I think the funniest thing is when the Dem's control the government they rule with an iron fist but when the elephant has a hold of government we must find concession. Keep blogging!!!
I'd settle in the short term for Bush learning how to compromise with moderate Republicans.
Each side uses the intransigience of the other (real or imagined) to justify their own excesses. Which side does it more is a dead-end argument.
I never was that much of a Dean fan (actually, if I lived where primary votes matter I might well have voted for Kerry), and I think he gets a lot of the credit which should go to his campaign staff (names I'm forgetting right now). I don't think he's a good choice for DNC, but then I haven't heard any suggestions that I thought were.
Yeah, Dean has an amazing publicity team (during the elction the big guy was Joe Trippi); I don't even know the other people who are up for the job. I still think he would be a bad choice for the Democrats because he is just too much of a polarizing figure. The Democrats don't need to mobilize their base--they did a fine job of that in the election--they need to expand it. Dean is not the guy for that job.
Tom, I agree wholeheartedly. As a Democrat I am praying that the party will somehow avoid electing Dean as chair. 2004 was a perfect example of base vs. base. Bush is obviously a polarizing figure leading in a time where circumstance allows for fervent disagreement. Without the energy of the antiwar vote and the Nader voters that learned from 2000, I don't think any Democrat would expect to get as many votes as Kerry did. Antiwar....Nader voters....Bush opposition in general. We learned in political science 101 that in national elections the middle is the prize. The Democratic Party can only regain power by grabbing some voters that lay on the right of the political spectrum of our center/right country. Dean is not the guy for to lead this movement. Simon Rosenberg. Biden '08. Word.
5 comments:
I think the funniest thing is when the Dem's control the government they rule with an iron fist but when the elephant has a hold of government we must find concession. Keep blogging!!!
Will do. You keep going, too. Everyone, here is Combat Doc's blog:
Candle in the Dark.
I'd settle in the short term for Bush learning how to compromise with moderate Republicans.
Each side uses the intransigience of the other (real or imagined) to justify their own excesses. Which side does it more is a dead-end argument.
I never was that much of a Dean fan (actually, if I lived where primary votes matter I might well have voted for Kerry), and I think he gets a lot of the credit which should go to his campaign staff (names I'm forgetting right now). I don't think he's a good choice for DNC, but then I haven't heard any suggestions that I thought were.
Yeah, Dean has an amazing publicity team (during the elction the big guy was Joe Trippi); I don't even know the other people who are up for the job. I still think he would be a bad choice for the Democrats because he is just too much of a polarizing figure. The Democrats don't need to mobilize their base--they did a fine job of that in the election--they need to expand it. Dean is not the guy for that job.
Tom, I agree wholeheartedly. As a Democrat I am praying that the party will somehow avoid electing Dean as chair. 2004 was a perfect example of base vs. base. Bush is obviously a polarizing figure leading in a time where circumstance allows for fervent disagreement. Without the energy of the antiwar vote and the Nader voters that learned from 2000, I don't think any Democrat would expect to get as many votes as Kerry did. Antiwar....Nader voters....Bush opposition in general. We learned in political science 101 that in national elections the middle is the prize. The Democratic Party can only regain power by grabbing some voters that lay on the right of the political spectrum of our center/right country. Dean is not the guy for to lead this movement. Simon Rosenberg. Biden '08. Word.
Post a Comment