Redstate

As governor of Vermont, Dean was regarded as a budget-balancing, gun-owner-friendly centrist.

This is somewhat off-topic but he was regarded as a "centrist" by whom? The Press?

Call me cynical, but everytime a Democrat is described as a "centrist" there's an election going on or he or she is positioning him/herself for a run and his/her friends in the Press are trying to assist him/her in appealing to the center.

Hasn't anyone else noticed that every Democrat who looks to be in a tough race, no matter how far to the Left is suddenly morphed into a "moderate"/"centrist" by the Press?

If Dennis Kucinich had won the Primaries, I can bet you anything the New York Times would immediately have "discovered" that he actually is a "pragmatic non-ideological problem solving moderate centrist."

It's REALLY annoying. A Republican has to jettison conservative positions on practically everything before he/she gets the moderate label. A Democrat can maintain a voting record identical to Ted Kennedy's and still get called a moderate.

He balanced his budgets and extended health care to all children WITHOUT raising taxes (more than can be said for our Repubs in AL and IN).  He has a perfect score from the NRA.  And from what I can tell, he supported free trade (as much as a governor can).  His only "leftist" policy was signing a Civil Union legislation and he didn't do so in front of the cameras.  In Vermont, this is about as far right as they come.

It was when he ran for President that the hate started to show.  At least now he has said it and made it clear.  No more acting like he's just made about the President or about policy.  No, he hates us.

Endorsement tallies by voting members of the DNC:

Howard Dean (215)

Dem strategist Donnie Fowler (13)  

Ex-Rep. Tim Roemer (4)

NDN pres. Simon Rosenberg (4)

when I hate Republicans and what they stand for.  Not many, but some.  

I have nothing to go on but the Jacoby piece, but I would chalk that up to rhetoric - the point is, despite disagreeing with you knuckleheads on point after point, we have to respect you've assembled an impressive national organization.  It's no secret the man has a mouth problem, but quite often it appears his part of an authentic solution as opposed to a Kerry-like manufactured problem.

In all fairness, Doverspa, I think Amos has been Dean's chief cheerleader on this site, and I don't think he's been advertising him as a concilliator.  I would bet you money (which I admittedly could lose) that there are some early Gingrich comments out there of similiar nature.

Given that Dr.Dean is (as far as I know) a descendant of the old East Coast Republican money, he may or may not actually hate us, but the important thing is that he is making these noises loudly to woo the hard-core left base.  Now, once he is the Chair, all we need him to do is to start gesticulating madly in late October of 2006 when the heat turns up in the mid-terms.  Damn it, I want to hit sixty seats at least once in my life (and on a barely related sidenote, the man California needs at its helm, Tom McClintock is leading the pack for the no.2 slot.  My hope is that Schwarzenegger finds a way to leave office after carrying a few colleagues like Tom into office with him.  A crazed Dean can only help this to materialize).

Here's some background on Dean as governor.

http://scientistsfordean.org/node/view/60

http://nhpr.org/view_content/5531/

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_32/b3845084.htm

http://www.cse.uiuc.edu/~wilmarth/deandocs/Record_-_Economy.pdf

Some of these are from organizations explicitly supportive of Dean, some are not.  In a nutshell, Dean has a longstanding reputation as a business friendly deficit hawk.  He also expanded VT's Medicaid program to include almost all kids there, and signed the civil union bill (perhaps under some duress).  He's a centrist.

He's also a bit of a hothead, and seems to do more of his thinking out loud than might be prudent for someone in a prominent position.  Maybe he'll be great for the Dems, maybe he'll be a disaster.  We'll find out shortly, I guess.  My only concern is that holding that position will neutralize him, which I think would be a shame.

FWIW, I think his comment about "hating Republicans" should be taken with a grain of salt.  Take it however you will.  If you like, you can probably make some political hay out of it.

Cheers -

It's how he sells the Democratic Party that DOES matter.

We've seen that.  We've seen what he's like in the campaign cycle.  And boy howdy, we love it.

As Dean's nominal champion here on RS, a position which I did not seek but which I'm willing to assume for the moment, I'll offer my thoughts on him becoming DNC chair.

