I said Monday the Democrats need blowtorches like Dean, and I still think it’s true. But they don’t need one who burns off his own foot every time he flames up. Sure the GOP is monolithic — not to mention monochromatic — and getting more so all the time. But Dean really did sound like he was dissing white Christians (approximately 60% of the electorate.) At the least, it’s extremely easy for the Dean haters to spin it that way.
Back to Main
June 8, 2005
Dizzy Dean
Comments
I doubt there is anything Dean could say or do that won’t get slammed in the MSM. His famous scream was played ad nauseaum and has become the definition of Dean by the wingnuts. Why should he worry so much about being non-threatening? He took the job and has a lot of very loyal supporters.
People in Hollywood say there is no bad publicity. I agree. Let the MSM cover him and report that he says the Republicans are a bunch of white Christians who have never worked a day in their life. Get the message out, it is not going to alienate anybody but those people who would never, ever, vote Democratic anyway.
Why are you so timid Billmon? Either Dean rallies the party and people come out and vote or else they say to hell with it and go to a third party. The status quo is not an option that does us any good.
Posted by: dan of steele | Jun 8 2005 20:17 utc | 1
I think MSM propaganday killed Dean candidacy. And I think MSM propaganda is again winning the day. What Dean is saying is not as bad as it is made out to be. What is the harm in speaking truth? Didn’t he win all his converts last time by being open and direct? So why change now?
I am surprised Democratic talking heads are not following the lead of the Rethug talking heads and are not tying this statement to the doings of Dobson, Frist et al and asking “where are the republican moderates and why aren’t they opposing what is happening, and isn’t that really proof that what Dean said is true?”
Unless we become vocal, we will not win another election.
Posted by: harry xing | Jun 8 2005 20:27 utc | 2
People in Hollywood say there is no bad publicity.
In Hollywood, maybe it’s true. In politics, it’s demonstrably false. Just ask Al Gore, Newt Gingrich, Ross Perot, Gary Hart, Gerald Ford, Ed Muskie and George Romney.
Get the message out, it is not going to alienate anybody but those people who would never, ever, vote Democratic anyway.
Yes, get the message out – the MESSAGE, not the foot-in-mouth ad libs. The idea is to KEEP voters from becoming the kind of people who would never, ever vote Democratic.
Either Dean rallies the party and people come out and vote or else they say to hell with it and go to a third party.
Or the GOP goes on winning, the Dems go on losing and the little splinter protest parties come and go – the status quo, in other words.
This isn’t about being timid. It’s about being creative, aggressive and unconventional — but also smart, cunning and disciplined. Those last three qualities are not generally associated with the Dems, I grant you. But they need to start cultivating them if they’re going to survive.
Posted by: Billmon | Jun 8 2005 20:31 utc | 3
Comparing the racist, hate filled remarks of Gringich to Dean’s comments is just not fair or accurate. Dean is telling the truth and, as always, when his comments are taken in context make a lot more sense then what the MSM reports (just read the entire text of his remarks about Republican’s not earning their pay).
Many of my Christian friends would agree with Dean: the core of the Republican party does belong to a certain type of Christians, usually those who hate gays and love their mules. And the vast majority of them are white white white.
The best way to deal with these attacks is to support Dean. Only because of the wimpyness of Billmon and other Democrats is this even an issue. If we used these opportunities to go on the attack and bring notice to the comments by Limbaugh and other Republicans, which are 10-times worse than Dean’s comments, we could make good political hay out of these attacks. Why didn’t Democrats point out Limbaugh’s comments implying Democrats are lazy, black, and nothing but a bunch of welfare abusers.
We (Democrats) will never reach the bible and mule crowd that controls the Republican party and we should quite trying. Moderate Christians will not be offended by Dean’s remarks.
Billmon I love you and agree with much of what you say, but sometimes your pessimism and “I can’t change anything” attitude gets on my nerves. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. Get some Lexapro, take it, and quit piling on Dean.
Posted by: alanc | Jun 8 2005 20:40 utc | 4
As long as Dean does what he was elected to do – change the way the national party apparatus thinks and raises money, build the state and local parties, and inspire the base to participate – then I am going to cut him a good deal of slack on his shoe leather craving. So far he seems doing the right things, so I’ll forgive him for speaking the truth once or twice.
Posted by: Tom DC/VA | Jun 8 2005 20:41 utc | 5
the core of the Republican party does belong to a certain type of Christians
But that’s not what Dean said, now is it. He didn’t say extremist political preachers, or right-wing bigots or even fundamentalist fanatics. He said “white Christians” — thereby falling into exactly the position the GOP wants the Dems to be in: the anti-white, anti-Christian party.
The best way to deal with these attacks is to support Dean. Only because of the wimpyness of Billmon and other Democrats is this even an issue.
First, I’m not a blogger, not a politician (thank God) so I get to call ’em like I see ’em. Second, I’m not a Democrat, just a fellow traveler. I support them because there is no viable alternative. Finally, what you call wimpyness I’d call political common sense — and a little self-discipline.
but sometimes your pessimism and “I can’t change anything” attitude gets on my nerves.
Maybe I’d be a little less pessimistic if the Democratic party could get its act together. But between the Vichy Democrats like Biden and Edwards, and those who think alienating 60% of the electorate is a really great move because it “tells it like it is,” it starts to look pretty fucking hopeless sometimes.
Posted by: Billmon | Jun 8 2005 20:59 utc | 6
there’s a first for everything and today i am disagreeing w/ you billmon. there is so much potential negative press for the thugs right now that what do the msm choose to review. here’s ms monica from msnbc ”
” you know its interesting dean started out representing the far left wing of party but now you’ve got him representing more moderate , beltway dems. what do you think of the liberal rhetoric from dean? he goes down to the deep south and then insults them by calling them evil and brain dead its almost a pscytsophrenic quality at the dnc and how long if the top dems are pointing that out before he hangs himself?” they said hangs himself about 10 times thruout the interview and kept referring to all the dc dems thinking he is bad for the party. what dem is saying he’s bad for the party? meanwhile we’ve got biden saying he’s good for the party and a lightening rod. although they are distancing themselves the farther out he gets he softens the blow for them because they all look more.. dada normal. even hilary came out w/ a fairly scaithing rethug comment this morn. don’t think the thugs aren’t going to be slinging the mud hot and heavy befor 06. by then dean being ‘outrageous’, although i hardly think ‘repub are mostly white and christian’ even borders on radical thought, will be so old hat. i want an election w/no tip toes. i want impeachment. i want things to heat up. why oh why can we get all hot and bothered,languishing in msn heaven about these statements most people know are true. and yet the DSM ??? anyone who buys into this is loosing perspective. they all know we hate bush, and everythng rethugs stand for. but he says it and oh no. i think he’s good for the party.
lets try this..
“what do you think of the anti gay homophobic party being represented by a man rumored by top repubs to be a closet gay,
i mean do you think its going to hurt the party or do you think most rightwingers are already such hypocrites the white house could getaway w/ their talking points being disseminated by bulldog hos,cokie?”
ok , i know it’s not the same thing and i see your point, i just don’t agree.
Posted by: annie | Jun 8 2005 21:10 utc | 7
The core of the Republican party does belong to a certain type of Christians
But that’s not what Dean said, now is it. He didn’t say extremist political preachers, or right-wing bigots or even fundamentalist fanatics. He said “white Christians” — thereby falling into exactly the position the GOP wants the Dems to be in: the anti-white, anti-Christian party.
Good point.
but sometimes your pessimism and “I can’t change anything” attitude gets on my nerves.
Maybe I’d be a little less pessimistic if the Democratic party could get its act together. But between the Vichy Democrats like Biden and Edwards, and those who think alienating 60% of the electorate is a really great move because it “tells it like it is,” it starts to look pretty fucking hopeless sometimes.
I’m not sure Dean’s remarks alienated 60% of the electorate, and who says Dean’s remarks are out of control? The same folks who created the infamous Scream video, i.e., the Corporate/Republican MSM. This is the core of my complaint about the Democrats and their inability to fight back. Folks who hate progressives and democracy are behind the anti-Dean spin and when we don’t stand up to them by rejecting their spin, they win. Maybe you and others don’t agree fully with Dean and I think you have some reasonable objections, but stating that Dean is one comment away from irrelevancy is not the way to deal with the anti-democrats or to improve Dean’s performance. Anything Dean says that is REMOTELY controversial will be spun by the Republican/MSM to hurt progressives. Progressives need both a good message and the ability to fight MSM media spin by fighting back, not piling on.
Posted by: alanc | Jun 8 2005 21:16 utc | 8
It’d be nice if the dems had some kind of message. Find Eugene McCarthy’s brain and stick it in Edwards’ skull and start NOW to oppose war and do “econ populism.”
Not a chance. There’s no way the party will bust the status quo in 2006. No way.
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 8 2005 21:21 utc | 9
Billmon, this is exactly the kind of timidity we need to overcome. I’m white, I was raised christian, and far from being alienated, when I heard Dean’s statement I said “HELL YEAH!”
And I think it’s just adorable that the republicans are now huffing and puffing about how insulting it is to be called white and christian.
Get a grip and let Dean do his thing. He’s getting himself airtime, he’s singlehandedly erasing the democratic PC-milquetoast stereotype, and he’s making the republicans look like the crybabies they are. It’s all good.
