Governer Dean Becomes Chair of DNC 219
sg3000 writes "It's official: the Democrats elected Howard Dean as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Dean won the position after a particularly contentious run for chairman, as reported in The New Republic. Governor Dean became a national figure during his impressive run for president in 2003, where he started as an outsider and long-shot candidate but became the front runner, only to see support fail to materialize during the Iowa caucuses."
Re:Democratic Attempt? (Score:1, Interesting)
If this is the best they can do, I'm sorry for them. They need someone who can distance himself from the mudslinging and negative image the democrat party got during the last election. Put some class back in the Democrat party. Select someone with class and integrity, even if his name is not as well known as Dean.
Like it or not, the last election was more of an indictment of the demorats than a victory for the republicans.
This is great news! (Score:2, Interesting)
Surprise (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason why Dean exploded the way he did is because the media turned against him because he was "unelectable". It was a bunch of bullshit because he was not your typical "say only what you want to hear" politician. I think people in this country would have been smart enough to see that, and it would not have been a landslide win for Bush like the media said it would be. Unfortuntly the media has a lot of effect on the primary elections.
I gave $100 to the Dean campaign, and I do not regret it. That money indirectly helped him become the chair of the DNC, and I am very happy to see it.
BTW, at the Iowa Caucus (I was there) Dean had at least 3x as many people there as Kerry. To be honest, I am still a little amazed how quickly things fell apart.
Re:And Democrats Think...? (Score:2, Interesting)
- Do you value the largest budget deficits in our nation's history?
- Do you value shifting the tax burden from the wealthiest individuals to the middle class, while health care and education costs skyrocket?
- Do you value people who state that the cost of their prescription drug plan will cost about $300 million, when in reality it will cost over $1 trillion?
- Do you value stating that Social Security will start paying out more than it brings in 2018, and then putting forward a plan that will change that date to 2012?
- Do you value the criminalization of abortion, or do you value a policy that seeks to make abortions rare, safe, and legal? (hint: the latter policy results in less babies dying)
Abortions go up under Republicans. Business does better under Democrats. Pass it on.Re:DNC for Presidential ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Long, long ago, Democrats believed in limited government. Then the Socialist Party came along and started running candidates with the strategy of taking votes away from Democratic candidates. The Democrats had to start catering to Socialist interests in order to stop losing votes. I wish I had my copy of Lever Action [amazon.com] on hand so I could quote the example given there: the 1932 platform of the Democratic Party called for limited government. The Socialist Party platform of the same year called for everything the Democratic Party stands for now: heavily progressive income tax, higher minimum wage, welfare state, more regulation of business, etc. The Democratic Party has become the Socialist Party in all but name.
Libertarians are in an even better position than the Socialists were, because we're capable of taking votes away from both the left and the right. Paleoconservatives who oppose preemptive war and "compassionate conservative" welfare programs are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the neocons who now run the Republican Party. At the same time, anti-war liberals don't like how much the Democrats support Bush's War in Iraq. The Libertarian Party can siphon off votes from both of these factions.
For example, the 2004 gubernatorial race in my home state of WA was decided by 127 votes. The Democrat, Gregoire, beat the Republican, Rossi, only after two recounts. The Libertarian candidate, Ruth Bennett, is openly lesbian and ran a campaign focused on gay rights, with the specific strategy of taking votes away from Gregoire. It worked. Bennett got 63,000+ votes. Remember that the margin of victory was only 127 votes. If even 1% of the Bennett supporters had voted for Gregoire instead, she would have won outright, without the need for two recounts.
You are correct that in the long run, the Libertarian Party will need to compromise with one or both of the major parties. However, the major parties won't compromise with us unless they have to. The only way to make them realize that they need to deal with us is by taking away their voters until they realize we are a force to be reckoned with. To that end, in the short run Libertarians MUST vote Libertarian instead of Democrat or Republican, and encourage any Libertarian-leaning friends or acquaintances to do the same. We'll either force them to compromise with us, as the Socialist Party did, or we'll supplant them entirely, in much the same way the Republican Party came to power over the Whigs.
Re:DNC for Presidential ... (Score:4, Interesting)
If libertarians were more willing to vote for primary candidates, the primary candidates might actually try to accommodate libertarian voters. As long as they throw their votes away on all-or-nothing, politicians can continue to ignore them completely. After all, what possible incentive can there be for a Democratic or Republican candidate to adopt libertarian precepts if the libertarians won't vote for him anyway?
why non americans think the US is crazy (Score:3, Interesting)
* Why Libertarians Support
Equal Rights for America's Gun Owners
* End Welfare
* The Libertarian Party: Working to slash your taxes!
* Do you remember when the standard of living in America was the best in the world?
