|
Post by MProffitt on Feb 15, 2004 19:55:06 GMT -5
... continued
We are looking for a long and broad understanding of our mission as standardbearers of important ideals and a better way of life. This is mistaken for "the vision thing," but that is not the real heart of it. Any politician worth his salt can come up with an overarching national vision platform that harks back to the glorious days of FDR and JFK, aptly expressed with the help of a few speechwriters and some native charm. The sad reality is that we have been sold many great Inaugural speeches which have only amounted to continuing salvos in a war of rhetoric with the Other Party, none of which uplift the eyes to the realities of the 21st century. Howard Dean has gone beyond merely talking about exporting democracy to other countries, and has talked about the need to create a middle class in other countries. And the elephant in the room here at home, of course, is that we fail to broadly understand the destiny of our children (much less future generations) as long as we dance around the difficult subject of balanced budgets and tax cuts. Do Democrats have a response to this, or do they prefer a reactive, narrow focus on the here and now? If they have a response, we may respond to them.
We are looking for a party with open borders. We are no longer looking for a reasonable facsimile. Just as we insist that gay Americans are not third-class citizens of America, we insist that they are not second-class citizens of our party. Having heard of a politician and leader who once wore a bullet proof vest as a result of helping to gain civil rights for gay Americans, and having seen him not back down from boldly affirming their rights during a presidential campaign, this vision of our party cannot now be erased out of our eyes. If Democrats can respond to this immutable fact, they might receive the reply they are looking for.
We "Dean Democrats" are now looking for all of these things, and many other things besides, which I'd write about if I had more time this morning. And if I have more time later, I may write more.
But the overriding message I wish to convey, is that things have changed forever. The thing is done. And the Democratic Party cannot harness it as one would capture some sort of "energy" - they can only respond to this change.
I am only laying out the facts on the ground. Everyone seems to be wondering about what ought to be done about the Dean supporters, so I thought I would help. And quite honestly, the rest of the Democratic Party ought to be thankful that Howard Dean himself is still in this race, because his being actually still politically "present" buys the Democratic Party (or some candidate or other) more precious time to examine the real facts of what is going on their ranks on the ground - a reality not always expressed in votes.
I am writing this as a friendly and hopeful outreach to my Democratic Party, in the hopes that they really do want to go further into this election with open eyes as to what is really going on, and are intelligent and brave enough to formulate and carry out an informed response to new political realities, as opposed to an ignorant reaction, so that they can get what they need to go up against Bush.
Just brilliant. Will they listen? I doubt it, but NYCO's laid it out nice and clear. No excuses, now. Let's see if this party stands for anything at all, anymore.
Will they listen?
Our Al Gore said he would fight for us whose voices are not heard, perhaps he is .... and he's helping the one that best shows and believes the same the same things he does. Al Gore is a hero in the Dean camp. I'd like to keep Al Gore's ideas around.
|
|
LilHopper
GSC Senior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Write in Al Gore
Posts: 73
|
Post by LilHopper on Feb 16, 2004 12:59:33 GMT -5
Hi, I am waiting for a call back from one of the dean supporters to see if the wthdrawal of Dean as rumored by CNN is true. Probably so, though Dean is still actively campaigning here in WI. Rumors say his campaign and support staff are planning on deserting the man if he dosn't win WI. How sad, to hear that Dems are so fickle. What ever happened to staying the game? ot that I am a Dean supporter, but i terms of really backing a person or just mouthing the words are 2 differnt things. No wonder the Dem party is such a mess. Still no backbone, still no staying power. Sigh. Scarey to think Bush would have the office for 4 more years. (the white trash,,,) Ooops! Did I say that out loud???
