Redstate

of a Dean-led Democratic Party.  Remove the pretenses and expose them for what they are.  Let them clearly communicate the left's ideas/hopes/dreams and see what happens.  I'm all for giving voters a clear choice.  The only problem is that by chasing out the non-insane Dems, the Republican tent could get overcrowded, and someone will need to exercise some crowd control.  Look for more pro-abortion folks to come in.  Managing their expectations makes Bush's conservative approach to the judiciary much more important to the GOP base.

Comment:

I've been following Dean since long before he even declared his candidacy.  I would hate to see Dean at the DNC because I think he has great value as an independent voice in the liberal/democratic/what have you community.  I think a position as head of the DNC would neutralize that.  My two cents.

Question:

What do you actually know, factually, about Dean's record or positions?

Thanks -

Please Dean, take over the DNC.  We really need the White house for another 8 years...

He balanced the budget of Vermont several years in a row.  He instituted a state wide health care program that insured all children.  He is pro-gun and staunchly against the War (which was convenient because he didn't have to vote on it at the time).  He would have been a moderate Democrat if he hadn't based his candidacy on the fact that he hated the President and was against the War in Iraq.

I think he would make a decent moderate Democrat but he would probably scare off certain segments of the party including the anti-gun folks.  But then again, Clinton got away with a lot from the left because he was charismatic about it.

He is also a lousy campaigner.  He doesn't know where to draw the line and he gets caught up in the moment.  Not just the Dean Scream but more importantly to me, his insinuation that the President may have known about 9/11 before hand.  What sympathy I had for him before that disappeared.

But as Santorum now symbolically represents social conservatism and "gay bashing" although he has never actually shown any hatred towards them, Dean represents angry bitter college Democrats.  Is it fair?  No.  But it's also reality.

May I reccommend the Dems pass similar health proposals in other Blue states.  It would be a good way to whack the Republicans on an issue we are weak on.  Plus it would start a renewed sense of federalism on issues that should remain under state control in my mind.

and far less Dean bashing that I suspected it would be.

>Dean, being a Democrat, would not be held to his word, but he would have to give it.

funny.  There must be WMD around here somewhere!

Then why would they go to the left? Get a moderate DNC chief

by a lack of understanding for Dean.

I have no idea if Dean would be good for Democrat at the DNC, or for America.  That's a matter of skills, and skills matter.

But Dean is a rather moderate A-from-the-NRA-having Democrat who hardly ever met a war he didn't like until this last one.  Yet he has the leftists behind him like Compassionate Conservative Bush has the religious right behind him without leading nearly as devout a life... hmmm... he seems ready to reap the benefits without paying the price.

Who knows if he can be effective... I mention only his actual moderation so that you might consider that Dean is someone the right should consider coming to terms with or even promoting, not because he's wacko and makes Dems look wacko, but because that fire and bluntness is well... sort of a conservative side.

... Neocon - Moral Majority alliance would get them!  We know the neocons are not really that devout, although possibly respectful of the ideals of the religious right... it's an alliance with a more extreme wing of the party... and the left was sure it would drown you.  

But to understand my point you have to know more about Dean's policies than became commonly understood via his campaign.  I.e.  Did Dean support the Gulf War?  Does Dean want to take your guns away?  Is Dean a pacifist?  A communist?  Is Dean a Kucinich or Nader?

Dean is center.  It's his primary followers that are the leftists.

Complicated? Or not?  Well... a middle ground republican in the Whitehouse has the very loyal support of your parties right wing... maybe it's not so hard to fathom.

Doverspa -

As usual, you have the facts at your command.  Thanks!

Comments:

"which was convenient because he didn't have to vote on it at the time"

Quite true and worth noting.  I also note that he is not, in general, a peacenik.

"He is also a lousy campaigner.  He doesn't know where to draw the line and he gets caught up in the moment"

I agree with this.

Dean's a good guy.  Pragmatic, fiscally conservative, socially progressive but cognizant of what his constituents will accept.  He and Bob Graham were my favorites among the early Dem candidates.

Cheers -

He is pro-gun

Not quite.  He was the governor of Vermont, which means he understood that second amendment infringements were off the table.  Don't confuse that for being pro-gun.  He isn't.

it seems like most of the pubs here would welcome a deaniac DNC chairmanship, yet it sounds like the dems are the ones trying to talk us out of wanting that by pointing out how moderate & fiscally conservative he is.

i'm not sure the right can lose here... either he's the screamin' deaniac we learned of during the primaries, or this fiscal conservative, budget balancing gun totin' "moderate" ...

. . .wasn't his political beliefs, it was that he was clearly deep in the throes of Bush Derangement Syndrome--to the point where he was giving respectful hearings to moonbat circulated rumors that GWB knew about 9/11 in advance.  McAuliffe is a gifted fundraiser, but his own case of BDS was at the core of most--if not all--of the biggest blunders he made as DNC Chair.  If Dean can't be objective about what his job is and continues to foam at the mouth at the very thought of GWB and his party, he'll just be McAuliffe, Part II.

