Full Version: Next DNC Chair
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...e_us/dean_dnc_1
Who would be the best candidate for the position?
What would their selection say about the party and its future?
Who would be the best candidate for the position?
What would their selection say about the party and its future?
QUOTE(christopher @ Nov 8 2004, 04:54 PM)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...e_us/dean_dnc_1
Who would be the best candidate for the position?
What would their selection say about the party and its future?
Who would be the best candidate for the position?
What would their selection say about the party and its future?
I would just say that anybody besides howard dean. I would like to see James Carville. I just want a centrist view for the party again, who can reach out to moderates like myself once again. I have not been at all impressed the last two elections.
Who would be the best candidate for the position?
I think that Dean would be a good choice. The Democrats need some new blood, someone with vision and ideas, and someone that can energize people. It most definitely shouldn't be more of the same. There are too many Democrats out there that think nothing is wrong and we can win by playing the same game. They are wrong, we need to play a new game and we need to make the rules.
There are a lot of people that want to copy the Republicans because they are successful. I'd ask you why? What is the difference between our parties if that happens?
To me, Dean would fit that bill completely. Say what you want about Dean but the man was passionate, he had a vision and he was able to inspire people. His opinions didn't hinge on the latest gallup poll. He is also an "outsider" and that could play to his advantage. I think he made a few bad decisions, but that was likely due to political inexperience rather than incompetence.
What would their selection say about the party and its future?
If the Democrats selected Dean it would say that they are serious about changing, and serious about thinking outside of the box.
If they go with some established Democrat that has been around forever it tells me that they still haven't learned their lesson and we can expect more losses in 2006 and 2008. People from the old guard are never going to get it, we need new blood.
I think that Dean would be a good choice. The Democrats need some new blood, someone with vision and ideas, and someone that can energize people. It most definitely shouldn't be more of the same. There are too many Democrats out there that think nothing is wrong and we can win by playing the same game. They are wrong, we need to play a new game and we need to make the rules.
There are a lot of people that want to copy the Republicans because they are successful. I'd ask you why? What is the difference between our parties if that happens?
To me, Dean would fit that bill completely. Say what you want about Dean but the man was passionate, he had a vision and he was able to inspire people. His opinions didn't hinge on the latest gallup poll. He is also an "outsider" and that could play to his advantage. I think he made a few bad decisions, but that was likely due to political inexperience rather than incompetence.
What would their selection say about the party and its future?
If the Democrats selected Dean it would say that they are serious about changing, and serious about thinking outside of the box.
If they go with some established Democrat that has been around forever it tells me that they still haven't learned their lesson and we can expect more losses in 2006 and 2008. People from the old guard are never going to get it, we need new blood.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Nov 8 2004, 08:40 PM)
Who would be the best candidate for the position?
I think that Dean would be a good choice. The Democrats need some new blood, someone with vision and ideas, and someone that can energize people. It most definitely shouldn't be more of the same. There are too many Democrats out there that think nothing is wrong and we can win by playing the same game. They are wrong, we need to play a new game and we need to make the rules.
There are a lot of people that want to copy the Republicans because they are successful. I'd ask you why? What is the difference between our parties if that happens?
To me, Dean would fit that bill completely. Say what you want about Dean but the man was passionate, he had a vision and he was able to inspire people. His opinions didn't hinge on the latest gallup poll. He is also an "outsider" and that could play to his advantage. I think he made a few bad decisions, but that was likely due to political inexperience rather than incompetence.
What would their selection say about the party and its future?
If the Democrats selected Dean it would say that they are serious about changing, and serious about thinking outside of the box.
If they go with some established Democrat that has been around forever it tells me that they still haven't learned their lesson and we can expect more losses in 2006 and 2008. People from the old guard are never going to get it, we need new blood.
I think that Dean would be a good choice. The Democrats need some new blood, someone with vision and ideas, and someone that can energize people. It most definitely shouldn't be more of the same. There are too many Democrats out there that think nothing is wrong and we can win by playing the same game. They are wrong, we need to play a new game and we need to make the rules.
There are a lot of people that want to copy the Republicans because they are successful. I'd ask you why? What is the difference between our parties if that happens?
To me, Dean would fit that bill completely. Say what you want about Dean but the man was passionate, he had a vision and he was able to inspire people. His opinions didn't hinge on the latest gallup poll. He is also an "outsider" and that could play to his advantage. I think he made a few bad decisions, but that was likely due to political inexperience rather than incompetence.
What would their selection say about the party and its future?
If the Democrats selected Dean it would say that they are serious about changing, and serious about thinking outside of the box.