Dean's intensity and passion might be great for the Dems.  The attempts they've made over the last few years to triangulate and second-guess their way to some kind of meager parity with the Republicans has gotten them nothing but kicked in the teeth.  They seem unable to articulate their traditional priorities and ideals in a way that resonates very strongly with anyone.  Many, perhaps most, folks that vote for them do so because they don't like the Republican positions, not because they find the Democrats in any way appealing.  They have all the inspirational dynamism of a bowl of lukewarm oatmeal.  It won't do them any harm to have someone in charge who will shake things up.

On the other hand, it might be a disaster.  Dean can be a hothead, and he's been know to talk before thinking.  The whole thing might go to his head, he might decide the role of obstreporous loudmouth was exactly the part he was born to play, he might alienate anyone and everyone to the right of Ted Kennedy, and the Democrats might become exclusively the party of angry whiners.

It could go either way.  I have no idea what will happen, and wouldn't put money on any particular outcome.

I like Dean.  I think he's a good guy, with good ideas and a good record as governor.  He left the state of VT much better than the way he found it.  He's become famous for two things -- opposing the war in Iraq, and screaming like a stuck pig on TV.  There is, certainly, more to him than that.

In any case, he's in.  Let the wild rumpus begin.

Cheers -

You have a point.

Cheers -

I am another Dean backer.  My basic reasoning begins with the consensus opinion that Democratic strategy has been horrific for the last four years.  We need someone who understands the problem, has solid solutions, and who has the energy to bring change.  In spite of his notoriety, he still will not be on Mr. and Mrs. Sixpack's TV much, as they don't partake in Sunday morning talk shows, but he will be closely in touch with the Democratic base.  He will rebuild the Party from the county dogcatcher up and give the Party an identity based on those principles the whole Party shares.

I should follow up my glee by saying that I actually like Howard Dean, differences of opinion aside.  He is refreshingly honest for a politician (unless he really does not hate Repblicans, but we'll find out soon enough), and he can fire up the Left base in a way that few others can.  Honestly, if you are out on the Left, who are you going to cheer for, Dean or Boxer?  One's aundisputed lightweight, and the other is a medical doctor who appears to have a functioning brain.

As a new arrival, I find it interesting how many apparently sensible liberals post here.  And the discussion seems to retain a modicum of civility.  All good, as far as I'm concerned.

As far as Dean goes, he seems very unlikely to be a good DNC chair.  His campaign team was a disaster, and every indication is that he has no knack for running a political organization.  There have been lots of post-mortuems on his campaign that revealed the huge internal divisions and often rank-incompetence of his campaign.  

He can fire up the base, but I'm not sure you want your party chair as that guy.  If he's out there pushing his own policy ideas he could just further divide the Dems, especially if he isn't willing to march to the orders of actual elected democrats.  Party heads are usually organization guys/fundraisers, and there's a reason for that.

I guess I'm happy to see the Dems select him, b/c I think he's very likely to be weak.  He certainly hasn't demonstrated the skills that traditionally make a chair succesful.

And he does have that alpha-male, kick-ass attitude that at least makes him seem like a credible war time leader, even if he is a bit unstable.  Unlike John Kerry, who I can't picture leading the country through a paper bag.

To bad he also seems like an out of control nut sometime.  But you gotta give him a few props.

They tend to hang around here.  We like 'em.  They make us look all bipartisan and stuff.

In all seriousness, they keep us on our toes and their input is very helpful.  We police away the haters and the trolls.  The respectful liberals and Democrats are always welcome.

I know Aziz has many good words to say about him here and at Dean Nation.  And several other left of center types have quirked about him and Obama being the type of people who could move us toward a "purple nation."  I think McCain, Schwarzenegger, or Guiliani are more likely than any current Dems to unite a supermajority and push off the two extremes.  The only Dems with a chance would be Bayh, Warner, or Roemer.  And for various reasons, they will never get a chance.

