Wisconsin's next

[bushwacked]

How'd this guy become the head of the DNC again?

 

Still not getting how Dean is a disingenuous sleaze-bag comparable to the likes of Delay.

[TheShiznit]

Bill, how is any of those things you quoted make Dean Sleazy? As far as I can tell, he is guilty of speaking his mind. Also, doctors do not abort "live" fetuses under the law....if you have a problem with the standards for when life begins, get the law changed...until then...Dean was correct in his statement.

[Bill Swerski]

Bill, how is any of those things you quoted make Dean Sleazy? As far as I can tell, he is guilty of speaking his mind. Also, doctors do not abort "live" fetuses under the law....if you have a problem with the standards for when life begins, get the law changed...until then...Dean was correct in his statement.

 

So, you didn't read the incorrect statement about how Bush's "right-wing Supreme Court" upheld the eminent domain ruling or the dishonest statement that he made to the 700 Club about the Dems' gay marriage platform?

 

Again, I'm not saying that Dean and DeLay have the same vices. I'm saying that they're both highly-controversial and embarrassing in many ways to their respective parties.

[DemonKnight]

So, you didn't read the incorrect statement about how Bush's "right-wing Supreme Court" upheld the eminent domain ruling or the dishonest statement that he made to the 700 Club about the Dems' gay marriage platform?

 

I dont find that statement that disingenous. After all, Bush did appoimt 2 of the 9 judges. Its his as much as any other presidents. And he retracted the mariage statement right after he said it, IIRC.

[TheShiznit]

So, you didn't read the incorrect statement about how Bush's "right-wing Supreme Court" upheld the eminent domain ruling or the dishonest statement that he made to the 700 Club about the Dems' gay marriage platform?

 

Again, I'm not saying that Dean and DeLay have the same vices. I'm saying that they're both highly-controversial and embarrassing in many ways to their respective parties.

 

No, I read that statement as well Bill. As far as I can tell, you showed me a 5-4 decision where three Reagan appointees and a George H.W. Bush appointee dissented. Now, that leaves Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, and....hell I forget...who were in the majority. Off the top of my head, only two were appointed by democrats...maybe three. However, Bush(dad) appointed Souter...and possbly the guy/gal I am forgetting. Anyway, as far as I can tell, 3 conservative judges voted for the decision and 2 clinton judges joined. So, maybe his intention was to say simply this. Those are the type of judges Bush would appoint being the majority are conservative appointments. Not all that much a stretch.

[Randall]

Bill, how is any of those things you quoted make Dean Sleazy? As far as I can tell, he is guilty of speaking his mind. Also, doctors do not abort "live" fetuses under the law....if you have a problem with the standards for when life begins, get the law changed...until then...Dean was correct in his statement.

 

 

Dean, other than that episode the press jumped on, has always seemed pretty rational.

 

It's amazing these grooups can't even agree on when life begins or even what constitutes "life". Many of the emryos that are due to be thrown out if not used are called babies by some people. Yet they can't even be used for stem cell research. Throwing them out to Bush is preferable.

[Bill Swerski]

No, I read that statement as well Bill. As far as I can tell, you showed me a 5-4 decision where three Reagan appointees and a George H.W. Bush appointee dissented. Now, that leaves Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, and....hell I forget...who were in the majority. Off the top of my head, only two were appointed by democrats...maybe three. However, Bush(dad) appointed Souter...and possbly the guy/gal I am forgetting. Anyway, as far as I can tell, 3 conservative judges voted for the decision and 2 clinton judges joined. So, maybe his intention was to say simply this. Those are the type of judges Bush would appoint being the majority are conservative appointments. Not all that much a stretch.

 

So, four Republican-appointed judges dissented, three Republican-appointed judges voted for the decision, and George W. Bush appointed none of them... so how does that make it "Bush's Right-Wing Court"? Since Dean was clearly playing politics, I'm pretty sure that his intention wasn't to criticize the politically-irrelevant George H. W. Bush.

 

And he retracted the mariage statement right after he said it, IIRC.

 

Sure, right after he lied about it on television. How big of him.

 

These two responses are the product of what really pisses me off about people like Dean (and DeLay). They use inflammatory rhetoric and even outright lies to create an us-against-them/party-loyalty-at-all-costs atmosphere that's so poisonous that people of differing political philosophies can't engage in a political discussion without feeling insulted and becoming overly-defensive. And given that people like Obama and McCain are doing extremely well right now, I'm apparently not the only one who's sick of it.