If they go with some established Democrat that has been around forever it tells me that they still haven't learned their lesson and we can expect more losses in 2006 and 2008. People from the old guard are never going to get it, we need new blood.
But why do you wish select someone from the same region that is killing us? Dean unfair or not, has a rep as an anti war angry elitist liberal. and that is the image you want for the party?
Liberal Democrats, you will be the demise of the party if you do not be careful. I could be wrong, but i just dont see how a liberal in charge of the party is going to help us win in a post 911 environment.
Without the south or improvements in midwest, even in easy elections, our path to the White House is mich too narrow with these liberal democrats. Sure, if dean ran people would have known where he stood.
Against iraq war, pro gay rights, pro unrestricted access to abortion. But what good is it to stand for things that most of the Electorate is firmly against?
you gotta be smart.
Making Dean the chair of the DNC isn't going to magically make the Democrats more liberal than the Green party or something. In fact I'm not entirely sure how much influence the chair of the DNC can have in that respect because everyone is still going to hold their own beliefs.
The reason why we keep losing is because we are trying to play the Republicans game and the simple and undeniable fact is that they are just better at it than us. The DNC leadership for as long as I can remember has observed that, been beaten in election after election and what do they do? They gnash their teeth, wring their hands and then when the next election comes around they do the same thing and hope for better results. That is the definition of insanity.
The party needs new blood, new ideas, new strategies and most of all passion. We need to get people excited about the things we are proposing, we can't lecture them Al Gore style and we can't drown them with political double talk.
You put a seasoned Democrat as the new DNC chair and I am predicting right now that we'll all be sitting here in both 2006 and 2008 feeling sorry for ourselves, lashing out at people, and threatening to move to Canada. You do not change an organization by putting the exact same kind of leader in charge.
The reason why we keep losing is because we are trying to play the Republicans game and the simple and undeniable fact is that they are just better at it than us. The DNC leadership for as long as I can remember has observed that, been beaten in election after election and what do they do? They gnash their teeth, wring their hands and then when the next election comes around they do the same thing and hope for better results. That is the definition of insanity.
The party needs new blood, new ideas, new strategies and most of all passion. We need to get people excited about the things we are proposing, we can't lecture them Al Gore style and we can't drown them with political double talk.
You put a seasoned Democrat as the new DNC chair and I am predicting right now that we'll all be sitting here in both 2006 and 2008 feeling sorry for ourselves, lashing out at people, and threatening to move to Canada. You do not change an organization by putting the exact same kind of leader in charge.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Nov 8 2004, 09:03 PM)
Making Dean the chair of the DNC isn't going to magically make the Democrats more liberal than the Green party or something. In fact I'm not entirely sure how much influence the chair of the DNC can have in that respect because everyone is still going to hold their own beliefs.
The reason why we keep losing is because we are trying to play the Republicans game and the simple and undeniable fact is that they are just better at it than us. The DNC leadership for as long as I can remember has observed that, been beaten in election after election and what do they do? They gnash their teeth, wring their hands and then when the next election comes around they do the same thing and hope for better results. That is the definition of insanity.
The party needs new blood, new ideas, new strategies and most of all passion. We need to get people excited about the things we are proposing, we can't lecture them Al Gore style and we can't drown them with political double talk.
You put a seasoned Democrat as the new DNC chair and I am predicting right now that we'll all be sitting here in both 2006 and 2008 feeling sorry for ourselves, lashing out at people, and threatening to move to Canada. You do not change an organization by putting the exact same kind of leader in charge.
The reason why we keep losing is because we are trying to play the Republicans game and the simple and undeniable fact is that they are just better at it than us. The DNC leadership for as long as I can remember has observed that, been beaten in election after election and what do they do? They gnash their teeth, wring their hands and then when the next election comes around they do the same thing and hope for better results. That is the definition of insanity.
The party needs new blood, new ideas, new strategies and most of all passion. We need to get people excited about the things we are proposing, we can't lecture them Al Gore style and we can't drown them with political double talk.
You put a seasoned Democrat as the new DNC chair and I am predicting right now that we'll all be sitting here in both 2006 and 2008 feeling sorry for ourselves, lashing out at people, and threatening to move to Canada. You do not change an organization by putting the exact same kind of leader in charge.
Well, im not sure it would be a disaster putting in a seasoned vet like James Carville. I mean, look at our last chair, he was dragging the party left. We can argue all day over who we should pick, but in the end, it is more logical to run to the center. That does not mean being republicans in disguise by any means.
In the end, we just have to wait and see what happens.