|
|
|
Post by earthmother on Feb 16, 2004 13:43:31 GMT -5
I have never been a Dean supporter because I never thought the man had a prayer of winning in a national election. My opinion had little to do with his ideas and everything to do with his demeanor. I knew the average American would never support someone like him. I'm glad that Dean is still in the race, though, and I hope that WI voters give him enough of a share of the delegates to make it worth it to him to remain in the race. Why? Because, as MProfitt says, it gives the American people more of a chance to examine who they want their nominee to be. Americans have somehow fallen for the old "bait and switch" tactic. I'm not sure who's behind it, but they sure did pull a fast one, and the more I see of Kerry, the less impressed I am. People aren't fleeing to Kerry because they like what he's saying. They're fleeing to Kerry because of his "presidential image," his demeanor, and his perceived ability to beat Bush. Unfortunately, most Americans are extremely anti-intellectual (and hence why Bush is now in the White House), and they can't be bothered truly examining what the candidates stand for and what they plan to do about the messes Bush has gotten us into. I don't think that will ever change. And even though he's not running, Gore is still being harpooned by the media--just look at last weekend's opening SNL skit where Kerry tried to dissuade Gore from giving him his endorsement. It made me so angry. But that's how the media have played this thing, and that's what the sheeple will lap up.
Things won't change substantively in this country until the people change. Yeah, good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by GoreSupporterNJ on Feb 18, 2004 13:36:52 GMT -5
HOWIE, WE HARDLY KNEW YE www.rall.com/An Elegy for Governor Dean NEW YORK--At least they didn't shoot Howard Dean. Usually, when an American political figure speaks truth to power, he ends up conveniently dead. RFK, Malcolm X, some say Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone: all martyrs to the quaint ideal of telling it as it is as loudly as possible. Like them, Dean scared the establishment. His aggressive style roused youngsters whom aging Boomers prefer to see somnolent. His populist Internet-based fundraising freed him from the corporate donors whose influence keeps the citizens of the world's richest nation living under a Third World system of social protections. Al Gore's endorsement transformed a candidate who came out of nowhere (Vermont) into a genuine threat to the southern conservatives who have hijacked the Democratic Party since 1992. Dean was a pro-business moderate, yet he stood poised to radically transform both his party and the American political system. Of course he had to go. The same journalists who issued get-out-of-scrutiny passes to George W. Bush for everything from electoral fraud to assassinating U.S. citizens he declares "enemy combatants" to lying about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction nailed Dean for, of all things, "screaming" into a microphone the night he lost the Iowa caucuses. (For the record, those in the audience say, they could barely hear him over the din of the crowd.) The Hotline political newsletter reported that national TV news programs aired Dean's "I Have a Scream" speech 633 times within four days--and that's not counting local news or talk shows. Even Roger Ailes, the right-wing svengali pulling the strings at Fox News, conceded that it was "overplayed a bit." According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, only 39 percent of Dean's coverage was positive during the following week, compared to 86 percent for John Edwards and 71 percent for current frontrunner John Kerry. One indignity followed another--all because, God forbid, the guy got a tad rambunctious. "Is Dean Too Angry?" headlines spread across the nation. DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe, who refused to run interference for Dean when he was leading the pack, stepped into the fray to protect Kerry. "Democrats are still so angry about Al Gore's loss in 2000 and the Iraq war that they simply will not stand for intramural squabbling," the New York Times quoted McAuliffe on February 17. "I'd much rather have a unified party with money in the bank." (He was singing a different tune in December.) Dean has the second largest number of delegates, yet the media refers to Edwards as Kerry's principal challenger. McAuliffe has a simple explanation for Kerry's string of victories. "Voters said, 'We want someone who is electable,'" he said. Democratic primary voters, however, have no way to know what brand of Democrat appeals to a swing voter. Most Democrats, determined to get rid of