MyDD :: Montana, Idaho, Utah...

Montana, Idaho, Utah...

by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 09:32:57 AM EST

Dean's been in the Western states, and being well recieved.

In Montana with 450, converting the Democratic chairman:

"We will promise you a balanced budget, and we will get government out of people's lives," Dean said.

"Republicans say that they are a party of small government, just small enough to fit inside Terri Schiavo's bedroom," Dean said. "Republicans say they're in favor of small government, but they don't mind telling women what they can or cannot do with their health care.

"Whatever happened to the rugged individualism in the Republican Party?" Dean asked. "It is very much alive and well in the Democratic Party."

"Only Democrats balance the budget," Dean said. "You cannot trust Republicans with your taxpayer money. Borrow and spend. Borrow and waste. That's what the Republican Party stands for. We will do better."

...New Montana Democratic Party Chairman Dennis McDonald, of Melville, who had earlier expressed reservations about Dean and said he didn't want photograph taken with him, had a different view after hearing the DNC chairman's speech.

"I loved the positive speech, and I loved the positive message," McDonald said. He added that he told Dean he was honored to get his picture taken with him.

In Utah, the 285-seat auditorium overflowed, filling two other rooms with more than 500 total:

Dean drew some of his biggest applause by defining the Democratic position on abortion.

"I'm tired of Republicans telling us we're pro-abortion. I served on the board of Planned Parenthood for five years. I don't know anybody who's pro-abortion," he said. "Most people in this country would like to see the abortion rate go down. That includes Democrats and Republicans. The difference between the parties is that we believe a woman makes that decision about her health care -- and they believe Tom Delay makes it."

In Idaho, 500 in Boise's Julia Davis Park:

"We didn't quite win in Idaho the last time, but we're not quitting," he said. "People say, 'Why'd you come here? This is a Republican state,' but they're wrong.

"This is a libertarian area. We're going to win on a Western platform next time."

Those are all local links, and there was plenty of local TV coverage as well, if you look through Google, but nothing from the national media outlets, they are content with their Republican-feed meme of Howard Dean and the Democratic Party as the angry Dems. The best thing that Dean can do is continue to ignore DC, and continue to grind away in the states and raise the small donor effort to fund the Democratic Party. He's doing an excellent job.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 32 Comments :: Post a Comment

Sweet (none / 0)

Loved the bit about the Montana state chairman. Dean was also in Madison last Wednesday evening, and he is scheduled to visit Pittsburgh on Tuesday.

I agree, he is doing an excellent job.

by KimPossible on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 09:47:56 AM EST

I've got no problems (none / 0)

with this. Let the national media ignore him (and us). He is setting the groundwork for kicking right wing rethug rear end from here on forward. Organize, organize, organize.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 09:57:09 AM EST

Re: I've got no problems (none / 0)

I agree. I hope they dismiss him and underestimate him. Hopefully, they don't realize what he is doing until it is too late.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 12:27:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ARGH! (3.00 / 1)

Abortion is not health care.

by Chris1458 on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 10:02:47 AM EST

Re: ARGH! (none / 0)

I'll split hairs on this and say yes, it could be considered reproductive health care.

by KimPossible on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 10:39:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ARGH! (none / 0)

it's not really though. And we are going to lose the debate if we don't frame it right and admit it is a medical procedure as well as a moral values question.

by Chris1458 on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 10:55:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ARGH! (none / 0)

I disagree... Abortion is a noise topic... those for outlawing it are a big minority. Over 60% of Americans support a right to choose. I think framing it as a privacy issue is the right call. Overall, it is not the issue the majority of us vote on. That would be economy, security/defense, and educational issues, and maybe healthcare costs which is economic anyway. Form your position (for or against and to what degree), form your rationale (Women should choose, Privacy, Moral issue, whatever) and then don't dwell unless the audience you are address demands it.

As a moral issue, I say look at the old testament and see exactly what the penalty is for causing a miscarriage. It isn't death... it was monetary. If you killed the mother though, that was death. The value was placed on the person who was born, not the unborn child. So if we are using the bible as a moral barometer, lets have some perspective.

