Howard Dean... The Democrats version of Newt Gingrich?

[Moooooo]

A Republican warns fellow Republicans not to underestimate Howard Dean.

~snip~
On February 12, Democrats will elect a new Democratic National Committee Chairman. (I know using "chairman" isn't politically correct, but it sounds better than "the GOP's bitch" as Terry McAuliffe was for four years.) In the hunt for this position is Howard Dean, former Presidential candidate and public advocate for scream therapy.

Conservatives and Republicans have been licking their chops at the prospect of a Dean chairmanship, but I would urge a bit of caution here. Howard Dean has the potential to be the Democrats' version of Newt Gingrich, and if we overlook the potential impact he will have on the Democrats as a whole, we could see a Democrat Revolution in the near future, possibly as soon as 2006.

Granted, I've taken more than a few shots at Dean in my columns, but behind the scenes I've grown to respect him. He is not a typical modern Democrat by any stretch of the imagination. Instead of focusing on short term personal political goals, he sees a bright future for his party if Democrats are willing to follow him.

And personally, I think he has the ability to do it.

http://www.therealitycheck.org/GuestColumnist/tlindaman020905.htm
~snip~

[Frodo]

well, it's about time for Democrats to get out of their assumed position and to force Republicans to assume theirs -and if any man can effect this change, it's Howard Dean. 

[Richard]

I love Howard Dean.  I really hope the Democratic Party takes after him.  It will be smoooth sailing to 60 in 2006, and a very conservative president in 2008.

[Frodo]

I love Howard Dean.  I really hope the Democratic Party takes after him.  It will be smoooth sailing to 60 in 2006, and a very conservative president in 2008.

keep thinking that.........  i'll be there four years from now watching you eat your words. 

[Richard]

I love Howard Dean.  I really hope the Democratic Party takes after him.  It will be smoooth sailing to 60 in 2006, and a very conservative president in 2008.

keep thinking that.........  i'll be there four years from now watching you eat your words. 

One year ago people like you said the same thing about 2004.

[Lunar]

Howard Dean is no political genius.  You saw what he did to himself.

[Richard]

Howard Dean is no political genius.  You saw what he did to himself.

I'd love to see Newt yell like that.

[phk]

Howard Dean is like Democrat version of Goldwater.

[Frodo]

Howard Dean is no political genius.  You saw what he did to himself.

and neither is Karl Rove -Bush could barely manage over 50% in the popular vote, even with practically every major institution behind him -the corporate media (the fabled 'fourth estate"), talk radio, Republican control of Congress, the largess of major corporations, and the rock solid support of the religious right.  it is amazing that Kerry got as much as he did in spite of the fact that the nation was at war, and in an age of transnational terrorism that is omnipresent in everyone's minds in the wake of the terror attacks of September 11th.   let me tell ya -2004 can in no way be compared to 1984.  Bush won no landslide -he barely won a precarious majority.  and the margin of  his popular vote win is shrinking by the hundreds of thousands as more ballots are being counted.

secondly, Howard Dean is a human being, having gotten caught up in the moment when he made his 'I have a scream' speech.  one mistake does not reflect his intelligence or competence.  that's like saying that Bush's known verbal gaffs reflects his intelligence (or lack thereof, as some would have it).  what you are implying here is grossly unfair to Dean, castigating him for one mistake that he is not likely to repeat.   

although, come to think of it, i probably should just sit back and let you trash Dean.  the lower the bar is set, the easier it will be for Dean to prove everyone (like you) wrong -Bush style. 

[Frodo]

Howard Dean is like Democrat version of Goldwater.

that honor has already gone to George McGovern, i believe. 

[Frodo]

Howard Dean is no political genius.  You saw what he did to himself.

I'd love to see Newt yell like that.

do you have any more cheap shots? 

[opebo]

and neither is Karl Rove -Bush could barely manage over 50% in the popular vote, even with practically every major institution behind him -the corporate media (the fabled 'fourth estate"), talk radio, Republican control of Congress, the largess of major corporations, and the rock solid support of the religious right.  it is amazing that Kerry got as much as he did in spite of the fact that the nation was at war, and in an age of transnational terrorism that is omnipresent in everyone's minds in the wake of the terror attacks of September 11th.   let me tell ya -2004 can in no way be compared to 1984.  Bush won no landslide -he barely won a precarious majority.  and the margin of  his popular vote win is shrinking by the hundreds of thousands as more ballots are being counted.   

Great points - the Republicans total control of government rests upon a very narrow base.  Dean is the kind of principled leader to get the Democrats back to their true liberal base, rather than following the sure loser Clinton strategy of becoming a second Republican Party.