Bush, simply supported the contender who seemed most likely to win the nomination. Dean emerged as the early favorite, but anyone could see that his own party leadership had it in for him, going so far as to promote General Wesley Clark as the "anti-Dean." The press dealt the coup de grace after Iowa. That left Kerry, the official DLC candidate, as the most viable alternative. Judging by Kerry's unwillingness to go for the jugular on Bush's AWOL year and his waffling on gay marriage, Dean would probably have been the more electable Democrat come this fall. I suspect that his integrity and intelligence would have made him a finer president. I also suspect that many of his fired-up supporters will ignore the abandon-hope message of the Times' astonishingly condescending February 1 editorial, "Come Home, Little Deaniacs." Kerry's opportunism notwithstanding--voting for the Iraq war when it was popular, voting against funding the occupation when it wasn't--pulling the lever for Michael Dukakis' ex-number two is about as thrilling as swallowing medicine. A lot of Deanies will suck it up in November; others will stay home. As a charter member of the "Anybody But Bush" club, I will of course pull a lever for John Kerry in November. I can't say I'll do it with relish, but it'll be any easy decision nonetheless. Kerry looks like a basset hound and sounds like a moose and he'll make a marked improvement over the neofascist we've got now. (Ted Rall is the editor of the new anthology of alternative cartoons "Attitude 2: The New Subversive Social Commentary Cartoonists," containing interviews with and cartoons by 21 of America's best cartoonists. Ordering information is available at amazon.com.) COPYRIGHT 2003 TED RALL RALL 2/17/04 Jan
|
|
|
Post by earthmother on Feb 18, 2004 14:40:44 GMT -5
Did anyone notice that, in Dean's speech this afternoon officially bowing out of the race, he thanked everyone but Al Gore? Was this an oversight, or some kind of slight? It's possible I missed it, and CNN and MSNBC both rudely cut into the speech with their talking heads telling us what Dean was saying instead of letting us hear it for ourselves, so it's possible he said it later and it just didn't get broadcast. But I was really surprised he didn't thank Gore for his endorsement and hard work. It just seemed strange to me.
So I wonder what's going to happen now? Dean urged his supporters to still vote for him in the primaries coming up, to send "progressive" delegates to the convention. I guess they're thinking they'll have some influence on the official platform of the Party, then, but we all know that doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It doesn't matter what the platform is--look at what Bush was supposed to accomplish during his term according to the Party platform . . . and then look at what he's REALLY accomplished.
I know I'm sticking my neck out here (please don't chop off my head!), but I can't help wondering if we (Gore supporters and left-leaners) wouldn't be smarter at this point to vote for Dean in our primaries and send his delegates to the convention. Let's face it, we're not getting a lot of results with the Gore write-in campaign. We can't reach enough people with our efforts, and people are reluctant to vote for someone who's not even on the ballot. But if we get enough Dean delegates to the convention (it still won't be enough for him to win the nomination, but it'll seriously cut into Kerry's numbers), at least there will be people there to speak for us, and THOSE people might be more willing to turn to Gore at that point. It would keep the hope of a brokered convention alive, and it might just be our best shot.
I know, Jan, you'll say it goes against your principles. But politics is a game, and those who play it well are the ones that win. As Dean himself said today, his campaign showed America that it was possible to get support without playing to the polls and the voter-focus groups. Sadly, it's possible to get support, but it's apparently not possible to win.
I've gone against this since Gore announced his endorsement of Dean, but I really have to wonder at this point if our objectives wouldn't be better met by getting Dean AND Gore delegates to the convention. I would continue with our plans to send the letter (as written) to the superdelegates. They don't commit until the convention itself, and there's no harm in planting the seeds of our ideas in their minds. But as for COMMITTED delegates--those that are chosen in the primaries--I believe we can make more of a statement by voting for Dean at this point than by voting for Gore (because not enough people are voting for Gore to give him any delegates, but people ARE and CAN vote for Dean because he's on the ballots).