+++++++
I mean, really, this is all just nuts
Re:why non americans think the US is crazy (Score:1, Interesting)
Kind of off-topic, but has anyone seen "Million Dollar Baby" yet? I've never seen a film more damning of the welfare entitlement system. Some think the movie is anti-conservative because of the ending, but I think it's just the opposite. Not just for the fat a$$ welfare fraud heartless beyotch, but also for the ending. It's like the priest character said, if Eastwood did it he'd be lost forever. And that's what happened, he was lost forever, he couldn't even go back to his old life because he couldn't be reminded of what he had done. Sorry, but that is not a pro-assisted suicide message.
Re:DNC for Presidential ... (Score:1, Interesting)
If there's one thing I can add, it's that libertarians should also push for a more fine-grained approach to policy decisions. First, it's good for the country no matter what your politics are, since it allows government to be more flexible, adaptive and responsive, and we have all the technological abilities to do so. But it's especially good for libertarians because it encourages major parties to make compromises on a variety of issues, to mix (during whatever regime) some moderate views in that will moderate some freedom-opposing views held by whichever party's in power.
Re:And Democrats Think...? (Score:2, Interesting)
Cutting taxes deprives state funding for the various programs they have, like education. (The Fed does give public universities lots of money you know.) I was directly addressing college education. So tuition is increased to make up for the lack of federal funds. Pretty simple.
Taking your money from you at gun point? Nice hyperbole. I never said it was moral, I said it was the intelligent thing to do. Educating people is the only way you're going to strengthen your country and its economy.
Every time college tuitions rise 1000 dollars, 4% of all would-be students in highschool don't go to college. 4% compounds pretty quickly, especially when college tuition is rising faster than inflation.
Its not a matter of morality. If you want a stupid country than Bush is your man. If you don't want a stupid country just look to any other Republican (maybe...) or a Democrat.
Do you think India would be taking so many jobs from the U.S. if English was spoken widely, but they were as dumb as a rock? No they wouldn't.
You can consider this Bush bashing, but Bush isn't an intellectual and doesn't appreciate the consequence of educating people. He thinks people spending that $300 bucks at Wallmart is good for America. When we have to invent the next world-changing WMD for America, who's going do it? Are we going to outsource it or let another country get it first?
You're a Republican, strong defense is one of your primary platforms. Please explain how we're going keep our defenses up when the country isn't doing anything to keep young people interested in science, and not doing anything to continue to encourage people, through lower tuitions, scholarships, grants, to become educated in these areas?
Re:DNC for Presidential ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Land Value Taxation [wikipedia.org]-- a policy that some Libertarian sympathizers like Milton Friedman have kinder things to say about than many of the other policies.
Democrats like Huey Long [wikipedia.org] did adopt policies like a tax on concentrated wealth-but over extreme hostility to the Democratic party bosses.
Another way the LP can get a voice would be to move the US towards proportional Representation [wikipedia.org]-which is something that could be done on a state/local level.
Why Dean isn't going to help the Democrats (Score:4, Interesting)
He's hanging with the GOP on unpopular issues like immigration(where he basically endorses Bush's Open Borders policy) and failing to properly handle the social issues like Gun Control, Gay Rights,Drugs, Abortion(which constitutionally should all be state issues.
Re:Democratic Attempt? (Score:3, Interesting)
Americans are smarter than you think.
Oh, if only they were.
Rob
Re:DNC for Presidential ... (Score:3, Interesting)
so I could quote the example given there: the 1932 platform
There's a year to remember.
A few more years of the current environment of cutting taxes, increasing spending, cheap borrowing and there will be a few more reminders of that era.
The 2004 data showing CPI about 1% higher than the growth in wages is indicative of what's to come as the Asian central bankers are willing to pay for $80/bbl oil using $ 1.5 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds.
Re:Democratic Attempt? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Clinton+Hitl
Note especially that WND article about halfway down the first page.
As for your crack about Americans, what makes you think they are stupid?
I don't think that they are stupid. I just don't think that they're particularly smart, either.
Did they just stumble into being the greatest nation in the world?
No, they got there on the shoulders of their forefathers. Americans used to be a lot less complacent and reliant on the government for everything. We've grown fat and sluggish much like the Roman Empire did before its fall. Not to say that most of today's nations are any better, but it's only a matter of time until somebody else becomes the main superpower on Earth, most likely China.
Rob
Re:Dean=Good Thing (Score:4, Interesting)
No one votes for DNC chairman (Score:2, Interesting)
Who cares if it's Howard Dean or Martha Stewart? The people who were actually elected to office control the "direction" of the party. The principle job of the DNC chairman therefore is to run the conventions.
Come to think of it, this seems like it would be a job at which Martha Stewart would excel!