Despite on left/right/center geography, we just need a candidate who can talk to middle america again. John edwards is from the south, but he is a liberal from the south. which basically means nothing. So its not all geopgraphy, its philosophy of a candidate.
A evan bayh or harold ford jr would be a greater candidate than howard dean or hillary clinton. How could either of those two win without winning ohio or florida? clearly they would get smoked in VA, AZ, TN, LA, CO, MO
and with this common knowledge, whose to say the republicans wouldnt beat us next time in states like MI, and PA?
If we nominate any more liberals, our party will be on serious life support.
Who would be the best candidate for the position?
I would prefer James Carville.
What would their selection say about the party and its future?
Carville's selection would say that we are alive and fighting. Although George W. Bush will pass from the scene on January 20, 2009, I doubt we've seen the end of Karl Rove. Carville would, I think, put a strategist capable of out "engineering" Rove in this vital position.
While the future of Democrats may or may not be in the Clinton wing of the party, certainly Clinton has a magic name, stage presence and fundraising ability. Carville's ties can't hurt.
Further Carville is a southernor and may have some ideas about how Democrats can once again be competitive in Dixie.
I would prefer James Carville.
What would their selection say about the party and its future?
Carville's selection would say that we are alive and fighting. Although George W. Bush will pass from the scene on January 20, 2009, I doubt we've seen the end of Karl Rove. Carville would, I think, put a strategist capable of out "engineering" Rove in this vital position.
While the future of Democrats may or may not be in the Clinton wing of the party, certainly Clinton has a magic name, stage presence and fundraising ability. Carville's ties can't hurt.
Further Carville is a southernor and may have some ideas about how Democrats can once again be competitive in Dixie.
QUOTE(christopher @ Nov 8 2004, 07:54 PM)
Who would be the best candidate for the position?
What would their selection say about the party and its future?
What would their selection say about the party and its future?
1. Donna Brazile would be my choice. African-American. Female. From the South. Ran Al Gore's campaign (okay, three out of four ain't bad).
2. Brazile would be an articulate, principled and formidable choice to head up the DNC. She would demonstrate the party's commitment to diversity and inclusion. She would have instant credibility with the vitally important African-American bloc and help dispel the notion that the Democrats take them for granted. I think she could bring the disparate parts of the party together in time for the 2006 Congressional elections which will be the first chance for the Dems to show they have their act together.
I just wonder if she even wants the job?
I know what I said yesterday, but I read this article in the Washington Post this morning:
As long as Carville is saying and thinking things like that, he gets my support. I guess I didn't realize he had it in him.
QUOTE
"I'm not in denial. Reality hit me," Carville said. "Let's take the greatest morality story of all -- we're born again," he added, in a play on words connoting both his view that the party needs a fundamental change, as well as the importance of evangelical Christians to Bush.
"We have to treat the disease, not the symptom," Carville said. "The purpose of a political party is to win elections, and we're not doing that."
Carville said that the party's concern about interest groups had resulted in "litanies, not a narrative."
"The party needs a narrative," he said. adding later that one possibility would to become "an aggressively reform, anti-Washington, anti-business-as-usual party."
"We have to treat the disease, not the symptom," Carville said. "The purpose of a political party is to win elections, and we're not doing that."
Carville said that the party's concern about interest groups had resulted in "litanies, not a narrative."
"The party needs a narrative," he said. adding later that one possibility would to become "an aggressively reform, anti-Washington, anti-business-as-usual party."
As long as Carville is saying and thinking things like that, he gets my support. I guess I didn't realize he had it in him.
I sincerly hope those who choose have more sense than to pick Howard Dean as chair of the DNC.
It just doesn't fit..
Howard Dean......DNC chair.
Well that'll mean death to the party if that happens. I do think that Dean has calmed down since his meltdown in the primaries and while some of his ideas are out there you can't deny that he isn't a good grass roots guy. The problem is, the people he recruits are too far to the left. He's going to have to expand his recruitment if he's going to be successful.
I think that he's an intelligent guy from the many interviews he's done since his loss. He seems to be humble in that regard. Still he'll need to work on his image and the image of the Democrats.
However, If he's going to only cater to the left then the party will become a niche party with very little scope and vision for the future
It just doesn't fit..
Howard Dean......DNC chair.
Well that'll mean death to the party if that happens. I do think that Dean has calmed down since his meltdown in the primaries and while some of his ideas are out there you can't deny that he isn't a good grass roots guy. The problem is, the people he recruits are too far to the left. He's going to have to expand his recruitment if he's going to be successful.