Go ahead. Yell at me. Tell me I'm betraying you. But I think we have to be smart here and play this in a way that makes the most sense for our cause.
|
|
|
Post by GoreSupporterNJ on Feb 18, 2004 14:53:36 GMT -5
Did anyone notice that, in Dean's speech this afternoon officially bowing out of the race, he thanked everyone but Al Gore? Was this an oversight, or some kind of slight? It's possible I missed it, and CNN and MSNBC both rudely cut into the speech with their talking heads telling us what Dean was saying instead of letting us hear it for ourselves, so it's possible he said it later and it just didn't get broadcast. But I was really surprised he didn't thank Gore for his endorsement and hard work. It just seemed strange to me. So I wonder what's going to happen now? Dean urged his supporters to still vote for him in the primaries coming up, to send "progressive" delegates to the convention. I guess they're thinking they'll have some influence on the official platform of the Party, then, but we all know that doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It doesn't matter what the platform is--look at what Bush was supposed to accomplish during his term according to the Party platform . . . and then look at what he's REALLY accomplished. I know I'm sticking my neck out here (please don't chop off my head!), but I can't help wondering if we (Gore supporters and left-leaners) wouldn't be smarter at this point to vote for Dean in our primaries and send his delegates to the convention. Let's face it, we're not getting a lot of results with the Gore write-in campaign. We can't reach enough people with our efforts, and people are reluctant to vote for someone who's not even on the ballot. But if we get enough Dean delegates to the convention (it still won't be enough for him to win the nomination, but it'll seriously cut into Kerry's numbers), at least there will be people there to speak for us, and THOSE people might be more willing to turn to Gore at that point. It would keep the hope of a brokered convention alive, and it might just be our best shot. I know, Jan, you'll say it goes against your principles. But politics is a game, and those who play it well are the ones that win. As Dean himself said today, his campaign showed America that it was possible to get support without playing to the polls and the voter-focus groups. Sadly, it's possible to get support, but it's apparently not possible to win. I've gone against this since Gore announced his endorsement of Dean, but I really have to wonder at this point if our objectives wouldn't be better met by getting Dean AND Gore delegates to the convention. I would continue with our plans to send the letter (as written) to the superdelegates. They don't commit until the convention itself, and there's no harm in planting the seeds of our ideas in their minds. But as for COMMITTED delegates--those that are chosen in the primaries--I believe we can make more of a statement by voting for Dean at this point than by voting for Gore (because not enough people are voting for Gore to give him any delegates, but people ARE and CAN vote for Dean because he's on the ballots). Go ahead. Yell at me. Tell me I'm betraying you. But I think we have to be smart here and play this in a way that makes the most sense for our cause. >>>> Well, first of all, Karen, this is not about me, so I would never say you are betraying me. I intend however, to continue with this, and if it is then only Erin and myself up to the convention (if Erin wishes to continue which I believe she does), then so be it. I have never told anyone they have to do this. If you believe in your heart that you can no longer do it this way, then by all means do what your conscience tells you to do. Mine tells me this is about more than delegates, this is about principle and getting out a message. You also have no guarantee that any of Dean's so called delegates would turn to Gore. For me, this is a noble cause, and while we may not be political wizzes ( as I never professed to be) we are Americans who believe that we should have the right to support who we choose to. We (who decide to do so) will then do what we can in Rhode Island, and then decide from there. I already said I intended to change the name of this PAC after the convention in order to then work on causes involving our children and our environment, two issues very dear to my heart. I have been a loyal Gore supporter for years, and for now I still believe there is a chance. Call ne what you will, but I am not giving up. If you wish to vote for Dean in the NJ primary, leave this cause, or join another that supports Dean, that is your right, and you will always have my friendship and respect. I however, am still writing in Gore, and I am still dedicated to this cause 100%. Jan
|
|
|
Post by earthmother on Feb 18, 2004 15:03:49 GMT -5
Jan--I know this isn't about you, and I only addressed that comment to you because you tend to be the most vocal about your commitment to your principles (which I wholly respect). And I wasn't saying I'm out of our movement or anything of the kind. What I was suggesting, though, is that there's more than one way to skin a cat, and we're not necessarily doing it in the way that makes the most sense to further our objectives, which as I see it are: to champion the causes Gore stands for, and to champion Gore for President.
