Florida Dems Back Dean

All of them:The Florida delegation to the Democratic National Committee has voted unanimously to endorse Howard Dean to be the party's next chairman, bucking an effort to orchestrate an endorsement of one candidate by all 50 state party leaders at the same time later this month.

The decision, announced yesterday by Scott Maddox, the Florida Democratic chairman, is a major lift for Dr. Dean, a former governor of Vermont, and it is a shift in a contest where most Democrats have been holding back from endorsing any candidate in the crowded field.

Is this an indication of things to come?

Tags: Democrats (all tags)



Or Just an Indication that Dean
Supporters are not team players?
by donkeykong 2005-01-17 10:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Or Just an Indication that Dean
supporters are not DLC team players thank-you very much.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-01-17 10:37PM | 0 recs
Hey, support for my guy and opposition to the kind of backroom unity drek that gave Kerry the nod!  

Unity's for after the election.  Yes, let's keep the gloves on, but let's have a nice solid campaign.  If Trippi and the Clark folks can come out for Rosenberg, the Florida delegation can come out for dean.

by Kimmitt 2005-01-17 10:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Woo!
I'm a Clarkie and I came out for Fowler...
by JamalSimmons 2005-01-18 08:03AM | 0 recs
This is great news!
All of the criticism I've seen of Dean has been pretty lame. The only candidate with the national presence, charisma and passion to generate some steam in the Democratic party is Dean. For the Dean supporters who are disappointed he is taking himself out of the 2008 election; Howard Dean made his decision and we should respect it. If somebody doesn't put some backbone and passion into the Democratic party it may not survive until 2008.

Dean is the one candidate who can carry forward the Wellstone tradition. He takes stands on issues and you know who he's standing up for.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-01-17 10:41PM | 0 recs
Re: This is great news!
On a serious non poking your eye because you don't agree with me note.  Dean inspires a large group of democrats and that is a good thing.  But Dean has a very high negative rating and as DNC chair that rating is easily conferred on the whole party.

That worries me.  But what really worries me is that the Dean faction wants to move to the left of a losing platform that is consistently on every level losing to a more conservative platform.

Dean reminds me too much of the Nadar line that Gore and Bush are the same so lets do what feels good because nothing bad will happen.

by donkeykong 2005-01-17 11:23PM | 0 recs
Re: This is great news!

Dean isn't moving the Party to the left or to the right. The word Dean, and "liberal" were exclusive to each other until in January 2004 the Club for Growth thought that Dean was going to catch fire and win the nomination right away and start raising money like nothing the American political establishment had seen.

So they run an ad saying Dean is a liberal even though the ad had no factual basis whatsoever. Sure, if you believe that antiwar people have to be bleeding hard liberals then the calling Dean a leftist is justified. But surprise, even Bob Novak before the war registered his discontent along with other "paleocons" like Pat Buchanan.

It's true that some of Dean's biggest supporters are the jack-booted regiments of the Democratic Party. But they flocked to him because, hello, he bothered to suggest that MAYBE if the party stopped acqueising to Bush and call the spade and spade...that might catch on with swing voters.

And again, the reason to make Dean Chair is that he becomes shadow President immediately. He becomes the beagle, and Bush is the fox. Or if you prefer, Dean blows the horn and the foxhounds like Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer will coordinate to the sound of one man instead of trying to chase prey independently. Dean would be basically a fixture on Sunday talk shows and anywhere else he wants to appear to criticize Bush and tear his policies to shreds. Meanwhile, the President actually has another job to do, and since he already seems overwhelmed by it...I don't think Dubya will have such great spin control this term with Dean bringing the kryptonite.

by risenmessiah 2005-01-18 12:03AM | 0 recs
Re: This is great news!
And again, the reason to make Dean Chair is that he becomes shadow President immediately... Dean would be basically a fixture on Sunday talk shows and anywhere else he wants to appear to criticize Bush and tear his policies to shreds

This is precisely what we DONT need in the DNC chair. What we need is an organizer and fudnraiser, not a spokesman and talking head.