I think that he's an intelligent guy from the many interviews he's done since his loss. He seems to be humble in that regard. Still he'll need to work on his image and the image of the Democrats.
However, If he's going to only cater to the left then the party will become a niche party with very little scope and vision for the future
ABC News has a good article discussing some of the latest news about the DNC chair position and is worth a read.
Additionally there are a few other interesting tidbits from the article:
- Brazille, Ickes, Shaheen and Warner do not want the job.
- Vilsack and Barnes both Do want the job and will likely be pushed by the moderate wing of the party
- The AFL/CIO's John Sweeney, not a Dean ally, seems comfortable with a Dean chairmanship.
QUOTE
Former presidential candidate Howard Dean -- without a public office but with a cadre of enthusiastic supporters and lingering presidential ambitions -- has emerged as the highest-profile Democrat to seriously consider running for the party's soon-to-be-open national chair.
Dean, the former governor of Vermont who juiced up party activists last year by taking an uncompromising stance against the Iraq war, is among several Democrats who have begun to survey the more than 400 members of the party's national committee who will choose its next leader.
Terry McAuliffe, the current party chairman, has yet to officially call an election, but it is widely anticipated that the vote will happen in early February at the party's winter meeting.
Dean, the former governor of Vermont who juiced up party activists last year by taking an uncompromising stance against the Iraq war, is among several Democrats who have begun to survey the more than 400 members of the party's national committee who will choose its next leader.
Terry McAuliffe, the current party chairman, has yet to officially call an election, but it is widely anticipated that the vote will happen in early February at the party's winter meeting.
QUOTE
Several top party strategists are in the mix. Rosenberg, the president of the New Democrat Network, has the support of many of younger party fund-raisers and is seen by some as a hands-on manager who could correct the party's problems over the long term. Some Democrats partial to Rosenberg believe he'd make a great behind-the-scenes facilitator for a party chair like Dean.
Additionally there are a few other interesting tidbits from the article:
- Brazille, Ickes, Shaheen and Warner do not want the job.
- Vilsack and Barnes both Do want the job and will likely be pushed by the moderate wing of the party
- The AFL/CIO's John Sweeney, not a Dean ally, seems comfortable with a Dean chairmanship.
QUOTE
Other names floated by Democrats include Los Angeles City Council member Antonio Villaraigosa, California state party chairman Art Torres, former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk, and North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee.
I ran across some remarks from Howard Dean over at Daily KOS which I thought were interesting. These remarks definitely underscore the reasons why I think he needs to lead the DNC.
QUOTE
Dean, sounding very much like a candidate, asked, "But where are the works of the Republicans that they dare say they have a corner on moral values?"
Saying that he doesn't see the United States as a nation divided, he calls for coalition building along moral and societal lines to unite the country. His perscription? "To win in 2008", Dean said, "we must build the same coalition FDR built".
Again hammering on Bush and the Republican party, Dean stated " the history of mankind is littered with the bodies of those who thought they had a right to God for themselves." Saying that history is again repeating itself, Dean said the time to reverse this trend is now.
<snip>
Dean again sounded very much like a candidate in proclaiming "We don't need two Republican parties, and as long as I'm around we won't!...Some say we must move more toward the middle...if we move any further to the middle, we'll fall off the edge of the flat earth", he declared.
Saying that he doesn't see the United States as a nation divided, he calls for coalition building along moral and societal lines to unite the country. His perscription? "To win in 2008", Dean said, "we must build the same coalition FDR built".
Again hammering on Bush and the Republican party, Dean stated " the history of mankind is littered with the bodies of those who thought they had a right to God for themselves." Saying that history is again repeating itself, Dean said the time to reverse this trend is now.
<snip>
Dean again sounded very much like a candidate in proclaiming "We don't need two Republican parties, and as long as I'm around we won't!...Some say we must move more toward the middle...if we move any further to the middle, we'll fall off the edge of the flat earth", he declared.
This is just amazing. Being against war is now a radical left idea? Being for a woman's right to choose is now a radical left idea? We have to all be Republicans after 9/11? Wow, the Repubs sure have some Demos wrapped up.
Howard Dean's campaign proved that money can efficiently be drummed up from the grass roots. Hello -- anybody listening? The DNC chair has to be able to raise money. Dean has opened the door to how this can be done without special interests getting their big feet all over the party.
Here in Colorado, this technique helped push Demos into the state legislature, a very significant thing. Another significant thing is that the state Repubs went into a feeding frenzy on themselves -- and this could very well happen nationally. We then want a solid, grass-roots supported party to pick up the pieces and take back this country.
