Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Governer Dean Becomes Chair of DNC

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the good-for-him dept.

Democrats 219

sg3000 writes "It's official: the Democrats elected Howard Dean as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Dean won the position after a particularly contentious run for chairman, as reported in The New Republic. Governor Dean became a national figure during his impressive run for president in 2003, where he started as an outsider and long-shot candidate but became the front runner, only to see support fail to materialize during the Iowa caucuses."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Dean says ... (-1, Troll)

xmas2003 (739875) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654351)

AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Re:Dean says ... (1)

solafide (845228) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655576)

You know I still have the parody music from his YEAAAH! speech on my computer? Very invigorating. Amazing what happens when you use Realplayer and it.

Too bad they didn't elect McGovern... The quintessential gey-rightist.

Re:Dean says ... (2, Informative)

masterOfTheObivous (858583) | more than 9 years ago | (#11656480)

While I still laughed, the reason he "screamed" is still largely misunderstood. While many think that it was due only to his overenthusiasm, this is in fact not the case.

As might be imagined, the roar of the crowd at the event must have been deafening. This is a definite problem for those who want to use a microphone to speak- a balance must be struck between sensitivity and volume. However, what is instead used is a noise-cancelling microphone that reinforces the speaker's voice and blocks out background noises. Listen to any newscast in an area with lots of ambient noise, and you'll notice that the background seems "blocked out" whenever the reporter starts speaking.

Apparently, Howard Dean was so overwhelmed with the noise of the crowd that he felt the need to raise his voice in order for them to hear him. What came out was that mangled cry that he is now famous for. That unearthly sound may very well have cost him the Democratic nomination- all becuase of a microphone.

For those unbelievers out there, a few people were standing right near the stage taping the event on camcorders. They claim that Dean was absolutely impossible to hear over the roar of the crowd, and that only later did they realize he had screamed- when they came home to trun on the news. They never would have known otherwise.

Re:Dean says ... (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 9 years ago | (#11656680)

Obivously.

Spelling Mistake? (1)

Ieshan (409693) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654362)

In article title: Not "Governer", "Governor"

BALRHGHGHASGHH!

Democratic Attempt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11654366)

The Democratic Party has long been trying to appear more "with it" for the past couple of decades. Howard Dean struck a chord with the comman man, perhaps this will bring more attention to the party and their goals.

Re:Democratic Attempt? (1, Interesting)

maunleon (172815) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654431)

Struck a cord with the common man? Come on, Howard Dean was a joke, and it shows there is a leadership problem at the top of the Dem party.

If this is the best they can do, I'm sorry for them. They need someone who can distance himself from the mudslinging and negative image the democrat party got during the last election. Put some class back in the Democrat party. Select someone with class and integrity, even if his name is not as well known as Dean.

Like it or not, the last election was more of an indictment of the demorats than a victory for the republicans.

Re:Democratic Attempt? (0, Flamebait)

kevin lyda (4803) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654481)

i'm just curious, when you suck down that much right-wing spin (regardless of your own political views), do you get dizzy?

Re:Democratic Attempt? (5, Insightful)

rkcallaghan (858110) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654502)

Struck a cord with the common man? Come on, Howard Dean was a joke, and it shows there is a leadership problem at the top of the Dem party.

I agree with you that Dean wasn't the one striking a chord with the common man, but I don't think that was the reason. As much as I, and many here, hate George W. Bush, the reason he's in office is "striking a chord with the common man."

He comes off as "common man" with his poor speaking abilities. He goes to schools, and reads stories to children. He went out in the crowd of terrified family members after 9/11, shaking hands and pausing to listen to frightened citizens stories. Then shortly after, he stood up and told the country that he was going to make us safer, and make it alright.

"Common men" don't care about secret tribunals, election fraud, attacking the wrong guy, invading soveriegn nations, alienating the world, or any of that stuff that "nerds" (of all types) care about. They want to be told that their leader empathizes with them, and that by golly, he's going to make it right. That's the stuff that makes the "common man" sleep easy at night.

~Rebecca

Re:Democratic Attempt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11654566)

imho, and in many, many other's, bush is in office thanks only to a corrupted election

see mom, money can buy anyone

Re:Democratic Attempt? (3, Insightful)

Hard_Code (49548) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654903)

I really detest that cynical attitude. That the only ones whose opinions are fit are these theoretical "joe sixpacks" that go to blue collar jobs, don't read books, drink domestic beer, etc. etc. I think that stereotype, and buying into it, is stupid, and I don't think any American "common" or "uncommon" should buy into an idea that their opinion doesn't really matter because they are not somehow the "prototypical American". There is no prototypical American. There is no universal Joe Sixpack. There's an implicit reverse elitism in that. There is no fucking reason a lab-worker or aerospace engineer, or single mother middle-manager, or ex-drug-addict playwright are any LESS American than our theoretical Joe Sixpack. I think that's what makes us Americans.

Re:Democratic Attempt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11658420)

As much as I, and many here, hate George W. Bush

There's your problem. The typical American doesn't "hate" Bush. They may not agree with him, but they won't go as far as hating him. When you spout hatred, you turn off the majority of Americans.

And don't give me that shit about the 2000 election. I saw as much (maybe more) voter fraud on the left as you did on the right.

If the Dems EVER want to win another election, they're going to have to get the hatred out of their system and come up with REALISTIC plans to solve the country's problems. Yelling (Dean), screaming (Dean), and hate (Dean said he hates Republicans) just won't do it. Americans are smarter than you think.

Re:Democratic Attempt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11656988)

The GP didn't say "common man", he said "comman man". HD may not have struck a chord with the common man, but he sure did with the comman man.

What ever that is.

Former Republican Governor of Vermont... (2, Insightful)

jpatters (883) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654415)

Dean? A Democrat? Yes, he signed civil unions into law, but publicly declaired his discomfort about it and did the signing in private with no press allowed. He was practically the Republican governor of Vermont for ten years!

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont... (4, Insightful)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654437)

Psst...

Gay rights are not a core Democratic platform. Every democratic presidentcal candidate EVER has been against Gay marriage. At the most expansionist, they're in favor of it being up to the states.

(Gay rights are included within a few other party ideals, but they're hardly a major issue.)

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont... (4, Insightful)

Pendersempai (625351) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655199)

Sad but true. Gay rights are not a core Democratic issue. But they SHOULD be. Democrats are having a hard time distinguishing themselves from Republicans. No one believes that they're in favor of fiscal responsibility, or that their position on Iraq is viable.