Posted by: Evan | Jun 8 2005 21:59 utc | 10
Well Master Of The Blog-essay.
this post contains the response to the Out Of The Running Post I couldn’t get together. What Dean does or doesn’t do matters not at all unless things aren’t as bleak as the Out Of The Running Post. It takes a lot of democratic fuck ups to keep the Republicans in power. Don’t blame the swingers.
And that post itself contains attenuated examples of exactly what Dean did, though, obviously, admittedly, this is apples and oranges, because frankess is what blogs are for, but, it is a gross breach of fiduciary duties and dereliction of duties when an offical party spokesman tries to prove he more dangerous before a mike than old Global test I did then I didn’t.
When it comes to hoplessness I say, tell me when an Democrat running for national office has made a crisp case against the Republican crony machine, and its fantasies of world domination, and an unaccountable crony class and for a crisp Democrat position on national security and no mercy to bad guys. I’ve been looking, and I sure missed that case being made. Until that case is made and lost, don’t blame the population. There is work to be done before that crucial test is run.
The Running post also veers into a description of Americans as Others. I know many jerks, assholes, sheeple, civic sponges, close minded spoiled technocrats, etc., but, not one of them I know is an Other, and, most are human near as I can tell, not so much indecent as crippled with one sulk or rage or the other. The sort that get triggered by white christian talk.
“Patriarchy” is a nice example of how to piss off the Other. “Patriarchy” pisses me off because there is no such thing as a patriarchy. Never was. Never will be. The truth is bad enough without throwing in a fifth rate construct that detracts from the forces at work. For hidebound, smug, yet devastatingly ill informed mental tatoos, it ranks up there with dialetical materialism, Rapture, and paradigm shift. Maybe I wouldn’t be so pissy if, after growing up on pre-Brownsmiller feminists, I didn’t have to listen to Debaters talk 300 words a minute with eco feminist critiques of the patriarchy for ten minutes at a stretch, which was the worst, until I had to sit through sneering nod nod wink wink Utah debaters completely miss what little point there was in the blather, debater, who, by now, are probably senior level White House operatives after a stint Friedman-izing Iraq.
Most telling though in Why Democrats lose are those posting here in defense of Dean. Here the Great Issue is why Democrats lose, and Dean is behaving like a loser, yet, those who blame the Republicans for all things Evil, are busy cheering Dean’s loser behavior on, and taking offense that any right minded person would criticize Dean. Change this one thing – dogmatists sanctimonously defending losers, and Democrats are back in power. But, principles are more important than Republican hegemony, huh?
It’s like old times. Let’s throw Micheal Moore and Ralph Nader and Israeli settlements on the fire and have a little orgy of commit political suicide so the Republicans can win by default. Maybe was the patriarchy made dogmatic anti empirical leftists commit political suicide with Manchurian tricks. ‘Rock a bye baby, in the tree top…..’, the ‘down wiill come baby’ part just set them up for self destruction.
Posted by: razor | Jun 8 2005 22:03 utc | 11
tell me when an Democrat running for national office has made a crisp case against the Republican crony machine, and its fantasies of world domination, and an unaccountable crony class and for a crisp Democrat position on national security and no mercy to bad guys. I’ve been looking, and I sure missed that case being made.
Thanks!
With all due respect, Billmon is way out to lunch on this one.
First, how many of the voters will ever hear of this comment? And how many are likely to change their votes on one comment 17 months before the midterm election, and 41 months before the general election?
The evidence that Dean has been Gingrichized is nonexistent. Dean’s latest approval/ diapproval ratings are 35/ 33 according to Gallup, 33/ 32 according to Fox. Bush exceeds the former +2 net approval rating in just one poll taken in the past 3 months. Gingrich’s disapproval rating was never this low- certainly not after, as Dean has, spending two years in the public eye.
Biden, Richardson, and to a lesser extent Edwards are from the Dolores Umbridge wing of the Democratic Party. (Yes, I’m a Harry Potter fan. Wanna make something of it?) Officious, by-the-book, and capable of inflicting pain only upon the “good guys” they don’t control. Debits to any cause they support. If they had any ideas on advancing the Democratic Party, they’d have put them forward during the campaign or during the DNC nomination process. They don’t; all they can do is complain.
I won’t say it’s our duty to support Dean right or wrong. I will say that we must not allow ourselves to sack our one and only public fighter on the basis of a couple of lines ripped out of context. Billmon, you ought to know better.
Posted by: Brian Jenkins | Jun 8 2005 22:13 utc | 13
“Patriarchy” pisses me off because there is no such thing as a patriarchy. Never was. Never will be.
What, exactly, do you think the “traditional morality” of the Old and New Testaments is based on? Utilitarianism?
I won’t say it’s our duty to support Dean right or wrong.
Actually, that seems to be pretty much what you’re saying. And it’s a defensible argument. If they put me on MSNBC or CNN as a spokesman for the Democratic Party (hahahahahaha) I guess I’d do my level best to defend him — or, more to the point, to turn every question into an attack on the Republican PARTY (not Republican voters, not white Christians.)
But I don’t feel compelled to be “on message” on my own blog. I’m posing a tough, practical question: Is Dean helping his team (which by default is my team as well) or is he hurting it. Right now I think he’s hurting more than he’s helping. And if he can’t turn that around he should leave.
This isn’t about what a great guy Howard Dean is, or about getting even with the Vichy Democrats, or about getting our rocks off because someone is rhetorically sticking it to the Republicans and the corporate media. It’s about winning. Because if we don’t start winning, this country is totally fucked.
Is Dean helping us win? I don’t think so. CAN he help us win? Yes, but he’s got to raise his game.
Posted by: Billmon | Jun 8 2005 22:56 utc | 14
A comment from outside. When a repug puts his foot in his mouth most of his fellow travellers appear to studiously ignore it and then stitch him up behind closed doors.
A bit of that here would be good. If Dean does have to go it would be good if it wasn’t from one of those irresponsible self destructive blood lettings.
In other words it’s probably smarter to be looking at faults in BushCo than spending anytime navel gazing or self flagellating.
It has been claimed that oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Jun 8 2005 23:09 utc | 15
I don’t think we’re very far apart, then.
Obviously, we want to win. But it’s clear that the DLC/ Biden/ Richadson method you’re temporarily endorsing- move ever-further to the right, save your harsh words for liberals, pray that every break goes your way- is not winning, and can’t be made to work reliably if at all.
These people had the opportunity to raise their objections during the nomination process. They didn’t do so in a way that convinced anyone. Of Dean’s opponents for the chairmanship, none ever had more than 15 DNC votes out of 447, and that level was only reached by Martin Frost’s control of the Texas delegation (over the opposition of Texas grassroots).
There simply is no evidence that Dean is hurting the Party. See the approval numbers above. (Those predate last week, of course, but we’ve been around this block before any number of times.) Fundraising is far ahead of any previous nonelection year. The 50-State Project is well ahead of an already ambitious schedule.
Also, Dean’s words are being parsed to a truly insane level. I’m not sure even Bill Clinton had to deal with his words being twisted this much, and remember that Dean was a doctor and thus has always been evaluated on verifiable results instead of semantics.
Dean will continue to lead the party because for all the caviling that is done by his opponents, they have no ideas and no one better. You do yourself and us a disservice by bitching and moaning.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 8 2005 23:12 utc | 16
Billmon,
I also think this is the first time I’ve ever disagreed with you, but you need to re-think this one. How is it dissing whites and Christians to say they are members of the Republican party??? John Harwood of the WSJ was on MSNBC this afternoon and he said that 9 out of 10 Bush voters were white, conservative Christians. Why not point it out? With a warning that some of it might not make sense because he was responding to another comment, let me refer you to this excellent post by Don from NYC(?) over at Daily Kos:
Effective public political discourse is about quick, effective sound bites, true or not. The problem is that you are thinking of this as a problem of grammar, when it is a problem of semiotics: good political discourse creates a truth, even if none exists. You statement, while very precise, is a description, when what is needed is a slogan. You provide people with quick, simple ideas and images on which they can hang their own preconceptions.
Look at advertising, which is what this is really about. Talk to successful ad execs and they will tell you the idea is to get the idea behind the product across in ten seconds or less. Beyond this, the idea is to build associations in the customer’s mind that tie the product to stereotypes (or archetypes, if you want to go deeper) the customer understands and can manipulate. Think of truly successful advertising and marketing slogans, like that of Coca-Cola: The Real ThingTM. The statement in and of itself means nothing – the real thing? It’s flavored sugar water – but that simple statement brings with it a raft of associations the customer can attach to the product which have nothing to do with the product but which build images in the mind. Think of Nike: Just Do ItTM. Once again, we’re talking about shoes and clothes here. But Nike uses that slogan to leverage an idea of lifestyle, and that is the key.
Example: what does Bush “stand for”? Compassionate Conservativism. A Strong America. Ownership Society. These slogans mean nothing, and we here know, perhaps better than both, how hollow they are. But they build an image to which a voter can attach his or her own preconceptions about what those can mean for the voter. What did Kerry stand for . . . ?
Simply put, your phrase is too long. It requires thinking and parsing. I do not mean this as a stereotypical rant about nanosecond attention spans, because the history of political discourse is replete with examples of quick, successful slogans. You want to give people a simple, quick phrase they can hold onto and build images with. This kind of sloganeering is not about policy or politics. It’s about image-building and mindshare. Most people do not care as much about politics as we here do. Most people pay attention to politics only at the lead up to an election. This is why a successful candidate/party must focus on effective slogan-building. You want to hit the voter with these simple, simplistic words and images over and over so that they start to build these images in their minds.