...but he makes it hard when he says sh*t like this.  Ten years ago I'd be able to accept the 'he just meant the Republican Party' defense without a qualm; today?  Well, it's not exactly sui generis, is it?

That being said, I would like to see the full speech so that I can judge it in context.  I think that's fair.

And for various reasons, they will never get a chance.

And for similar reasons, McCain, Schwarzenegger, and Giuliani won't get a chance either.  It is very difficult for a candidate to unify America without shredding their own Party's base.

It was in a Q & A session after a speech.  Although it certainly can be taken out of context, he was referring to what Republicans do, while admiring their strategy.

Is your observation based on your own experience, or what you've heard or seen after the fact?

The reason I ask is that I'm not sure everyone would agree that we were united under Reagan.

Cheers -

I think you've misjudged Dean, and that the alleged statement is not credible given its origin at NewsMax and other such partisan sources. But even if the statement was reported accurately, I think that the conclusion you've drawn is unfair.

I've got an extended entry at Dean Nation discussing my position - and note that I have sent out feelers to my contacts within the campaign and at DFA (Dean's grassroots organization) to see if I can get any verification of the statement.

Reagan was a rare politician, and his conservative base loved him.  None of the Republicans you listed are liked by the GOP base - just ask fellow RedStaters.

I think you could say much the same about him.

Serious question: I haven't found one, yet.

though i have some phone numbers and will try to verify tomorrow.

When people say Reagan united us, they mean that he united the right and the center of the country.  Much like FDR brought together the left and the center.  No one has united all the countries factions since George Washington.

i was born in 1984, so the following is not based on first hand observation:

didn't he win every state that year except Mondale's?

If that's not building a consensus, then what is?

Nixon won every state except MA in '72, but I don't think anyone would call him a unifier.

My memory may be selective, but IIRC Reagan was overwhelmingly popular with folks that liked him, but was not really a unifier of the nation.  People either loved, really loved, him, or they thought he was out of his mind.

Cheers -

agreed, and anyway is it really fair to compare a President with a party chair?

What unifiers have there been among RNC Chairmen? Ken Mehlman?

President Reagan managed to alienate a lot of moderate Republicans before he was elected, both in his primary fight against Ford in 1976 which contributed to Carter's win and in getting Anderson, an ten term Republican Congressman, to run in 1980 as a third party candidate. The gauze of history smooths some of the sharp edges of the past.

A comment on this:

"I think Amos has been Dean's chief cheerleader on this site, and I don't think he's been advertising him as a concilliator"

I like Dean a lot, but I don't mean to present myself as his champion or cheerleader.

That said, I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT consider him a concilliator.  And, that is probably the most valuable thing he has to offer the Dems.

What I see Dean bringing to the table is his willingness to get absolutely right up the nose of the Republican party, with bells on.  I'd be delighted to see it, personally, they've had entirely too easy a ride these past few years.  Whether it brings good or ill to the Dems as a party remains to be seen.

Cheers -

From amos' nhpr link:

As governor, Dean was essentially a centrist. Moderate Republicans liked his tight-fisted approach on the budget and his pro-business views on environmental regulations. He's never lost in 10 elections.

Granted I moved to VT just a bit before Dean mentally checked out of the governor's office and his imagination checked into the Oval Office, but this certainly rings true with my own experience talking with Vermonters.  He profoundly cut a lot of social services and mental health services (so much so that the Vt State Psychiatric Hospital has had staffing problems through the years, just lost its accreditation again, and will not be reopened due to repeated violations) to the annoyance of many on the Left, but he left the state budget balanced and sound.  Much of the credit for this must also fall on the Republican legislature though.  He was replaced by a moderate Republican who frankly hasn't changed much of Dean's policies.  Dean's signing of the civil unions legislation of course stands out, but his overall record was not to the extreme left.

So my comment was supposed to be flippant and a little humorous.  But Reagan unified more of the country than any other President in living memory.  There will always be some who dislike a President (or any person).  But Reagan convinced a super majority that he was their guy (not just that they disliked the other guy).

I think he was popular, but you have to have at least a majority to be a uniter.  I would say breaking 60% would put you solidly in the uniter position, but breaking 50% is a prerequisite.

