MyDD :: Kirk out, "Give it to Dean" says Rep. Murtha

Kirk out, "Give it to Dean" says Rep. Murtha

by Jerome Armstrong, Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:54:04 AM EST

Second shoe drops today, Ron Kirk is out of the running for DNC Chair, Kirk wrote a letter to DNC members today saying he was endorsing fellow Texan Martin Frost ("the complete package for DNC chair"). Balz has a DC wrap. Rep. John Murtha, fresh off of placing third for Speaker, says Give Dean DNC chair:

The endorsement of the leading antiwar presidential candidate by one of the Democrats' most prominent early supporters of the Iraq invasion signals a rehabilitation of Dean's image in the House and greatly increases his prospects of leading the party, many Democratic lawmakers and aides said.

Several lawmakers said support by the hardscrabble, old-school Vietnam veteran, who endorsed former Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) in the presidential primaries, would compel the DNC to take a second look at the firebrand governor and not simply write him off as an extreme avatar of the party's antiwar wing.

"I am not with him on all the issues, but he understands the party's problems, what we need to do and how to get there," said Murtha. "And he has executive experience. ... A lot of people in the party don't understand just where we are. We need a change. We need something different."

One senior lawmaker, who asked not to be named in order to speak more candidly about internal party matters, said his colleagues would be shocked to hear of Murtha's support for Dean. The lawmaker added, "Maybe we'll all have to take a second look. A lot of us will."

This is great news for Dean, a real breakthrough has occurred. As for Pelosi, she's really dug herself into a hole on this race:

Meanwhile, many House lawmakers said they thought that the House minority leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was clearly leaning in favor of former Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.). While Pelosi has shied away from an overt endorsement,lawmakers said that in private conversations she is always pushing for Roemer. "She's always asking, `Well, what do you think about Roemer?'" one lawmaker said.

Not much.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 42 Comments :: Post a Comment

Kirk's Letter to DNC members (none / 0)

I've posted the letter that Ron Kirk sent out to DNC members with his endorsement of Martin Frost here.

by ByronUT on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:00:29 AM EST

maybe Pelosi is a zen politician (none / 0)

What if Pelosi understands that her endorsement is the kiss of death and is publically backing Roemer because he would be such a crappy chair. Notice she's also saying good things about Martin Frost who would be another crappy chair.

Al From understands this concept enough to know that he can't publically endorse a candidate without poisoning him with the DLC's radioactivity.

Maybe Pelosi cares so much about reform that she'll destroy her image with Democrats to ensure a reform chair is elected...

by Bob Brigham on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:05:46 AM EST

The last line of the WP story is scary: (none / 0)

"Some Democrats continue to talk about trying to entice McAuliffe to extend his tenure, particularly if no current candidate catches fire."

What do they think is causing all those sparks and smoke around Dean? Anyone have the inside scoop on how he got Murtha's endorsement? Somebody must have done some "hard work" to convince him....

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 04:20:13 AM EST

Re: The last line of the WP story is scary: (none / 0)

You would be amazed at how many old school Dems that were backing Geppy or Kerry have turned to Dean. I just attended my local Dem meeting and the 50, 60, 70 year old hardcore Kerry supporters VOLUNTARILY announced that we should support Dean's candidacy for the DNC chair...which almost made me fall off of my chair.

WHERE DID THAT COME FROM...???? They had been listening to Dean all along but his message was been drowned out by the the DLC noise...once Kerry lost the noise was quieted and they were almost embarrassed that they had fallen for the ruse.

One of the 70 something guys said that he remembers listening to FDR on the radio and he no longers recognizes the Democratic Party and the he felt Dean was the person to bring the party back to its roots and back to its senses. He has been a staunch Democrat all his life and he sadi that he had never seen someone motivate the masses like Dean had...particulary the youth who are the life blood of the party.

They all said they supported Kerry because they thought he was going to win...but now they wanted to get back to basic and no more triangulations. And you have to admit there is something "old time politics" about Dean with a new techno twist.

As Jerome said earlier their is definitely a quiet revolution happening.