... you are correct.

The only danger, really, is one conservatives understand, and that's the ultimate appeal of someone that has a fire in the belly, so to speak...  that is, if they don't spontaneously combust.

Some say Dean already did.  But you know, zero to household name in one election is probably not signs of "burnt to a forgotten crisp"... especially not when you had a way with collecting dollars which tends to breed second chances.

Wow. It's like they're letting us pick their candidates and leaders for them.

Would you vote for this man? Screaming, yelling, pointing and being obnoxious aren't exactly good qualities.

a quiet man that kept his thoughts to himself and refused to invade France?

why do you say he's not pro-gun..? what evidence do you have that he would prefer to have had gun control on the table.  I rather assume, which might be a mistake, which is why I'm asking, that he is very gun friendly.  Growing up around guns makes people that way... not alarmist.  If the only guns you imagine seeing are in the hands of muggers... then you get a different idea.

I'm extrapolating from my own experience in which I was made accustomed to guns and shooting and though some claim I'm liberal (I'm more radical middle if you ask me, progressive libertarian), I am gun-friendly and more or less pro-gun.

Perhaps I'm projecting this on Dean... but do you have evidence that I am... that is, evidence that Dean was only pro-gun for political reasons?

because I've missed that.  The left is not as Clinton loving as you may think, I suspect.  To the medium-far left Clinton was liberal in name only.  Welfare reform, backed off healthcare and gays in the military (sold out), etc., and Hillary isn't that much different.

It's mostly the right that fantasized that Hillary is a leader of the left and in line for 2008.  That and the name recognition game.

Hillary would not win a Democratic primary to run for President, I'm sure.  I could be proven wrong, but I'll stay sure until I am so proven.

requires the state budget be in balance. Like most state constitutions.

So giving him kudos for doing what he was constitutionally bound to do and labelling him a "fiscal conservative" to boot is just a little over the top.

When is the last time a Democrat you know actually did what a constitution actually said to do?  That, in and of itself, is worth something.

(Yes, please read every word strongly laced with sarcasm)

When Dean suddenly became Governor, the deceased GOP governor bequeathed him with $11 million in debt and the worst bond rating in New England. He did balance the budget 11 years in a row, without raising taxes or cutting education or other critical services, while funding health care for all of Vermont's children under 18, and adults up to 150% of the poverty line, as well as a wildly successful early childhood program (instances of reported child sexual abuse and teen pregnancy, for example, went down dramatically during his tenure). When he left to run for president, Vermont had paid down a healthy chunk of its debt, had $10 million socked away in a rainy day fund, and earned the best bond rating in New England.

Say what you want about Dean's campaign style, he was a hell of an effective executive. There are many more achievements in his record to back that up.

why do you say he's not pro-gun..?

Because he isn't pro gun.  Nor has he ever once made any claim that he was.  When he was governor of Vermont, he had an "A" rating from the NRA; this much is true.  But that was because he never supported any anti-gun legislation.  But remember, it was Vermont.  Last year a bill was introduced that would require people to own guns or pay a fee.  It failed, but that is the mentality.  

That Dean played ball only let him make it to governor.  That doesn't make him pro-gun.  It just makes him politically savvy.

that's what Democrats thought the Neocon - Moral Majority alliance would getthem!

I'm not sure of what Neocon/Moral Majority alliance you're speaking of.  Way too many people throw the "neoconservative" term around too quickly without having a clue of what they speak.  Still, Bush won the primary, as opposed to Dean who, in his primary, went from front runner to last place overnight.

Dean is admittedly in the left wing of his party.  The 2002 elections cost Democrats seats in both houses of Congress.  It is largely estimated that this was because they were too far to the left of center.  So insted of going moderate for the presidential campaign, they ran left-wing candidates and lost again; both the White house and more seats in both houses of Congress.  Now the thought of a left-wing radical like Dean taking over the DNC gives me no reason to suspect they've realized why they're losing elections or that they will do anything about it.

But to understand my point you have to know more about Dean's policies than became commonly understood via his campaign.

Dean appealed to the leftest of the left.  Perhaps because that was where his mesage was.  We can analyze in detail his policies if you desire, but you won't find out in the end that he's a closet conservative.  Of that I am certain.

Dean is center.  It's his primary followers that are the leftists.

This is like arguing that Hitler was fond of Jews, but it was his followers who were anti-semites.  It just doesn't work.  There isn't any evidence to suggest that Dean is centrist.  Just because at one time the NRA gave him a good rating (on their sole issue) means very little in national politics.

Listen, it doesn't matter whether we like Dean or not. We may know that he is a loose cannon and has just as much chance of falling flat on his face as he does of energizing the dems, but it is the chance that he won't fall on his face that scares me.

