DNC Chair

[AuH2O]

Dean had success raising funds online in a primary campaign.

There is NO reason to think that will translate well into the fundraising the DNC does... labor, corporate, big donors, etc. In fact, those people might be suspicious of Dean.

In Dean's favor, he's fairly smart and has a general grasp of electoral strategy, if not campaign strategy. He's not a terrible choice, but it's a real mistake to think he's going to be a better fundraiser than McAuliffe... in fact, I think there is almost zero chance of that.

He may be better in other areas though.

[Nym90]

Blanchard, with Roemer a close second.

[BobOMac2k2]

Dean for popularity.

[Q]

Frost and Roemer are both DINOs.
We should have another poll, which of the following Democrats do you support for the Democratic National Commitee chair

How are these people not Democrats?  Because they are not liberal?  Why does the ideology of the party leader matter - he or she is charged with making decisions in which ideology does not play a central role.  There is a wide range of ideologies within the party, and to exclude some of them is preposterous.  Attitudes like that are what has relegated the Democratic Party to the minority in the first place.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Frost and Roemer are both DINOs.
We should have another poll, which of the following Democrats do you support for the Democratic National Commitee chair

How are these people not Democrats?  Because they are not liberal?  Why does the ideology of the party leader matter - he or she is charged with making decisions in which ideology does not play a central role.  There is a wide range of ideologies within the party, and to exclude some of them is preposterous.  Attitudes like that are what has relegated the Democratic Party to the minority in the first place.

That's not why. Roemer is connected with a right-wing think tank. Frost ran pro-Bush ads. Bayh and Casey are Democrats, these guys aren't.

The last thing the Democratic party needs is a chair who wants to suck up to Bush.

Republicans create public opinion. The era of these spineless Democrats who just check opinion polls had better be over.

If you were right that running to the center is the way to win, then how did Bush win, while Wilkie lost? Think about that.

[J. J.]

Frost and Roemer are both DINOs.
We should have another poll, which of the following Democrats do you support for the Democratic National Commitee chair

How are these people not Democrats?  Because they are not liberal?  Why does the ideology of the party leader matter - he or she is charged with making decisions in which ideology does not play a central role.  There is a wide range of ideologies within the party, and to exclude some of them is preposterous.  Attitudes like that are what has relegated the Democratic Party to the minority in the first place.

That's not why. Roemer is connected with a right-wing think tank. Frost ran pro-Bush ads. Bayh and Casey are Democrats, these guys aren't.

The last thing the Democratic party needs is a chair who wants to suck up to Bush.

Republicans create public opinion. The era of these spineless Democrats who just check opinion polls had better be over.

They don't need to turn to the left again.  That has been the path to ruin.

[Redefeatbush04]

Frost and Roemer are both DINOs.
We should have another poll, which of the following Democrats do you support for the Democratic National Commitee chair

How are these people not Democrats?  Because they are not liberal?  Why does the ideology of the party leader matter - he or she is charged with making decisions in which ideology does not play a central role.  There is a wide range of ideologies within the party, and to exclude some of them is preposterous.  Attitudes like that are what has relegated the Democratic Party to the minority in the first place.

That's not why. Roemer is connected with a right-wing think tank. Frost ran pro-Bush ads. Bayh and Casey are Democrats, these guys aren't.

The last thing the Democratic party needs is a chair who wants to suck up to Bush.

Republicans create public opinion. The era of these spineless Democrats who just check opinion polls had better be over.

They don't need to turn to the left again.  That has been the path to ruin.

Dean is not as far left as he portrays himself. He governed as a moderate. He will probablly run the DNC as a moderate. He only seemed like a liberal in the 2004 primary because he was so rabidly anti-war

[Rob]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:Choosing Dean as the party chair would be a major mistake on the Democrats' part. He is actually moderate on most issues, but image is everything. The GOP will easily be able to depict him as a far left New England elitist, as they did with Kerry.

That said, I'll probably be eating my words in '06 when Dean turns out to be a brilliant strategist and the Democrats sweep the midterms... but until that day, I think Dean would be a disaster.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Does it really matter?

Is someone going to walk into a voting booth and think "gee, I like my Democratic senator but I can't vote for him if Howard Dean is head of the DNC."?

Furthermore how many people can name the current head of the DNC and will know who it is in 2006?

[J. J.]

Does it really matter?

Is someone going to walk into a voting booth and think "gee, I like my Democratic senator but I can't vote for him if Howard Dean is head of the DNC."?

Furthermore how many people can name the current head of the DNC and will know who it is in 2006?

In terms of symbolism, yes.   Look at Trent Lott.  He said what a great president somebody would have made in 1948.  Was that a problem?  I'd argue, yes.

[The Duke]

I've never seen so much specualtion about the selection of a lead fundraiser.  No wonder oyu guys lose all the time now.  it doesn't matter who your Chairman is if your base believes things that lose you elections!