[Lunar]

Howard Dean is no political genius.  You saw what he did to himself.

although, come to think of it, i probably should just sit back and let you trash Dean.  the lower the bar is set, the easier it will be for Dean to prove everyone (like you) wrong -Bush style. 

Watch your mouth punk, I voted for Kerry.

It's a fact that Howard Dean was HORRIBLE at controlling media time, saying the right things, etc.  He let the media paint him as a radical by looking like one.

[Sam Spade]

Look, first of all the Democrats need to get some ideas that people in the country-at-large support and then they can try to turn to things around.

One of the things that's killing them right now is that they're only "obstructionist, obstructionist, obstructionist" at the national level and they're letting Bush dictate the agenda to them.

Whether Dean is the person to turn this around remains to be seen.

I tend to believe not.

[TeePee4Prez]

and neither is Karl Rove -Bush could barely manage over 50% in the popular vote, even with practically every major institution behind him -the corporate media (the fabled 'fourth estate"), talk radio, Republican control of Congress, the largess of major corporations, and the rock solid support of the religious right.  it is amazing that Kerry got as much as he did in spite of the fact that the nation was at war, and in an age of transnational terrorism that is omnipresent in everyone's minds in the wake of the terror attacks of September 11th.   let me tell ya -2004 can in no way be compared to 1984.  Bush won no landslide -he barely won a precarious majority.  and the margin of  his popular vote win is shrinking by the hundreds of thousands as more ballots are being counted.   

Great points - the Republicans total control of government rests upon a very narrow base.  Dean is the kind of principled leader to get the Democrats back to their true liberal base, rather than following the sure loser Clinton strategy of becoming a second Republican Party.

Interesting you say that opebo.  I would think you would be a more Clintonesque Democrat (Economically conservative, socially liberal).  I agree with you about Howard Dean.  Funny my dad was a Democrat back then a got pissed off at NAFTA.  He cites that as part of his reason for leaving.  NAFTA wouldn't be all that bad if it had some labor and environmental provisions.  NAFTA allowed my dad's pro-life position to surface and hence he became a Republican.  I think this phenomenon projected into the Ohio-western PA- West Virginia triangle as well.  That is not an area we can afford to lose in the future.  Had we won that area we would have not have to worry about PA as much in the future and by that we could devote more resources to other states.  The question now is how do we get off the defensive?     

[Storebought]

Howard Dean is no political genius.  You saw what he did to himself.

and neither is Karl Rove -Bush could barely manage over 50% in the popular vote, even with practically every major institution behind him -the corporate media (the fabled 'fourth estate"), talk radio, Republican control of Congress, the largess of major corporations, and the rock solid support of the religious right.  it is amazing that Kerry got as much as he did in spite of the fact that the nation was at war, and in an age of transnational terrorism that is omnipresent in everyone's minds in the wake of the terror attacks of September 11th.   let me tell ya -2004 can in no way be compared to 1984.  Bush won no landslide -he barely won a precarious majority.  and the margin of  his popular vote win is shrinking by the hundreds of thousands as more ballots are being counted.

secondly, Howard Dean is a human being, having gotten caught up in the moment when he made his 'I have a scream' speech.  one mistake does not reflect his intelligence or competence.  that's like saying that Bush's known verbal gaffs reflects his intelligence (or lack thereof, as some would have it).  what you are implying here is grossly unfair to Dean, castigating him for one mistake that he is not likely to repeat.   

although, come to think of it, i probably should just sit back and let you trash Dean.  the lower the bar is set, the easier it will be for Dean to prove everyone (like you) wrong -Bush style. 

Whatever you say so that you can fall asleep at night. Need a blankey?

[Capey]

Howard Dean is no political genius.  You saw what he did to himself.

I'd love to see Newt yell like that.

do you have any more cheap shots? 

That was a cheap shot?

[Frodo]

Look, first of all the Democrats need to get some ideas that people in the country-at-large support and then they can try to turn to things around.

One of the things that's killing them right now is that they're only "obstructionist, obstructionist, obstructionist" at the national level and they're letting Bush dictate the agenda to them.