I keep hearing that Demos have to start winning elections. We have, in Colorado, but nobody seems to care -- except Coloradans, and those who have been down this road before know what's going on. This state has gone purple. It is headed toward blue, right in the middle of the West. Repubs are in shock -- they now have to play minority politics, and their governor will be out in two years.
Meanwhile, Demos have found new life. Virtually all committees will be headed by Demos, and the speakers will be Demos, and the power is in Demo hands. Will they lord this over Repubs as the Repubs lorded over Demos for the past 44 years? It became very nasty toward the end.
Nope. Watch and see how government is supposed to be run.
Would this have happened without Dean? I doubt it. Chair or not, Dean represents the life of the Demo party, what this party is all about. It isn't about winning at all costs. It is about everyday people, our concerns, our lives.
Other Demo things that passed in Colorado were mass transit and renewable energy. I was very suprised at renewable energy passing, as this will raise utility bills. Huh, Coloradans willing to pay more money for social responsibility? Wow, that's darn near LIBERAL! A cigarette tax passed. Holy cow, it's as if Marxists came to town, but no. Taxing cigs is an easy sell when the state budget is bust. Must be fewer smokers these days, who would have known.
The EC split failed. Oh well, maybe someday . . . or maybe the people want the winner-take-all advantage in 2008? Could be. Sometimes mass thought makes sense.
Looks to me like being in the middle or somewhat to the right isn't the direction to take for the Demo party. Dean has the right idea for fundraising, and his passion?
What, the Repubs aren't passionate? They sure were in Colorado ever since I came back here in 1993. Wrong, but passionate. Crazy I think. Paranoia, screaming me-mes, white breads, orio cookies, child molestation, homophobia, anti-arts, anti-environment, pro-anything-business, develop until you drop, chop down the forest to save it . . . yeah, crazy.
Howard Dean's campaign proved that money can efficiently be drummed up from the grass roots. Hello -- anybody listening? The DNC chair has to be able to raise money. Dean has opened the door to how this can be done without special interests getting their big feet all over the party.
Here in Colorado, this technique helped push Demos into the state legislature, a very significant thing. Another significant thing is that the state Repubs went into a feeding frenzy on themselves -- and this could very well happen nationally. We then want a solid, grass-roots supported party to pick up the pieces and take back this country.
I keep hearing that Demos have to start winning elections. We have, in Colorado, but nobody seems to care -- except Coloradans, and those who have been down this road before know what's going on. This state has gone purple. It is headed toward blue, right in the middle of the West. Repubs are in shock -- they now have to play minority politics, and their governor will be out in two years.
Meanwhile, Demos have found new life. Virtually all committees will be headed by Demos, and the speakers will be Demos, and the power is in Demo hands. Will they lord this over Repubs as the Repubs lorded over Demos for the past 44 years? It became very nasty toward the end.
Nope. Watch and see how government is supposed to be run.
Would this have happened without Dean? I doubt it. Chair or not, Dean represents the life of the Demo party, what this party is all about. It isn't about winning at all costs. It is about everyday people, our concerns, our lives.
Other Demo things that passed in Colorado were mass transit and renewable energy. I was very suprised at renewable energy passing, as this will raise utility bills. Huh, Coloradans willing to pay more money for social responsibility? Wow, that's darn near LIBERAL! A cigarette tax passed. Holy cow, it's as if Marxists came to town, but no. Taxing cigs is an easy sell when the state budget is bust. Must be fewer smokers these days, who would have known.
The EC split failed. Oh well, maybe someday . . . or maybe the people want the winner-take-all advantage in 2008? Could be. Sometimes mass thought makes sense.
Looks to me like being in the middle or somewhat to the right isn't the direction to take for the Demo party. Dean has the right idea for fundraising, and his passion?
What, the Repubs aren't passionate? They sure were in Colorado ever since I came back here in 1993. Wrong, but passionate. Crazy I think. Paranoia, screaming me-mes, white breads, orio cookies, child molestation, homophobia, anti-arts, anti-environment, pro-anything-business, develop until you drop, chop down the forest to save it . . . yeah, crazy.
This article over at Daily Kos is a good read and I think summarizes the problem nicely.
The statement I highlighted above is probably one of the largest reasons why I support Dean. It all comes down to how Democrats in the Senate and House have acted in recent years.
Not one of them would investigate the fraud allegations in 2000 (which were certainly stronger than they are this year). Every one of them voted for the patriot act. Most of them, including John Kerry, voted to go to Iraq. The author makes a good point that they have sold out their values, and I believe that to be true.
We need reform, not more of the same if we want to win.