I believe it is in Leveticus, which they cite as condemning homosexuality... these hypocrites need to take it all literally or not at all... they should not pick and choose to fit their agenda.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 12:26:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Abortion is not health care. (none / 0)

While I am a Dean supporter and think that he is taking the party in the right direction, I agree on this.

The real question is: Which party will actually reduce the number of abortions? (This is raised and addressed very well by Jim Wallis in his book "God's Politics, Why the Right Gets is t Wrong and the Left Doesnt; Get It")

The abortion rate was down during the Clinton years, primarily because those more likely to have them were better off.

Futher, if Bush and his Congressional allies really want to protect the unborn, they had better get on this NOW:

Unborn Babies Soaked in Chemicals, Survey Finds
http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/071405HA.shtml

Excerpt:

Thursday 14 July 2005

Washington - Unborn U.S. babies are soaking in a stew of chemicals, including mercury, gasoline byproducts and pesticides, according to a report to be released Thursday.

Although the effects on the babies are not clear, the survey prompted several members of Congress to press for legislation that would strengthen controls on chemicals in the environment.

The report by the Environmental Working Group is based on tests of 10 samples of umbilical cord blood taken by the American Red Cross. They found an average of 287 contaminants in the blood, including mercury, fire retardants, pesticides and the Teflon chemical PFOA.

"These 10 newborn babies ... were born polluted," said New York Rep. Louise Slaughter, who planned to publicize the findings at a news conference Thursday.

"If ever we had proof that our nation's pollution laws aren't working, it's reading the list of industrial chemicals in the bodies of babies who have not yet lived outside the womb," Slaughter, a Democrat, said.

End of Exerpt

Republican emphasis on criminalizinbg a procedure without adressing the despation that makes peolple consider it is part of their pattern of talking the talk without walking the walk.

You can't judge policy by laws passed, only by results achieved. This is true of lowering the abortion rate, improving school achievment (No Child Left Behind sure sounds good, but where's the money) protecting the envirnment (note the Orwellian Clear Skies Initiative, which protects us from industrial pollutants by _increasing) the amount of poison we breath), or defense (London).

Likewise, we can't just complain without offering our alternatives and allowing the same accountability that we demand.

by Mudshark on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 10:57:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Abortion is not health care. (none / 0)

I disagree and do think it falls into healthcare.. that does not mean it can't fall into many different realms.

I still think Hillary has it best so far... Our goal should none per year. We achieve this through more adoption, better contraception education and availability. However, we need to have legal abortions as a public health issue. No one wants to go back to back alley coat hangers.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 12:31:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Abortion is not health care. (none / 0)

FYI: Here is a link from dkos that explains how to format with Scoop technology. If you lose the info or want to refer someone later, when you post a comment at dkos there is a sentence right above the comment box that says:

You can also use auto-format tags, which are described here.

It doesn't describe the cool gray box, but it looks like this:

div class="blockquote">text</div<p>

without the html for a page break at the end (which scoop adds for some reason) and with the div on either end closed.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 06:54:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uhhh... I'm not splitting hairs... (none / 0)

... abortion is health care.

You go to a clinic, it's done by a doctor, and its damned invasive.

What is it if not health care? I mean... you get an abortion to mainatin your health is its normal state, rather than moving through the whole pregnacy-birth cycle.