So if Murtha is anything like my old guys the answer your question did anyone "get to them" no...it was as clear as the nose on their face that Dean is the guy for the job.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 05:15:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The last line of the WP story is scary: (none / 0)

According to The Hill article Murtha came to this conclusion on his own and informed Dean afterwards.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:06:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

WDDSF = What Does Dean Stand For (none / 0)

The last question is one that Zell Miller raised.
What does he stand for.

Is he a demagogue, or just populist?

Never discount what Trippi did. Dean
was taken from obscurity by Trippi,
his ad money was squandered by Trippi,
an infrastructure was set up so full of
security holes you could see through it -
thanks to trippi -

And he made a lasting impact forever on
the Democratic party thanks to Trippi.

Again, I reiterate: Dean is good only
if the Dean team takes a freaking hike
(except trippi). Dean needs to be able
to deal with Rosenberg My view.

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 05:10:57 AM EST

Re: WDDSF = What Does Dean Stand For (3.00 / 1)

I gather you haven't kept up with what's been going on with democracy for America and Howard Dean and his team since the campaign ended? There is a new group doing new things and we are bigger and stronger than ever.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:08:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't get me wrong. (none / 0)

I happen to like Dean personally but I always liked
him for other reasons than the fact that
he's got a shadow majority of the american people
on the internet making a lot of noise.

The GOP loved him. They wanted Bush to run against
Dean.

But Dean is actually a good dude. They really
do feel threatened by him.

I am not saying Zell got it right.
I am simply saying that I would be interested
in what Zell Miller had to say.

After all, you want to win at least one red
state somewhere, dontcha?

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 05:32:03 AM EST

The other opinion is... (none / 0)

...that the GOP announced they wanted to run against Dean because they DIDN'T want to run against Dean, and knew if they said "We can beat Dean", then the Dems would do thier dirty work for them.

by Geotpf on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 07:36:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Knowing the GOP (none / 0)

it was more likely sumg arrogance.

by Paul Goodman on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 11:48:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We Will Regret Dean As DNC Chair (none / 0)

I respect the opinion of Jerrome and others who think Dean would be a great DNC chair. I just think their wrong.

I have several reasons for this:

(1) Dean is not a good organizer. You only need to read Trippi's book on the campaign to realize this. Yes, I know, Trippi is not the best source on what went wrong in the Dean campaign because of the huge waste in tv advertising that he was responsible for. However, I believe Trippi when he writes about the poor organizing work that was done.

(2) Dean has a "tin ear." Dean essentially killed off his own campaign last fall with a series of politically inept statements (e.g., the USA will not always be the #1 super power, we are not safer with Hussein captured). To give Dean credit, most of the statements that damaged him happened to be true. But that's not the point. Few people doubt his honesty or his sincerity. It is his policial judgment that is in doubt. More specifically, his ability to understand the political impact of what he is saying. I predict that if he is elected head of the DNC, he will say something stupid 1 or 2 time a year that will embarrass him and the party.

(3) He is the wrong image for the party. Dean is the perfect candidate for the demographic of most of us that participate in this site: smart (!), educated, more upscale then not, socially tolerant. Yet, the Democratic Party is doing fine with this demographic already. We need someone who is going to appeal more to the "white working class," the demographic that Ruy Texiera (from The Emerging Democratic Majority fame) and others think are crucial to establishing Democratic Party supremacy.

The reason I say this is because of Dean's positions on the issues. He staked out the most liberal positions on social issues such as abortion and rights for gays, lesbians, etc. And his number one domestic issue was to balance the budget, a goal that could only be accomplished by (1) increasing taxes on the middle class (which he advocated) and (2) cutting spending on programs that assist the lower middle class and poor. This is not the agenda of the working class.

I understand that Dean has some advantages. He is not a "corporate democrat." He helped pioneer a new, citizens based campaign methodology. And if he was the only such candidate, I would support him despite his flaws. But it seems like that Rosenberg guy seems to have the same positives as Dean, plus more nuts and bolts political experience. Rosenberg is not perfect either, he is too moderate economically for my tastes, but I think he is the type of political professional (in the best sense of that word) that the party needs.