[godtomsatan]

Dean's "strategy" has historically involved making inflammatory and controversial remarks that have turned off moderate Democrats. The fact that Dems won Congress back by a slim margin in '06 when they should've won in a landslide doesn't reflect well on Dean. And I'd say that the turnout in Dem primaries this year has a lot more to do with Bush, Iraq, and Obama than Dean.

 

In the 2006 elections, the Democrats gained 31 seats in the House, gained 5 seats in the US Senate, and took over 5 governor seats from the GOP. That's easily the biggest turnover since the so-called "Revolution" of 1994.

 

Who exactly has Howard Dean turned off?

[Bill Swerski]

In the 2006 elections, the Democrats gained 31 seats in the House, gained 5 seats in the US Senate, and took over 5 governor seats from the GOP. That's easily the biggest turnover since the so-called "Revolution" of 1994.

 

Who exactly has Howard Dean turned off?

 

For such an unpopular President with key members of his party being involved in scandal after scandal, one would think that the Dems were primed for a "Revolution" of their own a year and a half ago. But they're still close to dead-locked in the Senate. Bill Clinton and his party didn't have nearly the same negative image back in '94, yet Republicans managed to gain 54 seats in the House, 8 seats in the Senate, and 12 governor seats from the Dems. Outside of the House, I'd say that the Dems came up with less than they could've in 2006.

[bushwacked]

with key members of his party being involved in scandal after scandal

 

And criminal activity that would make some of us label them disingenuous sleaze-bags. Which some people equate to saying misleading political comments at the 700 club and about Bush supreme court appointees. Byaahh!

[Bill Swerski]

And criminal activity that would make some of us label them disingenuous sleaze-bags. Which some people equate to saying misleading political comments at the 700 club and about Bush supreme court appointees. Byaahh!

 

Never equated, just compared to. Let's not be disingenuous like Dean now.

 

The only reason that I brought up DeLay was to show that my comments weren't meant to be partisan in nature. Perhaps Rick Santorum would've been a better example.

[godtomsatan]

For such an unpopular President with key members of his party being involved in scandal after scandal, one would think that the Dems were primed for a "Revolution" of their own a year and a half ago. But they're still close to dead-locked in the Senate. Bill Clinton and his party didn't have nearly the same negative image back in '94, yet Republicans managed to gain 54 seats in the House, 8 seats in the Senate, and 12 governor seats from the Dems. Outside of the House, I'd say that the Dems came up with less than they could've in 2006.

 

Technically speaking, I think gerrymandering might have something to do with the numbers not being the same, but that's another topic altogether.

 

The point is, you claim that Howard Dean has turned off an entire block of voters, yet there is no evidence to suggest anything remotely near that to be the case.

 

Mostly, you demonstrate your special brand of ignorance by comparing him to Tom DeLay, whom very very very few members of either party deserve comparison to.

[Bill Swerski]

The point is, you claim that Howard Dean has turned off an entire block of voters, yet there is no evidence to suggest anything remotely near that to be the case.

 

You mean, other than killing his own Presidential campaign by yelping like a moran on camera during a rally speech.

 

Mostly, you demonstrate your special brand of ignorance by comparing him to Tom DeLay, whom very very very few members of either party deserve comparison to.

 

Just as you display Howard Dean's special brand of indoctrinated partisan d0uchebaggery. Have a nice day.

Edited February 14, 2008 by Bill Swerski

[godtomsatan]

You mean, other than killing his own Presidential campaign by yelping like a moran on camera during a rally speech.

 

That's all you got? Weak sauce.....

 

Just as you display Howard Dean's special brand of indoctrinated partisan d0uchebaggery. Have a nice day.

 

I'm asking for clarification of why he's an idiot. So far, you've given 3 quotes that aren't necessarily idiotic comments as much as they are more brazen than one might expect from the head of a national party. That, and the whole "yeeahhh!" thing. Others have refuted you and you resort to claims of partisanship. If you don't like Dean's politics, and that's the motivation for calling him an idiot, say so. Otherwise, there is no evidence he's driving voters away. That is not a partisan thing to say, that's more or less factual.

 

And, if you're going to compare him to a morally inept criminal member of the GOP, you open yourself up to the observation that you are being the same thing as your initial description of Dean.