You may not think its necessary, or justified... but if its not health care, tell me what it is.

by teknofyl on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 12:16:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uhhh... I'm not splitting hairs... (none / 0)

If breast implants and collagen injections (of which women are now getting injected into their G spots) are healthcare, so is this.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 12:31:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uhhh... I'm not splitting hairs... (3.00 / 1)

and they are.

but trying say that abortion is a cosmetic operation is just despicable. personally, i didn't think anyone was backwards enough to imply that abortion is a cosmetic surgery, but i guess i was wrong... wow... truly disingenuous... golf clap... nice job...

but it doesn't matter... because all of those are health care...

as are mental health treatments, efforts to stop smoking or lose weight, and just about anything that goes to adjusting the dimensions or operating parameters of your body...

so... you are one of those people who think that women just run around getting abortions willy-nilly because they don't like the pill? maybe you think they prefer repeated invasive procedures to pill-popping??

just not sure where you're coming from...

by teknofyl on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 01:12:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uhhh... I'm not splitting hairs... (none / 0)

Wow, someone who throws around sarcasm should really learn to read to COMPREHEND what is written. I never was trivializing abortion as that type of surgery. I was saying that if those types of surgery are healthcare... then something as big as abortion is too. Read to comprehend... not just to read. Understand what some writes before incorrectly bashing them.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 11:36:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Amen! (none / 0)

"The best thing that Dean can do is continue to ignore DC, and continue to grind away in the states and raise the small donor effort to fund the Democratic Party. He's doing an excellent job."

Roger that!

Right now, Howard and the Dem grass/netroots are the hope of this nation.

by Thresholder on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 10:51:53 AM EST

I Second... (none / 0)

I'm told that Dean spends only two days a week at DNC headquarters in DC, the rest of the week out in the states. Maybe he should just make that only one day every two weeks, because he's getting a lot of good results connecting with the people.

by GreginFL on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 11:38:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Proof's in the Pudding (none / 0)

The controversy around Howard Dean seem to be less about his ideology than about his tactics. We are not goping to loose members of the Democratic Party because of Dean's stance on issues.

The question is: can he deliver? It hink the answers is going to be yes. Expanding the small doner base is both the right thing to do and the only practical strategy for revitalizing and expanding the Democratic party because:

1) We will never have access to large corporate doners again. Corporate America responds to two things: Bribery and Blackmail. When the Democrats were in the majoreity, they were able to threaten Corporate America into supporting them because they controlled all investigation, regulation and tax matters. They don't have that option now.

The Republicans have taken a different approach and bribed their supporters with promises of deregulation, and tax breaks, and, worst of all, tort deform (it reforms nothing). Again, this option is unavailable to Democrats, becuse they can't offer better bribes, and shouldn't even try.

The new campaign finance laws make small donors the best place to go for now support. In addtion, the activist base of the democratic party has now become a major source of funding, and alienating it would guarantee defeat.
The goal end goal is commitment; money is a tool. When you rely on small donors, you get commitment by accepting money; when you rely on large doners, you get ist by spending money.

A thousand small donors are likely to turn out to volunteer and vote just by virtue of having invested in the campaign. Ten huge donors will vote for their candidate anyway; their money has to be spent to attract other voters.

4) Finally, and most importantly, developing a large small donor base makes Democratic claims to be alternative to the Republicans legitimate. Democrates are about expanded prosperity and real justice; they should court those who need these things.

by Mudshark on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 11:21:43 AM EST

Re: The Proof's in the Pudding (none / 0)

Your logic is short-sighted. It is a major mistake to think we have "lost" corporate America -- particularly for ever. For one, Democrats have more than 90% of lawyers (trial lawyers) in their pocket. Regularly, we can appear at a firm for a fundraiser and walk away with more than $100K.

And I for one will take 10 huge donors over 1000 small donors any day. 10 huge donors are for more likely to raise you 1000's more even out of your district, in another state, etc. And the ONLY way to win these days is with TV early and often, and direct mail. And the only way to get that is with big donors.

by artvandelay on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 11:59:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

10 huge donors over 1000 small donors (none / 0)

If the total amount collected is the same in both cases, 1000 small donors is infinitely better than 10 huge ones. For one thing, having 10 huge donors increases the likelyhood that you have to give in to thier random whims. For another thing, having 1000 small donors means many or most of them are willing to volunteer or otherwise do the some of the gruntwork of the campaign. It also shows true support amoungst the voting populous, as well. Also, campaign finance reform (McCain/Feingold) means that you can't simply give unlimited funds to the party any more.

by Geotpf on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 12:30:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 10 huge donors over 1000 small donors (none / 0)

In the end it is the votes that count... I'd rather have 1000 "invested" voters than 10.