But if they remade themselves as the Party of Tolerance, I think they could do a lot better. They could brand the Republicans as intolerant, exclusionist, backwards. They could make gay rights into the Civil Rights struggle of the new generation that it will inevitably be and call themselves the champions of it. They could personalize all of the anti-gay policies the GOP pushes under the sterile cover of "protecting the sanctity of marriage." Put some very charismatic, very likable gay people on TV. Have them tell their stories. "Why does President Bush hate this man? Why doesn't he deserve the right to marry someone he loves? Why does the Republican Party think they're more moral than him, when he's just trying to live his life with the hand God dealt him?" The Republicans are VERY vulnerable on this front, and the Democrats could make a lot of headway pushing at it. They could also make the world a much better place.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont... (2, Insightful)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655346)

And if they did that, then the Republicans could reincarnate Hitler and get the vast Christian majority of this country to vote him in on "moral issues."

Kerry ran and was fairly open about wanting tolerance -- and he lost to a President with the lowest par-approval rating EVER.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont... (1)

Lance Petersen (858724) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655527)

I've backed Kerry since way back before he won the first primaries (4JKB4IA), but when was he ever "open about wanting tolerance"? Kerry stood for a lot of specifics: affordable health care, smarter foreign policy, &c. The values Kerry stood for were mainly those of nuance, not of tolerance.

That said, I do think the Democrats could do better by reshaping their rhetoric along the common thread of tolerance.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont... (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 9 years ago | (#11656503)

but when was he ever "open about wanting tolerance"?

Watch the debates?

Right then and there.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11655913)

Thank god Dean was made DNC chairman. With any luck, he'll get the nomination in '08.

4 more years of Republican leadership after that.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont... (3, Insightful)

moof1138 (215921) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655665)

"Gay rights are not a core Democratic issue. But they SHOULD be. Democrats are having a hard time distinguishing themselves from Republicans. No one believes that they're in favor of fiscal responsibility, or that their position on Iraq is viable."

What the Dems really need to do is convince the American people that they are more fiscally responsible than Republicans. After all, this is actually true, and it appears that the fiscal profligacy and incompetence of the Republicans isn't likely to ever end.

They also need to make sure that people know that the core values of the Democratic party are affordable healthcare, protecting american jobs, and affordable education, and that these can be achieved while being far more fiscally responsible. They also need to do a better job of pointing out that the Republicans have failed us with respect to all of those goals.

I am all for gay rights, and am disgusted by the cynical and twisted rhetoric that the Republicans use to try to use people's fear and hatred of gays to push their agenda, but I don't think that should be the focus, as it really isn't going to give that much headway. There are a lot more bigoted jerks in this country than there should be, and many of them will be more motivated to vote based on hate and fear than anything else. While the Dems should be progressive, they shouldn't be holding up their banner about an issue that they have consistently gotten bloody noses on.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11656706)

What the Dems really need to do is convince the American people that they are more fiscally responsible than Republicans. After all, this is actually true...

That's such a cute falsehood.

I'm not saying the republicans are fiscally responsible - just that the democrats sure haven't shown they are either.

What the democrats really need is to give people a reason to vote for them. Lately they seem to be the party of "We're not Bush," which brings just about enough people onboard to narrowly lose.

Oops, going AC now, I've violated groupthink...

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont... (2, Insightful)

moof1138 (215921) | more than 9 years ago | (#11657945)

"I'm not saying the republicans are fiscally responsible - just that the democrats sure haven't shown they are either."

I guess you missed the Clinton administration...

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont... (1, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#11657609)

Both sides spend money like drunken sailors, it's just only the side not currently in power bitches about it.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont... (1, Insightful)

js7a (579872) | more than 9 years ago | (#11658072)

Has it occured to you that the Republican base supports the GOP because the bigoted, intolerant, exclusionism is compatible with their bible-belt religious beliefs?

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11658461)

There are millions of Republicans in California and New York too, you know.

And, believe it or not, a lot of them aren't actually religious, let alone Christian.

Re:Former Republican Governor of Vermont... (2, Insightful)

kevin lyda (4803) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654469)

yes, yes, but not by the standards of a vast amount of your fellow americans. i know, it's scary as hell, but there you go.

DNC for Presidential ... (4, Informative)

rkcallaghan (858110) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654445)

... As long as I can't realistically vote libertarian in a presidential election, this is the lesser of the major evils. I like Dean, too. Sure would have preferred him, but I digress.

But, if you lean that LP way, and alot on /. I imagine do, you should try and vote libertarian in your local and even congressional elections.

What Libertarians actually support. [lp.org]

Go LP!

~Rebecca

Re:DNC for Presidential ... (4, Insightful)

GimmeFuel (589906) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655174)

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still an endorsement of that evil.

The candidate who gets the "lesser evil" votes doesn't have a party at campaign HQ celebrating the fact that he's less evil. He sees every vote, regardless of why it was cast, as an endorsement of his policies. Vote for the D, he sees it as you voting for the welfare state, affirmative action and all the other un-libertarian Democrat policies. Vote for the R, you're voting for the War in Iraq, the War on Drugs, and all the other un-libertarian Republican policies.

If you're a Libertarian, please vote for Libertarian candidates or stay home. Anything else is harmful to the Libertarian movement.

Re:DNC for Presidential ... (1, Insightful)

rkcallaghan (858110) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655879)

This issue is often a source of heated debates among Libertarians. I admit, its a hard one to struggle with. You're correct, both parties offer major "evils" when viewed in libertarian terms.

Unfortunately, voting in the USA right now has major flaws when more than two parties participate.

Taking the most recent election for example, with the split being so close. In the previous election, the independant vote was decidedly on the "Left" side of center. Those voting Libertarian, Independant, or others, were still voting "against Bush". I phrase it in that way because it really felt to me like the last election was never "for Kerry" but only "for/against" Bush Jr.

In 1992, the independant vote was decidedly on the "Right" side of center. Ross Perot's vote was taken mostly from those that would have otherwise voted for Bush Sr.

How do you know which is which? Well I'm sure there is a socio-political scientist out there that can fund a study and take 10 years to come up with the answer. Truthfully, you just have to know the climate. When you have an election that offers no second choice or rating system, and 2 parties are virtually guarenteed to recieve 50/50 +/- 5% of the vote, voting outside of those two is likely to have unintended side effects.

I'm libertarian because I actually support most (I think at last count 22 of 24 major issues?) of their platforms. I put my money where my mouth is with donations, and I throw my support when I can. But if we have another election similar to 2004, voting Libertarian for President is a fast track to insuring I don't get to vote again.

~Rebecca

Re:DNC for Presidential ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11656233)

You obviously don't understand that we live in a winner-takes-all voting system.

If you're a Libertarian, please vote for Libertarian candidates or stay home. Anything else is harmful to the Libertarian movement.