 

I see you somewhat recanted the DeLay link, but getting back to the original subject, I still haven't seen why Dean calling McCain a 3rd term for Bush/Cheney is somehow "idiotic". Are they not of the same party? Hasn't McCain been championing Bush policy/decisions/agenda throughout this campaign, recanting to Bush's side on the tax cuts, the administration of the war, and even immigration?

Edited February 14, 2008 by godtomsatan

[AtomicCEO]

I hearby promise not to support any candidate because of how cleverly they can falsely smear their opponent, and will hold it against any candidate who uses that tactic.

 

I'm looking for the best leader, not the best politician.

[Bill Swerski]

My problem with Dean has nothing to do with his politics. In 2004, Dean ran as the left-wing, populist option to Kerry. Predictably, he failed, and not just because he embarrassed himself on camera. When he was inexplicably picked as the head of the DNC later, he forgot that he was representing a major political party and continued with the dishonest and inflammatory left-wing shtick. While that may work to motivate the angry 19-year-old crowd, many moderate Democrats weren't exactly fans of this behavior. Republicans were massively unpopular and mired in scandal in 2006 and Dems were primed for convincing takeover of both houses on Congress, similar to what Republicans did in '94. In my opinion, they came up short because they failed to establish a commanding majority in the Senate. And while you correctly pointed out that they deserve credit for a tremendous gain in the House, they still don't have an insurmountable majority there. They could conceivably lose both houses again in 2010. Given the terrible state that Republicans were in, it's my opinion that they had an even better opportunity for convincing victories in both houses than Republicans did in '94... and they didn't even come close to what transpired in the "Republican Revolution". And I believe that one of the reasons for this was the ability of the conservative media to point to Dean's polarizing and sometimes childish behavior and say, "See! Is THAT the party that you want in power?" It's my opinion that a less-polarizing figure (like, say, Barack Obama) would've garnered more moderate support and that the Dems would've raked in '06.

 

It's also pretty well-known that McCain has historically opposed many of Bush/Cheney's policies and I think it's pretty silly to say that he would be an automatic continuation of Bush's Presidency. In fact, that's most likely the reason that he's running away with the nomination right now: Republican voters are sick of Bush/Cheney as well.

Edited February 14, 2008 by Bill Swerski

[Randall]

Hillary just released an ad here criticizing Barack for failing to debate her here. The trouble is she's not here(he is) and when talking about primaries doesn't even mention us.

 

Psst. Hillary if you want to win in a state don't disrespect that state right before the primary.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

My problem with Dean has nothing to do with his politics. In 2004, Dean ran as the left-wing, populist option to Kerry. Predictably, he failed, and not just because he embarrassed himself on camera. When he was inexplicably picked as the head of the DNC later, he forgot that he was representing a major political party and continued with the dishonest and inflammatory left-wing shtick. While that may work to motivate the angry 19-year-old crowd, many moderate Democrats weren't exactly fans of this behavior. Republicans were massively unpopular and mired in scandal in 2006 and Dems were primed for convincing takeover of both houses on Congress, similar to what Republicans did in '94. In my opinion, they came up short because they failed to establish a commanding majority in the Senate. And while you correctly pointed out that they deserve credit for a tremendous gain in the House, they still don't have an insurmountable majority there. They could conceivably lose both houses again in 2010. Given the terrible state that Republicans were in, it's my opinion that they had an even better opportunity for convincing victories in both houses than Republicans did in '94... and they didn't even come close to what transpired in the "Republican Revolution". And I believe that one of the reasons for this was the ability of the conservative media to point to Dean's polarizing and sometimes childish behavior and say, "See! Is THAT the party that you want in power?" It's my opinion that a less-polarizing figure (like, say, Barack Obama) would've garnered more moderate support and that the Dems would've raked in '06.

 

It's also pretty well-known that McCain has historically opposed many of Bush/Cheney's policies and I think it's pretty silly to say that he would be an automatic continuation of Bush's Presidency. In fact, that's most likely the reason that he's running away with the nomination right now: Republican voters are sick of Bush/Cheney as well.

 

Well you must have a direct pipeline into the Dean hatred (must be broadcast by the right wing talking heads) because I saw or heard little to nothing from or about Dean in the 2006 cycle other than some praise for the 50 state approach that was the beginning of the Democrats rebuilding the party from the grass roots up. A strategy that will pay long term dividends. We just may be seeing some of those effects with the massive turnouts in the primaries on the D side this election cycle.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/wr...orecard-61.html

 

And not losing a single Senate seat on top of taking 6/15 seats from the Republicans is not exactly small potatoes.