I understand the desire to get Dean into a position of power, but this is not the right place to put him if what you're looking for is a "shadow president" and general blowhard...

by Reverend AlX 2005-01-18 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: This is great news!
I actually like Dean precisely because he has been branded as "too liberal". Dean could be the perfect opportunity to end the demonization of the liberal label. Once voters get another look at Dean and his positions the liberal lable will lose its effectiveness, because it will be so hallow.

All I am asking is for somebody a little left of center, instead of a DLC candidate like Frost or Roemer. Rosenberg and whatever the New Wave faction is are just more warmed over DLC centrists. We can reform the party just fine without another DLC centrist that just helps O'Reilly demonize the liberal left.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-01-18 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: This is great news!
That is exactly what I'm talking about. High negatives from who? O'Reilly and Hannity? Move left how? Dean is a very centrist candidate. He will get painted as far left liberal by the wingnuts, but who wouldn't? The only candidate O'Reilly and Hannity like is Roemer. Who cares?
by Gary Boatwright 2005-01-18 12:11AM | 0 recs
Re: This is great news!
Probably because they know roemer will lead us to defeat in 2006 and 2008.
by yitbos96bb 2005-01-18 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: your slander against Dean
"Dean reminds me too much of the Nadar line that Gore and Bush are the same so lets do what feels good because nothing bad will happen. "

Can you point to a single example of Dean saying anything close to this?

Dean went after Democrats who didn't oppose Bush when it counted (e.g., the Iraq war vote) but he always maintained that if Kerry, Gore, or almost any Democrat were actually calling the shots, things would be very different.  That's why Dean immediately backed Kerry when he gave up on the nomination.  That's why Dean DEBATED Nader and told him his claims about Democrats and Republicans being the same were dead wrong.  Dean kept thousands of voters from defecting away from the Democrats to Nader last year.  

Dean just wants Democrats to stand up for what he knows they believe.  (Does anyone really think Kerry believed giving Bush a blank check with which to attack Iraq was the right thing to do?)  With Dean as Chairman leading the way, I believe more of them will.

by Jim in Chicago 2005-01-18 12:22AM | 0 recs
Re: This is great news!
You trot out this same old trite manure? Where have you been the last year or two?
by Andrew C White 2005-01-18 04:16AM | 0 recs
how do you feel about Israel-Palestine?
I detect that you are an Israel hawk.

Why don't you share your position on Israel-Palestine and quit having you beat around the bush?

by Carl Nyberg 2005-01-18 05:35AM | 0 recs
Re: how do you feel about Israel-Palestine?
If this was directed towards me I will answer.

I think Israel has a persecution complex.  When you think everyone is out to get you then you act in a manner that makes people want to hurt you.  Sooner or later everyone is out to get you.  

LAtely the USA is on the same track under Bush.  Example lets torture them cause they are out to get us so much etc....

But on the other hand, the Arafat followers invented modern terrorism.  I do not believe that palestine should be considered more noble because they send 12 year olds to kill themselves and other children.

by donkeykong 2005-01-18 11:21AM | 0 recs
Dean isn't a Wellstone Democrat
To JollyBudda's comment- this is what Dean wants you  to believe. He and Wellstone have nothing in common. After Wellstone died, Dean saw a power vaccum in the democratic party, a way to run for president. He had been wondering in the desert for several months and years, trying to get attention for his presidential run. Then he decided to use the code words that get Wellstone Democrats all excited like "Republican-lite" and railing against the DLC.

Truth is, Dean hasn't strayed that far from the DLC ranch on most actual policy. He just wants to pick fights with them because its a win-win situation. Sure, he made a dumb against all things Bush plan (like even lower taxes for poor people) against the DLC wishes, but he really didn't stop from being a fiscal conservative and pro-trade guy.