No, this is what you do in a parliamentary democracy. We do not live in a parliamentary democracy. Take Poli Sci again.

In the kind of system we have, different "interest groups" have to make coalitions to influence one of two dominant, mediocre political parties. Whether or not you think this is stupid (and you may have an argument there) this is how the system works. There are other systems, such as those with runoff voting [wikipedia.org] or proportional representation [wikipedia.org] in which the thinking you express would make more sense. I'm not defending the system we have (heaven forbid) but this is just how it works, which is helpful to know if you want your ideas to succeed in our system.

Re:DNC for Presidential ... (4, Interesting)

GimmeFuel (589906) | more than 9 years ago | (#11656445)

All the Libertarian Party has to do is the same thing the Socialist Party did.

Long, long ago, Democrats believed in limited government. Then the Socialist Party came along and started running candidates with the strategy of taking votes away from Democratic candidates. The Democrats had to start catering to Socialist interests in order to stop losing votes. I wish I had my copy of Lever Action [amazon.com] on hand so I could quote the example given there: the 1932 platform of the Democratic Party called for limited government. The Socialist Party platform of the same year called for everything the Democratic Party stands for now: heavily progressive income tax, higher minimum wage, welfare state, more regulation of business, etc. The Democratic Party has become the Socialist Party in all but name.

Libertarians are in an even better position than the Socialists were, because we're capable of taking votes away from both the left and the right. Paleoconservatives who oppose preemptive war and "compassionate conservative" welfare programs are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the neocons who now run the Republican Party. At the same time, anti-war liberals don't like how much the Democrats support Bush's War in Iraq. The Libertarian Party can siphon off votes from both of these factions.

For example, the 2004 gubernatorial race in my home state of WA was decided by 127 votes. The Democrat, Gregoire, beat the Republican, Rossi, only after two recounts. The Libertarian candidate, Ruth Bennett, is openly lesbian and ran a campaign focused on gay rights, with the specific strategy of taking votes away from Gregoire. It worked. Bennett got 63,000+ votes. Remember that the margin of victory was only 127 votes. If even 1% of the Bennett supporters had voted for Gregoire instead, she would have won outright, without the need for two recounts.

You are correct that in the long run, the Libertarian Party will need to compromise with one or both of the major parties. However, the major parties won't compromise with us unless they have to. The only way to make them realize that they need to deal with us is by taking away their voters until they realize we are a force to be reckoned with. To that end, in the short run Libertarians MUST vote Libertarian instead of Democrat or Republican, and encourage any Libertarian-leaning friends or acquaintances to do the same. We'll either force them to compromise with us, as the Socialist Party did, or we'll supplant them entirely, in much the same way the Republican Party came to power over the Whigs.

Re:DNC for Presidential ... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11658451)

Great post, mate.

If there's one thing I can add, it's that libertarians should also push for a more fine-grained approach to policy decisions. First, it's good for the country no matter what your politics are, since it allows government to be more flexible, adaptive and responsive, and we have all the technological abilities to do so. But it's especially good for libertarians because it encourages major parties to make compromises on a variety of issues, to mix (during whatever regime) some moderate views in that will moderate some freedom-opposing views held by whichever party's in power.

Re:DNC for Presidential ... (3, Interesting)

Pendersempai (625351) | more than 9 years ago | (#11656551)

No! Voting for the lesser of two evils is GOOD! Less evil is better than more evil! In a plurality election as we have, no one will ever find a perfect match in a primary candidate. So you vote for the one who is closest. It's only the nutjobs that take your third-party all-or-nothing hardline stance. When your tiny coalition stands in a country of almost 300 million people and screams "All or nothing!", the people are going to give you nothing.

If libertarians were more willing to vote for primary candidates, the primary candidates might actually try to accommodate libertarian voters. As long as they throw their votes away on all-or-nothing, politicians can continue to ignore them completely. After all, what possible incentive can there be for a Democratic or Republican candidate to adopt libertarian precepts if the libertarians won't vote for him anyway?

Re:DNC for Presidential ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11656633)

As someone who voted Libertarian in the last election, I'm not saying that I want 'all-or-nothing'. I would be willing to vote for a party that moves us in the Libertarian direction. But that's not the Republicans or the Democrats. Both of those parties are only increasing spending. I won't vote for someone who wants to make the government bigger.

Re:DNC for Presidential ... (1)

GimmeFuel (589906) | more than 9 years ago | (#11656819)

Read my reply to the AC above for the reasons that won't work.

Voting for candidates and then expecting them to cater to you won't work, because they already have what they want: your vote. You have to convince them that they need your vote, which means showing them what happens when they don't get your vote.

What you have to do is get people to vote for the third-party, then talk to the major party candidate you want to compromise with you, vote totals in hand as proof of your faction's clout. If you have enough votes, you may not even need to approach the candidate; he'll start appealing to your voters of his own accord.

Re:DNC for Presidential ... (1)

js7a (579872) | more than 9 years ago | (#11658062)

If you're a Libertarian, please vote for Libertarian candidates or stay home. Anything else is harmful to the Libertarian movement.

What nonsense. The U.S. first-past-the-post elections suffer from the "spoiler effect," because of which most third-party voters are effectivly voting for the opposite of what they want.

If you really care about your third party, or accuracy in any "spoiled" election (i.e., with any third party participant), then support instant runoff voting (IRV) [fairvote.org] with all of your political might, because any voting you do in a U.S. election before IRV is implemented is usually a vote for the other side.

Re:DNC for Presidential ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11656995)

you should try and vote libertarian

"try to vote".

Read as : Governor Dean becomes Chair of DNRC (0, Offtopic)

tod_miller (792541) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654464)

... and I wondered how the heck he became the chair of dilberts new ruling class....!!!

OK, off topic, but funny, but on a sibling note to dilbert, what is up with get fuzzy's contact artist page?

Shit, why waste mod points ;-) might as well tag one more OT piece in here: Unrelated, I admit, but check out the funniest engadget comment [engadget.com] (The last one, long), I read it just now, and I think it is good to see 'weblogs inc' which really is pushing down signal/noise IMHO, getting some of thier own trolling.

Re:Read as : Governor Dean becomes Chair of DNRC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11654819)


it's DOGbert's new ruling class, you insipid fool.

Oh behalf of the Republican Party.... (3, Funny)

kajoob (62237) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654529)

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Re:Oh behalf of the Republican Party.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11654540)

however, it doesn't really matter, that is not since the GOP corrupted and sold out america

overly affluent americans are traitors

Re:Oh behalf of the Republican Party.... (1)

learn fast (824724) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655288)

Oh, you think someone could do worse than the outgoing Dem leadership?