That said, let’s look at Dean’s statement: They all behave the same. They all look the same. It’s pretty much a white Christian party. It’s quick, It’s simple and it has a good image. It talks about the narrow focus of the modern GOP and ties it to an image which people can understand. The latest polls showing that almost 70% of the moderate, swing voters are uncomfortable with the GOP’s priorities tells me that tying the GOP to an image of white, fundamentalist Christians is an effective tool in the wake of the Schiavo mess. Dean’s other statement – Well, Republicans, I guess, can do that, because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives. – is even better, for the same reasons. Tying the GOP to the image of the oblivious silver spooner is genius. It’s the same attack the GOP has used on “liberals” for years.
It’s been said before, but I think it bears repeating: the Democratic party is not a monolithic party. Because of this, we are used to arguing among ourselves. Unfortunately, we now face an opponent who has mastered the art of presenting an easily-understood, monolithic image to the public. Democrats need to get used to the same kind of aggressive image-building, both positive and negative – that we have avoided. Policy makes for effective governance, but doesn’t win elections, and most people don’t delve that deeply into political discourse. To bolster the last point, I add only this: which party has spent the last twenty years stereotyping, vilifying and plain lying about its opponents, and which party is now in power?
Dean wrote the forward of Lakoff’s book on framing. I think it’s safe to say he’s being very carefully coached on his language. It’s time the other Dems follow his lead and take up the issues he’s introducing.
Posted by: Susan S | Jun 8 2005 23:27 utc | 18
Thanks, Billmon, for the reply to Razor. I laughed out loud when I read “never has been a patriarchy.” Whatever you say, Razor.
Now, whether using words like patriarchy makes good sense, politically, is another issue. identity politics, the divide, not unite aspect of that whole 70s thing is something else, and it hurts dems.
Ralph Reed lies his ass off and gets paid by Micro-fucking-soft, when Reed has allied with the Dominionists and supposedly said (I’ve read the quote at Theocracy.com, I believe, that it’s necessary to lie, etc. etc. until you get your patriarchal theocratic state installed.
I hope Dean creates a lot of shit for people to deal with, because I’m sick of Dems who don’t fight the Repukes. But, yeah, he should be more specific. He should say the republican party is rich, white panty-sniffers who want to tell you who to sleep with, while they steal your pension fund.
That would give the bimbettes something to talk about…
Tell it like it is to the white males who are getting screwed, but the republicans are playing “identity politics” with them. j
But, like Billmon, at this point, I’m so pessimistic about heading off a full-blown fascist state with muslims in concentration camps and alien and sedition acts and inform on your parents ala Stasi tactics…I think they’re just getting started, and Dean should ask about all these invasions of privacy for white people, and every other color.
I think we have evil people running this country right now. I guess, when they come to pick me up for posting such truth, this will be on my permanant record. Poindexter…Poindexter? Can you read me?
Posted by: fauxreal | Jun 8 2005 23:35 utc | 19
That said, let’s look at Dean’s statement: They all behave the same. They all look the same. It’s pretty much a white Christian party. It’s quick, It’s simple and it has a good image.
The kind of rationalizing that’s going on among the Dean-can-do-no-wrong crowd right now is just amazing.
Posted by: Billmon | Jun 8 2005 23:40 utc | 20
Billmon, again, what is your alternative? The repeatedly-discredited model of saying nice things to people who quite literally wish us dead? A huge bloody fight to get rid of the main reason John Kerry reached 200 electoral votes?
You say we’re rationalizing; I think we’d have to say you’re making mountains out of molehills.
Posted by: Brian Jenkins | Jun 8 2005 23:50 utc | 21
The bitching and crying that’s going on among the Dean-can-do-no-right crowd right now is just pathetic.
Posted by: nereus | Jun 9 2005 0:08 utc | 22
Billmon, I don´t get it. Yes, I sit outside, but why not have finally someone who raises some exitement.
There is a big crowd of not-voters, marginal repub voters, that can be activated by Dean.
Who elese could do this? Biden, Lieberman, some other skunk?
Billmon,
You said, “The kind of rationalizing that’s going on among the Dean-can-do-no-wrong crowd right now is just amazing.”
I think this was written by an advertising person. He’s obviously a Dean supporter, but seems to be writing from a professional perspective.
Posted by: Susan S | Jun 9 2005 0:16 utc | 24
Who elese could do this? Biden, Lieberman, some other skunk?
Bernhard:
Please don’t insult skunks.
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 9 2005 0:38 utc | 25
A comment from outside. When a repug puts his foot in his mouth most of his fellow travellers appear to studiously ignore it and then stitch him up behind closed doors.
A bit of that here would be good.
Thank you Debs
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 9 2005 0:46 utc | 26
Its pretty clear where Dean is going here. He’s decided to that the party needs to stop cow-towing to the DC hacks and their fat cat sponsors, and start relying on a large base of small donors.
But to make this play work you need to rouse the rabble, because only by creating a lot of controversy will enough money pour in to dilute the influence of the monied interests. Dean of course, is tailor-made for this role, and I’ll bet the DNC coffers are already statring to see the fruits of his labors.
So you’d better get used to our new, red meat chairman Billmon, cause there’s plenty where this came from. His damn-the-torpedoes strategy is now official party policy. Let the games begin.
Posted by: Night Owl | Jun 9 2005 1:00 utc | 27
I don’t get the fuss?!? The Republican Party IS largely White and “Christian”. Dean just pointed it out. Just like he pointed out how the capture of Saddam wouldn’t make any difference.
Posted by: Bollox Ref | Jun 9 2005 1:18 utc | 28
Suggested Terminology Substitution for Improvement of Denotative and Connotative Accuracy
oldspeak
MSM
newspeak
Corporate media
Posted by: mistah charley | Jun 9 2005 2:19 utc | 29
Guys Guys Guys
Stop shooting the messenger.
The least we owe to ourselved is not to reflexively circle the wagons with happy faces and convince ourselves that all is well.
Fact is Dean make a verbal screw up and one that could come back to smear the entire Democratic Party in a veneer of anti Christian gloss. We are trying to win here. We do not want to alienate evangelicals unessesarily. I mean when Carter and Bill won the Presidency, they carried a lot of “white Christians”.
Crap can’t you see that what Dean did is just plain stupid. He needs to talk smarter.
Can’t you see the damn difference between what Billmon is saying and what Joe Lieberman would say.
Because is you really can’t distinguish between Billmon’s criticism of Dean and Lieberman’s criticism of Dean then you have a hard time identifying your friends from your ennemies and as a party activist if you can’t do that then the party is in trouble.
A little thought and humility in the face of negative feedback from a friend of the party wouldn’t hurt.
That’s how I see it.
Posted by: Scott McArthur | Jun 9 2005 2:40 utc | 30
Aravosis points out that Danforth said the exact same thing as Dean.
Posted by: Tom DC/VA | Jun 9 2005 2:48 utc | 31
Well, even Billmon gets one wrong now and then.
I’m reading a fair amount of other stuff suggesting Dean is a getting the attention of many folks who were bamboolzled by his smearing the 1st time around.
I love Howard Dean. He has integrity. He doesn’t say this stuff ’cause a Rovian authority wrote the talking points: he says it because it’s his reaction to rw idiots. A statement made by a cow-tower is a lie: the exact same statement made by a believer is the truth.
I think Howard speaks the truth, and I like that. He reminds me of Teddy R. a bit.
God Bless Howard Dean. AFAIC, he’s the best dem to come down the pike in a looooong time.
Posted by: JDMcKay | Jun 9 2005 3:03 utc | 32
I’m a Clinton man. I like the way he plays the game, and I like the way he wins. I like the way he stopped the Republicans cold–not that he didn’t hesitate now and then to sound like one of them when it worked. He was “our first black President,” and I like to think about that particular achievement. I like the fact that the Beltway folks really detested him, and couldn’t put him away. I also like the fact that he has an interesting afterlife–no, an interesting future–as an emeritus President. Can anyone equal those achievements, or keep them going–of which the foremost was to keep the most improbable collection of people working under a single tent? Certainly not Gore, not McAuliffe, not Kerry, and probably not Dean. Each has found a piece of Clinton’s action, but not the whole game. And so we have to be merciful, or at least patient, with the lesser talents on call. I persist in believing that something interesting is in the works–that Clinton’s achievements have a future in the Democratic Party.
Posted by: alabama | Jun 9 2005 3:04 utc | 33
The problem is that the Demoplicans hate Dean as much, more really, than the Republicrats. He is out to change “their” party.
I think it needs changing. I think the ones who have to go are the ones distancing themselves from Dean.
It doesn’t seem they are about to go.
In fact they’ve caused Dean to say that the occupation of Iraq is unavoidable. That nothing can be done.
We can waste untold amounts of time, money and energy on the Demoplican Party or we can put that time, money and energy into an alternative.
Either way the Demoplicans lose in 2006 and 2008.
At least we’ve a chance of winning if we try something else. Who said going through the same old motions while expecting a different result was the mark of insanity?
“Anybody But Bush” got us nobody but Bush, and will continue to do so. We need a boldly stated alternative to everything the present regime stands for. Not a more refined nuance of exactly the same thing.