Andy Katz

by Andy Katz on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:11:01 AM EST

Respectfully disagree (none / 0)

I must respectfully disagree with your assessment:

1) Dean is not a good organizer --

If he was so bad at organization, how is it he is looked to as a revolutionary in political organization? DFA remains strong and far better organized than the Democratic Party, long after Dean's last primary race; would DFA still exist 10 months later were it not for Dean's ability to continue to organize and more importantly, motivate? In fact, Dean attracted many Independents, Greens and centrist Republicans to his primary campaign; many remain involved in DFA today. I think that's the kind of organizational talent the Democratic Party needs to remain viable; if we don't grow the left by at least a couple percent, we can kiss the next elections good-bye.

2) Dean has a "tin" ear --

He's admitted when he's wrong; people with real "tin" ear don't do that. (Bush, for example...) There have been changes and tweaks to messaging and operations all along the way, in no small part because Dean listens. If anybody had a "tin" ear, it was Trippi, who discounted the impact that push media has on those who are the most likely, most reliable voters, and who ignored seasoned campaign veterans on the necessity to have adequate local ground organizations in place (ex. Iowa).

3) He is the wrong image for the party --

Much of the image that has been painted has been by people who are actively seeking to thwart Dean's efforts. These are messages that should be promoted more strongly about Dean, and have been squelched instead by detractors. One message I thought was deliberately buried: Dean asks no sacrifice of us he isn't willing to give of himself, evidenced by his personal values of thrift and generosity. Instead, the press was allowed to harangue about green shag carpet, without any real rebuttal from the the left.

Lastly, regarding your comments on balancing the budget and raising taxes: does the name Bill Clinton ring a bell with you?

The mountainous deficit is a bullet we are all going to have to bite, dues for having allowed Bush to have his way and eat the rainy day fund. We all did it by not being more organized, by living high during the dot.com years and not preparing for an eventual dot.com bomb. At least Dean would not ask the middle class to pay more taxes than the rich, who as Bush has pointed out will merely hire accountants to make it go away. I know if I could expect to see a return to 90's-like prosperity that came from paying more taxes then, I'd willingly do it right now.

Provided, of course, that brush-cutting wealthy leisure ranchers paid their fair and equitable share, too.

by RayneToday on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:40:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Respectfully disagree (none / 0)

To reply to some of what you wrote:

To your comments regarding "Dean is not a good organizer" Your point seems to center on the continuing existence of DFA. I dont think the mere existence of this organization proves Dean's ability as an organizer. He had a tremendous pool of active supporters when he ran for President. He still has them. That's fine. I concede Dean's ability to motivate a certain, important, segment of the populace, the one that I described in my original post. However, being able to inspire people is not the same as being a good organizer.

Again, based on my observations and readings, the Dean campaign itself was not well organized. Nor did he seem to have a good field organization, at least in Iowa, despite the huge number of people willing to work for him.

I agree with what was said below, he could always hire someone to do this. True. But if he couldnt hire the right people for his campaign, what evidence is there that he will do better now. Maybe he will. I hope he does if he is elected. But I dont see any evidence that leads me to believe that he will

To your points regarding "Dean has a tin ear." Your response defends Dean by saying that he is willing to change his mind and admit that he is wrong. But this is not really an answer to my main point (which perhaps I did not make clearly enough): that he does not have a good "handle" on how his statements will effect the political cause that he is supporting. As a result, he has a history of making statements that hurt him politically. I think he would still do this if he is electedDNC chair.

To your comments regarding "He is the wrong image for the party." Your response primarily blames this on the media and on the left's failure to combat the media's view. I loathe most of the mainstream media, so you wont get any defense of them out of me. Still, I mentioned several issues, not stereotypes, which I think has given Dean a certain image and that such image is not good for the party leader.

As to your comments on the policy issues I raised, this probably isnt the place to have an in-depth arguement about the political effects of supporting various economic policies. I will only state my belief that making the central economic tennent of the Democratic Party balancing the budget at the cost of higher middle class taxes and cuts in services to the middle class and working poor is not one that will generate the level of support we need in the middle class.

