Howard Dean - Master of the Obvious

[Bogart]

Howard Dean is a man who I would never want to be president of the United States and I do not agree with his approach to politics at all...

That being said, his tenure as DNC chairman has been quite good from a strategic standpoint. First off, the Republican president and Congress have abysmal job ratings, secondly there has been massive grassroots organization in every state whether it's hardcore Democratic or Republican, and thirdly in the only election since he took over, the Democratic candidate (who called President Bush a chickenhawk and an SOB) for a congressional seat in Ohio (where the last Democratic candidate only received 28% and where John Kerry only received 35%) came within 4,000 votes of winning. This special election in Ohio in the most Republican district in the state suggests that Democratic organization is working and that perhaps the message is getting clearer and stronger (the RNC spent $500,000 to "bury" the Dem candidate, who is an Iraqi war veteran, but well they couldn't quite do that). Or maybe people are just sick of Republicans dominating all branches of government...in any event, it ain't looking too bad for Democrats.

Plus, liberal interests are gearing up to create progressive think tanks to challenge the conservative domination of the think tanks and policy institutes and their ability to create a so-called "noise machine" is greatly advancing with the blogosphere.

The present doesn't look fruitful, but the future could be...Democratic epithets are far, far too premature and somewhat misguided in my view.

or epitaphs?

 

[Bogart]

Hello. Steny votes lockstep with the liberal agenda. Check his record, schweetie pie.

And Reid's "fighting spirit" is what cost the Democrats in '04.

Steny Hoyer was Bubba's lapdog. He is gonna look cute on Hillary's lap, too.

 

[Bogart]

If you look at Obama solely based on his voting record, you will notice that he consistently votes along the liberal line. His way of speaking, however, is unparalleled, and his DNC keynote speech made me want him as my party's nominee over Kerry; it was that good. I suggest you read it if you have a shot and even get the video of it, if possible.

The way his wife called him 'my baby daddy' made me think of Stepin Fetchit.

 

[BuddyLee]

poll ratings

Mean nothing!

 

[Bruzilla]

Bru, this isn't Democratic spin...from political analysts Charlie Cook and Amy Walter...



So it ain't landslide proportion, but it ain't bad. You cannot tell me that the job approval ratings of the Republican President, the ratings of his performance on the economy and Iraq, job approval ratings of the Republican Congress, public backlash over a braindead woman, constant reporting of ethics violation surrounding Tom DeLay and "Leakgate" do not worry you. All political barometers point to a potential Democratic gain if the party gets its act together, runs good candidates in vulnerable districts and states, maintain its fundraising ability, and provides a "time for a change" message.

I think that it can happen; and the less that you and hardcore Republicans believe it, the better for our side.

First off, and I think this is good advice, I don't listen to political analysts. I look at facts and numbers. Twenty different political analysts can look at the exact same event and devine twenty different meanings. Here's what matters to me:

1. Hackett lost.
2. Democratic voter turnout was much higher than expected.
3. Republican voter turnout was much lower than expected.
4. Hackett ran more of a Republican campaign than a common Democrat campaign.

All of those facts tell me that there was no groundswell of support for Democrats, nor a statement about support for Republican policies or George Bush. They do tell me that the Democrats in the district were highly motivated to hit the polls with everything they had, and the Republicans stayed on vacation in Fiji or stayed at home counting all their money. If Democratic turnout had been low, and Republican high, and if Hackett had run an anti-Republican/Anti-Bush/Anit-war campaign, and Hackett would have lost by 4,000 votes, I would be in 100% agreement with you. But, the numbers, and the type of campaign, show that your assumptions, and those of your referenced analysts, are wrong.

As for what worries me...

Job Approval Ratings of the Republican President: Don't bother me a bit. Bush's ratings were low before the last election, and who swept the table again? Also, Bush isn't running anymore, so who cares what his ratings are?

The ratings of his performance on the economy and Iraq: Last I checked, the economy was doing very well, even with high oil prices, so what performance ratings are you talking about? Also, the last I heard Iraq was pretty much on schedule as well. BTW, I don't fret over casualties. As long as we win I couldn't care less if we lost 100,000 troops... that's why we have them.

Job approval ratings of the Republican Congress: I think these have to be tempered a bit. The Congress has done a lot, and what hasn't been done is largely a result of Democrats blocking progress, which is a fact I think will be played up heavilly in 2006.

Public backlash over a braindead woman: There I do worry. I felt very strongly that this was a bad move for the Republicans, and Frist made a total fool of himself, as both a senator and as a doctor. The religious types love it, but it is a turn-off for the rest of us... but not a show-stopper, especially when compared to some of the crap Democrats have pulled.

Constant reporting of ethics violation surrounding Tom DeLay and "Leakgate": These I don't worry about at all as they are all turning out to be unfounded. You guys always had to worry about ethics violation allegations with Democrats because most of the time they turn out to be true, and unlike Republicans, Democrats will try to fight it out rather than resign for the benefit of their party. You see... that's how you can tell if a Republican is really guilty of a violation - they resign. They don't drag the country through months of denials and counter-accusations before coping a deal to plead guilty and then rehash the situation for months as they seek forgiveness.