Harry Truman is said to have said that “when offered the choice between a son of a bitch and someone pretending to be a son of a bitch the voters’ll take the son of a bitch everytime”. Or something to that effect.
Dean’s not giving them hell. He’s telling them the truth and they think it’s hell. Or he was, up until he signed on to the occupation of Iraq.
In any case our energies must be expended outside of the Demoplican party if we are to be effective. Once we are the Democrats will be running around to the head of our parade to lead it.
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Jun 9 2005 3:52 utc | 34
@Bama:
I only respect Clinton as a very slick pol, probably the best since Johnson or FDR, but I have utterly no respect for the man. Period.
I have a lot for FDR, Johnson, and more than a little left over for Eisenhower.
And if the Dem party cannot figure out how to build a national coalition, based upon consensus and common values, they deserve to lose for 10,000 years.
Aside from spinning news, 21st century democrats have little to learn from him.
I believe they face a great leaning curve, and I hope they can catch up.
My devalued peso.
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 9 2005 4:01 utc | 35
I should add, I think Clinton was a connsumate sell-out.
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 9 2005 4:06 utc | 36
@Bernhard:
Since you are working on Version 2.0, it would be nice if you could add a spell-checker device for us Village Idiots.
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 9 2005 4:14 utc | 37
Why you don’t respect Clinton escapes me completely, FlashHarry, because it’s a fact that he “built a national coalition, based upon consensus and common values”. But you aren’t a part of that consensus; its values are not your own. Yours are “personal” values: absent respect for the particular person, you have no respect for the coalition that he builds. In effect, you’d “rather be right than President”. As for me, I’d “rather be President than right”. Because I’m a small-minded partisan, FlashHarry, and always have been. Watching Clinton take out Republicans, one by one by one, is for me the greatest high since the forced resignation of Richard Nixon. It makes me a trivial Democrat in some sense: In fact, I chiefly belong to the party for the thrill of hurting Republicans. I get my kicks from watching them crash and burn. A “politics of kicks,” if you will.
Posted by: alabama | Jun 9 2005 4:32 utc | 38
Thanks to Atrios, we are contributing money to the DNC in a show of support for Dean. If you feel like contributing, here’s the link: https://www.democrats.org/epatriots/give.html?sourcecode=E008984
This was posted on http://americablog.blogspot.com/
Howard Dean oops..John Danforth is an angry Democrat
by John in DC – 6/8/2005 10:34:00 PM
Gee, John Danforth is one angry Democrat. Oh, that’s right. He’s a former GOP Senator and not a Democrat at all. But, oh my, he criticizes the Republican party as being the party of conservative Christians. But, isn’t that what Howard Dean said? I’m so confused. Why isn’t the MSM all angry at John Danforth too?
From Danforth’s excellent NYT op ed earlier this year:
By a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians….
The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement….
But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives.
Posted by: susan | Jun 9 2005 4:54 utc | 39
Alabama, you’re an idiot:
Democrats in 1992: 56 Senators, 267 Representatives
Democrats in 2000: 45 Senators, 211 Representatives
Maybe you should get your “kicks” from a guy who isn’t ripping his party to shreds. Clinton didn’t take out Republicans “one by one”- he took out Democrats in bloody heaps. Clinton built less of a “coalition” than John Kerry did- and I have few kind things to say about Kerry.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 9 2005 5:10 utc | 40
@Bama:
That at 110 am wasn’t me.
We can agree to disagree.
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 9 2005 5:32 utc | 41
@Anon, 110 AM:
NO ONE SHOULD SAY ANYTHING KIND ABOUT JOHN KERRY!!!
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 9 2005 5:36 utc | 42
What’s with the circular firing squad, Billmon? Aren’t you fed up with the rented souls like Biden and Joementum and “Mydaddyworkedinamill” Edwards trying SO hard not to offend anyone who MIGHT vote democratic?
If Dean’s comments don’t make whoever’s reading them twinge and then nod, “yeah he’s got a point”, then they’d never vote that way anyway.
He’s doing a excellent job-let him serve his term and see how it all works out-we fixed the debt problem, now we need people to ACTUALLY VOTE FOR US (and for these votes to be counted properly, but that’s another topic)
Go vote for Joe or Joe then, if you think they’ll do any better-but leave my Howie alone!
Aren’t you fed up with the rented souls like Biden and Joementum and “Mydaddyworkedinamill” Edwards trying SO hard not to offend anyone who MIGHT vote democratic?
@DR:
Proper name of the senator from NJ, I think is Bidet. Course he probably plagarized it from a French book.
Son-Of-the-Cotton-Mill-Worker, a man allegedly fast on his feet, stellar civil plaintiff’s attorney, is perplexing , ain’t he now?
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 9 2005 5:52 utc | 44
Whatever you are, at 1:10 AM, you’re not a very persuasive statistician, and not a very reliable “historian”, either. The Democrats in Congress started their long, irreversible decline in the days of Jimmy Carter, and by the time Clinton came on the national scene, the Democrats in Congress were headed out the door. We’d want to study this with some care, I agree, but no one’s going to blame the fall of Wright and the rise of Gingrich on Bill Clinton–or if they do, they’ll only betray a rather unhealthy and indiscriminate tendency to demonize.
Posted by: alabama | Jun 9 2005 5:53 utc | 45
As for the “Republicans he didn’t take out one by one”: Bush the First, Quayle, Dole, Kemp, Gingrich, Livingston, the rising star of “Starr”…where are they now, that whole generation of Republican leaders? They took on Clinton directly, did they not? And where are they now, oh nameless one of 1:10 AM, exactly where are they now? As for those who fractured Clinton’s alliances in 2000, might we not start with his very own Vice-President and that high-toned spouse of his, folks who just couldn’t bear to accept the advice of their political betters? He really couldn’t graduate from Harvard, could he now?…. Oh well, not to worry, for the not-very-gifted Hillary knew how to follow instructions, and out went Rudolph Giuliani, and Little Ricky Lazio….
Posted by: alabama | Jun 9 2005 5:53 utc | 46
Politics in 21st century America is actually very simple.
Message discipline is very important–I agree will Billmon on this.
Next in relative order of importance are money; campaign management; and whatever candidate you’ve got to throw at it.
Give any Village Idiot $400 Million, James Carville, and a skunk, and you’ve got a winner.
Skunk would probably abdicate after a while:
All that “Hail to the Chief”, saluting, and climbing up and down the ramps of Air Force One
would probably get the best of him.
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 9 2005 6:24 utc | 47
I think in this case the messenger is less important than the audience.
As good folks above have pointed out, the fascists can scream the most outrageous things at the top of their lungs without eliciting real outrage. Dean sneezes and, wham!, he’s spreading malaria.
Until the US zeitgeist changes, the game of politics won’t matter much — and close elections will continue to be stolen.
Someone above wrote: Billmon I love you and agree with much of what you say, but sometimes your pessimism and “I can’t change anything” attitude gets on my nerves.
Me, I totally agree with Billmon. We cannot change anything, no more than the Germans could kick Hitler out or the Russians could overthrow Stalin.
Right now, few dare face the truth in the face because it is simply too ghastly to contemplate.
It’s the carnage (Germany) or the total crumbling of the State (USSR) that changed the zeitgeist of the Germans and the Russians, not internal politics.
Their opposition were killed or exiled or sent to camps, with a complicit population.
In the US, they’re “neutralized” by being made irrelevant. More humane but still the same.
The only way the US will change is when its population is chin-deep in shit of its own making — and no miracles at this time can prevent it from happening.
Posted by: Lupin | Jun 9 2005 6:53 utc | 48
Alabama, your idiocy compounds.
The Democrats had 277 Representatives in the 1979-80 Congress. That number depleted in the 1980 landslide but promptly returned to 269 in 1982, and stayed very close to that until Bill Clinton savaged his party. But Clintonites can’t deal with facts or numbers, so I’m not at all surprised that this is beyond your feeble comprehension.
As for that “generation,” Clinton CREATED Newt Gingrich, CREATED Ken Starr, CREATED Bob Livingston, and thus can get no credit when their furies devoured them. He also CREATED dozens of hard-right Congressmen and Senators and Governors who are still with us.
And what alliances are you talking about? Again, Clinton got a lower share of the electorate to vote for him than Gore or Kerry. He benefited from Ross Perot and Timothy McVeigh. Otherwise, he loses both races.
Posted by: Brian Jenkins | Jun 9 2005 8:33 utc | 49
Dean’s choice of words could have been better. Message precision as opposed to discipline. The target is right, he should have used a precision guided munition as opposed to carpet bombing. He could work on it. There is a a double standard at play here. Shock and awe is a useful tactic.
Posted by: SJS | Jun 9 2005 9:00 utc | 50
Bill Scher says it best:
http://www.liberaloasis.com/
Posted by: Susan S | Jun 9 2005 11:20 utc | 51
Dean-can-do-no-wrong crowd right now is just amazing.
I call them the “Limbaugh lefties.” Nothing brings them out more than any criticism whatsoever of dear leader. And they seem determined not to be satisfied until they force the Democratic party to have its very own “Goldwater moment.”
After Dean’s monumental crash and burn in the primaries where he got smoked initially by the white-Christian democrats of Iowa and New Hampshire, how anyone could view Howard Dean as a viable leader of the party is beyond me.