Andy Katz

by Andy Katz on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 11:29:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are only repeating same corrected distortions (none / 0)

-DFA DOES focus on grassroots development now. It's clear you haven't even looked at the DFA website since Dean exited the race, or you would not attempt to make such easily disprovable statements. MOST of the work DFA is doing is about grassroots develoment of the and entry level candidate development.

-Dean DID NOT support higher taxes for middle class tax payers. Dean supported a return to Clinton era tax rates. Tax rates for middle class tax payers that Bush HAS NOT lowered.

-Why is the image of a southern state party hack better than that the image of a medical doctor? Please explain in detail. Don't just toss around vague accusations of media images without explaining why someone else would be percieved as any different. The media portrays any Democrat that isn't a Zell Meller-like sycophant as a communist. Daschle. Kerry. Graham. Gore. Edwards. Clinton. All Liberal extremists according to the M$M.

by afs on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 11:48:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

please step away from the crack pipe (none / 0)

dear andy,
please stop repeating the lie that dean would have raised taxes on the middle class. dean never said anything about raising middle class taxes; he advocated going back to the clinton level taxes while keeping the middle class tax cuts that the dems were able to attach to bush's tax bill (for ex, the marriage penalty thing). his plan would have raised taxes on anyone making over 250K per year. now once in office, he may very well have had to raise them a bit more - i mean god knows bush really has blown a whole in our budget - but his plan did not raise middle class taxes.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:08:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Faux Middle (none / 0)

My guess is he belongs to that all too common group (and primary type of the DC elites), the low 6 figure income "faux middle class", once known in a saner time as "Folks who are kidding themselves". You hear the whining all the time out here...some idiot with a Range Rover, a half million dollar house, and a generally upscale lifestyle compaining about how taxes are killing "middle class families like their own".

Sorry, the median US household income is ~$50K. If yours is much more than that, you ain't middle class.

by ElitistJohn on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:01:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Faux Middle (3.00 / 1)

First, I never use ad hominem attacks like that because I disagree with a person's opinion. It's a cheap and easy substitute for real thinking. Using your logic, I would assume that you do not pay taxes at all or are so wealthy that you dont have to worry about taxes. One thing I would certainly guess, and I dont mean this as an insult, is that you know nothing of how hard the economy is out there for peopple with middle or lower middle class incomes.

Second, it is none of your business how much I make. I will say though that I believe my income, in light of my expenses, puts my very comfortably off. Comfortable enough anyways that, like you apparently, I dont have to worry about how much taxes I pay.

Third, however, I do very much want to see the Democratic Party prevail. In order to do that, I think the Democrats must acknowledge the issue that is most driving society, and one almost unaddressed by politicians of any stripe, the unprecedented 25 year stagnation of real wage growth in this country. While a relatively few, well off people are doing fine, and have done well, since the advent of Reaganomics in 1981, the great majority of people have not. Those in the lower middle class have seen their wages decline. Those in the middle have only increased their standard of living over the last 25 years by working longer hours or having a spouse that works. I think it is both very smart politics and policy to have a policy that we would advocate no issue that will add to the burden of the poor, near poor or working class.

Andy Katz

by Andy Katz on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:49:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Faux Middle (none / 0)

And, as noted, all Dean ever suggested was restoring the Clinton rates, with a special whack on those over $250K.

That takes a special kind of logic to apply to "poor and middle class".

by ElitistJohn on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:00:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Faux Middle (none / 0)

My Republican uncle said that John Kerry was stupid to tell "middle class taxpayers" i.e. people making $200K that the government wasn't taxing them enough.

by Abby on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 05:47:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: please step away from the crack pipe (none / 0)

My understanding is that Bush's tax cuts included a decrease in the tax rates for people in the middle class. My understanding is that Dean would have increased those rates, as you said, to Clinton's level. My understanding is that if you increase an individual's tax rates, that is a tax increase.