On face value, it would seem that the best way to do that is to work to get delegates for Gore. But our efforts are not succeeding, as I said before, because we're not reaching enough people and because people are reluctant to vote for someone whose name isn't even on the ballot. I know there's no guarantee Dean delegates would vote for Gore, but there's a better chance of that than Kerry or Edwards delegates, plus at least Dean will have delegates at the convention. We have to be realistic and accept that we have not gotten (and very likely will not get) even one committed Gore delegate from primary votes to the convention. I would hope that we'd get some superdelegate votes, but we won't know that until the convention itself.
So I'm merely posing an alternate strategy, which is that we continue our plan to write to the superdelegates with our message about Gore. The letter is good and powerful, and it might just put the idea in some heads where it hadn't been before. But then I'm suggesting that we need to be more realistic about getting committed Gore delegates to the convention. We're not succeeding by doing it this way; maybe there's another tack we could take.
Please don't think for a minute that I'm abandoning you or this cause. I'm merely trying to think of ways to better achieve our goals.
|
|
|
Post by ErinB on Feb 18, 2004 15:25:27 GMT -5
The hard core Deanies are still going to vote for him in the primaries. Dean has just given up campaigning but he will still be on the ballot. I don't think we need to help his campaign really..they have thousands of people to do that and you can bet they are still in it even though he has "bowed out." I had hoped he would stay in...just for the chance that his delegates might turn to Gore in the now fading chance of a brokered convention. We can still go on with our Superdelegate letters...it can't hurt. I see what you mean though Karen, about helping Dean can only help us but I think they probably have enough people and money even now. The Illinois primary is now the 16th of March and I plan to write him in even though they won't count it. IF I were wanting to support another candidate it would be Kucinich...I liked what he said about being a "Peace President." Thats a what if!...still Gore to the Core. We know who the President is..Oh yeah! ![:D](http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/nono.gif)
|
|
|
Post by GoreSupporterNJ on Feb 18, 2004 15:26:14 GMT -5
Jan--I know this isn't about you, and I only addressed that comment to you because you tend to be the most vocal about your commitment to your principles (which I wholly respect). And I wasn't saying I'm out of our movement or anything of the kind. What I was suggesting, though, is that there's more than one way to skin a cat, and we're not necessarily doing it in the way that makes the most sense to further our objectives, which as I see it are: to champion the causes Gore stands for, and to champion Gore for President. On face value, it would seem that the best way to do that is to work to get delegates for Gore. But our efforts are not succeeding, as I said before, because we're not reaching enough people and because people are reluctant to vote for someone whose name isn't even on the ballot. I know there's no guarantee Dean delegates would vote for Gore, but there's a better chance of that than Kerry or Edwards delegates, plus at least Dean will have delegates at the convention. We have to be realistic and accept that we have not gotten (and very likely will not get) even one committed Gore delegate from primary votes to the convention. I would hope that we'd get some superdelegate votes, but we won't know that until the convention itself. So I'm merely posing an alternate strategy, which is that we continue our plan to write to the superdelegates with our message about Gore. The letter is good and powerful, and it might just put the idea in some heads where it hadn't been before. But then I'm suggesting that we need to be more realistic about getting committed Gore delegates to the convention. We're not succeeding by doing it this way; maybe there's another tack we could take. Please don't think for a minute that I'm abandoning you or this cause. I'm merely trying to think of ways to better achieve our goals. We may not be succeeeding grandly in delegates, because let's face it, NO ONE wants to help us. It isn't our strategy that is wrong, it is the fact that it is only five of us doing it! However, I already knew going into this that we might not get any delegates for Gore to the convention because of that very fact. I also believe that on others levels, however, that this group has been a stunning success. We hung in when others closed up shop when I beleive they should have gone on. We held to our principles and our convictions ( and yes, that means something to me,) and we never wavered. We held onto hope, and to the notion (foolish as it may seem to some) that there is more to this than just political games. Right now I am just sad about it all, however, but I am not changing this to a Dean support PAC. Not ever. Jan
|
|
|
Post by earthmother on Feb 18, 2004 21:30:38 GMT -5
Oh, Jan, banish the thought! A Dean support PAC? That wasn't what I was saying at all. Anyway, it was just a suggestion, because, as I said, we don't seem to be getting very far this way. I said right off, months ago, that I was reluctant to tinker with this whole nomination process because there's just no way to know how our tinkering would affect things (if at all). So let's just pursue the course we've been taking, because it's the course that feels right and the one we believe in. I'm okay with that, and I understand that trying to "work the system" could easily backfire, aside from it not being true to our beliefs. Ugh. I'm just frustrated, and I'm looking for ways to be more successful.