Posted by: bcf | Jun 9 2005 11:35 utc | 52
I want to refine my support of Billmon and his criticism of Dean.
It occured to me that the term ‘white Christian’ is a bit of a code word, much like the GOP uses when it says ‘Dred Scott case’ or ‘the second amendment’. When the GOP uses these phrases they activate their base and they activate people who dislike what the code word implies. So with Dred Scott you get anti abortionists worked up and with second amendment you get the gun lovers activiated.
“White Christian” is a code word for Dobson fundamentalist dominists, the kind of kooks who pushed the Shavio case and who are insisting on theocracy in America. Now as a code word it appeals to me and it appeals to many people who vote democrat.
The real question is does it appeal to people who didn’t vote for us in 2004? Billmon is obviously pessimistic on this score and if you look at the Gallup poll with soldiers, cops and revrends at the top of the voter appreciation ladder you can understand why.
But I am open to the fact that maybe so called independents, people who lean DEM on the issues but won’t be called one, might appreciate the message. For this to work, in the independents mind they have to split the difference between Christian and white Christian and they have to get it. They have to get that white Christian means un-American fundamentalist authoritarian. And they have to agree to the put down of this type of voter; the Dobson voter.
Maybe it can work. I am sure people in the Vermont and the North East get it. My only concern is will it help us in the south west mountain and great lakes states, which of course is where we need to build our majorities.
I would love for America to be the kind of country where a politiciain puts down white Christians and the electorate immediately understands that this means fundamentalist moron. But I am not 100% certain that America is that country and I think Dean has got to be careful. I don’t know the answer. It needs to be looked at.
Posted by: Scott McArthur | Jun 9 2005 12:29 utc | 53
Susan S,
‘ They all have done nothing but feed the GOP narrative that our party leader has contempt for voters.
‘ For example, Dodd said to CNN, “You don’t criticize the electorate.” That’s what Republican want people to think Dean did, not what he actually did.
‘ Instead, they could have stood with Dean, put Dean’s words in proper context, and amplified the message Dean was trying to send, not the message the GOP is trying to send. ‘
That’s what an opposition party would have done.
These people, these Demoplicans, are in opposition to Howard Dean and to anyone who would put back the D in Democrat. These Demoplicans are acting in solidarity with the Republicrat “narrative” because there IS NO DIFFERENCE between a Republicrat and a Demoplican…. except for the label on the box. Tide vs Blue Cheer. A distinction without a difference.
Drop these people like the bad pennies they are. Stop wasting time, money and energy on the Demoplican party. It will make no difference to them if the Republicrats win again or the Demoplicans lose again. Politics is a game to these people. They are unconcerned with the world between matches.
It’s life between the matches and deadly serious to the rest of us. There are people dying in Iraq as I write this. Victims of the Republicrat-Demoplican axis.
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Jun 9 2005 13:40 utc | 54
Billmon (if you read this far down)–
I think the comments from your fans reflect the frustration out there over the failure of the Beltway Dems (or Vichy Dems) to capitalize on the complete and utter failure that is the Bush Administration’s record.
The Democratic Party is nothing more than the moderate wing of the GOP. And as I continue to read that the Demos are losing working women, married people with kids, and losing in even bigger numbers white working class men, I am forced to ask two questions: (1) Hasn’t the Democratic Party outlived its usefulness? (2) Aren’t liberals in the party just pissing against the wind?
Call it what you want — ineptitude by the Demos, great propaganda by the Republicans, failure by the media to report reality, or abject stupidity and gullibility of the electorate — but the Democrats can’t see to win from losing.
Dean is probably trying to be the leader of an opposition party. He knows he’s got pretty strong support among Dems out in real America. But looking back it seems clear that he was destined to lose as party chair no matter what he did: If he’s a hard vocal critic of the GOP, he becomes “shrill.” If he’s a good guy among the Beltway circuit, he becomes “ineffective.”
My friends say I’m too pessimistic. But like they say on Wall Street, you can’t fight the tape. Unfortunately, I think the die is cast for the time being, and like it or not, we’re going to be a Republican Christo-fascist empire whose guiding principle with be Social Darwinism.
I think the Democratic Party deserves to die and those of us out there who care about America should start looking at what is next. Because, I’ve got to tell you folks, if our future is Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, we are fucked.
Posted by: Phil from New York | Jun 9 2005 13:42 utc | 55
Billmon (if you read this far down)–
I think the comments from your fans reflect the frustration out there over the failure of the Beltway Dems (or Vichy Dems) to capitalize on the complete and utter failure that is the Bush Administration’s record.
The Democratic Party is nothing more than the moderate wing of the GOP. And as I continue to read that the Demos are losing working women, married people with kids, and losing in even bigger numbers white working class men, I am forced to ask two questions: (1) Hasn’t the Democratic Party outlived its usefulness? (2) Aren’t liberals in the party just pissing against the wind?
Call it what you want — ineptitude by the Demos, great propaganda by the Republicans, failure by the media to report reality, or abject stupidity and gullibility of the electorate — but the Democrats can’t see to win from losing.
Dean is probably trying to be the leader of an opposition party. He knows he’s got pretty strong support among Dems out in real America. But looking back it seems clear that he was destined to lose as party chair no matter what he did: If he’s a hard vocal critic of the GOP, he becomes “shrill.” If he’s a good guy among the Beltway circuit, he becomes “ineffective.”
My friends say I’m too pessimistic. But like they say on Wall Street, you can’t fight the tape. Unfortunately, I think the die is cast for the time being, and like it or not, we’re going to be a Republican Christo-fascist empire whose guiding principle with be Social Darwinism.
I think the Democratic Party deserves to die and those of us out there who care about America should start looking at what is next. Because, I’ve got to tell you folks, if our future is Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, we are fucked.
Posted by: Phil from New York | Jun 9 2005 13:43 utc | 56
Unless things have changed over the past eighteen months, Dean is unacceptable to the pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian funders of the Democratic Party. AIPAC doesn’t like him at all. And though this little problem may not be a fit topic for polite conversation in Congressional circles, Democrats across the land had better understand it very clearly, lest they remain in ignorance as to why Dean’s being hung out to dry. So here’s a simple test for everyone to remember: when next you’re interviewing an office-holding Democrat on radio or television, don’t bother asking him or her about Howard Dean; just ask him or her to say a word or two about AIPAC, the West Bank, the new wall, the Israeli atomic weapons buildup–that sort of thing. The answers you get, if you get any answers at all, will give you a good idea of where Howard Dean stands in the thoughts of that Democrat.
Posted by: alabama | Jun 9 2005 13:50 utc | 57
Love the pessimism guys, but what the hell are we supposed to do? My husband and I seriously considered leaving the country following the November election, and we may still do it after my youngest graduates, but until then, we’re here and I’m choosing to fight.
Howard Dean inspires me. Maybe it’s just an illusion, but by working with DFA and the DEC, and now the Downing Street Memo group, I feel like I’m making a difference. I would only ask, besides sitting at your computer thinking of all the reasons we can’t make some changes, what have you done?
Posted by: Susan S | Jun 9 2005 14:02 utc | 58
Billmon has a point. But he makes the wrong conclusion.
Yes, Dean needs to stop dissing all white christians if Dems want to win elections. He has bought the GOP [and atheists’] propaganda that christian=Republican values. No, Dean doesn’t need to step down for it. Instead, Dean needs to schedule a weekly lunch date with Bill Moyers between now and the 2006 election to learn how to “speak christian”. It’s not the first time Dean showed his ignorance of religion.
Posted by: gylangirl | Jun 9 2005 14:17 utc | 59
Razor, you really ought to go read the book ‘The Chalice And The Blade’ by Riane Eisler. She doesn’t call it patriarchy, she calls it androcracy, but it does indeed exist.
–gylangirl
Posted by: gylangirl | Jun 9 2005 14:23 utc | 60
The Republican and Democratic parties and thier organizations are simply opposite sides of the same coin. And that coin is corruption and power.
The representatives and leadership, the powerbrokers, do not serve the people, they serve themselves whilst pandering to the corporate elites and moneyed lobby groups.
They care nothing for the people they are sworn to serve.
The Democrats are virtually complicit in rolling over to the Republicans on the big issue – the Rule of Law.
There is scant demonstration of sincere moral, ethical or principled beliefs from either parties hacks. They are simply ‘organic’ speaker systems for ‘spin doctors’, poll-masters and strategists attempting to leverage ‘interest groups’ on behalf of thier vested-interests. They are the ultimate conmen/thieves. They have conspired over generations to create a system of shared, two-party power. The differences between one party in power or the other is shades of grey …
The Repugs and Dems are simply a slicky packaged and marketed American equivalent of the exploitative European-ancestry elites that are finally being brought to account by the citizens of Bolivia.
Putting faith in the Dems to turn around the systemic changes the Repugs are endeavouring to cement in society has as much vailidity as Don Quixote charging at windmills.
Our supposed ‘Democracy’ has long ago been hijacked by an alternating set of corrupt, fraudulent ‘front’ parties that exist almost solely to maintain a status quo and prevent true democracy.
What ever happened to government of the People, by the People for the People … in the 21st century that ideal has become a sick taudry joke …
Where is Americas, ‘Velvet’ revolution … it’s long overdue …
My 0.2 cents is up.
Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.