FWIW, I heard about it on Kos.  I should definitely have fact checked it some more, but since commentators in the MSM picked it up as well I thought it had passed the common knowledge threshold.

I'll read your Dean Nation post when I wake up tomorrow.

Doverspa -

My question wasn't meant as a challenge, sorry if it came off that way.

You are correct to note that Reagan won a stronger majority of the vote than, certainly, anyone since.  He was also enormously popular, and was extremely well-liked even by many who disagreed with him on policy.  Reagan was a good guy.

He was also a polarizing figure.  He was the first President to come from the modern conservative movement.  He introduced and advocated policies that moved the political median, if you will, significantly to the right.  Post Reagan, the gap between left and right in this country was significantly wider.  

So, in spite of his enormous popularity, I'm not sure I'd call him a uniter.  He didn't really seek to forge common ground between all Americans.  He sought to articulate a different direction for the country, which you could either rally around, or not.  He did so with a sincere, genial confidence and optimism that made his message that much more appealing, and which won him the enthusiastic support of a strong majority.  But, he also drew a line in the sand that was significantly sharper, and significantly to the right of, what came before him.

Cheers -

Reagan was polarizing, but often men with ideas are.

The attacks on Bush give me flashbacks to those on Reagan. Clark Clifford's churlish "amiable dunce" statement. Tip O'Neill's bizarre claim that Reagan, unlike himself, had forgotten his roots. The only reason that era seems more civil is there were only three TV networks, no talk radio, and no internet.

I personally look at popular approval ratings because they are responsive over time. The election is a single timepoint, an done that comes after 18 months of acrimony and character attacks on both sides. The healing begins after that, and in general Clinton and Reagan had comparable apporval numbers after the elections and beyond. Granted Clinton didnt surf to power on as big a wave as did Reagan, but once there, he was as much a rock star.

only references to it on the MSM are secondary reporting. Still no luck in tracking down a transcript. But I make a broader case at DN, looking forward to your comments.

I'm with you on this one amos!  

Reagan indeed drew a line in the sand.  That in itself is polarizing.  

It says something that he couldn't break 50 either time, against cruddy opponents, and with a third party candidate to help him.

no, the third party candidate is why you CANT break 50. Perot was a stroing force and sucked both sides a bit. The presaence of a strong 3rd party will act to undermine anyone getting a popular vote majority, not enhance it.

Or 1912.

but then how can you really build a consensus? That's the question. That's what the Democrats have to do, don't they?

You build a consensus by finding the common ground between folks that appear to differ with each other, and by making clear to people how the position you're presenting aligns with, and furthers, their own interests.

IMO, the Dems have failed to do this because they've spent all their energy explaining how and why they aren't Republicans, rather than developing a positive identity for themselves.

My feeling, personally, is that the Republicans are somewhat vulnerable because their majority is built from a collection of overlapping constituencies -- evangelicals and other conservative religious groups, libertarians, small government conservatives, people like rural voters who are simply socially conservative -- whose goals don't necessarily align on all points.  There are potential chinks in the armor.  But, it won't do the Dems much good to just pick at those "chinks" if they don't have a positive alternative to offer.

Cheers -

Surely you meant to say "divergent" instead of "overlapping"? Overlapping constituencies would be much more resistant to the kind of internal divisions you speak of because they share the same concerns. In fact the GOP constituencies ARE overlapping more and more.  I am a social conservative, but I am also an economic and fiscal conservative.  Hence I "overlap" with myself, which isn't nearly as perverse as it sounds.  I need to go to bed now.  I must overlap with my covers.

No, I actually did mean overlapping.

The place that this creates a vulnerability is the areas in which the interests of the various groups do not align.

As practical matter, I'm not sure there's that much daylight between the various groups that make up the Republican constituency, and I'm even less sure that the Dems have a position or strategy that would let them exploit it.

Sleep tight!

Cheers -

I was very young during the Reagan years.

But don't you think any president who can create a known demographic of supporters from the other party (Reagan Democrats) can lay some claim to building a consensus?