 

[rraley]

All I can say is I hope that Karl Rove thinks like you Bru, because if he does, the GOP won't control Congress for much longer.

 

[Pete]

I was unaware that Rove could vote more than once.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yeah that makes sense...

All I can say is I hope that Karl Rove thinks like you Bru, because if he does, the GOP won't control Congress for much longer.

Karl Rove has thought and acted pretty much EXACTLY as Bruz has layed out and GOP dominance of the House and Senate has grown, the President was re-elected and the GOP is doing fine nation wide.

Sounds like doom in congress to me.

 

[Bruzilla]

I'll be completely honest and open with you RR... at this point I don't see how anything Karl Rove does will have any impact on the Republicans keeping the House and Senate. I just look at all the turmoil and lack of a vision and message coming from the Democrats that I think Rove could say he was slippin' the cigar to an Intern and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.

The Democrats may think they are wowing voters by pursuing stupid positions like being against profiling when searching possible terrorist suspects, or promoting the virtues of Gay marriage - or even more so by proclaiming the death of the value of marriage to defend the need for Gay marriages, or mocking religious leaders, or supporting restrictions on the Pledge of Allegiance or the Ten Commandments in the name of keeping religion out of government, or calling for us to be nicer to enemy combatants and to play nice with captured terrorists, and on and on, but I don't think you are. Democrats still can't rationalize that whole "values" vote from 2004, and still view it as an anomaly. They don't get that these positions they're pushing are being prioritized to the DNC by select special interest groups that don't share the values and morals of most Democrats.

Had Hackett run as a typical Democrat, rather than a pro-war quasi-Republican, he would have had his ass handed to him by the electorate. So, at least one Dem gets it, but how many others will "get it?" Not enough to win back anything, especially with the likes of Pilosi, Reid, and Dean calling the shots.

If you actually think that we Republicans are losing any sleep over any Republican actions, however stupid, while the Democrats are so determined to make asses out of themselves, all I can say is

 

[vraiblonde]

The Democrats may think they are wowing voters by pursuing stupid positions like being against profiling when searching possible terrorist suspects, or promoting the virtues of Gay marriage - or even more so by proclaiming the death of the value of marriage to defend the need for Gay marriages, or mocking religious leaders, or supporting restrictions on the Pledge of Allegiance or the Ten Commandments in the name of keeping religion out of government, or calling for us to be nicer to enemy combatants and to play nice with captured terrorists, and on and on, but I don't think you are.

Shhh! You just tellin' everybody everything

Don't listen to him, Raley - Democrats just need to keep fighting, that's all. They need to ramp up on profiling, get loud about those bad religious folks and do more to ensure that those nice young men at Gitmo are treated fairly and with respect.

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT! Don't give up now!

 

[hvp05]

From this Liberal editorial:

It has to do with recruiting candidates and raising money at the grass-roots level and giving fellow Democrats a reason to believe there is hope for the future. It will be Dean's success in these areas that determines how long he stays on as party chairman.

Soros and his comrades could pour billions into the coffers but that would not make them stronger. If the [voter] base does not increase relative to that of the Republicans they will have no hope. Maybe that's why the average turnover of the DNC Chairman is 2-3 years. Funny thing is, Dean is taking them to levels of looniness not before seen... but as long as they win, the means to victory are justified.

 

[ylexot]

More from the Master of the Obvious

"The burden of proof is on us," Dean said. "Our job is not just to say what we don't like about the president. Our job is to make sure that when we get in we earn the right to stay."
...
"President Bush's numbers are the lowest of his term and he deserves that," Dean said to applause. "We need to buy back our government from the corporations that have paid George Bush to run it."

But in his defense, he did actually mention some issues...

He said Democrats stand for fiscal restraint, health insurance for all, election reform and better defense and energy policies.
...
Dean also described Bush's desire to privatize social security as "nutty."

"Americans do not want to privatize social security," he said. "They're too smart to turn social security over to the people who ran Enron."

Ok..."fiscal constraint" and "health insurance for all" are in direct conflict with each other. I think both parties want election reform...it's just that they differ on what is good for elections. I'd love to hear Dean's "better defense and energy policies." As for privitization...that's not Bush's plan and he knows it. And I'd also like to add that the really smart Americans don't want the government to run their retirement either.

As an aside...did anybody else see the new "L Fund" in TSP? Looks like a pretty cool idea! It automatically shifts from more aggressive funds towards more conservative funds as time goes on (just as they suggest you do on your own).

 

[Bruzilla]

But in his defense, he did actually mention some issues...

Ahhhh.... teach a retarded person some sentences and they can mention some issues too... wait a minute... maybe that's what the DNC did with Dean. What's completely missing from Dean's statements, as well as statements from the rest of the Democratic retards, is solutions to the issues.