Furthermore, I am almost positive that Dean admitted that his plan would mean higher taxes on the middle class. His defense of his position was not to deny the obvious; his point was that the middle class was losing more indirctly from Bush's defecits, for example, the horrible economy was making state governments lose revenue, and in order to make up for this, these governments were taking actions that were hurting the middle class like tuition increases. Also, Dean defended his middle class tax hikes by saying that it was the only way to pay for health care for all, something that he felt would help the middle class more then the tax cuts hurt. However, he never denied that he would raise taxes on this group compared to Bush's plan.

Dean had a lot more integrity in defending his position then you have shown.

Andy Katz

by Andy Katz on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:34:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You understood wrong (none / 0)

If you look at total federal tax burden including all the fairly steep increases in all the many less well known federal taxes and mandatory federal fees that get buried in things like phone bills, utility bills, etc., the middle class paid quite a bit more in total burden under Bush compared to Clinton... up a full percentage point from 18 to 19 percent.

Annatopic had the exact specifics of the Dean tax plan better than I got them down.

by afs on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:02:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

well, not really (none / 0)

andy, bush didn't cut taxes on the middle class. i will try and go dig up the numbers for you, but i'm no economist so i might not be able to lay them out clearly.

basically, he shifted the burden from the uber-wealthy to the middle class. for example, only 250K families in america make over $200K per year. their marginal tax rate was decreased substantially with both rounds of bush tax cuts (and that doesn't even begin to talk about the estate tax or the devidends tax breaks bush gave the uber-wealthy). the middle class got breaks thanks to the democrats, who insisted (for example) on killing the marriage penalty.

then there was the child tax credits. remember when everybody got those $300 or $600 checks a couple of years back? that wasn't a refund - it was a loan on your next year's return.

the best way i've heard it explained was this: bush gave you $300 in your front pocket, then took $1000 out of your back pocket.

dangit, i wish i had my laptop with me right now. i have a bunch of stuff bookmarked that's related to the burden-shift. if you remind me later i'll go dig them up for you.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:44:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Trippi needs to shut the hell up (none / 0)

Trippi thought the Dean campaign was the Dean/Trippi campaign. Trippi was as concerned with his status as a superstar in the party as he was concerned about Dean. Trippi has been lying about his role in the birth of the netroots movement. Trippi was not there when the unofficial Dean net supporter organization activities like Meetups, Dean blogs, and online state interest groups and their websites got started. He has stolen undeserved credit for organizing innovations that many different John Doe volunteers created.

Trippi's contribution to the process was using the netroots as an ATM machine. That's all Trippi ever did. Write e-mail to already created long lists of Dean supporters that begged Dean supporters for money. Trippi thought money and ads could buy a nomination. I know of several people who tried in vain to get Camp Wellstone-style organizer training going early enough to have made a real difference, and the suggestions got no traction with the Trippi people in Burlington whatsoever.

If you don't think Dean is a good grassroots organizer for the party, then you need to look at what DFA has done since Dean exited from the race. If Dean does not have good grassroots organizing skills, then he certainly hummed a few bars and faked it very well, and has decided to listen to people who do know how to create effective grassroots organizations. DFA is a very effective grassroots building orgainization.

Dean advocated elimination of the Bush tax cuts and returning to the Clinton tax structure. His justification was that you do not break what did not need fixing. Dean was right on that. Dean also had some excellent ideas on health care... something you forget Dean just might have a better idea about how to make work better than many policy wonks for very good and obvious reasons.

As far as Dean's image, what in the world is wrong with the image of a medical doctor leading the party? That sure as hell beat the image of a bunch of mostly Southern party hacks that you seem to be leaning towards.

by afs on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:51:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Trippi needs to shut the hell up (none / 0)

In reply to some of what you wrote.

I read Trippi's book on the campaign. He seems like a good enough guy, though not necessarily the best political operative around.

Some of my comments to what you wrote would be included in what I wrote in my reply above.

Further, I would concede that IF the DFA is well organized so that it makes a real difference in the years to come, that would detract from my point about Dean's orgainzational skills. Yet, I see no evidence of that yet. And like I said above, the mere existence of this organization, even with some good "plans" does not mean that Dean is a good organizer.

