OK... now that Howard Dean has officially declared his interest in the DNC Chair position and stated quite eloquently his intentions, I consider myself a Dean for DNC chair, or DeaNiaC. 'Cause you can't spell Deaniac without DNC.
In all seriousness, the debate on this very forum regarding Dean's sometimes overactive mouth solidified my opinion. Fact is, at least he'll say SOMETHING. AND he'll back up what he says with action, not giving up on the south and west. We MUST have someone who can make us contenders at least, winners at best. Howard Dean is the antidote to the placid Democratic Party. He gives us an edge and that is what we sorely need.
Full Version: Now I'm a DeaNiaC...
Personally, I have a great deal of Respect for Howard Dean
and think that he can be a great asset. I also had stated in
the primaries that becoming DNC chairman was one of
several steps he should first take before running for President.
That said--I think that if he became the Chairman, he would do
the best job he possibly can and would help to give us grassrooters
the ear of the Party.
So, while I cannot and will not support Dean for President (especially
in the next `4-12` years)--DNC Chairman, is something I CAN be
a DeaNiaC for!
J. Frew, IL
and think that he can be a great asset. I also had stated in
the primaries that becoming DNC chairman was one of
several steps he should first take before running for President.
That said--I think that if he became the Chairman, he would do
the best job he possibly can and would help to give us grassrooters
the ear of the Party.
So, while I cannot and will not support Dean for President (especially
in the next `4-12` years)--DNC Chairman, is something I CAN be
a DeaNiaC for!
J. Frew, IL
I have always liked Dean for DNC chair and have stated the reasons in other posts.
I DO think he will not only bring a voice to a lot of issues that need to be addressed, but he already has a huge following who he can 'mobilize' into just what this party needs.
I really liked the idea of having regional chairs and I think if the idea were floated to Dean, he would consider it.
I still would like to know more about Martin Frost (I think that is his name - the guy from Tx that Delay railroaded out of congress after 20+ years) as I think from what has been posted that he may be a good choice as well.
The one guy I do NOT want is that Roemer guy - - blacckkkgggggghhhh. After his interview on CNN the other day, I thought I was listening to Frist there for a bit.
Anyway, Tank you are right on with your assessment that at least Dean won't accept status quo and WILL speak up.
I DO think he will not only bring a voice to a lot of issues that need to be addressed, but he already has a huge following who he can 'mobilize' into just what this party needs.
I really liked the idea of having regional chairs and I think if the idea were floated to Dean, he would consider it.
I still would like to know more about Martin Frost (I think that is his name - the guy from Tx that Delay railroaded out of congress after 20+ years) as I think from what has been posted that he may be a good choice as well.
The one guy I do NOT want is that Roemer guy - - blacckkkgggggghhhh. After his interview on CNN the other day, I thought I was listening to Frist there for a bit.
Anyway, Tank you are right on with your assessment that at least Dean won't accept status quo and WILL speak up.
One more quick thought and I guess question - - do you all think Dean would get along with Reid who took Daschle's place?
I doubt he would get along with most of them currently because of their lack of backbone, but at the same time, he would probably whip them into shape
Ok, so how does this 'selection election' work for DNC chair? Is he voted on by state chairmen or what? If so, I have no problem in contacting the DNC state chair and stating my wishes as a card carrying dues paying dem.
Anyhow, if one of the posters could please fill me in on how one is 'chosen' for the DNC chair, I would appreciate it very much.
Anyhow, if one of the posters could please fill me in on how one is 'chosen' for the DNC chair, I would appreciate it very much.
The 400 delegates that make up the DNC vote. I heard a few weeks ago that Dean already had a 100 votes squared away...
[quote=65 Rambler Lady]I really liked the idea of having regional chairs and I think if the idea were floated to Dean, he would consider it. [/quote]
We already have these.
[quote=65 Rambler Lady]One more quick thought and I guess question - - do you all think Dean would get along with Reid who took Daschle's place?[/quote]
Both Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi are said to support Roemer for the position of DNC chair.