Re:Oh behalf of the Republican Party.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11655661)

LOL! Keep whistling past the graveyard.

This is great news! (2, Interesting)

damiangerous (218679) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654549)

For the GOP. Dean set all sorts of fundraising records, yet only got a pathetic 18% of the vote. He had no problem getting his message out....and no one cared. His acceptance speech boiled down to "I'm going to keep doing what I've ben doing." Why would the DNC choose as their leader a man who's vowed to push the party into the extreme fringes of liberalism and alienate most of their core? Nancy Pelosi. She's carried a pathetic grudge against Martin Frost, a very viable opponent to Dean, for challenging her for Minority leader job two years ago and she's the one clearing the way for Dean.

Re:This is great news! (1)

TheOnlyCoolTim (264997) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654570)

Dean really isn't very liberal at all. Read about how he ran Vermont.

Tim

Re:This is great news! (1)

damiangerous (218679) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654650)

He's fiscally conservative about many things, I'll give him that, and that's the reason Vermonters call him "the Republican governor" (apparently they forget what he did with state health care). His drug policy is a bizarre mix of some legalization and more Federal money. But his views on things like health care, welfare, social security, environmental policy, tax reform and foreign policy range from the standard liberal platform to extremism.

Re:This is great news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11654961)

Please give an example of where his views on any of these issues are extreme. You just stated that they did, so it should be easy. Thank you. (I really am interested, btw.)

Re:This is great news! (1)

damiangerous (218679) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655231)

How about health care? He created a half-ass, jury-rigged monstrosity and then claimed "health care for 96.4% of Vermont." Now that he's gone the cost is spiralling out of control [rutlandherald.com] . Such is the Dean legacy for Vermont.

Re:This is great news! (1)

manyoso (260664) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655281)

You mean, kinda like Bush's medicaid budget? A half-ass, Big Pharm rigged monstrosity who's cost is spiraling out of control?

Re:This is great news! (1)

damiangerous (218679) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655362)

Yes. Despite promising to cut Medicaid by 2009 he's already created a huge expansion. Sadly all the cuts are really just cuts in the rate of growth. Ironically one of the better Medicaid proposals is coming from the Democrat Governor of Tennessee [ardemgaz.com] .
Remember, Slashbots, disliking a given Democrat (or Republican) != supporting the "other" Republican (or Democrat). I didn't vote for Bush or Kerry.

Re:This is great news! (4, Insightful)

manyoso (260664) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654966)

I love this! LOL

"But his views on things like health care, welfare, social security, environmental policy, tax reform and foreign policy range from the standard liberal platform to extremism."

Here is a translation for those people who don't speak extreme wingnuttian...

Dean's Views on:

  1. Health care? People should be able to afford it. EXTREME!
  2. Welfare? We should take care of our poor. EXTREME!
  3. Social Security? We should keep it and protect it. EXTREME!
  4. Environmental policy? We should take care of it for us and for our kids. EXTREME!
  5. Tax Reform? People should pay according to their means more or less. EXTREME!
  6. Foreign Policy? We should work with allies, promote democracy and rationality, not lie to the American people to promote wars of aggression. EXTREME!


Google really should develop a language tool for extreme wingnuttian.

Re:This is great news! (1)

I Be Hatin' (718758) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655193)

Dean's Views on:
  1. Health care? People should be able to afford it. EXTREME!
  2. Welfare? We should take care of our poor. EXTREME!
  3. Social Security? We should keep it and protect it. EXTREME!
  4. Environmental policy? We should take care of it for us and for our kids. EXTREME!
  5. Tax Reform? People should pay according to their means more or less. EXTREME!
  6. Foreign Policy? We should work with allies, promote democracy and rationality, not lie to the American people to promote wars of aggression. EXTREME!

Strangely enough, this holds in reverse if you sed s/Dean/Bush/.

Re:This is great news! (3, Insightful)

manyoso (260664) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655262)

Well, only if you follow the "watch what I say, not what I do" rule.

Bush isn't particularly interested in making Health Care more affordable unless by that you mean, "don't allow class action lawsuits across state boundaries".

Likewise, he isn't for (in the sense of watching what he does) helping the poor or making sure our environment is taken care of. He's atrocious on all levels here.

I doubt very much that Bush would be willing to stipulate Tax Reform should be based on a "People should pay according to their means more or less" policy. He's more like, "the richer you are the less you should pay" policy.

As for a foreign policy that doesn't promote lying to the people to foster support for wars of aggression... Seriously, try to say Bush is for that without laughing.

Re:This is great news! (1)

I Be Hatin' (718758) | more than 9 years ago | (#11656477)

Well, only if you follow the "watch what I say, not what I do" rule.

Wow... you completely missed my point, didn't you? You're so blinded by your own paradigm that you fail to even concede that someone else might have a different point of view than yours.

Re:This is great news! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11656490)

"I doubt very much that Bush would be willing to stipulate Tax Reform should be based on a "People should pay according to their means more or less" policy. He's more like, "the richer you are the less you should pay" policy."

Explain to me, in any way possible, how there exists an inverse relationship between income and taxes paid?

Do people with high incomes pay a smaller percentage than people without high incomes? No.

Do people with high incomes pay less in dollar amounts than people with low incomes? No.

Here's something the white house budget director said recently.

The White House budget director Josh Bolten on Monday bragged to reporters how the nation most-wealthy will see an increase in tax burden under Bush's new budget.

"If you look at the president's tax cuts as a totality, the income tax, those at the upper end of the spectrum are now paying a larger share of the income tax than they were before," Bolten explained.

"An example, the top 5 percent in income in this country -- that's people making above about $140,000 -- without the president's tax cuts that top 5 percent would be paying about less than 52 percent of our total income tax revenue.

"After the president's tax cut that group is paying more than 54 percent of our total tax revenue. So the notion that the president's tax cuts have somehow made the code less progressive is wrong. The president's tax cuts have made the tax code more progressive."


So get your facts straight and fuck off.

Re:This is great news! (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655436)

Sure, all that stuff sounds great when you leave out the "how".

And Democrats Think...? (1, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654557)

I'm a republican and I tend to avoid the politics section as I know I am in the minority here. That said, I would really like to know what Democrats think of this.

As a Republican, I think this is good. I think he'll lead the party in the wrong direction and will onlly make my party's life easier.

I see him as what is wrong the with the Democratic party. Full of venom, hate, and far to the left. I think he'll move the party even more to the left than they already are (which, in my opinion, is why they lost the elections recently, they are too far from center). I know other Republicans who share this view.

