesn't show the same force of imagination. And, come to think of it, there's more in the Bush platform to motivate his fringe. You'll have to dig a little deeper in Dean's platform to find his scuttle-the-WTO plank. Hell, he's got the backing of the most powerful labor unions in the country and he's not even against right-to-work states! The truth is that Dean supporters (like the supporters of any mainstream candidate) are people like: students, teachers, knowledge workers, union labor, non-union labor, veterans, retirees, midwesterners, northeasterners, westerners, Californias, Latinos, African-Americans, gays, Republicans, Economists, Disabled Citizens and at least three people in Texas who used to have tidy little 401ks. (That from a quick sweep of the links on Dean's blog.) Anti-war folks? Sure. Union members. Yup. Disaffected "soccer dad" Republicans? Uh-oh.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2003-12-12T12:27:02-06:00

ID

136782

Comment

Todd - it only take ONE big mistake to demolish good will and hard work built up over a period of years. If the "head cheese" of the campaign doesn't have plausible deniability (which Trippi has lost) then Dean is vunerable to the "One big mistake." I don't recall implying the Dean campaign was unsophiticated - maybe I implied inexperienced - I don't know. But I would offer another link - this one on Dean's military doctrine: http://www.techcentralstation.com/121203B.html

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-12-12T14:29:52-06:00

ID

136783

Comment

heh heh - "Disaffected "soccer dad" Republicans?" don't you know the buzz is Nascar Dads - not soccer dads?

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-12-12T14:31:27-06:00

ID

136784

Comment

Doh! That's right. Well, in that case, I'm for Nascar dad's gettin' of their arses and taking their kids to soccer games. What is this country comin' to?! ;-)

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2003-12-12T15:36:32-06:00

ID

136785

Comment

Todd, "So many?" Is that an official tally? What if I said "So many of Bush's supporters are radical anti-abortionists/NRA nutcases who stake out clinics at about 100 paces testing their breath control?" It would resonate with the same level of truth, except it, admittedly, doesn't show the same force of imagination. Even considering the litany of Dean supporters you posted (an equally long and diverse list of Bush supporters can easily be drawn up), ask yourself honestly: Which number is higher - the percentage of Bush supporters who are "radical anti-abortionists/NRA nutcases," or the percentage of Dean supporters who attend ANSWER rallies, make giant puppets, and paint flags with swastikas? If you say "the former," then I humbly suggest you're out of touch with how large Dean's radical left wing is. I should also point out that a decidedly more centrist Gore had that same list of supporters, and still managed to lose.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-12T15:42:18-06:00

ID

136786

Comment

But let's talk about something else for a minute. You don't have to go far on this site to find bitter criticism of how George Bush and his administration are a bunch of secretive, duplicitous conspirators with a lot to hide. So I want to ask you all, especially Nia and Ladd, who have lately voiced their enthusiasm for Dean: What are we to make of his sealing his Vermont records for 10 years? This is twice the length of time that most governors seal their records. What is he hiding? What could possibly be so bad that he feels he needs to take such an extreme measure? Could it be as bad as, say, Bush' drunk-driving arrest? If it is, would you say that it should disqualify him from being president? If it's not, doesn't this signal a trigger-happy tendency to hide things from the public, one that would likely continue if he were elected president?

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-12T15:54:39-06:00

ID

136787

Comment

heh heh - glad you saw the humor in that post Todd

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-12-12T16:04:49-06:00

ID

136788

Comment

And what about this response to Chris Matthews the other night, when he kept referring to the Soviet Union in the present tense? I'd bet my next year's pay that the liberals here howled in 2000 when George Bush couldn't come up with "Pervez Musharraf," and were convinced that it proved his ineptitude in foreign policy, indeed his unfitness to be president. So where's the derision of Dean, mentioning 4 times in ten seconds a country that hasn't existed since 1991?