Frost and Brazille are the best choices, but neither was on the list on I voted Rosenberg.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Does it really matter?

Is someone going to walk into a voting booth and think "gee, I like my Democratic senator but I can't vote for him if Howard Dean is head of the DNC."?

Furthermore how many people can name the current head of the DNC and will know who it is in 2006?

In terms of symbolism, yes.   Look at Trent Lott.  He said what a great president somebody would have made in 1948.  Was that a problem?  I'd argue, yes.

he was praising a segregationist. In this case it'd be making chairman a guy who screamed at a rally.

But that kind of proves my point. Did Lott hurt the Republicans overall afterwords?

[Moooooo]

In terms of symbolism, yes.   Look at Trent Lott.  He said what a great president somebody would have made in 1948.  Was that a problem?  I'd argue, yes.

That isnt a very good comparison considering the guy Lott endorsed was quite possibly the biggest racest in the United States senate at the time and he ran on the soul purpose of keeping segregation in tact.

[J. J.]

In terms of symbolism, yes.   Look at Trent Lott.  He said what a great president somebody would have made in 1948.  Was that a problem?  I'd argue, yes.

That isnt a very good comparison considering the guy Lott endorsed was quite possibly the biggest racest in the United States senate at the time and he ran on the soul purpose of keeping segregation in tact.

He says how the great the a guy was who was celebrating his 100 birthday, who had been a candidate for president 50+ years before.  It's hardly saying, "I want to turn back the clock."

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In terms of symbolism, yes.   Look at Trent Lott.  He said what a great president somebody would have made in 1948.  Was that a problem?  I'd argue, yes.

That isnt a very good comparison considering the guy Lott endorsed was quite possibly the biggest racest in the United States senate at the time and he ran on the soul purpose of keeping segregation in tact.

He says how the great the a guy was who was celebrating his 100 birthday, who had been a candidate for president 50+ years before.  It's hardly saying, "I want to turn back the clock."

No, he said if he had won "we wouldn't have all these problems". Saying that Thurmond should've won in 1948.

[Keystone Phil]

In terms of symbolism, yes.   Look at Trent Lott.  He said what a great president somebody would have made in 1948.  Was that a problem?  I'd argue, yes.

That isnt a very good comparison considering the guy Lott endorsed was quite possibly the biggest racest in the United States senate at the time and he ran on the soul purpose of keeping segregation in tact.

He says how the great the a guy was who was celebrating his 100 birthday, who had been a candidate for president 50+ years before.  It's hardly saying, "I want to turn back the clock."

No, he said if he had won "we wouldn't have all these problems". Saying that Thurmond should've won in 1948.

And Chris Dodd said that Robert Byrd would have made a great General during the Civil War. Do you stand by those statements?

[Moooooo]

The main problem I have with Dean as DNC chair is...  Putting you money on him and his plan for the Democratic party is like rolling the dice at a Las Vegas crap table.  Theres a good chance if his plan works the Democrats could do very well in 2006 and 2008.  But on the other hand if it doesnt do so well we could be looking at a even larger GOP majority.

[The Vorlon]

All this talk about who will lead the DNC is kinda beside the point.

What is the Democratic message..?

What does it mean if we elect more Democrats..?

If the democrats controlled congress, how in specific, believeable, realistic concrete ways will life in America change..?

Untill the democratic party, collectively, has a resonably coherent answer to these types of questions, they are in trouble.

Howard Dean is some respects wants to be the Democratic equivalent of Barry Goldwater.

Yes, Goldwater got killed in 1964, but he did change the debate.

Untill the 1980 election, the "debate" betweem the two parties was about the scope and range of governmental intervention in the economy and people's lives.  To provide just one example, Wage and Price controls were a "GOP" idea promoted by Richard Nixon.

The 1980 election (fully ratified in 1984) changed the two party concensus - both sides now agree of limited government ("The era of big government is over" said Bill Clinton)

Howard Dean wants to re-open the debate towards a more actrivist and interventionish Federal Government.

"A choice.. not an echo...." as Barry Goldwater might have put it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In terms of symbolism, yes.   Look at Trent Lott.  He said what a great president somebody would have made in 1948.  Was that a problem?  I'd argue, yes.

That isnt a very good comparison considering the guy Lott endorsed was quite possibly the biggest racest in the United States senate at the time and he ran on the soul purpose of keeping segregation in tact.

He says how the great the a guy was who was celebrating his 100 birthday, who had been a candidate for president 50+ years before.  It's hardly saying, "I want to turn back the clock."

No, he said if he had won "we wouldn't have all these problems". Saying that Thurmond should've won in 1948.

And Chris Dodd said that Robert Byrd would have made a great General during the Civil War. Do you stand by those statements?

He said Senator, and he was praising the modern day Byrd. Lott was praising the Thurmond of 1948. Big difference.