But this post isn't about why I think he is bad, or that I think he is bad (I think Zell Miller would have been a great choice but I know how well THAT suggestion would have gone over ;). What I would like to ask of the Democrats here on /. is... what do you think? Do you think this is a good thing? Is there anything about him that worries you? Are there any specific traits that you think will make him do a better job than Terry McCauluf (probably spelled wrong)? The only thing I see good about him is that he is good at fundraising and organizing the far left (but I really don't know much about the guy).

So what do you Dems think of this decision? Good, bad, indifferent, and why?

PS: He wasn't the Clinton's pick, from what I understand. I bet they are NOT happy about this. But that's another discussion entirely.

Re:And Democrats Think...? (1)

kevin lyda (4803) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654608)

"I see him as what is wrong the with the Democratic party. Full of venom, hate, and far to the left. I think he'll move the party even more to the left than they already are (which, in my opinion, is why they lost the elections recently, they are too far from center). I know other Republicans who share this view."

governor dean governed the state of vermont for a number of years. feel free to look over his record during that time and explain what part of it is "far to the left."

while you're at it, please let us know what his position on gun control is, his rating from the nra is and what his position on the death penalty is.

thanks.

Re:And Democrats Think...? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11654664)

I see him as what is wrong the with the Democratic party. Full of venom, hate, and far to the left.
Funny, I see the Republican Party as being full of venom, hate, and far to the right.
I think he'll move the party even more to the left than they already are (which, in my opinion, is why they lost the elections recently, they are too far from center).
Al Gore lost the 2000 election because he was too close to the center. The left wing defected from the party and voted for Nader. I hope they've learned their lesson.
What I would like to ask of the Democrats here on /. is... what do you think? Do you think this is a good thing?
Yes. The other chairs wanted to make the DNC a "Republican-lite" party and Dean was the only candidate that wanted the DNC to be a clear alternative from the RNC. But maybe "alternative" is the wrong word to use here, since Democrats share the same views as most Americans on the issues.

Re:And Democrats Think...? (-1, Flamebait)

syrinx (106469) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654890)

since Democrats share the same views as most Americans on the issues.

hahaha, I love this stuff. Democrats are so damn arrogant.

I wonder if the Whigs said the same thing when they kept losing.

Re:And Democrats Think...? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11655142)

It depends what you think Americans' views are, I suppose.
  • Do you value the largest budget deficits in our nation's history?
  • Do you value shifting the tax burden from the wealthiest individuals to the middle class, while health care and education costs skyrocket?
  • Do you value people who state that the cost of their prescription drug plan will cost about $300 million, when in reality it will cost over $1 trillion?
  • Do you value stating that Social Security will start paying out more than it brings in 2018, and then putting forward a plan that will change that date to 2012?
  • Do you value the criminalization of abortion, or do you value a policy that seeks to make abortions rare, safe, and legal? (hint: the latter policy results in less babies dying)
Abortions go up under Republicans. Business does better under Democrats. Pass it on.

Re:And Democrats Think...? (2, Insightful)

ezeri (513659) | more than 9 years ago | (#11658741)

Do you value the largest budget deficits in our nation's history?

As a percentage of GDP, not even close.

Do you value shifting the tax burden from the wealthiest individuals to the middle class, while health care and education costs skyrocket?

The welthiest are now paying a higher percentage of the total than they were before the cuts.

Do you value people who state that the cost of their prescription drug plan will cost about $300 million, when in reality it will cost over $1 trillion?

I'm not sure what your point is here, this is an issue that Bush sided more closely with the Democrats on

Do you value stating that Social Security will start paying out more than it brings in 2018, and then putting forward a plan that will change that date to 2012?

Benifits are also going to be cut anyway, there is no other option, this private investment accounts are a small fraction of the total payments, and they will only effect younger americans, anyone close to retirement won't be effected at all, while those of us in younger generations will actualy get something from the system when benifits are massively cut decades from now.

Do you value the criminalization of abortion, or do you value a policy that seeks to make abortions rare, safe, and legal? (hint: the latter policy results in less babies dying)

Yes, and so do most americans.

Re:And Democrats Think...? (2, Informative)

tres (151637) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654767)


The chairman's job is to coordinate and get candidates elected. Dean proved that he's very good at doing this. Dean's Internet fundraising and the Democracy for America organization proves just how well suited Dean is for the position.

Re:And Democrats Think...? (1)

Hard_Code (49548) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654857)

"I see him as what is wrong the with the Democratic party. Full of venom, hate, and far to the left."

I can see how you have this impression. Not only is it gleefully pushed by the right, but it was also pushed by the other Democratic nominees in the running because they were afraid of not looking "strong on War" and desperately needed to differentiate themselves from Dean. But in fact, if you actually listen to what the man was saying through his whole campaign, he was saying that the democratic party needed to UNITE the cultural north/south liberal/conservative division (at least within the party). Although he sort of put his foot in his mouth, he was actually trying to reach out a hand to southerners when he made his "confederate flag" remark. That wasn't a hateful remark. He meant that southerners and northerners alike had a common interest in better health care, better education, etc., and he was in fact chiding his fellow Democrats presumably for stereotypes they may be holding. Now, you can by his line or not, but he was at least TRYING to bridge this rift. Why else would he continually pump his NRA creds, when most of the Democratic base is anti-NRA? If you think Dean is "full of venom" what can you possibly think of Zell "I challenge you to a duel sir" Miller. Dean gained lots of grassroot support in the start specifically because he was honest and straightforward, and he made the ultimate mistake of being honest and straightforward, trying to cheer up his campaign workers that had worn themselves out in Iowa to disappointed results, when the media was there to twist it all out of proportion.

Now you may think the man is completely wrong on policy, but whatever you think, at least believe he was TRYING to bridge a cultural divide, unlike his milquetoast competitors, and by doing so, touched a third rail and got shocked for merely bringing up the issue.

Re:And Democrats Think...? (4, Insightful)

TRACK-YOUR-POSITION (553878) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654979)

The thing is, it doesn't really matter if he's crazy. Neither of us know how to spell the outgoing chairman's name. If the Dems had a candidate you liked, why would you vote against that candidate just because the chairman's a loon? His personal angry attidute will forever prevent him from being president, but as a chairman what matters is his organizing and fundraising skills, and perhaps his willingness to think outside establishment terms. The man has good ideas, he's just completely inappropriate for the public eye.

He may be overly antagonistic, but the Republicans managed to succeed despite having twice as much hate and venom as the Democrats--and at least Leftist hate is just anger at another point of view, not Ann Coulter-style racism. It was Kerry and the party establishment's attempt to seem moderate that doomed the campaign. Besides, if you were willing to go with Zell Miller, you've got no right to talk about venom.