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 Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 12:41:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 10 huge donors over 1000 small donors (none / 0)

You all apparently did not read what I wrote. For instance, a fundraiser last September (I beleive), to be a "host" one had to raise $50K on top of their maximum $2k (yes I am aware of McCain Feingold despite what you claim -- and this is legal as long as the money does not come from one person's checks). Small donors cannot raise that kind of money. This also takes a huge burden off the campaign's finance staff.

This is the only way to but network primetime TV ads and bulk direct mail which are the only ways to reach a sizable portion of your voting block. You can have all the foot soldiers you want, but you'll never get the same results as TV and direct mail.

And, to qualify, I am not saying ignore the small donors. I am merely saying I would prefer 10 big donors over 1000 small ones.

by artvandelay on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 05:06:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mmmmm... (none / 0)

...pudding.

by teknofyl on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 12:16:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mmmmm... (none / 0)

Yes... pudding.

by Hannula on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 01:50:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Proof's in the Pudding (none / 0)

Can i just say

I don't give a fuck about what corporate america wants.

And they can keep their fucking money.

</rant>

SquareState.net - Colorado Politics

by pacified on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 03:47:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dean rocked Montana! (3.00 / 1)

The 450 people attending the Saturday night dinner in Great Falls MT gave Dean a five minute long standing ovation when he walked into the room. It was wild. Dean responded with "Now if the presidential primaries had started with Montana rather than Iowa, thinks might be different."

If there was anyone there that had any misgivings about having Dean in town at the convention, I didn't meet them. And they couldn't help but be impressed by the enthusiastic welcome that Howard got from the grassroots.

Aside from Dean's now standard barn burner speech (which I had never heard up close in person before) the crowd loved his approach of hiring 3 or 4 field workers in Montana "financed by us, chosen by you," as he said.

Thst's the way you win back the West, with outspoken plain talk and demo organizers on the ground.

by Ed in Montana on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 12:44:41 PM EST

Re: Dean rocked Montana! (none / 0)

Tell us more!!!!

Give the nitty gritty details... cuz no one else will.

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 Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 12:52:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ignore DC, ignore Fox News, (none / 0)

and keep focusing on those local news outlets. Less corporate bigwig interference, and Dean soundbites make for good ratings.

All a part of the bottom-up re-defining of the Grand New Party.

by Village Jenius on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 05:23:42 PM EST

Dean is the man (3.00 / 1)

Last year in the democractic primary, I was rooting against Dean and for anyone else.

Oh, how wrong I was. Kerry is a great senator, but was a horrible presidential candidate.

Anyways, I heard Dean speak in Houston about a month ago, and I can say that he is the real deal. He stayed afterwards to shake EVERYONE's hand.

Dean is right. We have to start on the local level. Sure it will take longer, but in the end, the payoff will be far greater than we can imagine.

Dean is right about reframing the debate on abortion. No one likes abortions. Personally, I would never want my wife to get one, unless it were a medical necessity.

But who am I to say the what the woman down the street can do with her body?

by agpc on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 06:07:59 PM EST

another idaho testimonial (none / 0)

courtesy of 43rd State Blues

as I've been saying for a while now, let 'em laugh...

by torridjoe on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 07:23:38 PM EST

and (none / 0)

here's a nice column from the Idaho Statesman on the visit.

by torridjoe on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 07:26:33 PM EST

How do we deal with the issue of race (none / 0)

...particularly if we have a minority candidate.

As an Indian-American who previously lived in Montana for 7 years, and who now lives in Texas, I can safely say that I experienced far more racism in Montana than Texas.

Idaho and Utah have similar issues.

by v2aggie2 on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 12:02:43 AM EST

Re: How do we deal with the issue of race (none / 0)

Maybe, they think you are mexican american in Texas giving you a lot of amigos over there.
OK I keeed.

by Pravin on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 11:07:31 AM 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.