[quote=65 Rambler Lady]Ok, so how does this 'selection election' work for DNC chair? Is he voted on by state chairmen or what? [/quote]
It's a process defined by Article 3 of the Party's Charter. Basically, it requires a majority approval of the membership of the DNC.
We already have these.
[quote=65 Rambler Lady]One more quick thought and I guess question - - do you all think Dean would get along with Reid who took Daschle's place?[/quote]
Both Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi are said to support Roemer for the position of DNC chair.
[quote=65 Rambler Lady]Ok, so how does this 'selection election' work for DNC chair? Is he voted on by state chairmen or what? [/quote]
It's a process defined by Article 3 of the Party's Charter. Basically, it requires a majority approval of the membership of the DNC.
[quote=JRE Intern][quote=65 Rambler Lady]I really liked the idea of having regional chairs and I think if the idea were floated to Dean, he would consider it. [/quote]
We already have these. Thanks, I wasn't aware of the heirarchy.
[quote=65 Rambler Lady]One more quick thought and I guess question - - do you all think Dean would get along with Reid who took Daschle's place?[/quote]
Both Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi are said to support Roemer for the position of DNC chair. Gee, now why doesn't THAT surprise me. No thanks, another wussie who wants to move to the middle...nope. Not needed. Do not apply.
[quote=65 Rambler Lady]Ok, so how does this 'selection election' work for DNC chair? Is he voted on by state chairmen or what? [/quote]
It's a process defined by Article 3 of the Party's Charter. Basically, it requires a majority approval of the membership of the DNC.[/quote] Thanks I will follow the link to read about it!
We already have these. Thanks, I wasn't aware of the heirarchy.
[quote=65 Rambler Lady]One more quick thought and I guess question - - do you all think Dean would get along with Reid who took Daschle's place?[/quote]
Both Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi are said to support Roemer for the position of DNC chair. Gee, now why doesn't THAT surprise me. No thanks, another wussie who wants to move to the middle...nope. Not needed. Do not apply.
[quote=65 Rambler Lady]Ok, so how does this 'selection election' work for DNC chair? Is he voted on by state chairmen or what? [/quote]
It's a process defined by Article 3 of the Party's Charter. Basically, it requires a majority approval of the membership of the DNC.[/quote]
Thanks I will follow the link to read about it!
[quote]It's a process defined by Article 3 of the Party's Charter. Basically, it requires a majority approval of the membership of the DNC.[/quote]
Yep, and I fear the membership wants politics as usual. WE want someone who will stand up to them. IMO, they are afraid of Dean and I have read an article stating that. Where would be now without Dean? If not for the internet, the voting fraud would have never been mentioned.
Just my 02.
Yep, and I fear the membership wants politics as usual. WE want someone who will stand up to them. IMO, they are afraid of Dean and I have read an article stating that. Where would be now without Dean? If not for the internet, the voting fraud would have never been mentioned.
Just my 02.
[quote=65 Rambler Lady]Gee, now why doesn't THAT surprise me. No thanks, another wussie who wants to move to the middle...nope. Not needed. Do not apply.[/quote]
Here's the CNN article confirming that I said: Sources: Reid, Pelosi backing Roemer for DNC chair.
If, by wussie, you mean Democrat who won in a red state and did a great service to this country as a member of the `9-11` Commission...or if, by wussie, you mean someone who worked on legislation to balance the budget (with John Kerry, I might add) and on bipartisan efforts to reform welfare and improve the affordability of higher education...if that's what you mean...then yes, I guess you're right.
I don't agree, however.
Here's the CNN article confirming that I said: Sources: Reid, Pelosi backing Roemer for DNC chair.
If, by wussie, you mean Democrat who won in a red state and did a great service to this country as a member of the `9-11` Commission...or if, by wussie, you mean someone who worked on legislation to balance the budget (with John Kerry, I might add) and on bipartisan efforts to reform welfare and improve the affordability of higher education...if that's what you mean...then yes, I guess you're right.
I don't agree, however.
Where did you get that quote from? I didn't see that in this topic, but I might have skipped over it so ignore me if I did.
William477, if you're talking about the quote I attributed to 65 Rambler Lady...she added her response to my post in bold.