It's good that he's a fiscal conservative. We might expect a lot of former Republicans (like myself--I voted for Bush in 2000) to realize their party no longer cares about fiscal conservatism--it's just big government for the sake of big business. The medical overhaul Bush insisted on is a great example of that--he has promised to veto any attempt to limit the windfall to drug companies. As politics switches its focus to domestic issues, Dean could end up looking like a moderate.

The promising thing about Dean is that he knows its not about moving to the center--Americans won't respect someone who capitulates for political convenience. But he also understands that strategic retreats are necessary on certain lost cause issues--like gun control.

The worrying thing about Dean and the Democratic party in general is that they've misunderstood the power of the internet and decentralized organization. They see it in terms of collecting money and volunteers to send to campaign in other states. But that's a foolish plan--people are alienated by out of staters coming to convince them to change their minds, as Dean should have learned in Iowa and Kerry should have learned in Ohio. Instead, internet resources should be aimed at getting people engaged in their own communities--whether its just getting people to volunteer in their own neighborhoods or even encourage people to run for local offices.

Re:And Democrats Think...? (5, Insightful)

semafour (774396) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655014)

Dean is not actually very far left. He is liberal, to be sure, but not in a bleeding heart, knee-jerk kind of way. He was painted with a far left brush based solely on the fact that he opposed the Iraq war from the beginning.

Re:And Democrats Think...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11655034)

As far as your comments on "venom, hate" coming from the left, maybe you should go to a doctor to get that rightwing bs removed from your colon before it gives you cancer.

Other than that, I'm glad. I may me a poor teen from Minnesota, but I've had 2 close relatives run for major office on both sides of the political divide, and I think that I can say that Dean could relate to me far more than Kerry, and lightyears more than the bastard^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPresident.
As far as Dean dragging the party left goes, you're a little off. Over the years, the Dems have tried to go center, but they couldn't quite do it, and consiquently, they look like morons. And you're incorrect in saying he mobilized the Far Left, that's FUD spread by the republicans in an attempt to villify him. What he did was mobilize damn near half the party.
If he plays his cards right, he could be up there with Wellstone.
It's not going to be a major politician who will take the Democrats Left, it's the children of the baby boomers who are just entering adulthood. Lots of us have parents who sold out for a nice house in the 'burbs, and we're pretty pissed about that.

Re:And Democrats Think...? (1)

learn fast (824724) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655236)

My only thought: Well, could he possibly be worse than the current Dem leadership?

(As for your other suppositions, it may interest you to know that there are many channels on your television other than Fox News. Try them. Or just try the "off" button.)

Re:And Democrats Think...? (1)

learn fast (824724) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655313)

BTW, interesting that you like Zell Miller but thought Dean is too "full of venom and hate." I'm starting to doubt that's not a rationalization.

Re:And Democrats Think...? (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655364)

As a Republican, I think this is good. I think he'll lead the party in the wrong direction and will onlly make my party's life easier.

He won't. He'll lead the democrats into being a viable and strong non-Republican major party. Which, i'm sure you'll agree, will keep the Republicans honest and ensure that if they do stay in power, they're there with the will of the people.

Re:And Democrats Think...? (2, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#11657588)

"I think he'll lead the party in the wrong direction and will onlly make my party's life easier."

Kind of like 2.5 Trillion (+Iraq +Prescription Drug costs I lied about) Bush is doing?

Re:And Democrats Think...? (2, Insightful)

Brother Grifter (16318) | more than 9 years ago | (#11657641)

Since you're implying that "far to the left" is a *bad* thing, would you consider the right-wing paramilitaries in Nicaragua who introduced the term Death-Squad to our vocabulary, a *good* thing.

Letting gays have rights similar to those that married doesn't create thousands of dead bodies. Invading a country for money in every sense, from military contracts, cheap oil, new free trades zone, cheap labor, etc.., kills thousands as we are witness to it in Iraq. Don't forget, we didn't find WMD, or ties to Al Queda. And yes, those who pay attention to the news know it was Karl Rove's way to sell the war, but that implies there was no imminent danger and the war required selling for people to buy into it. Unlike World War 2.

If you need to sell to a war to your people, its either because they lacked so information that they can't make the decision on what they know, which could be case with our poor news media in the U.S., or its not altruistic as they made it seem. Bush has already shifted his democratic vision of Iraq to an Iraq with a democracy but it'll be influence by religion and a majority with no intentions to protect the minority, which is opposite to what we were hearing when there was no WMD. Flippity-Floppity.

Your party has good ideals, like smaller government, like lower taxes. It may have attempted to serve those ideals honesty in the past but it does not today. What future do you see in the Republican party? It's bleak. One of the primary reasons for government expansion in the Bush administration is more administrative positions introduced to the government. These are positions for political supporters of the Bush administration and Republican party. So when you party falls back on one of your primary ideals you would still support your party? Not only that, these positions cost us more tax money, so instead of letting people keep their money or invest it in working people in this country we're giving to away to political supports. How patriotic!

I'm not saying that because I'm a Democrat, but because I'm an American and I think the best potential of success we can try to give to all Americans is more important that Democrat/Republican party lines. You seem to toe your party line because you think its giving you something in return, when its not.

The Republicans have made college tuition more expensive by lowering taxes for rich people, and depriving states of more funding. Ok, I got a tax cut too, $300 bucks. So I can choose between two pairs of sneakers, or I can give up my tax cut, and thousands more Americans go to 4 year universities, that earn degrees, that invent more technology, or participate in the invention of new technology. More jobs are created, more tax revenues go the government and if we're lucky we can do it again for another generation. We could also help businesses of all sizes control health care costs while we try to fix the problem of expensive health care while relieve the burden and not stifle businesses or jeopardize our countrymen's health.

This is what Democrats want. What are the Republicans answer to these problems? They cut taxes, people suffer, business saves, and they're solutions are never solvent since they do make any honest attempt of helping the average American.

Howard Dean isn't a demi-god, and he may not have any good ideas (I think he does and I think he will be an excellent DNC char), but what he does do is appeal to young people, who will find their own direction in politics. Young people who find there way through the Democratic party don't get on TV and suggest we should nuke Canada except Vancouver (since they have nice shopping malls) as Ann Coulter has suggested. She was a Young Republican.

I'm eager to see the Democrat party grow in the next few years. For all the nay-sayers about the Democrats, listen to the Republicans delve into nostalgic musings about how they were small and insignificant.

Re:And Democrats Think...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11657876)

How does cutting taxes make tuition costs rise? Are you saying that decreasing taxes puts more money in people's pockets so that more people choose to invest in their educations, thus increasing the demand for education? And that's a bad thing?