|
|
|
Post by GoreSupporterNJ on Feb 19, 2004 7:27:31 GMT -5
Oh, Jan, banish the thought! A Dean support PAC? That wasn't what I was saying at all. Anyway, it was just a suggestion, because, as I said, we don't seem to be getting very far this way. I said right off, months ago, that I was reluctant to tinker with this whole nomination process because there's just no way to know how our tinkering would affect things (if at all). So let's just pursue the course we've been taking, because it's the course that feels right and the one we believe in. I'm okay with that, and I understand that trying to "work the system" could easily backfire, aside from it not being true to our beliefs. Ugh. I'm just frustrated, and I'm looking for ways to be more successful. We are all facing a great test right now, EM. How we handle it will determine the future. While we as a small group may not think we have done much towards that future, I beg to differ. I believe we have, and we will. I also just read that Gore will replace Edwards at a Dem dinner in Boise Idaho because he said he cares for the state party. As I said, keep the faith. I may be reading more into things than some, and it may have no basis in fact, but just by the way events are unfolding, and by reading Mr. Gore's own actions and the content of his speeches it leads me to believe there is no way he will just sit quietly back. While we all agree to vote for the Democratic nominee once whoever it is is selected (which is really the important point), up until that time we are all free to pursue any avenue to help bring that nomination to who we believe that right man is. Even the smallest person can change the course of history, and it doesn't have to be with a loud bang. Sometimes, it is with a whisper. Jan
|
|
|
Post by GoreLeadership on Feb 19, 2004 7:52:40 GMT -5
Jan, I agree ![;)](http://fool.exler.ru/sm/wink.gif) The more we say we can do something, the more postive energy and vision we have to change. The more we say its impossible, the more unlikely it'll become.. We should all become brave and courageous patriots like those who are in war and STAND UP FOR AL GORE. It is what each of us have the power to do.. And that is all it takes to take our country back where it belongs. We should not stand down or be afraid to use our voices, the day they silenced us was tragic. The day we remain silent is our own fault. -GoreLeadership
|
|
|
Post by GoreSupporterNJ on Feb 19, 2004 9:12:09 GMT -5
Jan, I agree ![;)](http://fool.exler.ru/sm/wink.gif) The more we say we can do something, the more postive energy and vision we have to change. The more we say its impossible, the more unlikely it'll become.. We should all become brave and courageous patriots like those who are in war and STAND UP FOR AL GORE. It is what each of us have the power to do.. And that is all it takes to take our country back where it belongs. We should not stand down or be afraid to use our voices, the day they silenced us was tragic. The day we remain silent is our own fault. -GoreLeadership >>> So true, GoreLeadership. Well said. We must stand up for who and what we believe in and let our voices be heard no matter how soft. For what will we then do when our voice is silenced? It ties in well to this quote: The exact text of what Martin Niemoller said, and which appears in the _Congressional Record_ 14, October 1968, page 31636 is: "When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church -- and there was nobody left to be concerned." Jan
|
|
|
Post by MProffitt on Feb 19, 2004 21:37:53 GMT -5
This is the man Al Gore endorsed: This article can be found on the web at www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040308&s=greider -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dean's Rough Ride by WILLIAM GREIDER [from the March 8, 2004 issue] In forty years of observing presidential contests, I cannot remember another major candidate brutalized so intensely by the media, with the possible exception of George Wallace. Howard Dean contributed some fatal errors of his own, to be sure, but he also brought fresh air and new ideas, a crisp call to revitalize the Democratic Party and at least the outlines of deeper political and economic reforms. The reporters, as surrogate agents for Washington's insider sensibilities, blew him off. Dean's big mistake was in not recognizing, up front, that the media are very much part of the existing order and