Senator: Person who makes laws in Washington when not doing time. – Mark Twain
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 9 2005 14:33 utc | 61
Night Owl says:
But to make this play work you need to rouse the rabble, because only by creating a lot of controversy will enough money pour in to dilute the influence of the monied interests.
From this morning’s Burlington Free Press:
“…Dean out-raised [Terry] McAuliffe (Deans predecessor) in the first three months of 2005 compared with the first quarter of 2003, the last off-election year:
$13.8 million to $8.4 million.”
That’s a 64% increase.
Go Howard, Go!!!
Posted by: Juannie | Jun 9 2005 14:50 utc | 62
Tangetwise, Patriarchy is not a neutral description of what is found in the Old Testament, New Testament, Koran, I Ching, or Mahabbharata, among other patamou. Patriarchy is a half assed social construct that once again misdiagnoses and so mistreats some fundamental human forces and how they play out. Of couse, citing the Old and New Testament as examples of patriarchy, while faulting Dean for describing white christians as the other guys, illustrates my point: Use of the term “patriarchy” is a fair measure of people who deride both books, excepting a precious few, like many Minnesota Christians.
And I appreciate your sincerity, gylangirl, but the Chalice And The Blade I once owned and it is why androcracy and gynocracy irk me, The Chalic And The Blade and its contempt for the historical reality of the men women and children back across the generations is one of the reasons. It takes an anti homo sapien sapien view, in favor of the foolish idea, that the critical variable human variable is between the society of xx’s and the xy’s. Over the years the xx’s have taught me the hard way that is utter bullshit. The xx’s surely differ from the xy’s, but the gut agendas I have come across have nothing to do with Eisler distinctions, and an attempt to be feminist correct has proven poorly received from the real life xy’s whose opinions concerned me. Turns out, it is a class thing.
But that is all sideshow to the main event here which I sum up thusly:
‘We are right. The majority is wrong. They bad. Dean can do stupid things because the stupid things he does express how I feel.’ Great guys. Not more learned than the opposition, not more reality based, not more empirical. Pretty much same attitude, similar anger, different attachment.
Posted by: razor | Jun 9 2005 14:58 utc | 63
Good one, Outraged.
Senator: Person who makes laws in Washington when not doing time. – Mark Twain
@Susan S:
I would only ask, besides sitting at your computer thinking of all the reasons we can’t make some changes, what have you done?
All of the issues have to first be mentally and verbally ground fine in our patented dialectical hammermill. Our mill is slow.
We’ll probably decide (not to take a position) on the 33rd of Never, or thereabouts.
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 9 2005 14:58 utc | 64
@bama:
As for the “Republicans he didn’t take out one by one”: Bush the First, Quayle, Dole, Kemp, Gingrich, Livingston, the rising star of “Starr”…where are they now, that whole generation of Republican leaders? They took on Clinton directly, did they not?
I too like Clinton, a lot. Even admire him, particularly for his endurance against relentless attacks. (Reminded of Chris Rock line when guest hosting SNL in ’96(???): “Man, you see they way they go after this president? You’d think he was black!”) But “taking out” those guys a bit strong: Gingrich/Linvingston took themselves out. Starr never got taken out that I recall, and conservatives revere him still.
The “forces” that worked against Clinton have only gotten stronger, better rehearsed and more entrenched. They now work with the full backing/faith of the federal government (maybe they are now the federal government?).
Clinton never confronted them directly, rather won his battles with clever maneuvering, a persuasively likeable personality, and sound public policy. But he didn’t “take down” ideas behind those who attacked him, as is obvious by Gore’s defeat (???) and current Bush Admin policies. In interviews still, Clinton triangulates by discussing many of W’s most aggregious moves (Iraq/”free trade”) in nuanced terms as though Bush’s actions deserve honourable consideration.
Clinton defends W’s Iraq invasion: Dean calls it illegal war. Clinton defends W’s “free trade” (CAFTA) policies: Dean describes ’em as wholesale fed sellout to corp. America.
Clinton was wonderful in his time. Times have changed. Personally, I’ll take Dean’s direct, “draw a line in the sand” way of doing things. I can’t recall a major dem less encumbered with personal ambition or debts to special interests than Dean. As far as policy goes, his head is on damn straight.
I say, turn him loose. If Howard had gotten a little more honest air time (instead of “scream” smear), maybe a few less than 2/3 of US public would believe Al Quada = SH.
It’s a mistake looking to yesterday’s heroes as a model for what’s needed today. Repubs did that with Reagan, and ended up getting Bush… ’nuff said.
If Dean (or whoever) takes Bill’s best and learns, I’m all for it. I’d point out that even in ’04 most of dems were still running from Clinton. Howard, however, praised him and said publicly he would tap Clinton’s expertise on a number of issues.
This wasn’t pandering, it was honest/authentic. OMFG’s… isn’t this the kind’a guy every politically aware liberal wants to see in the race? Give the man some room to breathe.
footnote: I’d point out Hillary too is making high profile speaches drawing these lines in the sand in no uncertain terms. I’ve found myself wondering if she/Howard are sharing the same media advisors ///???.
Posted by: JDMcKay | Jun 9 2005 15:17 utc | 65
Billmon,
I can see your point. However, I think the Rude Pundit today is looking at the same situation and drawing a differnet conclusion – sort of a glass half empty/glass half full deal.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
Posted by: BushBGone | Jun 9 2005 15:38 utc | 66
@ Outraged, also:
CONGRESS, n.
A body of men who meet to repeal laws.
-Ambrose Bierce
Posted by: beq | Jun 9 2005 15:46 utc | 67
We don’t disagree, JDMcKay. I’m delighted with Dean–just as delighted today as I was on New Years Eve, 2003, when I bet someone $500 that Dean would win by 70 electoral votes. Clinton, of course, is infuriating much of the time, but I’ve never seen anyone score the way he did in November of ’98. Maybe the times have changed, but when I think of effective politics, that’s the election I think of. And I notice something else: I’ve never been very good at predicting the fallout of Clinton’s moves. Things break for the guy three or four moves down the board, because he thinks ahead in that way…..So here I am, still discouraged by the pro-Israeli animus against Dean. I’d never fault him for this, but I can’t fail to notice that this isn’t the sort of problem that bothered Clinton. I think Dean could use some very explicit support from Clinton in this particular area, and if he’s sought it out, I’d like to hear about that.
Posted by: alabama | Jun 9 2005 15:58 utc | 68
Dean is not worth debating. Stop focusing on other “people’s perceptions” of Dean. He can and does energize the base. BY focusing on his language you create a problem where none really exists. Shame on Billmon for continuing the discussion on this.
You wanna talk about gaffes focus on Bush.
Posted by: patience | Jun 9 2005 17:12 utc | 69
You don’t see people calling for the removal of Harry Reid do you? He called Bush a straight-up liar. He’s using the same language and the same messages as Dean. How is it any different?
web roundup:
– Salon: WarRoom today:
Democrats may question the wisdom of some of Dean’s remarks — we’ve done so ourselves — but it seems like an appropriate time to ask: Isn’t there some sort of pre-approved time limit on self-flagellation? And if there isn’t, might the Democrats who feel such a need to attack Dean for his lack of discipline find some discipline of their own?
(…)
Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, who voted yesterday to confirm Janice Rogers “Liberal Democracy = Slavery” Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals, said that Dean “doesn’t speak for me.”
(…)
“It’s a diversion from the real, central issues,” Sen. Ted Kennedy said yesterday. It’s also classic Democratic Party politics. “It seems to me that the shots at the chairman from Democratic elites says more about our party, sadly, than it does about Chairman Dean,” Jim Jordan, a Democratic consultant who has worked for Dean, told the Post. “Not much of a mystery really why we’re the minority party.”
Indeed.
No More Mr. Nice Blogg compares some of Dean’s comments w/our latest confirmed Bush Federal Judge, Janice Brown…
Howard Dean apparently went beyond the pale when he called the GOP “pretty much a white Christian party,” it’s OK for a future federal appeals court judge to talk like this:
“In the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery,” she has warned in speeches. Society and the courts have turned away from the founders’ emphasis on personal responsibility, she has argued, toward a culture of government regulation and dependency that threatens fundamental freedoms.
“We no longer find slavery abhorrent,” she told the conservative Federalist Society a few years ago. “We embrace it.”
And Athenae @ First Draft captures my sentiments well…
But then I think of all the crap Bush says and gets away with it. Like “I never said we weren’t concerned about Bin Laden.” Like mixing up Bin Laden and Hussein in the debates.
I think of Republican Sen. John Cornyn saying judges deserved to get their families hit because by siding with the law, they asked for it.
I think of Rick Santorum comparing gay sex to men on dogs.
And I think of how none of those headed a weeklong feeding frenzy on CNN and Fux News in which Republicans were called upon to denounce their comments. I think of how no Republican stood up and oh so quickly said, “He doesn’t speak for me, Sen. Man on Dog does not, that’s for sure.”
And then I start caring a little less about Howard’s speeches, and start wondering when we’re going to get some fucking parity around here, because I’m sick of judging my party by the standards they set.
The US can’t have a frank & honest dicsussion about Iraq, impending pension defaults, enviro/science/energy realites… or damn near anything else of importance to most everyone, and dems have caved on virtually everything of significance. But hanging Howard out to dry, no problem… take a number andstand in line!!!