Here's the idea behind tax cuts: You know how to spend your money better than the government does. If you want to take your $300 and donate it to a college fund for the poor then that's your choice. How is taking $300 from me at gun point and distributing it to college students moral?

None of your arguments make any sense, it's just more Bush / Republican bashing.

Re:And Democrats Think...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11659572)

So much for "give to Bush what is Bush's", or however that Bible passage goes. It's fun to see the Part of God ignore the Son of God so much.

Re:And Democrats Think...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11658283)

I think Zell Miller would have been a great choice

Gimme a freakin' break. You want to talk about filled with venom, hate, and vitriol, start with Zell Miller. How could anyone take your question seriously when you say that you think Zell Miller would be a good choice for this position? That's patently absurd.

congrats governor dean! (1)

kevin lyda (4803) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654567)

now to reform the democratic party!

Re:congrats governor dean! (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654776)

...and keep the Republicans in power for another generation or more.

zerg (-1, Redundant)

Lord Omlette (124579) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654612)

You know something? If you had told us one year ago that we were going to come in third in Iowa, we would have given anything for that.

Not only are we going to New Hampshire, we're going to South Carolina and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York. And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C. to take back the White House.

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

(I have the "Welcome to the Jungle" remix of this on my MP3 player...)

Not such a bad thing (1)

viniosity (592905) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654694)

I haven't been following this very closely, but frankly I'm pleased that the Dems put him in. People keep arguing that the media is liberal and whatnot but as far as I see it, the entire conversation has been shifted far to the right. So far that those moderate Dems are now considered left wing radicals. The Democrats could have easily buckled into that and put somebody more conservative in this position. That, in effect, would be a victory in itself for the right.

Fall of the Democratic party (1)

mattbatten (844351) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654839)

The democratic party is sliding to oblivion. It has to compete with deep pockets in the republican party, and with the libertarian party that pulls people from the more conservative of the democratic party supporters. It keeps losing to the neocons because it refuses to get its hands dirty in the same way the republicans do and doesn't bring an alternative way to fight them to the table. Dean offers a bit more punch to fight the republicans, but can he bring the KO?

Dean=Good Thing (4, Insightful)

Lally Singh (3427) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654922)

What I can't believe is how far to the right this country's shifted so quickly. What was the center in 2000 is now the 'extreme left' today. Dean's a proper left-leaning democrat, not a republican-wannabe apologist.

The right's gotten a strong wind recently, and we need to fight back accordingly, not start letting go of core values. And it's well-needed, even with such a poor candidate as Kerry, we still got 48%* of the electorate. Kerry ignored most of the issues at hand and only attacked Bush's strongpoints. I don't think Dean will let our newer candidates make the same mistakes.

Maybe I'm an old romantic, but I don't think homophobia (gay rights), subordination of women (abortion), warmongering (iraq), and the extortion of the lower classes (taxes, social security) are American values.

--
* debates over the remnants of fair voting aside

Re:Dean=Good Thing (1)

Lance Petersen (858724) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655549)

Well, you'll definitely find this Economist article [economist.com] a good read. The pull? "Americans seem to believe that they and their politics have got more conservative; but perhaps they haven't."

Re:Dean=Good Thing (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#11657601)

How is abortion subordination of women?

on dean and the scream (2, Informative)

edward.virtually@pob (6854) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654942)

nice summary. of course, it omits both the real reason his campaign failed, namely the endless pushing of the infamous scream by the corporate media and related commentary, and the key bit of truth most of the sheep still don't know, namely that the scream never really happened [go.com] and was fabricated to discredit dean. click on the link. oh, and be sure to print it out before the brownshirts have it deleted. one of the many reasons anyone who uses the phrase "liberal media" is either a liar or a fool.

Uh bullshit... (1)

cbqwinner (152547) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655022)

The scream never happened? Is this like the plane that didn't hit the pentagon?

All the link says is that he had a handheld mic that filtered out the crowd. The crowd was going wild with him and he was yelling.

"And what about the scream as we all heard it? In the room, the so-called scream couldn't really be heard at all. Again, he was yelling along with the crowd."

Christ, is it such a bad thing for a politician to show some emotion and not be a stick in the mud?

Re:Uh bullshit... (1)

edward.virtually@pob (6854) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655057)

Christ, is it such a bad thing for a politician to show some emotion and not be a stick in the mud?

well, i don't think so. fwiw, i also have a video of the event that also shows while he did yell, it sounded nothing like the audio pushed on the news, talk shows, etc. and used as "proof" of dean's "excessive emotionalism".

Re:Uh bullshit... (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#11657622)

Understand that the people who say the scream never happend are the same people who claim that when Gore said "I took the Initiative in CREATING THE INTERNET" he wasn't claiming to have CREATED THE INTERNET...

Re:Uh bullshit... (3, Insightful)

yelvington (8169) | more than 9 years ago | (#11658792)

Same people? Maybe.

But if you think Gore did NOT play a major role in creating the Internet, then you've bought into a big lie circulated by right-wing politicians starting with Dick Armey, who originally misquoted Gore.

Gore was discussing his legislative record. Anyone who looks into that record can easily see that Gore was a leader in the 1980s of a faction called the "Atari Democrats," who believed the industrial base of the United States had to shift from heavy industry to technology.

When DARPA pulled back from funding non-military uses of the fledgling TCP/IP network, Gore was instrumental in getting the National Science Foundation both the funding and the jurisdiction to create NSFNet, which became the core of the public Internet.

It is conservative economic dogma that private enterprise will make everything just peachy if we just keep the government from intervening.

But private enterprise had no incentive to create a public Internet; on the contrary, private enterprise had an incentive to create instead a series of private networks (generally running proprietary protocols).

By declaring that the nation needed an "information superhighway" for the new era and throwing government support and funding behind an open network standard, Gore was instrumental in breaking that logjam and -- yes -- creating the Internet.

It is hard these days for simple things like facts and public records to compete with the drumbeat of spin, misinformation and outright lies that has come to characterize "political discourse." Both the mischaracterization of Gore's statement about the Internet and the miscasting of the pragmatic moderate Vermont Governor Howard Dean as a screaming "ultra-liberal on social issues who is out of the mainstream and wrong for America" are examples.

Re:Uh bullshit... (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#11659636)

It is impossible for Gore to have had a Major role in creating the Internet as it was around for over 10 years before he did anything. He did help it grow into its present form but that is a long way away from creating it.

For example a school teacher teaches a child and helps that child grow, that doesn't mean that said teacher created that child. She only helped it grow. For a politician to lay claim to something that other did, even thought it happens all the time, is wrong and people should call them one it.