were bound to be hostile to his provocative kind of politics. To be heard, clearly and accurately, he would have had to find another channel. And another thought: Dean Done? He's Only Just Begun! People-Powered Howard Switches Focus from White House to Congress, Pledges to Back Democratic Nominee by Tamara Baker Feb. 18, 2004 -- SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA (APJ.US) -- Hop with me in the Wayback Machine to February, 2003. George W. Bush is busy claiming that Saddam Hussein has all sorts of lethal weapons of mass destruction. In his soon-to-be-infamous State of the Union address, he claims flat-out that Saddam has 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, and 500 _TONS_ of sarin, mustard and VX nerve gas. Oh, and Saddam's allegedly got aluminum tubes that prove he has nuclear weapons. And a partridge in a pear tree. The United Nations inspectors and the International Atomic Energy Agency are debunking his 'evidence' almost faster than he can produce it, but the corporate US news media -- and virtually every member of the Democratic leadership -- swallows Bush's statements without question. (In fact, the Bush White House still has the bogus claims up on its Web site [http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/disarm.html]!) In the press' case, it's because they have been in the tank for Bush since 1999. In the Democratic leaders' case, it's because they're afraid to challenge a 'popular President'. (Never mind that Clinton's popularity never stopped Republicans from attacking him, ever.) Instead, led by such luminaries as Richard Gephardt and Joseph Lieberman, the Democratic leaders march lockstep behind Bush, voting in favor of every invasion-related proposal he puts in front of them. Gephardt, fresh off the humiliation of having presided over the 2002 mid-term Democratic Congressional losses, has stepped down as the leader of the House Democrats, but hopes to parlay his backing of Bush's imminent invasion into a successful White House bid. The same goes for Lieberman, Al Gore's 2000 running mate -- and the favorite son of the pro-Bush, pro-invasion Democrats on the Democratic Leadership Council. These two candidates, especially Lieberman with his name recognition giving him an early lead in the polls, are considered the heavy media and pundit favorites to win the nomination: a prospect that demoralizes the Democratic rank-and-file. Dennis Kucinich is the only declared candidate to oppose the war as a sitting member of Congress.
|
|
|
Post by MProffitt on Feb 19, 2004 21:38:25 GMT -5
.... continued:
Al Sharpton is secretly meeting with Republicans even as he proclaims himself to be the true progressive choice.
Few indeed are the voices that set out to directly and honestly challenge the Bush invasion juggernaut -- or to challenge Bush on much of anything.
Cut to the Democratic National Committee's winter meeting in Washington, DC.
The crowd is listless, morose; the invasion of Iraq is a done deal, and the craven willingness of the Democratic bigwigs to back it has sickened the party members.
Then, this short little squirt of a Governor gets up on the podium and says this:
"What I want to know... What I want to know... is why the Democratic leadership in Congress is supporting the Bush administration's position on Iraq?"
BOOM.
Stunned silence for a moment -- this was NOT supposed to be on the program.
Then, applause. Lots of it. The jaded, cynical rank-and-filers, beaten into sullen submission, suddenly look up and think: Can it be?! Can it be!? Is this really happening?
Then, the speaker delivers his next gut-punch.
"What I want to know is why are Democratic party leaders supporting tax cuts? The question is not how big the tax cut should be, the question should be can we afford a tax cut at all with the largest deficit in the history of this country."
More applause.
It starts to sink in: this guy is for real.
The speaker's words are fiery and brave and ethical. They are meat and drink to Democrats starved by a finger-in-the-wind leadership that refuses to lead.
And the crowd shows first its appreciation, then its adoration, in an ever-more-vocal manner as he goes along.
He talks of the Democratic cave-ins on health care and education, and then, for all those folks who were asleep in their chairs when he was first introduced, he says this:
"I'm Howard Dean and I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party."