I am glad that Dean wants to reform the party and most of his strategy I agree with, just not the implication that he will move the party left. I doubt he actually will even try, but he wants people like JollyBudda to think he will.

by DaveB 2005-01-18 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Dean isn't a Wellstone Democrat
Nobody will ever be another Wellstone. Perhaps I engaged in a little hyperbole. One thing you cannot deny is that he has taken a stand on several progressive issues. I'm not as concerned about moving to the left as I am about reforming the calcified DLC power structure.

Is there anybody else who would move the party left? Dean's not perfect, but he's better than the alternatives. The more anti-DLC a candidate is, the more he appeals to me. I don't really see another choice.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-01-18 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Dean isn't a Wellstone Democrat
I'm pretty sure that getting a civil unions bill passed and creating socialized health care for children aren't on the DLC ranch.

I agree that Dean is centrist on the environment and fiscally responsible almost to a fault -- and his position on guns is a bit to the right of the Democratic center.  But he offers a lot, policy-wise, to progressives as well.

by Kimmitt 2005-01-18 11:38AM | 0 recs
I personally have no problem with Democrats actually taking a "progressive agenda". Dean said "we cannot win being Bush Lite". Sure, Democrats will get no props for creating the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Reserve, or being tough enought on foreign affiars to drop nukes...but hey...the Republican dog food tastes good because they advertise better not because its actually good.

So as far as I concerned, we have the big tent but we make it plain we are the party of the left. Be it the watercolors and pinwheels set (Jim McDermott) to the in the closet consumption tax folk (that is you Harry Reid) to the blue-collar-I've-only-got-one-tie folk (hi there Michael Moore).

We have to recognize that all politics in local. We have need not only a snazzy national message (which we have really just usually terrible people communicating it) but dovetail into local campaigns that have more specialized concerns. I mean seriously, you take the "Red States" where probaly ninety percent of all employers don't offer health insurance and you have local and national Democrats go there and say, "this is wrong, this is morally wrong...here is what I am going to do" and watch us carry states that haven't gone "blue" for forty years.

by risenmessiah 2005-01-18 01:05AM | 0 recs
We need to be Big Tent.  By big tent I mean we need people that voted for Bush to vote for our 2006 and 2008 guys.

Bush is a lite weight idiot imagine how hard it would be to defeat a McCain or a Powell.

In order to have a real chance of holding power we need to move towards large groups of voters who didn't vote for us.  There are very few voters who are more liberal than Kerry who didn't vote for us in 2004.

There are MANY MANY MANY MANY more voters more conservative then Kerry who didn't vote for us in 2004.

Calling it republican-lite to try and go where the voters are is Nader talk.  Nader by the way was funded by republicans this cycle....follow the money....thats the republican lite.

by donkeykong 2005-01-18 07:25AM | 0 recs
some questions
What evidence do you have that the people that voted GOP were voting on issues?

What evidence is there that Dems moving to the Right is a formula for success?

Did the GOP score it's big victory in 1994 by moving to the Left? Did Reagan win by moving to the Left?

by Carl Nyberg 2005-01-18 08:47AM | 0 recs
Dean is best for Chair
Although I think Dean would make a good President, I think 2008 is too far off to wait to use his attributes.

The Democratic Party needs a strong leader right now.

by Thomas 2005-01-18 03:44AM | 0 recs
We've been the endorsement route before...
... but these guys actually have a vote amongst a very small group of people that get to vote. So this is a good thing. My guess is that Dr. Dean has the New York delegation in the bag too but that is just speculation on my part based solely on knowing a couple key players are in his corner.
by Andrew C White 2005-01-18 04:18AM | 0 recs
Ont thing that worries me...
This is gonna be a nasty fight, I have a feeling.  With Florida bucking the consensus issue, either all 50 need to get behind Dean, or there are some out there so hardcoded to their choices, Floirda felt the need to protest.  I just hope that Florida going public isn't a protest vote and the other 49 states choosing someone else.
by yitbos96bb 2005-01-18 06:09AM | 0 recs
It might be an even split
It might be 50/50, with the anti-Dean forces trying to force the pro-Dean forces to cave-which they weren't willing to do so.
by Geotpf 2005-01-18 10:20AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads