Redstate

Kevin Drum isn't suggesting that James Dobson DOES control the Republican Party.  But if you can make that an issue, you can change the political climate.  Many Righties believe that MoveOn controls the Democratic Party when the truth is that they are simply a lobbying group.

Obama isn't speaking as Liberal.  He's speaking as a Presidential hopeful.   That is what he is SUPPOSED to say.  Let the guy who doesn't need to get elected be the flame thrower.  

Whether Gitmo was a big deal or not in reality is irrelevant.  This is a POLITICAL matter. The White House tried to discredit Newsweek  and got burned doing it.

The White House defended itself from Isikoff's admittedly deliberate lie, Newsweek's credibility is in the tank.

On Obama, the issue is not whether or not he imagines one day seeking his party's presidential nomination.  The fact is that some elected Democrats are genuinely distressed by Dean's bizarre histrionics.  That being said, Howard Dean is the face of the Democratic Party, and decidely so.  He speaks to the far left constituency, including MoveOn.org, whom the Democrats need, or believe they need, if they are to win elections.  And to that extent, they do control the Democratic Party apparatus.  Howard Dean is of them.  

a bonus.

Because Dean can make outrageous statements and instead of the press attacking Dean they will go out and start looking for ways to back Dean up.

The problem is that those tactics in the end don't play well to middle America.  I also think the article was right-the DNC has a problem in that it is being percieved more and more as anti-Christian or at the very least overtly secular.  Attacks on Christians-especially generalized ones isn't going to do much to change that image.

As I remember Iowa Caucus of 2004, the D's were looking for ABD--Anyone But Dean, because with the country in a war, Dean came accross as distinctly unqualified to become President. He appeared unserious, lacking in knowledge of foreign affairs, and flaky. By placing Dean in the Party Chairman position, the dems are reminding everyone (whenever Dean appears on TV) that they almost nominated him to be their candidate for President.  The problem the Dems had in the cold war and now, again, in the war on Terrorism (or Radical Islam, to be more accurate)is that they were perceived (probably correctly) to be weak on national defense. Dean just keeps  reminding all but the far left of this every time he speaks.

I don't know how he's playing where the rest of you folks live.

But around these parts, all I have had to do for the last month or 6 weeks is say "Howard Dean said...." to one of the omnipresent "yellow-dog" Democrats, and they cover their ears, scream "I don't want to hear it!" and run away.

He's the best thing to happen to the Republican party in Arkansas since Bill Clinton left us for bigger and better things.

And be it noted that we don't want him, or Hillary, back.  The Nation asked for him, and someone else is now stuck with him.

You go, Howard!  Tell it!

BAWAHAHAHAHAH!

he is like watching a train wreck, and you just can't help but to comment on his ability to keep shoving his foot further into his mouth-at this point it is going to take some radical surgery to get the thing out.

for nebulous riots in Afghanistan was simply the White House "defending" itself?

Gotcha.

I love how you guys think that MoveOn controls the Democratic Party and yet groups like Focus on the Family have absolutely NO influence on the Republican.  Too funny.

Howard Dean certainly appears to the Liberal base, or "far-left" if that makes you feel better, but he also appealed to the mainstream non-DLC group because of his grass roots fundraising abilities.

Cue post telling me how badly Dean has done in fundraising.  Forget the fact that the Party has doubled contributions from 2 years ago and that Dean has been on the job for about 4 months.

For me this is like watching some cross between Alien and one of those James Bond movies where a secret society of evil geniuses is meeting in the Swiss Alps.

The evil geniuses are sitting around the table, and they have this pregnant woman among them and they are all congratulating her on having a child.

But I know it's not a child. There's a monster inside her, and any minute it is going to burst out and eat them all, right at the table.

And I hope it does, because these are the evil geniuses who are planning to wreck the world.

So when the camera pans back and shows some guys at the back of the room muttering, "If that's a baby, it's awfully big. What's if it's a monster?" I'm hoping nobody listens to them.

What campaign did Scott McClellan or Karl Rove wage to damage the magazine?  What part of the Newsweek/Quaran story did they create out of whole cloth and inject into the debate themselves?

Are you counting Scott McClellan's urging the magazine to help correct the damage it did, when he asked the magazine to "do more"?  Boy, what a terrible thing to ask Newsweek.  I mean, the magazine printed a story that turned out to be wildly exaggerated, sparked rioting throughout the Muslim word...and Scott McClellan had THE NERVE to suggest that, perhaps, Newsweek might want to expend some extra effort and make sure the whole story about Gitmo and the Koran got told.

thrash around in petulant protests, and literally ooze frustration in your posts.

FOUR...MORE...YEARS, flyerhawk.  FOUR...MORE...YEARS.

The White House did not blame Isikoff for the riots in Afghanistan and throughout the region; rather, McLellan indicated that the reporter had acted irresponsibly.  He had.  If he had not printed what he basically admitted to be a lie, those particular riots and deaths would not have occurred at another time and for another reason had Isikoff not done what he did.

Focus on the Family represents an important bloc of voters within the GOP, and they have influence with the party.  No one denies this.  But they have not co-opted the Republicans to the extent that MoveOn.org and the other groups have done the Dems.  Focus speaks Republican.  The Democrats speak Moveon.org.

If the Democrats are happy with the money Dean is raising, I'm happy for them.  Maybe he continue shattering records (in the CD era).  (That's twice today I've used that word play.  Dangerous.)

If I had been a Democrat before, which is a metaphysical impossibility, I would not be one now.  Better yet, if the GOP runs out of ideas and begins with cheap insults and backwards slander, I'll try to find a sane pocket within the party or I'll leave.  What will you do now with the Democrats in their current state?

is petulant?

And if you think that saying four more years bothers me you are sadly mistaken.

I'm somewhat concerned about the current situation of nearly completely one party rule but there isn't much I can do to change that.

Dean is fast becoming irrelevant.  You know what happens in everyday life with some one whose only answer to challenging ideas is personal attacks?  Americans are fed up with immature rhetoric from unserious politicians.  

'Nuff said.  The only thing that worries me is Dean implodes too fast.  But that is a minor risk.  The Deaniacs are beside themselves and lashing out at Americans because they do not agree with them and/or are religous (I am not religous so I feel fine pointing out this problem).  When you think of great Americans and what they inspire us to, Dean is the example of what we do not want to be thought as.

The White House did not blame Isikoff for the riots in Afghanistan and throughout the region; rather, McLellan indicated that the reporter had acted irresponsibly.  He had.  If he had not printed what he basically admitted to be a lie, those particular riots and deaths would not have occurred at another time and for another reason had Isikoff not done what he did.

Right.  So they didn't so much blame Isikoff for the riots as much as they blamed Isikoff for the riots and the DEATHS, which have still been unconfirmed.  

Focus on the Family represents an important bloc of voters within the GOP, and they have influence with the party.  No one denies this.  But they have not co-opted the Republicans to the extent that MoveOn.org and the other groups have done the Dems.  Focus speaks Republican.  The Democrats speak Moveon.org.

And you base this on what empirical evidence?  Seem more based on your bias.

Cue post telling me how badly Dean has done in fundraising.

Actually, Dean appears to be doing something that must look quite useful to Democrats. He is succeeding, where McAuliffe never did, in attracting large numbers of small donors. For the party, this is a good thing. They have plenty of schmoozers who can go around later to tap the 'high-dollar donors.' They don't need Dean for that. But they have had a long-festering problem at getting those nickels and dimes to come in, which is where the Pubbies have been cleaning their clocks.

So I could see a lot of Dems deciding to look the other way on Dean's foot-in-mouth disorder, figuring the hassle is worth it to get what they have never had: a large base of sub-$250 donors.

What I wonder is whether what Dean is building isn't a Dean-powered fund-raising engine, meaning that without Dean himself calling down fire and brimstone on the Pubbies, it won't work.

This should be a concern in Dem circles, but is unlikely to be any time soon because they have never had any success in this area, and something is always better than nothing.

If Dean were to spend a year doing this, and then make the nuclear faux pax that absolutely requires his dismissal, they could have wasted an entire year. And be months away from an election with a broken fund-raising engine.

Good post.  At least someone here can talk reasonably objectively about the guy.

Dean got the job because he was able to get a lot of small donors for his Presidential bid, which the DNC never saw having even a remote chance.  

It remains to be seen whether he will be a good Chairman.   But so far he is doing the MAIN JOB he was hired to do.

But so far he is doing the MAIN JOB he was hired to do.

I wish him well. My major concern is 2008. At the next census in 2010, the red states will gain more electoral votes; the blue states will lose them. So 2008 is the best shot the D's are going to have at the White House for probably 20 years.

I obviously hope that the R's win the White House in 2008 as well. But if they don't, I would rather see Howard Dean in the White House than Hillary Clinton. And I think Howard Dean shares my view on that. So he's my insurance. If he can stay where he is, doing what he's doing, I don't see how she gets past him. It'll be him and the Democratic base, against her, in the Democratic primaries. She'll need some serious intervention by the Dark Side of The Force to pull that off.

Although let's not put that past her.

will NOT be the Democratic nominee in 2008.  

First off the presumptive favorites 4 years out NEVER are the actual nominees unless they are in the White House already.

Secondly the majority of Democrats are either against her being the nominee or ambivalent.

My bet in 08 would be Edwards or Warner with Obama or Corzine as outside possibilities.

the riots.  Hamad Karzai and GEN Meyer both said the Newsweek story had nothing to do with the riots.  McClellan (and DiRita) then had to backtrack (after Karzai came to Washington) and claim they never said that the Newsweek story caused the riots.

you are referring to these lies....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1071202,00.html

Do you really believe that main stream media is in the pocket of democrats/liberals?  As you are likely aware, this often said about the press and cable news but I don't see it in play in the msm I occasionally visit.

How does Fox news fit into the conservative view of the msm?

The White House tried to discredit Newsweek and got burned doing it.

No, that's not quite how it happened.

Newsweek tried to discredit our military, and managed only to discredit itself.

Then the White House suggested it might be appropriate to say something nice about our military for once, which the press corps found to be a shocking and repugnant concept.  So instead, they've been working their behinds off to prove that it was a case of "fake but accurate".  And yes, they've managed only to discredit themselves.  Further.

Then flyerhawk tried to discredit the White House, and managed only to discredit himself.

on the right won't be converted by anything, The folks on the left won't be driven away by anything, but the moderates and undecided voters will be swayed by issues that stick, not soundbites.  They will get tired of listening to the "Dean is Crazy" news reports even if they agree with them, because they will see Dean as marginalized and harmless, especially if members of his party very subtley speak out against his soundbites.  But the voters will also be introduced to the real issues that the democrats can win on because the media will jump at the chance to say "crazy Howard dean says...but let's explore the issue for balance/news etc anyway..."

With limits to campaign contributions, neither party can rely on a few dozen/hundred super-big donors as they have in the past.

Dean seems to be doing well in his job of raising money from small donors.

From Hill News:

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/060705/fundrai
sers.html

DNC fundraising is ahead of where it was at this point after the last presidential election, when Democrats could still raise unlimited amounts of soft money.

I think all of the uproar over Dean is following Rove's normal strategy to "attack the strength".

Does anyone know how the GOP is addressing the problem of needing small donors?  The strategy presented by Mr. Noe in Ohio isn't going to cut it.  In a related question, if Dean is so good at raising money from smaller donors, how is it that the RNC has raised twice as much as the DNC?

about Newsweek or the story for that matter.

This is a matter of politics.  You want to defend Scott McClellan, go ahead.  

Did Scott McClellan say that Newsweek was responsible, in some way, for the riots and deaths that occurred in Afghanistan or not?  Simple question.  

You guys get so worked over these little mini-dramas you lose sight of the forest for the trees.

Have you taken a moment to conservative talk radio for the last 10 years or so?  Conservatives like Limbaugh and Hannity have turned rhetoric like Dean's into a political norm.  If anything he is copying what he's observed.

You are right. It is a political battle. and both sides are eager to proclaim victory here.  Lefties circle the wagons around their comrades under siege from the right, and Righties count coup on another MSM giant caught in a lie.  If Isikoff had been thoroughly sourced and his story had held  up under scrutiny, we still would have seen the great rush of stories coming out to corroborate what Isikoff had alleged.  The difference would be that these follow-up stories would have had more credibility with the public than they do now. Logically, McClellan or any other Republican should not try to make a direct link between a specific act of Koran desecration and a Mideast riot.  Politically, it makes sense, as long as you don't go to that well too often.    

... is not like the other.  If HoDean wants to host a radio show, he should talk to Al Franken. If he wants a successful radio show, he should talk to Rush. If he wants to lead his party to success, he should remember that what people like in a talk-show host may not be what they like in a politician.

That is not how I would describe the head of the Democrat party and nemesis of Hillary, although she will do her best to help him end up that way. Dean is not inoculating himself with his ill-conceived rhetoric.  His comments play well with those who "won't be driven away by anything", but he is probably killing himself with a thousand tiny cuts as far as moderates and undecideds are concerned. If you really wish for the head of your party to be "marginalized and harmless", I hope you get your wish.  I like for my party leader to be powerful and effective.

doesn't run in an election.  If he significantly raises contributions he will be doing his job.  

Dean will continue to be the flavor of the month until the elections get closer.  Figure sometime in Spring of 06.  Then people will focus on the actual candidates and Dean will be just another Party guy.

but he is not killing the democratic party because most moderate or undecided voters will begin to view him as harmless as time goes by.  But by speaking his mind in this way he will be able to raise issues that the media otherwise would not ever look at.

Dean is only one person, but by saying controversial things, he gets media coverage.  Then everyone is talking about what Howard Dean said, and not what the Republican Party wants to talk about.  Do you want people to be discussing whether or not the GOP is really controlled by the right wing or whether or not it is corrupt and out of touch?  Of course not - but even RedState is falling into the trap of letting Howard Dean control the debate!

But when Dick Cheney says....

"I've never been able to understand [Howard Dean's] appeal. Maybe his mother loved him, but I've never met anybody who does. He's never won anything, as best I can tell."

is that just good ol fashioned politicking or is he being hateful?

the White House eventually admit that there was deliberate desecration of the Koran? The media coverage was small (I saw it on Yahoo News) but it was still evidence of a coverup.

The White House saw it more of a security breach, being as the offenses were committed as a type of interrogation tool from the detainees where Newsweek ran on a tip and was subsequently burned. They apoligized.

You're funny sometimes.  As long as I've followed politics (not more than a decade) the Republicans have had a much larger number of small donors.  Despite the stereotype, Dems relied on soft money more than Reps (especially from unions).  Reps had a bunch of $1,000 donors (the old maximum) who can now donate $2,000.  Rs set a new record for themselves (and any party) in the first quarter for number of donors (715,000 donors).

 

Please link to it if you find it again.  But I was unaware of any stories about deliberate desecration.  The allegations I saw were about accidental disrespect.

FOX vs. CNN/CBS/NBC/ABC/NYT/WAPO/LATIMES/etc.

And even there, FOX is conservative in its op-ed columns (O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes).  It's news is rather centrist with a dash of populist (see: Jackson, Michael).

Dean is just like a talk radio host.  Hmmm... Rush isn't going to run my party anytime soon, but I'm glad to hear that Dems are looking for shock jocks to run their party.

And we just got 5 new judges who are now in line for SC appointments... and no one noticed.

Hopefully, CAFTA is next.

compared to "I hate you and everything you stand for," "You're evil," and "You're braindead".... well, lets say it makes the VP (who is a hothead) look like a reasonable guy.

Of course by spinning it to say dems rely more on soft money than republicans infers that dems are worse abusers of the campaign finance system than republicans which isn't true.  Both parties are soft-money prostitutes when it comes down to it. From that link, republicans raised slightly more soft money than dems, although the amounts were very similar.

"The problem is that those tactics in the end don't play well to middle America."

As compared to saying that Democrats "hate America" and "hate Christians?"

... of Ken Mehlman, or any other Republican leader who says those things.

If you want a quirky, mercurial, speaking-truth-to power guy who will turn into a nutjob before your very eyes, HoDean is your man.  Watch him as he goads the MSM into investigating crucial issues:  Why are Republicans  sponging slackers?  Why are Republicans all white Christians?

usually controls the money. Democrats think they have a twofer in Dean; he raises money and awareness.  We will see.  

People may focus on actual candidates  at election time, but if the Democrat candidates are all too busy trying to fish Dean's latest turd out of the punchbowl, all of that money is wasted.

You may or may not find interesting the fact that many liberals/democrats feel that the media is biased against their issues.  It's generally thought that Bush gets handled gently.

I think that Fox news is a white house mouth piece in most aspects of their reporting.  They generally report stories using the latest buzz-words/phrases issued by the white house.  Homicide bombers for example instead of suicide bombers.  Constitutional option instead of nuclear.

...but not the NY Times, of course. I am glad that liberals are starting to become dissatisfied with the MSM. I can tell you it wasn't always this way.  The old saying about a compromise being successful when no one is completely satisfied comes to mind.  

If Fox News seems to be a shill for the Republicans, it is because Fox has turned the liberal game back on the MSM.  For every "constitutional option", I can give you a "gravitas". For every "homicide bomber", I can give you a "risky scheme" and "nuance". I'll even throw in a free "quagmire" since it's Tuesday!

RP: I'm glad to be here tonight, Larry.  Did you know the North Vietnamese hired to Black Panthers to try to kill me? I find that fascinatin', Larry, don't you?

LK:  Certainly is intriguing, Ross.  What do you think, Howard?

HD:  I know how he feels, Larry.  When you're a tough-talkin' iconoclast, the persecution is unbelievable... makes you want to scream, sometimes.

With the exception of asking whether Dean has actually won anything (he won two governor's races in Vermont and was recently elected as chair of the DNC), I didn't find Cheney's comments to be anything more heated than what one would expect of an adult who has to tell a spoiled intemperate child that we are tired of his antics and could care less of his opinions of us.

The other interpretation (and this is a bit of a stretch in terms of whether Cheney was saying this) is that no one really likes Howard Dean in the DNC so much as they hate President Bush and Dean established himself as the most hateful of the Democratic wannabes (although Clark gave him a run for his money at one point) thereby earning their support.  His comments about Republicans that have garnered so much attention play to the haters in the base of the Democratic party who don't so much like him as they want to hear someone who expresses the same hatred they carry around with them.  

Fortunately that sort of thing tends to be a turn off and is more likely to energize Republican activists as it does Democratic ones.  Net advantage to the GOP and kudos to Ken Mehlman who unlike Dean realizes that the job of a Party chair is to make majorities.

Dick Cheney has been known to use quite colorful language on the Senate floor as well, so this is not an isolated incident for him.  BTW, Dean won two state legilative races, 2 for LG, and 5 for governor (2 year terms).  The Democratic presidential primaries was the first thing he ever lost.

"Go f*** yourself" is a perfectly appropriate response to a jerk who accuses you in the open Senate one minute of providing favors for your former company and the next tries to put his arm around to pretend that you're buddy-buddy.

Unless you have other examples of him doing this, it still falls in the category of "isolated incident."  

Unless you have examples of him doing it publicly (the alleged remarks to Leahy were in a private conversation which BTW have not been verified by anyone on the record) as opposed to making such remarks in a public forum for public consumption, it isn't even relevant.