As to your last point about having a medical doctor vs. a "southern party hack[]" that you imply that I support: I think Dean's former profession is irrelevant. The only person I semi-advocated is that Rosenberg guy, and I have no idea where he is from.

As for the "hack" comment, if you are implying that I would rather have a political professional to be the full time head of my political party, then yea, I guess I am guilty of that. I want someone who knows in detail how to win elections and what a political party should do to make that happen.

Andy Katz

by Andy Katz on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 11:43:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Trippi may not be the best judge of Trippi, eh? (none / 0)

Why are you judging Trippi solely by what Trippi wrote about himself? You don't think maybe there's a possible conflict of interest there?

I had one interaction with Joe Trippi. I know on one minor staffing issue question I talked to him in which said we'd do one thing on the phone, and 20 minutes later sent out an national e-mail saying the exact opposite, and he never returned my calls the rest of the day. I never tried to call him about another issue.

I'm not an expert on Joe Trippi, but I sure found the way he handled that small problem to be pretty messed up.

by afs on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:05:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Trippi . . . . (none / 0)

Actually, I have a slight anti-Trippi bias myself. The guy he replaced in the Dean campaign was a friend of mine a long time ago.

Andy Katz

by Andy Katz on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:15:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We Will Regret Dean As DNC Chair (none / 0)

(1) Dean is not a good organizer.

It is the job of the Campaign Manager, not the candidate, to do the organizing.

(2) Dean has a "tin ear."

Indeed. The Democratic Party establishment and the DLC did a great job of assassinating him for speaking the truth. Excellent reason to replace them with new leadership so that the next Democrat that speaks the truth powerfully doesn't get assasinated by his own.

(3) He is the wrong image for the party.

This is a point that can be debated back and forth all day. To each their own opinion of what the image of the party is or should be. I disagree with you. I believe that the image of the Democratic Party ought to be someone that is strong enough to intelligently stand up for Democratic ideals and present a Democratic vision that is recognizable and clearly identifiable as being in-line with traditional American Community values and isn't the mish-mosh that we've been getting for 20 or so years now.

But hey... that's just me.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:14:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

DNC head is different from candidate (none / 0)

I had problems with Dean a year ago, for some of the reasons Andy Katz goes into. (Woulda preferred Edwards to Kerry, though - a clear message would have gone a long way last year.)

But I'm for Dean now, though I don't think we'd be in bad shape with Rosenberg or Fowler. The key thing we need right now as a party is a willingness to stand and fight, and Dean's got that in spades. Dean can always hire somebody to run the organizational side of things.

What's happened to Pelosi, though? She's also a fighter, yet she wants Roemer. Roemer voted against Clinton's 1993 budget, and for Bush's 2001 tax cut. These two measures are major pillars of the difference between us and them. As Josh Marshall says, you can have individual Dems voting like that, but you wouldn't want somebody with that voting record as titular head of the party. Unless you think the party should look like Joe Lieberman, in which case what's the point?

by RT on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:45:44 AM EST

Re: DNC head is different from candidate (none / 0)

I agree with a lot of what you wrote. Like you, I cant understand how anyone would support Roemer. I think he is, literally, the worst possible choice. I dont just mean the worst choice of those running or interested. I mean that I can literally think of no one who would be any worse then him.

Just what is Pelosi thinking?

Andy Katz

by Andy Katz on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 11:32:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry... thought you considered Roemer an option (none / 0)

My bad.

by afs on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 11:56:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

From Texas (none / 0)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's the unpopular statements Dean made which got him admiration from Republicans here in Texas. It astounded me at the time. As a Dean supporter, I listened to talk shows here when Dean was their topic. Self-described pickup with gunrack guys always liked Dean when he "told it like it is." It was the media which did its best to destroy Dean with the help of the DNC.

Although I'm a superannuated edition of the college kids and intellectuals who supported Dean (northeast, ivy, etc.), what troubled me about Dean during the last two/three months of his campaign were the groupies and the group thinkies. I was always glad when he separated himself from them, if only slightly and politely.