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-12T16:05:08-06:00

ID

136789

Comment

Fielding: I looked at the TechCentral piece. I think it's got a critical flaw: Yet before we accuse a man as intelligent as Governor Dean of gross and outright inconsistency, let us go back and examine the precise language in which he has framed his own preemption doctrine. "If we had known Osama bin Laden with real certainty was going to attack the United States, of course we would have done something about it." I have added the italics here to emphasize what would appear to be the one and only difference between Mr. Dean's doctrine of preemption and the President's. Dean would preempt only when he had "real certainty" of an attack, but not otherwise. No, it's not the only difference, as this whole argument is based on the assertion that what Dean is saying about going after Osama Bin Laden is tantamount to the Bush preemption doctrine. It's not. Preemption, as a foreign-policy doctrine, is about our right to attack other nations before they have explicitly or militarily threatened us; it's not about stopping known, rogue terrorist organizations before they attack again. Here's a better example of what Dean and some Democrats are getting at when they criticize Bush's doctrine: By and large, most Democrats have been opposed to a full-blown "doctrine of preemption," arguing that the United States has always reserved the right to take preemptive action to protect itself without codifying it as the basis for US foreign policy. And that, they argue, is an articulate belief that resonates with the public -- especially in the absence of weapons of mass destruction or the capture of former dictator Saddam Hussein of Iraq. It comes from a Boston Globe story about a leaked GOP memo discussing...how the GOP is going to use the preemption doctrine for political points in 2004: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2003/11/12/gop_will_trumpet_preemption_doctrine/

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2003-12-12T16:07:36-06:00

ID

136790

Comment

Fielding, and then there are the Campus Kids, the offspring of the Office Park Dads. When will it end?!? ;-) This quote is from a column by Jessica Kinnison we ran earlier this year about how divided young people are politically: "The Harvard study found that young adults are a new class of 'Campus Kids' swing votersówhich it defines as the 'Political Offspring of ëSoccer Momsí and ëOffice Park Dads.í The study found that 59 percent of teenagers said they will be voting in the 2004 elections; 27 percent probably will vote, and the rest said there were undecided or definitely not voting."

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-12T16:12:08-06:00

ID

136791

Comment

2 items: a. perhaps you progressive types won't have to hold your nose and vote for Dean after all... "Nader eyeing another White House run" PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) --Consumer advocate Ralph Nader said Thursday he is leaning toward another independent run for the presidency and will make his decision public in January. "We're testing the waters," Nader said in an interview with CNN. "It's a high probability but that is yet to be determined." Nader has formed an exploratory committee for a 2004 run and said he would gauge his support through the success of fund-raising efforts and the number of volunteers who come forward. The consumer advocate last made a bid for the White House in 2000 on the Green Party ticket, when he won about 3 percent of the popular vote nationwide and got 5 percent or more in 12 states. In fact, some Democrats blamed Nader, 69, for siphoning off votes that might have gone to Democratic candidate Al Gore, especially in the hard-fought state of Florida, where Nader took 97,000 votes. "Gore beat Gore," Nader says to those charges. "He didn't get Tennessee, his home state. That would have made him president. And he blundered in Florida and didn't ask for a statewide recount." "I would say to Democratic voters the following: If you think that a third party candidacy is going to take away votes and cost the Democrats the election, you've got the power entirely within your own franchise when you go to the voting booth and vote for the Democrats," Nader added. read it all at : http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/11/elec04.prez.nader.2004 b. if we want to talk memos, Todd, we should also discuss the other memos in the news - 1. Dems on the Sen Judiciary Cmte follow direction of outside groups to delay votes on certain nominees and 2. Dems on the Sen Intellegence Cmte outline strategy to obsfucate issues and use for partisan advantage...