i agree for the most part, except that Democrats have throughout Bush's first term been a bunch of pushovers and pantywaists, helping pass his tax cuts for the rich and the corporations, free trade agreements further hollowing out America's manufacturing core, and passing the Iraq War Resolution Act, instead of coming out and opposing it as they should have.  i'm glad they are finally setting themselves apart from Bush and the Republicans, even if it is late and belated.  i agree however that they have to define themselves positively, not just negatively (although that too).  as yet, progressives are still in the early stages of building an infrastructure that can rival that of their rightwing rivals, in founding think tanks, an alternative media, and other spheres through which they could influence and shape the political landscape.  but the first step that must be taken is for Democrats to declare their independence from the Republican Party -which they are finally doing.  it's better than being merely the liberal wing of the Republican Party, which the Democrats have been at least since Bill Clinton's presidency. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

i'll also wait and see whether or not Dean is as competent as i hope he is, and helps enable Democrats to at least hold their own in the midterm elections.  anything can happen in the next two or four years.  but i am optimistic given his ability to energize party activists, to bring in new blood, and to shift the source of financial contributions from the corporations to ordinary citizens, as was shown in his campaign up to the primaries and caucuses.  he isn't flawless, but he is the perceived standard-bearer of change that this party needs so badly.   i don't expect miracles, but i do expect that the party can finally speak on behalf of the common man (like it's supposed to) instead of continually angling for corporate beneficence.     

[Frodo]

Howard Dean is no political genius.  You saw what he did to himself.

although, come to think of it, i probably should just sit back and let you trash Dean.  the lower the bar is set, the easier it will be for Dean to prove everyone (like you) wrong -Bush style. 

Watch your mouth punk, I voted for Kerry.

i didn't know that -my apologies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

at least these criticisms are legit.....   

[Democratic Hawk]

For me, Howard Dean is on probation. If the Democrats lose further ground to the GOP in the mid-terms, Dean has got to go!

I certainly don't want the guy to be speaking about national security on behalf of the Democratic Party

Dave

[dazzleman]

It remains to be seen how well Dean will do as DNC Chairman.

Keep in mind that Gingrich was not, prior to the Republican takeover of Congress, the divisive figure that he later became.  He wasn't even that well known at that time.  He got a little drunk with power in 1995 and never quite recovered.

Dean is already well known, so he's not quite the same as Gingrich.  I find that Dean has a tin ear for values, and this will not really help if the party really wishes to project the idea that it cares about values.  If this is the mission, then I don't see how Dean can do it.

[Blue Rectangle]

For me, Howard Dean is on probation. If the Democrats lose further ground to the GOP in the mid-terms, Dean has got to go!

I certainly don't want the guy to be speaking about national security on behalf of the Democratic Party

Dave

Terry oversaw several beatdowns of Democrats by Republicans and he stayed around quite easily.  This is because he was a fantastic fund raiser.  Now you and other logical Democrats may believe that Dean, like a football coach, should be judged by whether he can win, but the fact remains that Dean will be around as long as he pulls in money.

Dean looks like another McAuliffe: good at fund raising, good at firing up the base, good at keeping himself in the media spotlight, but bad at actually winning elections.  The Republicans breathed a collective sigh of relief when Roemer dropped out.

With JOHN KERRY, that HORNY JERK, out of the way, perhaps the Democrats can HEAD ONWARD with HOWARD DEAN, but I still think TIM ROEMER had MORE MERIT.

[Democratic Hawk]

I can't say I'm impressed with McAuliffe at all

The fact that Dean can raise money is his only real asset- but what's the point of that, if the Democratic Party continues its electoral haemorrhage. Nevertheless, I believe Dean will work wonders on an organisational level

However, I don't think the election of Howard 'I hate Republicans' Dean is the message the party should be sending to the American public. Personally, the party should be reaching out to moderate conservatives/Republicans not alienating them (and no that DON'T MEAN abandoning principles) - so in this respect at least Dean is the wrong choice. Moving to the centre is not abandoning principles, it's called pragmatism

I'd have prefered Tim Roemer as DNC Chair to be honest

Only time will tell, whether Dean is a gift to the the GOP or their worst nightmare - but as a 'dove' it doesn't bode well. Speaking as a 'hawk', the sooner the Democratic Party returns to a Trumanite defence policy, the better - and, in that respect at least, a Dean Chairmanship is not reassuring

I heard Karl Rove talking with Hannity the other night about the Republican Party being centre-right (yes, centre-right) and being compassionate conservatives (yes, compassionate). It's down to the Democrats to expose that facade! It would be a start

Dave

P.S. Sorry Nick, I wish I could share your optimism about Dean but at this stage I can't , not yet anyway

[Moooooo]

Nevertheless, I believe Dean will work wonders on an organisational level.

This is the main reason I supported Dean.  His vision of building the party from the bottom up rather than the top down is a great idea.  Take the power away from the foreign consultants and put the power in the hands of the people.  What everyone frogets is, the Democratic chairman has no say whatsoever about policy and the actual message of the party.  His soul purpose is fundraising and organizing.  At that I think Dean was the best possible candidate for the party.

[Shira]

Dean is considered to be a "Leftist".
Could someone bring any of Dean's views that make him a "Lleftist".
To be clear, when I say Dean's views, I mean the views expressed by Dean's  and not what you decide   what Dean's views are.