By now, he has most of the crowd in the palm of his hand -- and the others, the DLC types, are scared stiff. And with good reason: He's threatening their hold on the restive rank-and-filers. They might not be willing to put their necks in either the Gephardt or Lieberman yoke.
They might rebel.
And for the rest of his twelve minutes and thirty seconds on the podium, Dean does nothing to disabuse the DLCers of this notion.
He talks about how he balanced Vermont's budget, forced the rich to pay their fair share of taxes, and introduced a health-care program that covers nearly every man, woman and child in the state. The crowd loves it: Fiery and practical and caring, all at the same time!
He talks about how no Republican president in 34 years has balanced the country's budget. He talks about how Democrats are better with the people's money than Republicans. He talks about being a doctor. He talks about having a government that looks like America. He talks about signing the civil-unions bill in Vermont despite only 40% of the state's populace approving of it.
He talks about how Republicans use the word 'quotas' to scare people, and as a way to lie about affirmative action. And he says this:
"I intend to talk about race during this election in the South, because the Republicans have been talking about it since 1968 in order to divide us, and I'm going to bring us together, because you know what, you know what? White folks in the South who drive pick ups with Confederate flag decals on the back ought to be voting with us and not them because their kids don't have health insurance and their kids need better schools too."
The crowd, especially its black members, goes wild with delight.
He talks of how he became governor, and why he's now running for president, and the crowd is with him every step of the way:
"My political career is about change, and this campaign is about change. And what we're going to do here is we're first going to change this party, because this party needs to look in the mirror and ask itself, is this party about the next election or is it about changing America, about changing America?"
Cheers, applause.
"This party --" more cheers, more applause -- "this party--I know--this party needs to be about changing America, because only by changing America will we win back the White House.
I want a party that stands unashamedly for equal rights for all Americans."
Cheers.
"I want a party that stands unashamedly for health care for every single American.
"I want a party that stands unashamedly for balanced budgets and taking care of poor kids and voting together and healing the divides instead of expressing the divides and exploiting them the way the Republican party has so shamelessly done since 1968."
Heavy cheers, applause. And he finishes up thusly:
"I need your help. I need your help. We're going to change this party and then we're going to change this country, and we're going to take back the White House, and we're going to balance the budget, and we're going to have health care for everybody, and we're going to have an America with its best institutions right up to the cabinet that looks once again like America.
"We're going to bring hope to America, jobs to America, peace to America; we're going to bring pride to the Democratic party. I need your help. Let's go get it; let's go do it. Let's win the White House in January of 2004. Thank you very much."
The music starts up, and Governor Howard Dean, MD, leaves the stage to cheers, applause, and chants.
The gauntlet has been thrown down.
At first, the DLC wrote him off. A governor from a tiny state, with only $150,000 in his campaign fund? What a joke. He'll go away by spring.
March, 2003: The invasion begins. Bush's approval ratings shoot up as the circle-the-wagons factor, last seen during 9/11, kicks in. None of the Democratic leadership dares to criticize what Bush is doing. But Howard Dean will, and does.
The DLC breathes a sigh of relief: Surely, this will doom Dean's campaign. No one will want to back a man who dares criticize such a 'popular' war.
But even as they relax, the Dean campaign is using Meetup.com to organize itself.
Then the money starts rolling in. And the DLC is in for the fight of its life.
They eventually do scuttle Dean's shot at the White House -- but only after he sends the candidacies of Gephardt and Lieberman to the bottom of the sea. Wesley Clark, the designated Anti-Dean sent out in September to kill Dean's insurgency, will wind up being outlasted by the man he was supposed to defeat.
And now, in February 2004, it's a two-man race between John Kerry and John Edwards -- and both of whom got where they were by emulating Howard Dean.
There's a congressman in Iowa named Leonard Boswell whose campaign kitty is nearly $100,000 richer than it would have been, had Howard Dean not come along.
And there are scores of persons across the country, running for public office, who are doing so because they saw Howard Dean's brave example and wanted to emulate it.
Dean 'done'? Heh!
He's only just begun.
|
|