[Keystone Phil]

In terms of symbolism, yes.   Look at Trent Lott.  He said what a great president somebody would have made in 1948.  Was that a problem?  I'd argue, yes.

That isnt a very good comparison considering the guy Lott endorsed was quite possibly the biggest racest in the United States senate at the time and he ran on the soul purpose of keeping segregation in tact.

He says how the great the a guy was who was celebrating his 100 birthday, who had been a candidate for president 50+ years before.  It's hardly saying, "I want to turn back the clock."

No, he said if he had won "we wouldn't have all these problems". Saying that Thurmond should've won in 1948.

And Chris Dodd said that Robert Byrd would have made a great General during the Civil War. Do you stand by those statements?

He said Senator, and he was praising the modern day Byrd. Lott was praising the Thurmond of 1948. Big difference.

He said he would have been a great General during the Civil War, correct? Last time I checked, that was in the past also.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In terms of symbolism, yes.   Look at Trent Lott.  He said what a great president somebody would have made in 1948.  Was that a problem?  I'd argue, yes.

That isnt a very good comparison considering the guy Lott endorsed was quite possibly the biggest racest in the United States senate at the time and he ran on the soul purpose of keeping segregation in tact.

He says how the great the a guy was who was celebrating his 100 birthday, who had been a candidate for president 50+ years before.  It's hardly saying, "I want to turn back the clock."

No, he said if he had won "we wouldn't have all these problems". Saying that Thurmond should've won in 1948.

And Chris Dodd said that Robert Byrd would have made a great General during the Civil War. Do you stand by those statements?

He said Senator, and he was praising the modern day Byrd. Lott was praising the Thurmond of 1948. Big difference.

He said he would have been a great General during the Civil War, correct? Last time I checked, that was in the past also.

when? During the 1000th vote thing, he said Byrd would be a great Senator at many times and listed them off, he never said anything about a General.

Yeah, the Civil War is in the past, but he was talking about the Byrd of TODAY. Saying that Byrd today would be good in the past. Trent Lott said the Strom Thurmond of 1948 would be good in the past.

[Keystone Phil]

In terms of symbolism, yes.   Look at Trent Lott.  He said what a great president somebody would have made in 1948.  Was that a problem?  I'd argue, yes.

That isnt a very good comparison considering the guy Lott endorsed was quite possibly the biggest racest in the United States senate at the time and he ran on the soul purpose of keeping segregation in tact.

He says how the great the a guy was who was celebrating his 100 birthday, who had been a candidate for president 50+ years before.  It's hardly saying, "I want to turn back the clock."

No, he said if he had won "we wouldn't have all these problems". Saying that Thurmond should've won in 1948.

And Chris Dodd said that Robert Byrd would have made a great General during the Civil War. Do you stand by those statements?

He said Senator, and he was praising the modern day Byrd. Lott was praising the Thurmond of 1948. Big difference.

He said he would have been a great General during the Civil War, correct? Last time I checked, that was in the past also.

Yeah, the Civil War is in the past, but he was talking about the Byrd of TODAY. Saying that Byrd today would be good in the past. Trent Lott said the Strom Thurmond of 1948 would be good in the past.

Oh so the Robert Byrd of today who recently made comments about "white ns" would have been a good Civil War general. I get it now....

[Monty]

All this talk about who will lead the DNC is kinda beside the point.

What is the Democratic message..?

What does it mean if we elect more Democrats..?

If the democrats controlled congress, how in specific, believeable, realistic concrete ways will life in America change..?

Untill the democratic party, collectively, has a resonably coherent answer to these types of questions, they are in trouble.

What's the Republican message?

There sure as heck don't believe in small government or fiscal responsibilty anymore.   W can't even keep his own message straight.

What ever happened to "And as a result, our nation paid a price, and so I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation building."   Talk about a FLIP-FLOP!!!!  So if the current debacle in Iraq isn't "nation building", what the hell is "nation building!?"

[Keystone Phil]

All this talk about who will lead the DNC is kinda beside the point.

What is the Democratic message..?

What does it mean if we elect more Democrats..?

If the democrats controlled congress, how in specific, believeable, realistic concrete ways will life in America change..?

Untill the democratic party, collectively, has a resonably coherent answer to these types of questions, they are in trouble.

What ever happened to "And as a result, our nation paid a price, and so I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation building."   Talk about a FLIP-FLOP!!!!  So if the current debacle in Iraq isn't "nation building", what the hell is "nation building!?"

Have you realized that 9/11 changed a lot in this country and our country's policies?

[phk]

I definitely believe that 9/11 ripped a hole in the space-time continuum and delivered us into a nightmare universe, a Bizarro World where up is down, right is wrong, and conservatives have morphed into Religous Fascists dedicated to ready the world for the second coming of Christ.