QUOTE
Why did we like Dean? Because he spoke our language. He understood, like we did, that the Democrats had been losing elections and power because we had strayed from our base. Not that the base is leftist or uber-liberal - but that we believe in our own values, and our Democratic politicians were repeatedly selling those values out.
Dean was a contrast. He promised to speak our values, clearly, and with conviction. He was honest, sincere, credible. And he knew to reach out to other voters. He was right when he said we needed to talk to the folks with Confederate flags on their trucks. He never said we had to LISTEN to them or do what they wanted us to do. But he was right that we at least had to reach out with honesty.
Dean was a contrast. He promised to speak our values, clearly, and with conviction. He was honest, sincere, credible. And he knew to reach out to other voters. He was right when he said we needed to talk to the folks with Confederate flags on their trucks. He never said we had to LISTEN to them or do what they wanted us to do. But he was right that we at least had to reach out with honesty.
The statement I highlighted above is probably one of the largest reasons why I support Dean. It all comes down to how Democrats in the Senate and House have acted in recent years.
Not one of them would investigate the fraud allegations in 2000 (which were certainly stronger than they are this year). Every one of them voted for the patriot act. Most of them, including John Kerry, voted to go to Iraq. The author makes a good point that they have sold out their values, and I believe that to be true.
We need reform, not more of the same if we want to win.
Who would be the best candidate for the position?
While my wife and daughter were getting their hair cut, I was reading Take It to the Blue States by Thomas Geoghegan in The Nation. He had much to say that makes sense about how the Democratic Party could attract members of the work force by forming Labor Associations that, for a smaller than usual membership fee, would mimic labor unions, offer advice to members, and lobby for changes in state laws that would mandate minimum vacations, sick leave, maternity leave, and other benefits. I could see such organizations attracting members from Wal-Mart, Seven-Eleven, and many small businesses. His argument was that we, as Democrats, should try to place such initiatives on the ballot in the Blue States. If passed, it could cause the common folks in the Red states to ask why they were not recieving such benefits.
What would their selection say about the party and its future?
It would be a selection of an innovative individual with a vision for a direction that the Democratic Party could take that would cause it to gain, rather than lose, national influence.
While my wife and daughter were getting their hair cut, I was reading Take It to the Blue States by Thomas Geoghegan in The Nation. He had much to say that makes sense about how the Democratic Party could attract members of the work force by forming Labor Associations that, for a smaller than usual membership fee, would mimic labor unions, offer advice to members, and lobby for changes in state laws that would mandate minimum vacations, sick leave, maternity leave, and other benefits. I could see such organizations attracting members from Wal-Mart, Seven-Eleven, and many small businesses. His argument was that we, as Democrats, should try to place such initiatives on the ballot in the Blue States. If passed, it could cause the common folks in the Red states to ask why they were not recieving such benefits.
What would their selection say about the party and its future?
It would be a selection of an innovative individual with a vision for a direction that the Democratic Party could take that would cause it to gain, rather than lose, national influence.
Apparently Vilsack is now out of the running which only leaves Dean, Barnes and Rosenberg as serious contenders at this point. article.
This makes me happy because that is one less establishment candidate on the table for consideration.
QUOTE
DES MOINES, Iowa - Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack said Monday that he will not seek the chairmanship of the Democratic Party.
"These challenges and opportunities require more time than I felt I could share," Vilsack said in a statement. "As a result I will not be a candidate for DNC chairman."
"These challenges and opportunities require more time than I felt I could share," Vilsack said in a statement. "As a result I will not be a candidate for DNC chairman."
This makes me happy because that is one less establishment candidate on the table for consideration.
I'm not sure if anyone is still following this or if everyone has lost interest but the battle for the DNC Chair is starting to get really interesting. Check out this article.
The basic premise is that many delegates are seeking to endorse a candidate as a bloc that will de-emphasize the presidency and concentrate on state, local and congressional positions.
There is going to be a question and answer session in Orlando on Dec 11th with the following attendees:
According to everything I have read Dean still appears to be the front runner here and that pleases me very much.
The basic premise is that many delegates are seeking to endorse a candidate as a bloc that will de-emphasize the presidency and concentrate on state, local and congressional positions.
QUOTE
Congressional leaders and state party officials are insisting that the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) radically redirect the committee’s resources toward congressional races and other local contests and away from the presidential enchilada.
In behind-the-scenes positioning, key congressional lawmakers are seeking to prevent the national party from lapsing into another four-year presidential gestation cycle, where the DNC serves as nothing more than an incubator for the party’s ambitions to capture the White House, say leadership aides.