The measure of how effective he'd be in a leadership position now would be the breadth of his constituency. Is it the same old gang, or are there enough pols, media, military, and labor in the mix? If he isn't a great manager, that's no problem -- a sidekick can do that for him. But if you haven't convinced a broad range of people that you're a leader...

by Bean on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:58:25 AM EST

Re: From Texas (none / 0)

In reply to some of what you wrote:

Do you doubt that Dean hurt himself way more then he helped him self with some of his statements?

I agree that some, though not all, of his problem with this was how the media played it. Apparently, the media that covered Dean did not like him personally and, as Bob Summersby at the Dailey Howler has demonstrated time after time, the media, in its infantile way, takes its personal likes and dislikes into its coverage of political events.

Still, much of Dean's trouble had nothing to do with the press, but his own inability to appreciate the political effects of what he was saying.

And, while the view of the media towards a candidate should not be an overwelming factor to consider, all things being equal, wouldnt it be better to have a candidate not hated by the media?

Andy Katz

by Andy Katz on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 11:51:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

problems with the media team (none / 0)

i always got the sense that the dean media team (and i'm talking about those who dealt with the press) was unprepared for the onslaught. so i don't think you can fully fault dean for saying things bluntly at times. part of the blame must reside with those who were designated to handle the media. they realy dropped the ball, too.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:19:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nothing could have been done with big 2 issues (none / 0)

-"The Scream." What a farce.

-The M$M was bound and determined to muddy up the Dean medical deferment. There's lots of people that the military will never, ever be allow to serve that are physically capable of doing many physically-strenuous activites. They are completely different capabilities. The military made the decision it didn't want Dean's back problems. At the same time, the M$M ran at warp 9 from covering Bush's NG disappearance from the TANG. Such a hypocritical mess.

by afs on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:33:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: problems with the media team (none / 0)

They were inept.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:16:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Texas (none / 0)

It was also the "expert" Democratic strategists who reacted negatively to Dean's comments, always saying that "this is the one that will bury him" followed by expressions of surprise when his numbers went up even further.

The same people who don't "get" Bush also don't "get" Dean. They both speak a different language than the atrophied political insiders.

by Chris Andersen on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:16:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This Cant' hurt Rosenberg or Fowler's bids either (none / 0)

This centrist has to agree with The Good Reverand Sharpton that Fowler's the real grassroots insurgent; Al mentioned Donnies name 3-4 times on CNN in an interview with Tucker Carlson of all people. Dean's name didn't even come up. Not that Shaptons a kingmaker but neither does Howard's being the darling of the blogosphere serve to anoit him; as we saw in Iowa 2004.

by ringmaster on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 11:47:19 AM EST

Re: This Cant' hurt Rosenberg... (none / 0)

As I 've noted, how does the son of a former Party Chair getting the Chair, and now a party player dropping his name make him "grassroots"?

Just curious. I supoose you also believe Chelsea got into Oxford and started with a firm straight out of college at 6 figs based purely on personal merit?

by ElitistJohn on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:12:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Cant' hurt Rosenberg or Fowler's bids eit (none / 0)

I asked Al who he was supporting in Orlando, he replied "Webb, Kirk, and Fowler."

by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:29:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sometimes you have to go for someone (none / 0)

just because the establishment doesn't like 'em.

by Paul Goodman on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 11:50:02 AM EST

Murtha's endorsement shows he has a wide appeal (none / 0)

Notice who is opposing Dean it's the party elitist and the media big whig elitist. Murtha is pretty much a moderate populist in idealogy, I think he cares about the Democratic party and is a loyal Democrat and he thinks that Dean is the best to lead the party, while people like Pelosi, who have lead the party down the drain oppose him.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:17:41 PM EST

"a moderate populist" = Dean (none / 0)

All things equal, the only issue Dean can be painted pure liberal on is civil unions. However, his stance on civil unions is now GWB's stance, too!

Everything else, Dean is a moderate to libertarian to conservative: guns, finance, abortion (since, pro-abortion is still moderate enough to work for Specter, Guiliani, Arnold, and McCain).

So . . . let's not overstate Dean's "liberal" tag. It's about as well-deserved as Bush's "conservative" tag.

by jcjcjc on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:49:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.