[Retrograde assault]

No reason for me to go to the polls this year, sucks to be a conservative.

[DemonKnight]

These two responses are the product of what really pisses me off about people like Dean (and DeLay). They use inflammatory rhetoric and even outright lies to create an us-against-them/party-loyalty-at-all-costs atmosphere that's so poisonous that people of differing political philosophies can't engage in a political discussion without feeling insulted and becoming overly-defensive. And given that people like Obama and McCain are doing extremely well right now, I'm apparently not the only one who's sick of it.

 

 

This I agree with.

 

And, the whole "Byahhh" thing was due to a crowd going nuts and Dean not having a monitor on stage so he could hear what he sounded like on camera. Sucks to think a better sound man could maybe have prevented a 2nd Bush term.

[Randall]

Well you must have a direct pipeline into the Dean hatred (must be broadcast by the right wing talking heads) because I saw or heard little to nothing from or about Dean in the 2006 cycle other than some praise for the 50 state approach that was the beginning of the Democrats rebuilding the party from the grass roots up. A strategy that will pay long term dividends. We just may be seeing some of those effects with the massive turnouts in the primaries on the D side this election cycle.

 

 

It's amazing how much hate and mis information the right wing radio water carriers create. If they put out reports the grass is blue how long would it take listeners to realise they were lied to?

 

One day I hope we have a real media.

[TheShiznit]

My problem with Dean has nothing to do with his politics. In 2004, Dean ran as the left-wing, populist option to Kerry. Predictably, he failed, and not just because he embarrassed himself on camera. When he was inexplicably picked as the head of the DNC later, he forgot that he was representing a major political party and continued with the dishonest and inflammatory left-wing shtick. While that may work to motivate the angry 19-year-old crowd, many moderate Democrats weren't exactly fans of this behavior. Republicans were massively unpopular and mired in scandal in 2006 and Dems were primed for convincing takeover of both houses on Congress, similar to what Republicans did in '94. In my opinion, they came up short because they failed to establish a commanding majority in the Senate. And while you correctly pointed out that they deserve credit for a tremendous gain in the House, they still don't have an insurmountable majority there. They could conceivably lose both houses again in 2010. Given the terrible state that Republicans were in, it's my opinion that they had an even better opportunity for convincing victories in both houses than Republicans did in '94... and they didn't even come close to what transpired in the "Republican Revolution". And I believe that one of the reasons for this was the ability of the conservative media to point to Dean's polarizing and sometimes childish behavior and say, "See! Is THAT the party that you want in power?" It's my opinion that a less-polarizing figure (like, say, Barack Obama) would've garnered more moderate support and that the Dems would've raked in '06.

 

It's also pretty well-known that McCain has historically opposed many of Bush/Cheney's policies and I think it's pretty silly to say that he would be an automatic continuation of Bush's Presidency. In fact, that's most likely the reason that he's running away with the nomination right now: Republican voters are sick of Bush/Cheney as well.

 

Bill,

 

A quick look at why the republican revolution happened in 1994 might show us why the Dems picked off less seats in 2006. First, there were more Dem Retirements in 1994. Clinton just own the Presidency last general election, but never garnered a majority....and they felt it was a good time to retire. However, it is much easier to pick up open seats than ones held by incumbents. Now fast forward to 2006. Almost every single Democratic pickup involved toppling an incumbent from the Republican side. Now, if you look at how many retirements are happening in the republican congressional districts....and some other vunerable repubs....then it is likely the Dems will pick up as many if not more than 2006. You simply cannot compare the two because situations were different.

 

Just to say, I am not a big fan of governor Dean. He is in fact not an idiot. He may be misguided...but not an idiot. Bob Barr is an idiot. Led the impeachment of Clinton while he was getting his staff member an abortion the he impregnated while he was married. Now that is idiotic. Agreed?

[budlitebrad]

I just watched the victory speech in Madison and while Obama's a great speaker, it's obvious he's recycling the same speech over and over. Even the Obama fans may get tired of this when summer rolls around.

Edited February 14, 2008 by budlitebrad

[TheShiznit]

I just watched the victory speech in Madison and while Obama's a great speaker, it's obvious he's recycling the same speech over and over. Even the Obama fans may get tired of this when summer rolls around.

 

That is what he needs to do. You keep saying the same thing over and over again....that way it becomes truth in some ways.