Dean Vows to Lead Democrats Back to Power

[Larry Gude]

What I'll be interested to hear...

...in the coming months is how Dean got the job. I mean, it's not simply the biggest mouth, right?

There had to have been a BUNCH of behind the scenes support by people who don't want to be publicly seen as marginalizing the Clintons.

I bet Ted had alot to do with it.

 

[Sparx]

You have to wonder what the Democrats are thinking. They lose the Presidency, lose seats in the House and Senate, and lose Governorships to Republicans. And they think the answer is to get a lunatic lefty who was soundly trounced not in the general election, but in the primary, to fix them back up.

This oughta be interesting. Terry McAuliffe was THE worst thing to ever happen to the Democratic party in history. Worse than slavery. Worse than segregation. Worse than abortion-on-demand. Worse than Ebonics. Worse than Socialized electricity.

I say "was" because I suspect Howard Dean is about to beat McAuliffe out for the "worst" award.

What do you mean by "socialized electricity"?

 

[vraiblonde]

What do you mean by "socialized electricity"?

It's what got Gray Davis fired and replaced by the Terminator:
http://www.npri.org/issues/issues01/i_b020101.htm

 

[Sparx]

It's what got Gray Davis fired and replaced by the Terminator:
http://www.npri.org/issues/issues01/i_b020101.htm

That's a strictly ultra-conservative opinion of what happened in California. If you do more research as to when and what happened, it would be clear the Enron debacle had much more to do with Californias problems than anything Gray Davis did. The power marketing would not be happening if it were not for deregulation of the market. The country was warned over and over about the problems we would have by deregulating the electric energy market. It didn't work in the first states it was tried and finally, after California's problems, most states considering it backed off and trash canned their deregulation plans.

 

[vraiblonde]

The fact is, you can't sell something for less than it costs to produce it and still stay solvent. You just can't. Why do you think California has such a high deficit? All these weird social programs implemented by Democrats, that's why.

Then you get the nutties crying and puling - "Noooo! You can't build power plants in our state! It will kill all the little froggies and chipmunks!"

Fine. Then sit there in the dark, you idiots. You don't want to produce it NOR do you want to pay for it. Dur.

 

[Sparx]

The fact is, you can't sell something for less than it costs to produce it and still stay solvent. You just can't. Why do you think California has such a high deficit? All these weird social programs implemented by Democrats, that's why.

Then you get the nutties crying and puling - "Noooo! You can't build power plants in our state! It will kill all the little froggies and chipmunks!"

Fine. Then sit there in the dark, you idiots. You don't want to produce it NOR do you want to pay for it. Dur.

Oh, if only it was that simple.

 

[2ndAmendment]

The fact is, you can't sell something for less than it costs to produce it and still stay solvent. You just can't. Why do you think California has such a high deficit? All these weird social programs implemented by Democrats, that's why.

Then you get the nutties crying and puling - "Noooo! You can't build power plants in our state! It will kill all the little froggies and chipmunks!"

Fine. Then sit there in the dark, you idiots. You don't want to produce it NOR do you want to pay for it. Dur.

The Democrats and, to a lesser extent, the Republicans do it on all levels of government. Social programs to buy the vote.

 

[vraiblonde]

Oh, if only it was that simple.

Then why don't you explain it to me?

 

[Sparx]

Then why don't you explain it to me?

I deal with power marketing, deregulation issues, utilities, transmission, production and anything else to do with electric energy policy and have been doing it for years and am just now starting to get a grasp on it. I wish I could explain it to you but it would take days and I would still make mistakes doing so. One thing is for sure though, before deregulation, a black or brown out was usually caused by equipment failure but now, marketing is the usual suspect. Trying to make a quick million or so dollars and to hell with overloading the grid. This countries power grid was not designed for what deregulation requires of it.

 

[hamsterfang]

Sorry, but I don't think replacing Davis with someone with no political experience whatsoever was such a great move on the behalf of the Californians. People were just caught up in the hype that he was a movie star. If we had to replace Davis, why not replace him with someone who has more experience than him?

 

[2ndAmendment]

Sorry, but I don't think replacing Davis with someone with no political experience whatsoever was such a great move on the behalf of the Californians. People were just caught up in the hype that he was a movie star. If we had to replace Davis, why not replace him with someone who has more experience than him?

There was a better Republican candidate, but he could not garner the votes.

 

[vraiblonde]

Sparx, you better run quick and tell the state of California, the news media, President Bush and all the talking heads that they got the story wrong and you have the correct one.

Maybe you can get Gray his job back.

 

[SamSpade]

Then why don't you explain it to me?

It *IS* that simple. California doesn't have the power plants it needs to keep up with demand. It hasn't for a long time. Deregulation or not, the problem has always been they won't build the damned plants. Not in my back yard. I've rarely seen a coherent, cogent argument from Sparx on anything, and it surprises me not at all that when called on this, the best you can get is, don't have time or space to answer you.

Other parts of the country have a slightly similar problem with fresh water. They're all being penny-wise and pound foolish. Blaming the problem on deregulation is like blaming your kid's car accidents on the gas money you gave him. It's his responsibility. Gray Davis and his predecessors went for the short-term solution. Kinda like paying all your bills with credit cards - it's long-term stupid. Don't blame the credit card company because they let you do it, or the government for allowing them to extend you credit. It's YOUR damned fault.

And in California, it was even harder because most of the damned budget was already tied up in entitlements. At least Arnold doesn't have his whole future riding on whether or not he makes unpopular but good decisions.