Has everyone already forgotten about all the fanatics that created the Dean campaign from nothing? Has everyone forgotten how successful he was at raising money online? Has everyone forgotten how energized he made the youth?

I think that Dean could do some serious damage to us in the 2006 elections. Think about it.

Has everyone already forgotten about all the fanatics that created the Dean campaign from nothing?

You mean the college kids who didn't vote?  Nope, haven't forgotten about them.  

I think that Dean could do some serious damage to us in the 2006 elections. Think about it.

I have.  And I'd love to see him and Hillary at odds and further dividing the Democrat party.  So, as they say, Go Dean!

sorry if the shorthand was confusing or unkind... I merely mean that the conservatives have a strong alliance with their extreme wing... people on the left supposed that cozying up to the religious right in the 80-90s and on was going to make the Republican party undeseriable... but you win instead.  Power politics comes from binding together coallitions of distinct groups, not by abandoning them.  The left does not need to be kicked out of Democratic politics (they tried that already, I say this as an independent), what they need is much more difficult... they need to get that group on board, they need to CHANGE that group so that it understands what a political alliance is.  The far left thinks Democrats and Republicans are the same.  The far right sees a difference between Democrats and Republicans.

That Dean lost the primary-- yes, Kerry convinced Democrats he was more "electable".  Was he right?  Is not elected any more electable than not elected?  Dean is not the problem... Demcoratic second guessing is not even the problem, per se.  The problem is that Democratic leaders AND voters are just really really bad at second guessing.

Dean a closet conservative?  Well, he's fiscally conservative and he's got an A from the NRA as govenor of Vermont.  For a Democrat he's fairly conservative, more DLC than most, but not more than say Lieberman.  I'm not saying he's conservative enough for you (I wouldn't know), but he's not a Nader, Kucinich, or even Kerry!  

The impression that he's far leftist comes from two things.  Note: impressions do have lives of their own, and can be insurmountable.  But it's not my concern if Dean surmounts the impression, only to have a clear and accurate idea of my own.  Anyway:

One, he was against the Iraq War when the rest of the country, such as Kerry, were all on board.  But he's not a pacifist... he's supported other military actions, but of course being against a war in America gives people the idea that you are a peacnik, against all war, a pacifist dove!  Dean of course did not go out of his way to dispell this, no doubt for political reasons... he went from non-contender to the contender on this sentiment.

The second reason is that he was vocally against Bush.  I know from personal experience that if you criticise this president people, even left leaning people, will assume you are left wing.  But there are many moderates that do not like Bush's approach to things, they may be right or may be wrong but in neither case does that mean they are not still moderate or even conservative.  That does not make them leftist.

Liking Bush is not litmus for being conservative, and it's especially not a litmus for being moderate rather than "left wing".  

I don't really think it's that confusing, but I know people will believe what they see, and I saw what they saw during the primary.  I'm sympathetic to the perception.  As I said, if the perception is insurmountable politically for Dean is Dean's problem if he cares, not mine, I merely want to have an accurate picture of politicians.

And this brings me to Dean's supporters in the Democratic Primaries... THEY were the left wing, that much is true.  They would have been quite suprised, I think, to see Dean lead.  Dismayed probably.

Pro-Gulf War.

He's no republican... people are saying Left Wing -of the Democratic Party- and that is just not true.  On the Democratic Party scale...

You can say Dean tacked Left... personally, I believe he was trying to shore up the votes of leftists that otherwise defect... that think Democrats and Republicans are just alike.  

His policies were regular old centrist Dean ideas.

But I'm not trying to convince anyone Dean is for them.  Just consider that the impression the press gives of a man is never, never, never accurate.  Never.

You have to go to more primary sources, and doing that with Dean shows a man that happens to look left in opposition to Bush, but right in opposition to Kucinich, Braun, KERRY, Gephardt.  Only Lieberman is certainly to be to the right of Dean of the Democratic candidates.

... we don't know his position.

But we do know he's willing to let the gun issue be, so he's not anti-gun.  There is no history of him being anti-gun.

but there is no evidence in his record or his presidential platform that he would stay within a budget if he didn't have to.

Just out of curiosity, what did he cut?

But we do know he's willing to let the gun issue be, so he's not anti-gun.

I'm not certain that conclusion can be drawn just yet.  I would agree that Dean has not been blatantly anti-gun.  But that does not mean we can infer from that his position.  

However, that being said, he does claim to be from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" which sends shivers down my spine.

Offtopic:  What is an "athropologist?"

just like anthropology but without the "n".

I read somewhere that when he became the governor of Vermont that he had a panic attack.  He gave an interview and said as much.  Anyone have the original article?  Not that it matters...panic attacks would be an improvement over what ails McAuliffe.  He 'sees' things...