That congressional strategy to deemphasize the presidential race is being paralleled at the state level, where party chairmen are withholding their endorsements and plan to swing their 112 votes in one bloc for a single candidate.
In behind-the-scenes positioning, key congressional lawmakers are seeking to prevent the national party from lapsing into another four-year presidential gestation cycle, where the DNC serves as nothing more than an incubator for the party’s ambitions to capture the White House, say leadership aides.
That congressional strategy to deemphasize the presidential race is being paralleled at the state level, where party chairmen are withholding their endorsements and plan to swing their 112 votes in one bloc for a single candidate.
There is going to be a question and answer session in Orlando on Dec 11th with the following attendees:
QUOTE
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, New Democrat Network president Simon Rosenberg, strategist Donnie Fowler and telecom executive Leo Hindery have accepted Brewer’s invitation to make opening remarks and then participate in a question-and-answer session in Orlando.
In addition, Rep. Martin Frost (D-Texas), former New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, former White House Chief of Staff Harold Ickes and former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk have all been invited.
In addition, Rep. Martin Frost (D-Texas), former New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, former White House Chief of Staff Harold Ickes and former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk have all been invited.
According to everything I have read Dean still appears to be the front runner here and that pleases me very much.
If you still aren't a supporter of Dean for the DNC chair, check out this speech. I grabbed this from the front page of the Democratic Underground.
Daily Kos has a Transcript of a recent Dean speech in this diary, I haven't been able to find it anywhere else yet.
In short, Dean gets it and if anyone else ends up as DNC chair we might as well go ahead and write off 2006 and 2008.
QUOTE
Democrats need to learn by our previous mistakes - we have tried being "Republican-lite" and it does not work. It is a mistake to run away from the things we believe and I think we can win in the so-called Republican states by being real Democrats.
We have to realize that there are no red states and no blue states, just American states. I believe the country is still more in sync with Democratic values than Republican values. Our task is to remind ourselves and the American people of the hallmark issues that distinguish Democrats from Republicans.
For example, Democrats historically tackle economic issues with bold, common-sense policies. Our last Democratic president created 22 million new jobs in this country. In the last four years, George W. Bush oversaw the loss of over 1.5 million. Democrats balance budgets, Republicans do not. Democrats consistently try to pass legislation that would provide some kind of affordable health care, Republicans do not. Democrats believe we ought to raise the minimum wage to help the average worker keep up with the cost of living, Republicans do not. Democrats believe corporations have too much power over our daily lives; Republicans do not - and to prove it, they have given away billions of dollars of our tax money to the biggest corporations in the world over the last four years.
On each of these issues, the majority of the American people are with Democrats not Republicans. Democrats have the right beliefs to win; we just execute a poor public relations plan.
We have to realize that there are no red states and no blue states, just American states. I believe the country is still more in sync with Democratic values than Republican values. Our task is to remind ourselves and the American people of the hallmark issues that distinguish Democrats from Republicans.
For example, Democrats historically tackle economic issues with bold, common-sense policies. Our last Democratic president created 22 million new jobs in this country. In the last four years, George W. Bush oversaw the loss of over 1.5 million. Democrats balance budgets, Republicans do not. Democrats consistently try to pass legislation that would provide some kind of affordable health care, Republicans do not. Democrats believe we ought to raise the minimum wage to help the average worker keep up with the cost of living, Republicans do not. Democrats believe corporations have too much power over our daily lives; Republicans do not - and to prove it, they have given away billions of dollars of our tax money to the biggest corporations in the world over the last four years.
On each of these issues, the majority of the American people are with Democrats not Republicans. Democrats have the right beliefs to win; we just execute a poor public relations plan.
Daily Kos has a Transcript of a recent Dean speech in this diary, I haven't been able to find it anywhere else yet.
QUOTE
We cannot be a Party that seeks the presidency by running an 18-state campaign. We cannot be a party that cedes a single state, a single District, a single precinct, nor should we cede a single voter.
As many of the candidates supported by my organization Democracy for America showed -- people in places that we've too long ignored are hungry for an alternative; they're hungry for new ideas and new candidates, and they're willing to elect Democrats.
<snip>
It is time for the Democratic Party to start framing the debate.
We have to learn to punch our way off the ropes.
We have to set the agenda.
We should not hesitate to call for reform -- reform in elections, reform in health care and education, reforms that promote ethical business practices. And, yes, we need to talk about some internal reform in the Democratic Party as well, and I'll be discussing that more specifically in the days ahead.
As many of the candidates supported by my organization Democracy for America showed -- people in places that we've too long ignored are hungry for an alternative; they're hungry for new ideas and new candidates, and they're willing to elect Democrats.