Oh well, it’s only a living democracy we’re talking about. Hey, I know… let’s dissect the misogynist implications of displaying Pie Fight Ads to assuage the collective liberal mind’s intellectual/politico yearnings.
Posted by: JDMcKay | Jun 9 2005 17:28 utc | 71
Harry Reid’s an artist, Pat, and so I return to my current theme: how did the artist Harry Reid work it out with AIPAC.–for that’s what he’s surely done–and how could he be of assistance to Dean in this regard?
Posted by: alabama | Jun 9 2005 17:44 utc | 72
@ alabama et. al.
I think Dean could use some very explicit support from Clinton in this particular area
This is an important, and of course a passionate discussion. There’s a lot to be learned from all the viewpoints here.
Dean gets press/attention.
I’m a Vermonter but not a Democrat.
I’ve had my issues with Dean when he was governor and I have had several short, both public and private, conversations with him when he opposed my agenda (industrial hemp) here in VT.
I won’t say I know him but I’ve had personal contact and I believe he respected me.
Out of the box thinking and speech gets press.
We, Progressives are but a fringe of the Democratic party.
Dean rocks the boat, but maybe that is what we all need to wake up those deck chair loungers.
Let’s trust that Howard is doing the best he can and much better than any other Progressives with MSM attention, and work toward embarrassing the naysayers on this blog.
Bill and/or Howard,
If alabama’s message somehow gets to your attention from this forum, please pay attention.
Posted by: Juannie | Jun 9 2005 18:34 utc | 73
RudePundit sez:
Look, Dean’s the party chair. His job is to raise money, rally the troops, and bring people into the party. His success or failure is measured in bank accounts and mailing lists. And he’s a failed presidential candidate. The party establishment could have tossed him out to the exile pile with Al Gore, who keeps making amazing, passionate, intelligent speeches with all the impact of a fly fart at a System of a Down concert. But instead, the Democratic power elite decided to use Dean and his grassroots army of e-mail savvy warriors to regain relevance. They knew what they were getting. And if Dean becomes the lightning rod, so much the better for whoever is running in 2008.
This logic makes sense.
The counter-proposal seems to be that Dean’s characterization of the Republican’s might come back to haunt the Democratic party, that somehow Democrats will be cast as godless post-moderns. Makes sense too, but with one exception – The Democratic party has already been tarred with this brush. This is fearing the past, and confusing it with the future.
If the Republicans and the media they own succeed in cowing citizens into accepting an “evil Democrats” picture, that will be because they have already succeeded, the chess game already decided, the chicken’s head already cut off. If that’s true, we’re already gone and Dean’s statement can’t hurt anything not already dead.
But if the Republicans and the media they own are to be knocked off their game, it will be because we pull back their Wizard of Oz curtain. Do you hear all the criticisms of Dean? Listen closely, it sounds like “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!…”
The Republican pols do get away with identifying themselves as white Christians, and the first step to stripping them of all the false credibility they get from this reputation is to name them. Until now it has been unacceptable to criticize them for being white elitists or amoral Christians (no not immoral, amoral. Only one of those is forgivable for real Christians – the other is properly identified as Satanic, to be rejected).
Until we – until the Democratic spokesperson – identifies the Republicans with a name they cannot duck, we will have no purchase on the Republicans. I support Dean’s efforts to move the Republicans out from behind the political gunsights and put them out in the shooting gallery with the rest of us.
Posted by: citizen | Jun 9 2005 19:29 utc | 74
@ Bama:
I bet someone $500 that Dean would win by 70 electoral votes.
t’heehee. 🙂
IMO, Dean is doing a wonderful job building dem southern state base… bringing in the best ambassadors the dems have to offer. I attended the Little Rock event a few weeks ago: Wellstone was keynote speaker. The room (+- 500) was full, and there were many curious non-dems checking things out.
I was impressed. Wellstone addresed much of what’s gotten Dean in hot water, but in more relaxed tones. My sense is this thing made a difference, and is on right track.
I applaud Dean for this stuff. If “establishment” doesn’t like it, fuck ’em.
So here I am, still discouraged by the pro-Israeli animus against Dean.
I don’t know what this is all about… (AIPAC etc). To best of my knowledge, AIPAC is mired in scandal… no?
I’d never fault him for this, but I can’t fail to notice that this isn’t the sort of problem that bothered Clinton.
At risk of opening my mouth only to switch feet, seems to me Clinton didn’t have to deal with neo-con Jewish powerbrokers: they were relegated to FOX news during those years. Now, they’re calling the shots. My sense is those guys don’t speak for majority of Israelis (eg. most want abandonement of settlements f:ex), nor most US Jews.
Posted by: JDMcKay | Jun 9 2005 19:58 utc | 76
It’s about funding campaigns, JDMcKay, and, it matters too much to the fundraisers. The topic is not a small one….
Posted by: alabama | Jun 9 2005 22:24 utc | 77
@bama:
Is there evidence beyond Dean’s ’03 comment (“must be evenhanded”/”not take sides”) that he has a Jewish problem? Could be, but I’m not aware of it.
Besides, if as rumoured W’ goes into Iran, by time next election rolls around things could be such a mess that AIPAC influences will be drowned.
Posted by: JDMcKay | Jun 10 2005 0:45 utc | 78
BTW take a look @ ATRIOS’ fundraising drive as a result of this imbroglio.
Posted by: JDMcKay | Jun 10 2005 0:47 utc | 79
Many defenses of Dean completely miss a basic point: He has just insulted people he needs to close a sell with, who, are THE traditional base of the Democratic party. There is no excuse for this. It was sheer laziness, as proven by his ability to use the divide and conquer strategy later – the leadership vs the people, a classic distinction leftists should know well.
It resembles the Kerry global test screw up, in that it suggests it reflects something about his true feelings, or, why say it?
So decide? Are you anti white christian or not? There are at least 38.2 infinities of ways to distinguish between right wing christians and other christians, in Christian terms alone, starting with who is the Christian and who is the Phrarisee.
Posted by: razor | Jun 10 2005 2:48 utc | 80
Majikthise has already cited a man who has already done the work Dean should have done:http://www.opednews.com/
Posted by: razor | Jun 10 2005 2:50 utc | 81
Republicans: The Anti-Christian, Christian Party
by Stephen Crockett
http://www.OpEdNews.com
Howard Dean has received a great deal of unfair criticism for calling the Republicans a “pretty much white Christian party.” Dean was actually far too mild in his comments and his description of the Republican Party in regards to their narrow demographic and ideological base.
This is exactly the sort of conversation that starts once the beast gets named. It’s exactly what I was talking about in my 3:29 post, and Dean gets the credit.
Because they aren’t really Christian – but this is the first time they’ve made themselves vulnerable on the name.
Posted by: citizen | Jun 10 2005 3:05 utc | 82
citizen
now that is spin-o-licious Rove worthy. I guess if I use the n word, then I get a discussion going, too. Kudos to me.
Posted by: razor | Jun 10 2005 3:10 utc | 83
If Dean wanted to hit white Republican christians where it really hurts, he’d have been better off taking the “Jesus is a liberal and so anybody who votes against or undermines liberal policies that heal the sick and feed the hungry and make peace between enemies
is not with Jesus but is against Jesus” tack.
Posted by: gylangirl | Jun 10 2005 3:23 utc | 84
this is what brazile had to say:
>>BASH: Donna, do you think that’s true? Do you think [dean]is not going to last throughout the year?
DONNA BRAZILE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Oh, I think Dean will not only last throughout the year, but Dean will go down in history as one of the most successful chairs.
Look, he’s been on the job for four months. He taken the party in places where it hasn’t been in many, many years…<<
historic. that's a pretty remarkable statement. maybe it's hyperbole. or maybe she has vision that billmon is lacking. brazile is closer to the ground and knows what's being accomplished behind the scenes.
sorry if dean's crude rhetoric offended your high falutin sensibilities, but know this, all the dainty, dispassionate, go- along-to-get-along, salon manners from the corporatecrats haven't won us shit. as a matter of fact, that style of rhetoric probably has distanced the party from working class stiffs who spots 'em a mile away for their inauthenticty.
Posted by: hello | Jun 10 2005 3:41 utc | 85
re:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2005.06.09.html
*borrowed dainty from rude pundit. just was so apropos.
Posted by: hello | Jun 10 2005 3:45 utc | 86
Actually razor, part of what makes it effective is that Dean has established his ability to martial support, money support from actual people, not corporate ones. The Demopublicans and the Republicans will both fight him, and shoot themselves in the feet. You shooting your mouth off would be mere folly.
And gylangirl, I think your approach works in person, and it’s the sort of approach I take in person too. But for Dean, giving the beast a name will probably work better than hoping people will buy “Jesus was a liberal.”
Posted by: citizen | Jun 10 2005 3:57 utc | 87
oh, and dean has point to gingrich as a model to follow. let’s remember it was with gingrich’s loud, agressive, bellowing, call-to-arms, over the top rhetoric that helped the gop finally managed to capture congress before gingrich was given the heave ho. it wasn’t won by being all mealy mouthed about it.
want dems to recapture white male voters again? you don’t do it by sounding feme.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 10 2005 4:02 utc | 88
If memory serves, JDMcKay, Dean’s problems came when he made that very comment. I, for one, was truly shocked by the instantaneous and overbearing slapdown that he got from Nancy Pelosi and other liberal Democrats at the time, and Pelosi, for one, hasn’t made any subsequent, conciliatory gestures that I’m aware of. It’s all a bit mysterious: Dean’s wife is Jewish, and they met as students at Albert Einstein (a branch of Yeshiva University). Given this context, I’d expect some strong Jewish support for Dean, but I haven’t seen it anywhere. Someone should set me straight if I’m wrong about this (maybe some beltway folks, familiar with the inner workings of the fundraising money machine, could help us out here).