 

[SamSpade]

with someone with no political experience whatsoever was such a great move on the behalf of the Californians. People were just caught up in the hype that he was a movie star.

Oh I think Reagan will be a great governor! But watch out, he might run for President one day!

 

[sleuth]

Oh I think Reagan will be a great governor! But watch out, he might run for President one day!

 

[vraiblonde]

"No political experience.....movie star.....governor..."

Get it now?

 

[rraley]

The Democrats and, to a lesser extent, the Republicans do it on all levels of government. Social programs to buy the vote.

It really is too bad that you believe that some politicians support "social programs" only to win votes. I'm not a politician and I believe in Head Start, welfare, government scholarships, education, etc. These programs help people to build better lives and that is why I support them. I don't support them because I want some low income or disadvantaged person to vote for my party. Now I don't intend to provoke a flame war about welfare, etc., that is not my intention. I just want conservatives to stop questioning my motives for supporting programs that aim to help people rather than leave them out in the cold of "rugged individualism." I support "social programs" because of my own analysis of the programs and my own value system...winning votes is a distant second to helping people.

As for Howard Dean...wtf? Do Democrats have a concept anymore of how to win? Dear Lord. What Larry had to say earlier about what the Democrats need to do...I agree in most aspects and in some I think that the party is alot further along than some would suspect. The party is solidly pro-choice and it is getting closer to moderation on the issue. Democrats will not push repealing the partial birth abortion ban passed a couple years ago (though I believe that the courts will overturn it) and many have come out for parental notification (including good ole Hillary). Dems are no big fans of fossil fuels, which is evidenced by pushing higher mileage standards for vehicles, greater funding for alternative energy sources, and tax credits for electric cars. Furthermore, the party is currently the ones pushing for equitable pay increases for civilian employees in the DOD and supports President Bush's proposal for increased pay for combat troops. As for the other things that Larry cited, we have some ways to go. On Social Security, we need to admit that there is indeed a problem down the road, but we must not support any proposal that removes the guarantee of the program (and from most indications, Bush's proposal will do that; Senator Graham of South Carolina is building up a damn smart proposal that includes personal accounts and increasing the cap on taxable income for the program). On Iraq, yeah most of the party messed up on that one, but we can learn. And on the Second Amendment, that probably won't change; too many Democrats are not accustomed to rural culture where gun ownership is close to sacred. But I have hope that these things will change with time and that the cycle will swing back our way in the years to come.

 

[Penn]

Funny, this is what we were talking about earlier:

From NewsMax.com:
2. Democrats' Civil War: Clintons vs. Kennedy

The apparent selection of Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic Party indicates the party does not want to learn from its ways. That's good news for Republicans.

The Dean ascension also indicates that when it comes to grassroots Democrats, it's the liberalism of Dean, Kerry and Ted Kennedy that still holds sway among party cadres.

For some time, NewsMax has reported that Hillary Clinton has long had her guns set on Dean. During the bitter primary campaign last year, we noted that a source close to Dean's mother blamed Hillary and Bill for all of her son's campaign woes.

Now it is no longer an open secret that Hillary dislikes Dean.

But it is clear that a larger civil war has long been under way in the Democratic Party that ironically has pitted Hillary and Bill as the "moderates" against Dean and his faction -- which is still controlled by the Kennedy-Kerry circle.

Kennedy's recent bellicose speech to the National Press Club spit in the face of moderation and said the party should stick to its core positions: pacifism, higher taxes, more abortion rights, more gay rights, etc.

The reasoning for this positioning is that the Kennedy faction does not believe the Democrats have lost elections because of their liberal views.

They believe that the 2004 election was lost solely on national security and the "war on terror."

An associate of Kennedy recently told NewsMax the view is simple: "Stand firm, and the Iraq war will turn into such a disaster, the Democrats will win big in 2006." The source added, "The Democrats won't have to do a thing but remain opposed to the war."

The war and growing body count will feed angst, the source said, among the right wing, who will soon demand an end to the war.

Perhaps so. But the recent relatively calm elections in Iraq suggest the insurgency may be abating rather than increasing.

 

[rraley]

The latest Republican conspiracy theory regarding the Clinton's is that they actually wanted Dean to be the DNC chairman because they wanted to be able to run away from the "liberalism" of the party when Hillary runs in 2008. They say that if they wanted Dean out so much, they would have been more public about their opposition, which would have been his kiss of death.

 

[Sparx]

It *IS* that simple. California doesn't have the power plants it needs to keep up with demand. It hasn't for a long time. Deregulation or not, the problem has always been they won't build the damned plants. Not in my back yard. I've rarely seen a coherent, cogent argument from Sparx on anything, and it surprises me not at all that when called on this, the best you can get is, don't have time or space to answer you.

Other parts of the country have a slightly similar problem with fresh water. They're all being penny-wise and pound foolish. Blaming the problem on deregulation is like blaming your kid's car accidents on the gas money you gave him. It's his responsibility. Gray Davis and his predecessors went for the short-term solution. Kinda like paying all your bills with credit cards - it's long-term stupid. Don't blame the credit card company because they let you do it, or the government for allowing them to extend you credit. It's YOUR damned fault.

And in California, it was even harder because most of the damned budget was already tied up in entitlements. At least Arnold doesn't have his whole future riding on whether or not he makes unpopular but good decisions.

Study the issue before you start running your crap. When you have a good understanding of power marketing e-mail me about it.