<snip>
It is time for the Democratic Party to start framing the debate.
We have to learn to punch our way off the ropes.
We have to set the agenda.
We should not hesitate to call for reform -- reform in elections, reform in health care and education, reforms that promote ethical business practices. And, yes, we need to talk about some internal reform in the Democratic Party as well, and I'll be discussing that more specifically in the days ahead.
In short, Dean gets it and if anyone else ends up as DNC chair we might as well go ahead and write off 2006 and 2008.
First off, Donna Brazille put us in this mess. She pushed away Clinton from Gore's campaign and has Gore's low voter turnout rate to thank for it. She did nothing to energize the base and allowed a candidate to lose his own state. Lost other important key areas of the south, and she did this without an elite northeastern liberal- Gore not only has an accent, his wife is Ms. Values for sure. She lost us the south, and her failure put us here. In my view, Clinton's popularity is more than on par with Reagan, and she lost.
DrewyorkTimes is torn,
I like Dean because I like his positions. I disagree with many of them, but they are strong, democratic views, the basis of the party- I honestly believe he has the appeal to turn the democrats back into the party of workers, and unions, and in a deep, distant dream, maybe, even pick-up drivers with confedarate flags on the tailgate or what have you. But Carville has the control of the media that is currently running circles around the dems. Likely, Fox News will be here, still, in four years, saying, Fox Alert: 'Did Hillary Clinton eat Children Twice?', or Big Fact: 'It Takes a Village Written in the Same Century as Nazi Germany and Welfare' or whatever. Fox News leads the stories CNN runs with, and I think we need a chair with the power to reverse that. If you ever saw Kerry up-close you know, he really doesn't look one-half the dried-out Zombie he appears to be in that corner of the screen photo on Fox News. How did the Dems let such cheap tricks be run upon them? As much as I don't the idea of CNN pundit from the ghost of Clinton past running the party, I would dearly like to get the Media back under control, and believe Carville has more of those connects, network, network, spreadsheet, professional.
Yet the idealist in me is all for a party led by a guy who raised his campaign cash from college campers on the internet and is not afraid, in these times of turmoil, to stand up with conviction and let loose substance and of the democrat's message- namely, 'RAAAGHGHG!'
DrewyorkTimes is torn,
I like Dean because I like his positions. I disagree with many of them, but they are strong, democratic views, the basis of the party- I honestly believe he has the appeal to turn the democrats back into the party of workers, and unions, and in a deep, distant dream, maybe, even pick-up drivers with confedarate flags on the tailgate or what have you. But Carville has the control of the media that is currently running circles around the dems. Likely, Fox News will be here, still, in four years, saying, Fox Alert: 'Did Hillary Clinton eat Children Twice?', or Big Fact: 'It Takes a Village Written in the Same Century as Nazi Germany and Welfare' or whatever. Fox News leads the stories CNN runs with, and I think we need a chair with the power to reverse that. If you ever saw Kerry up-close you know, he really doesn't look one-half the dried-out Zombie he appears to be in that corner of the screen photo on Fox News. How did the Dems let such cheap tricks be run upon them? As much as I don't the idea of CNN pundit from the ghost of Clinton past running the party, I would dearly like to get the Media back under control, and believe Carville has more of those connects, network, network, spreadsheet, professional.
Yet the idealist in me is all for a party led by a guy who raised his campaign cash from college campers on the internet and is not afraid, in these times of turmoil, to stand up with conviction and let loose substance and of the democrat's message- namely, 'RAAAGHGHG!'
I don't feel that Dean has the ability to lead the Democratic Party. He will be more effective if he continues to try to grow a grassroots movement of politicians using the Dean method of populism and electronic community. Inside the party machinery I don't see him being as effective.
I don't completely understand party machinery, but I would think that it would be a good place for John Edwards to land. He is a good communicator and perhaps he would be able to fashion a moderate message that would encourage the diverse democratic party to fall in line behind it.
He at least has a positive association with his name.
I don't completely understand party machinery, but I would think that it would be a good place for John Edwards to land. He is a good communicator and perhaps he would be able to fashion a moderate message that would encourage the diverse democratic party to fall in line behind it.
He at least has a positive association with his name.
CLOSED.
This particular forum is for Democrats only. Since the person who started the thread no longer considers himself a Democrat, perhaps one of you still with the party can start something fresh.
Thanks to all who participated.
This particular forum is for Democrats only. Since the person who started the thread no longer considers himself a Democrat, perhaps one of you still with the party can start something fresh.
Thanks to all who participated.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.