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-12-12T16:21:26-06:00

ID

136792

Comment

a. perhaps you progressive types won't have to hold your nose and vote for Dean after all... Egad. I would never vote for Nader (I suppose unless he was the only option against someone far less qualified, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Actually, ever.) Fielding, I assume you're being facetious; reading what people who consider themselves "progressive" write on this site shows that it is not synonymous with being a Green or with the current popular definition of "liberal." The way I, for instance, define progressive would be considered far much more centrist on a traditional left-right paradigm than what Nader professes to be. I admire much of what Nader has done as a consumer agitator, but I find him a royal political pain in the ass these days. Besides that, I don't think he'd make a good president. I wrote a widely circulated piece about this during the last presidential campaign that brought me much irate mail from the left. Personally, I prefer to simply ignore Nader's political aspirations these days; I hope others do as well.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-12T17:01:36-06:00

ID

136793

Comment

Fielding, we can talk about the number and content of various leaked memos until the cows come home, as you say, but it seems that the topic at hand right now was/is Dean's foreign policy ideas, and how that's interpreted, not who is leaking memos (that was the source; not the topic of what Todd said). I don't think we should skate away just yet from the "doctrine of preemption" point quite so quickly; it is a vital sticking point that should be at the heart of many public discussions. Just what kind of country do we want to be? Do we want a so-called "doctrine of preemption" at the heart of our foreign policy? Is this smart foreign policy? How should/can it be altered? I think it's good that Dean is, at least, tackling this issue head on. Like everyone else, I too am waiting to see just how well he handles the question as the actual campaign starts and unfolds.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-12T17:08:46-06:00

ID

136794

Comment

Personally, I prefer to simply ignore Nader's political aspirations these days; I hope others do as well. Not me. I'm thinking of contributing to his campaign.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-12T17:10:15-06:00

ID

136795

Comment

The unspoken horribleness behind the doctrine of preemption that the neocon hawks won't actually utter is that preemption is fine so long as we're the only ones doing it. But what about when everyone else--as will certainly happen--starts doing it? How can you defend the principle if you believe it only applies to you, which is what the neocon hardliners believe?

Author

Nia

Date

2003-12-12T17:17:07-06:00

ID

136796

Comment

Greg: My guess (I haven't seen official census figures on this particular break-out) is that there are more violence-prone anti-abortionists than there are people who paint swastikas on American flags and take to the streets. (Er...I'm not counting Buchanan supporters.) If your point is simply that painting is the more *creative* endeavor --and hence more dangerous -- then I think you're shortchanging the talent, training and cunning required to excel in high-powered riflery. (Sorry...it's wacky Friday again.) The truth is, it's a unrepresentative sample in both cases, which was my point -- my example is just as absurd as yours. Pure FUD. Meanwhile...I noticed something interesting here. You seem to be of two minds about (1) whether or not Gore lost last time and (2) how important that ultra-left vote is to the Democratic candidate. First, you wrote this (referring to the subversive flag-painting elements): I should also point out that a decidedly more centrist Gore had that same list of supporters, and still managed to lose. Then, regarding Donna's hope that people would ignore Nader: Not me. I'm thinking of contributing to his (Nader's) campaign. Er, if Gore lost the election last time with these pinko flag-paintin' commies locked into his coalition of ne'er-do-wells, then you don't have anything to worry about, this time around, right? (Presuming, for the moment, that you can easily move all 3,000 Buchanan supporters in Boca to the Bush/Cheney '04 ticket.) I certainly can't see why you'd worry so much that you'd spend hard-earned non-deductable pre-tax dollars. Unless you've had a sincere conversion to the Nader platform... Are you shorting Halliburton stock, too? ;-)

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2003-12-12T17:49:08-06:00

ID

136797

Comment

Todd, You seem to be of two minds about (1) whether or not Gore lost last time and (2) how important that ultra-left vote is to the Democratic candidate. ... Er, if Gore lost the election last time with these pinko flag-paintin' commies locked into his coalition of ne'er-do-wells, then you don't have anything to worry about, this time around, right?... I certainly can't see why you'd worry so much that you'd spend hard-earned non-deductable pre-tax dollars. Unless you've had a sincere conversion to the Nader platform... If I understand your question, your implied definition of the "ultra-left vote" I think is over-simplified. What I'd like to help ensure by donating to Nader's campaign is that the Greens - who by no means overlap entirely with the ANSWER-types - stick with Nader again. Dude took 3,000,000 votes from Gore last time, I don't care what Nader says. But if he sits it out, they all go for Dean. Split the vote, man, pure and simple. Does that answer your question? I'm honestly not sure I see what you mean.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-12T18:04:16-06:00

ID

136798

Comment

Good lord.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-12T18:13:12-06:00

ID

136799

Comment

Yes, Donna, I was being facetious. I didn't think the pre-eminent tool of the trial lawyers was your cup of tea. (there I go again...;-)) Pre-emption is hard to stomach as a long term doctrine, yet at the same time I am hesitant to allow someone else (any enemy) to get the first strike in - especially if it's a nuclear one - when we have reliable intellegence and knowledge of what awaits us if we don't act...