Al Gore was a Teacher not a Parent.

Surprise (4, Interesting)

XBL (305578) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654970)

My prediction is the Dean will surprise all his critics over the next 4 years as a calm, rational, focused, and successful leader. Why? Because he is a calm, rational, focused, and successful person.

The reason why Dean exploded the way he did is because the media turned against him because he was "unelectable". It was a bunch of bullshit because he was not your typical "say only what you want to hear" politician. I think people in this country would have been smart enough to see that, and it would not have been a landslide win for Bush like the media said it would be. Unfortuntly the media has a lot of effect on the primary elections.

I gave $100 to the Dean campaign, and I do not regret it. That money indirectly helped him become the chair of the DNC, and I am very happy to see it.

BTW, at the Iowa Caucus (I was there) Dean had at least 3x as many people there as Kerry. To be honest, I am still a little amazed how quickly things fell apart.

Yessssss (2, Insightful)

MerryGoByeBye (447358) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654995)

It's hard to imagine a better development than this! Excellent! Terry McAuliffe had brought the party to its knees with his Republican-Lite approach to leading the DNC. Screw that. Dean is the man!

Few things are as amusing as watching people get all worked up into a lather denouncing the choice. What, exactly, is wrong with having an intelligent, passionate leader? America has become such a country of clucking chickens that we not only accept the degradations to our liberties performed by the current monkey admin, but now even the dissenters are afraid of having a leader with a voice. Grow some balls, people.

The old idea of being Not-As-Evil-As-Our-Opponents is dead. It's time to pick up the populist trail where we left it years ago.

Oh, and PS weirdo rightist fascists - Dean is not a 'leftie'. He's left-of-center, certainly, but he's barely moderate, let alone "far-left". Readjust that sociopathically-slanted political spectrum you've got before you slide into the abyss of fascism. Just a friendly tip.

Thankyous from the GOP (1)

GOD_ALMIGHTY (17678) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655039)

I really enjoy this. The GOP had nothing of substance against Dean. No attack actually was based on his record as Governor of Vermont, only on word games of rhetoric. The Dems would have that problem with anyone, so having someone with Dean's record is a plus. He is a fiscally restrained populist and while he may not make a great candidate, now he doesn't have to.

So to all the GOP supporters jumping for joy, I'm jumping with you. If you're going to be this easy to distract, it will make it a lot easier to combat the intellectual disease coming from the right. Between this and all the cycles GOP supporters burn thinking about Hillary Clinton, I can't wait to see the pathetic defense of the GOP's record in the 2006 elections.

Yes, keep thinking these moves are this dumb. It will be nice to see the GOP fall prey to the complacency that lost the Dems the 2000 election.

Oscillations of the political pendulum (4, Insightful)

shanen (462549) | more than 9 years ago | (#11655473)

Well, I don't see anything about it so far (or it's moderated below my visibility), but the obvious comment is that Dean's rise is a natural part of the swinging pendulum. The most important factor in the long-term success of the American political system has been moderation. Or perhaps you prefer to call it balance? From separation of powers to checks and balances to the independent judiciary to campaigns directed at the "undecided" moderate voters, the whole system has usually oscillated around central positions and the result has mostly worked very well for most of the people.

Dean is clearly on the left side of the spectrum, but BushCo is much more clearly on the *FAR* right side. The rightwingers have become so dominant that the system is falling out of balance, and there are basically only two outcomes now. One possible outcome is a swing back to the left, and Dean is of course going to be pushing for that. The stronger the swing to the right, the stronger the counterswing will have to be.

The other possible outcome would be bankruptcy and collapse. The United States has already lasted far longer than the average government, and it's showing plenty of symptoms of the kind of senility that often appears before a government collapses.

Re:Oscillations of the political pendulum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11657901)

You claim that Bush is on the "FAR right side" of the spectrum, but flashback to November 2nd... who got the most votes again??

I don't know where you'd put John Kerry on the spectrum, but it would have to be more left of center than Bush's rightness of center. People wouldn't have voted Bush if they didn't think he represented their values and ideas. Given that you believe Bush to be on the far right side of the spectrum, and given the fact that the majority of voters chose Bush, I conclude that you are out of touch with mainstream America.

why non americans think the US is crazy (2, Interesting)

fiddlesticks (457600) | more than 9 years ago | (#11656782)

example direct quotes:

* Why Libertarians Support
Equal Rights for America's Gun Owners

* End Welfare

* The Libertarian Party: Working to slash your taxes!

* Do you remember when the standard of living in America was the best in the world?

+++++++

I mean, really, this is all just nuts

Re:why non americans think the US is crazy (2, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#11657690)

And what is wrong with cutting taxes and equal rights for gun owners?

Re:why non americans think the US is crazy (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11657940)

So people who don't own guns should be given special rights that gun owners don't have? You think the government knows how to spend my money better than I do, so you want to increase taxes? You want to pay able-bodied people to sit at home all day doing nothing, producing nothing, leeching off the system? Sounds like socialism to me.

Kind of off-topic, but has anyone seen "Million Dollar Baby" yet? I've never seen a film more damning of the welfare entitlement system. Some think the movie is anti-conservative because of the ending, but I think it's just the opposite. Not just for the fat a$$ welfare fraud heartless beyotch, but also for the ending. It's like the priest character said, if Eastwood did it he'd be lost forever. And that's what happened, he was lost forever, he couldn't even go back to his old life because he couldn't be reminded of what he had done. Sorry, but that is not a pro-assisted suicide message.

Lib's and Neo-Con's just wear different clothes. (1)

readpunk (683053) | more than 9 years ago | (#11658057)

Step 1: Divert topic to meta analysis of american politics.

Step 2: Discuss failure of the "average American".

Step 3: Talk shit about George Bush.

Step 4: Talk some more shit about the "average American".

Step 5: Talk some more shit about GWB.

Step 6: NEVER WAKE UP TO THE FACT THAT THOSE IN POWER ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE DESIRE WAR AND GREED AND ARE PART OF THE REASON THE "average American" IS SOCIALIZED TO BE A FUCKING MORON.

When a group of pro-war capitalists control a nation, why is it surprising that the entire nation is socialized to be absolute morons?

And more to the point and to be less US-centric when a group of pro-hierachy oligarchs/autocrats (I'm looking at you non-industrialized countries) control a nation, why is it surprising that the entire nation is socialized to be absolute morons?

How are any of you on /. superior to anyone who voted for GWB? Just because you broke the rightest/christian dogma and resocialized yourself you actually think you are better? Well good work, you traded one shit bag of backward logic for another shitbag of backward logic, except your new shitbag looks prettier.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?