Posted by: alabama | Jun 10 2005 4:06 utc | 90
Hello @ 11:41 –
Oh lord, I fear for my man Howard, that is the infamious Donna Brazile kiss-of-death. Whenever she makes predictions beyond the blatantly obvious it is usually safe to bet the opposite. She’s sort of like a compass that always points the wrong way.
Alabama @ 12:06 –
There is Jewish support for Dean, I believe his campaign finance chair is one of the bigger Jewish Democratic fundraisers. (sorry the name escapes me at the moment)
The problem is the Israeli controled AIPAC hates Howard’s guts and they OWN most Jewish Democratic politicians in DC like Pelosi. (Pelosi is also threatened by the Beltway dems losing power to the grassroots no matter how bad she wants to be speaker)
Sadly the danger of pointing any of this out (or being critical of Israel in any way) is people accuse you of being an anti-Semite.
Posted by: ces | Jun 10 2005 5:30 utc | 91
There are 2 separate issues here – what Dean said, and how it’s being overblown by frightened elites who aren’t sure they can control him, or the masses who he was hired to sucker money from to feed to the Pirates. When you’re sitting on top & know that every goddamn plan in your playbook will screw your base, you tend to get overwrought quickly.
That said, I think we’d be far better served if Dean took a divide and conquer approach – attacking the Theocratic leadership rather than the “Christian” base. Some of them are gungho Theocrats, but most would be surprised by the real agenda. He should be going around the country everywhere explaining to people “Dominionism” etc, & the implications for their lives, which even many theos probably cannot grasp.
As for so-called winning, this discussion seems to be held as if the “Dems” haven’t won every Presidential election since ’92. If they want to actually take office, they’d better focus on the voting machinery – all of them. Otherwise, it’s so much hot air.
The Best Take on Dean & the Party comes as usual from John MacArthur, publisher of Harpers. Link
Posted by: jj | Jun 10 2005 5:48 utc | 92
At the Whiskey Bar, in a post entitled “Howard’s End” (@11:45 PM), Billmon makes a straightforward and compelling distinction between Dean’s partisanship, which he rather applauds, and his intemperance, which he rather regards as a disaster in a Party Chairman. His reasoning is strategic and rhetorical: hot comments, being by definition sweeping and categorical (and having, as it were, no conditional escape clauses embedded within them) can always be twisted and flipped by those who disagree, inside or outside the party.
Posted by: alabama | Jun 10 2005 5:57 utc | 94
This hot rhetoric is especially problematic when the party’s own mind is divided (and obviously less so when the party’s aflame with a single-minded consensus), and therefore Billmon thinks that Dean should go. A counter-argument might hold that the Democrats have to become single-minded if they wish to compete with an absolutist Republican party. But is the Republican Party itself so single-minded? I happen to think that it’s not–that it’s as least as divided as the Democrats’, and that a more diplomatic chairman could lure a lot of disaffected Republicans to the Democratic cause, something Dean may not be equipped or inclined to do (voters for Voinovich, for example, might welcome a fling with the Democrats in 2006). In any event, the Democratic Party is not at this moment single-minded, and that’s a reality that we have to live with.
Posted by: alabama | Jun 10 2005 5:58 utc | 95
“and therefore Billmon thinks that Dean should go” actually what he says is
I hope Dean can find the right balance between partisan flamethrower and party leader. But if he can’t, he should step down
i’m having faith he can find that balance. thanks for the great post.
Posted by: annie | Jun 10 2005 6:17 utc | 96
With the good comes the bad.
In my calculus, the good Dean is doing on the inside far out weighs any bad he is doing on the outside. That is my bottom line.
And the truth is there IS NO other leader in the Democratic party that can step up and dish it out AT ALL. Dean is now the public face by default, because nobody else has the skills to be a real leader. Just look at that lamer Biden: why do you think the corporate media always has him on the Sunday talk shows? Because he sucks as a Democrat. Dean at least looks and acts like he stands for something (because he does). People respect that. People don’t respect the Democratic Party these days, and certainly not their spineless Congressional ‘leaders’. That needs to be changed, and it won’t be done with by speaking perfectly diplomatic language all the time.
Posted by: Tom DC/VA | Jun 10 2005 6:42 utc | 97
billmon has written again on “Howard’s End”, and I can agree that Dean probably didn’t plan that phrase out in advance as a brilliant strategy.
But, I don’t think it’s a problem if the corporate media hoses Dean again, because the man has been innoculated against such spurious insults from a partisan media (not absolutely safe, but his supporters will not be so quick to abandon a still sound ship this time). The problem only comes if too many Democrats abandon him. But if its just a few “kingmakers” trying to ditch him and restore their power, this could be quite a blessing. If they backstab, but then Dean gets even more donations than anyone ever before (note all the desperate lying to pretend that he hasn’t collected than any DNC chair before in an off election year) then we really win because the party might come back to its grassroots long enough to become an actual opposition party.
But let me speak more empirically. Razor isn’t the only maroon equating “white Christians” with “n—–“, Republicans are doing it everywhere. And as Billmon pointed out in his latest, when the enemy starts talking your points that’s gold. Every time some jackass repeats that Dean’s the real racist not the GOP, everyone on both sides knows they are lying.
To get through the media filter, the Dems need to use attack lines that are hard to flip, and difficult to answer without reinforcing the desired message. Saying DeLay should be thrown in jail is a classic example: It not only plays on the growing public impression that the guy is a crook, it also forces the Republicans to keep talking about those perceptions. If, for example, they respond by arguing that DeLay has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing, they’ve already given the game away.
My thoughts exactly. But where I differ is that I think the “white Christians” name works similarly, only this time its a positive label that works by displaying how thoroughtly the GOP leaders represent only what is false in that name. Now, I realize Billmon may be right about Dean’s remarks being easy to flip, but there are good reasons to disagree. From billmon:
the conversation goes something like this:
Dean: The problem with the Republican Party is that it only cares about white Christians.
Republicans: Why do the Democrats hate white Christians?
Dean: We don’t hate white Christians, but we think America should have room for many colors and creeds.
Republicans: So do we, and our party does too (Colin Powell Condy Rice Colin Powell Condy Rice.) But we just don’t understand why you Democrats hate white people and Christianity so much.
And so on. The dialogue tends to trap the Dems into denying they’ve got anything against white Christians — or, at best, into explaining why being the “white Christian party” is not a good thing — instead of forcing the Republicans to deny or defend their slavish devotion to the same people who gave us the Terri Schiavo circus.
I see the point, but it ignores all the delicious stupidities that the Republicans will and are already saying about how Dean has insulted them and Americans by calling them white Christians. This built of false outrage will not actually play. It’s like Yao Ming saying that one of his opponents insulted him by calling him “tall.” If he were to keep it up for too long, people would start to wonder what the hell is wrong with his basic understanding. A few days of this and all Dean has to say is:
Dean: The problem with the Republican Party is that it only cares about white Christians.
Republicans: Why do the Democrats hate white Christians?
Dean: We don’t hate white Christians, but you Republicans sure do seem to feel that those are fighting words. Why are you so insulted to be called white and Christian?
Republicans: We’re proud to be… I mean… Why does Dean hate America?
They don’t love whites and they don’t love Christ, and Dean is setting them up to make that obvious through their own words. And it’s fricking brilliant because the media won’t cover Dean properly, but they will cover GOP and DNC types attacking Dean.
I respect your arguments billmon, but from here it looks like judo.
Posted by: citizen | Jun 10 2005 6:44 utc | 98
editing mistake, this phrase only needed to be said the first time, cut it from the second dialog –
Dean: The problem with the Republican Party is that it only cares about white Christians.
Posted by: citizen | Jun 10 2005 6:48 utc | 99
Oh lord, I fear for my man Howard, that is the infamious Donna Brazile kiss-of-death. Whenever she makes predictions beyond the blatantly obvious it is usually safe to bet the opposite. She’s sort of like a compass that always points the wrong way.
Posted by: ces | June 10, 2005 01:30 AM | #
that’s not true, ces. if people had listened to her, we wouldn’t be in this shithole now. note how she was fired for bringing up the existence of ghwb’s mistress and questioning why the press wasn’t making this an issue. anybody fired for being too agressive is ok by me in a party where the premium seems to be in playing it safe. caution is for losers.
brazile’s is usally the voice pointing to the flaws and ineffectiveness of the ruling elite. she noted how dems do “drive-by” campaigning during elections. she complained the only time blacks are paid any attention is during the week of the election. and even then it’s only lip service that they get.
the lousiana dem senator wouldn’t have won her seat if brazile didn’t run interference and heal a rift between landrieu and the black community.
and right before the dnc chairmanship election, brazile wrote an open letter to vichy scum warning them not to rig the game
and threatened that if they did, she would go public with their corrupt machinations.
brazile has been good for the party acting as whistleblower, warning them to keep faithful to the grassroots.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 10 2005 23:10 utc | 100