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-12-12T18:16:47-06:00

ID

136800

Comment

If I understand your question, your implied definition of the "ultra-left vote" I think is over-simplified. What I'd like to help ensure by donating to Nader's campaign is that the Greens - who by no means overlap entirely with the ANSWER-types - stick with Nader again. I don't know what International ANSWER's membership is or who comprises it (they seem to think they're a coalition of other groups, not a group themselves), but they list the Green Party USA on their Coalition page. (http://www.internationalanswer.org/endorsers.html). So, at least ANSWER thinks there's a significant overlap. If Answer is a coalition and not a group, it's membership is hard to gauge. Its current online petition has been signed by 17,000 people. According to adherents.com, Operation Rescue has 35,000 members. Dude took 3,000,000 votes from Gore last time, I don't care what Nader says. But if he sits it out, they all go for Dean. Split the vote, man, pure and simple. Right. My point was (somewhat facetiously) the idea that you would actually donate to Nader to make that happen suggests that you see trouble on the horizon for Bush if Nader isn't in the race. Frankly, I don't think Nader would have the same impact in '04 -- Nader was never actually a Green, and a lot of his message can be co-opted easily by the eventual Dem nominee this cycle. And I think that -- despite the party line -- a lot of Greens are buying into Anybody But Bush this time around. But, for the record, I certainly didn't mean to suggest you shouldn't spend your money. ;-)

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2003-12-12T19:29:35-06:00

ID

136801

Comment

My point was (somewhat facetiously) the idea that you would actually donate to Nader to make that happen suggests that you see trouble on the horizon for Bush if Nader isn't in the race. Well, if that NH poll I linked to earlier is any indication of how things will go next year, I have far less to worry about than I thought. But there's nothing wrong with a little insurance...

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-12T20:53:59-06:00

ID

136802

Comment

Right. My point was (somewhat facetiously) the idea that you would actually donate to Nader to make that happen suggests that you see trouble on the horizon for Bush if Nader isn't in the race. So this means that you won't be donating to the Pat Buchanan campaign if he decides to run?

Author

Ex

Date

2003-12-12T21:15:42-06:00

ID

136803

Comment

Ex, darlin', I'm rolling on the floor (grinning all the way)

Author

C.W.

Date

2003-12-13T02:05:15-06:00

ID

136804

Comment

So this means that you won't be donating to the Pat Buchanan campaign if he decides to run? Nope -- seeing as how I'm not a Republican, I don't have all this cash to throw around. ;-)

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2003-12-13T15:54:46-06:00

ID

136805

Comment

Well, if that NH poll I linked to earlier is any indication of how things will go next year, I have far less to worry about than I thought. But there's nothing wrong with a little insurance... Yup -- I hate to call it this early considering all the exit polls aren't in yet, but it's possible the GOP may have the Granite State's 4 electoral votes sewn up. After all, their entire congressional delegation is Republican and the only Dem president they've voted for since Johnson was Clinton in 1996. (Clinton also won a plurality in 1992, but it was thanks to Perot -- Clinton got 39%, Bush got 38% and Ross Perot got a whopping 22%.) So, even though it gets press for its Democratic primary, it's a fairly Red-ish state. It's no bright-red Mississippi, granted, but it's a certain hue of maroon. BUT -- NH did slap Bush silly in 2000 by going for McCain in a big way in the Repub primary; so, who knows, maybe some maverick Dem will appeal to their sense of rugged "live free or die" individualism (I assume Guiliani won't be campaigning there for Bush) and the Dems will get a surprising little sweep from the state that brought us John Sununu. After all...their future depends on it. ;-)

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2003-12-13T16:16:12-06:00

ID

136806

Comment

So this means that you won't be donating to the Pat Buchanan campaign if he decides to run? Giggle, Ex. To paraphrase G.W. Bush's old adage, "There ought to be limits to freedom," the words "There ought to be limits to desperation" come to mind. ;-D I, too, doubt that the Nader factor is going to be nearly the same problem for Dems this time. He isn't going to draw away a lot of the ABB grass-roots factor that Todd speaks of (his last-round supporters have seen the excesses of this administration now, and know the dangers of a second term); and Nader could be positioning himself as a more radical Malcolm X to the more centrist MLK, Jr., to help palatize Dem/Dean's message for Middle America (or that could happen by default). Then again, maybe he's just being a narrow-minded butt-wipe. Time will tell. (BTW, if you're not familiar with the Zack Exley/G.W. Bush flap ("limits to freedom") I linked to above, here's a syndicated story I did about it a while back. Note that the conservative Rutherford Institute (Paula Jones' attorneys) stepped up to defend Exley. They, rightfully, believe the First Amendment shouldn't be colored by political affiliation. Now, I'm off to shop local(ly). Happy Saturday.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-13T16:22:30-06:00

ID

136807

Comment

Todd, NH simply shows that hype about Dean's lead in a key primary may say little to nothing about his chances in November. Or in other words...

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-14T01:04:30-06:00

ID

136808

Comment

The Democratic Party is a mess right now. The elction was wide open. Now the market is bouncing back, business is getting better, unemployment is declining, Sadam is caught, and crude should be coming down. I will never forget 9-11 and I will also never forget the same sickening feeling when WE bombed Bagdad. One year after Bush is reelected we will be in the same situation as we were one year after his first election. Why would Gore support an extreme leftist rather than a middle of the road candidate like Clinton, who most silent Americans enjoyed until he blew it? An extreme liberal will not get elected. I would vote for Madonna before I vote for Bush, but I will not vote for Dean.

Author

Howard

Date

2003-12-14T21:30:07-06:00

ID

136809

Comment

Howard - assuming Dean gets the Dem nomination, will you vote at all? If so, for whom?

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-12-17T02:20:58-06:00

ID

136810

Comment

The link below posits some interesting thoughts on the Dean campaign and how it is / isn't managed... "Dean's success puts pressure on a campaign narrative inherited from the pre-Internet era. There are changes underway that are not the normal evolution from cycle to cycle. More original reporting is needed on the "open" style emerging in politics. Here are some routes in. ..." Read it all at: http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2003/12/17/nine_lines.html

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-12-17T16:05:42-06:00

ID

136811

Comment

Fielding, this is a very interesting piece; thank you for posting the link. I'm going to spend some time with it. From a quick read, this jumped out at me, which I may say is a serious appeal of the campaign to me. Now, how well they will succeed remains to be seen: In the campaign "out there" the Dean curriculum is to teach people how to be active citizens again-- including the most basic things in citizenship: post a flyer, run a meeting, attend a rally, have an argument, write a response, and recruit others to do all this with you, because you're interested, it seems to matter, and there are places like weblogs where it is easily done. In all this activity, people are receiving an education. There's a curriculum. But what are they learning? A good education writer could tell politics a new story. Cone again: "Blog for America readers, for instance, police themselves in terms of the tone and content of comments. When 'trolls' ñ blog jargon for hostile commenters looking to make trouble -- come in with negative or provocative remarks, pro-Dean commenters react by pledging donations for each negative comment, which creates a disincentive for the trolls. After this idea was posted on the blog, the number of trolls diminished to almost zero." This also ties into the "Rise of the Third Party" discussion that's started elsewhere on the blog. The talk about learning to be civic and involved again reminds me of the "Bowling Alone" book.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2003-12-17T16:18:58-06:00

ID

136812

Comment

I love the idea of making a donation every time a troll posts a negative comment! Good one.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-12-17T17:11:19-06:00