[quote]Thanks I will follow the link to read about it![/quote]
Thats all I saw from her...
Thats all I saw from her...
Whoops, I see it now. Sorry, it's been a long day lol
[quote=JRE Intern]Pelosi backing Roemer for DNC chair[/quote]
Pelosi. Didn't we listen to her already and nominate Sir `Folds-a`-Lot for President? Didn't she send me a bunch of junk mail begging for money so the party could squander it with bad strategy and tepid responses? Pelosi. Doesn't matter much to me what she thinks.
You can't spell DeaNiaC without DNC! Go Howard!
Pelosi. Didn't we listen to her already and nominate Sir `Folds-a`-Lot for President? Didn't she send me a bunch of junk mail begging for money so the party could squander it with bad strategy and tepid responses? Pelosi. Doesn't matter much to me what she thinks.
You can't spell DeaNiaC without DNC! Go Howard!
I always wished for a `Dean-Edwards` collaboration and know that they get along well.
Dean as a DNC chair could really help carry forward Edwards and his message.
What if Edwards were to become a regional chair or ambassador? Anything high profile would help the party and an Edwards Presidential bid for 08 (Dean VP 08).
BTW, I called Pelosi's office requesting that she publicly recant any rumor of backing Roemer. I mentioned how upset all the grassroots DCCC volunteers/donors would be if she did support him, especially me.
-mandy in mpls
Dean as a DNC chair could really help carry forward Edwards and his message.
What if Edwards were to become a regional chair or ambassador? Anything high profile would help the party and an Edwards Presidential bid for 08 (Dean VP 08).
BTW, I called Pelosi's office requesting that she publicly recant any rumor of backing Roemer. I mentioned how upset all the grassroots DCCC volunteers/donors would be if she did support him, especially me.
-mandy in mpls
[quote=earthabunny]Anything high profile would help the party and an Edwards Presidential bid for 08 (Dean VP 08).[/quote]
While I like the part about an Edwards Presidential Bid for 08 and
Dean helping out--I personally think that Dean as the VP would
be out of the question.
Granted we don't know who the Republicans will run, and if they
mess up in their choice it might not matter, but I just don't think that
an `Edwards-Dean` ticket would be a winner. Dean doesn't bring much
to the equation that Edwards doesn't already have... and both are seen
by the Repubs and will be criticized for being too "inexperienced"
(Note: Although W had less experience than either of them :? )
It's also why Obama wouldn't be a good pick I don't think. While he's
an amazing guy and great speaker, I just don't think it would work as
well as others--granted it MIGHT work--just not as well as others might
I think that Dean should set his aim at DNC chairmen, then move from
their to a cabinet position in 08, then from there to VP or another
Presidential Bid after he's filled out his resume some.
"But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."
A few years can change a lot...perhaps Dean will beef up his
resume substantially in the next few years and be a contender
for Pres/VP in 08 afterall... but for now... let's look at chairmen
for Dean and focus on election 06 for the rest
J. Frew, IL
While I like the part about an Edwards Presidential Bid for 08 and
Dean helping out--I personally think that Dean as the VP would
be out of the question.
Granted we don't know who the Republicans will run, and if they
mess up in their choice it might not matter, but I just don't think that
an `Edwards-Dean` ticket would be a winner. Dean doesn't bring much
to the equation that Edwards doesn't already have... and both are seen
by the Repubs and will be criticized for being too "inexperienced"
(Note: Although W had less experience than either of them :? )
It's also why Obama wouldn't be a good pick I don't think. While he's
an amazing guy and great speaker, I just don't think it would work as
well as others--granted it MIGHT work--just not as well as others might
I think that Dean should set his aim at DNC chairmen, then move from
their to a cabinet position in 08, then from there to VP or another
Presidential Bid after he's filled out his resume some.
"But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."
A few years can change a lot...perhaps Dean will beef up his
resume substantially in the next few years and be a contender
for Pres/VP in 08 afterall... but for now... let's look at chairmen
for Dean and focus on election 06 for the rest
J. Frew, IL
[quote=JRE Intern][quote=65 Rambler Lady]Gee, now why doesn't THAT surprise me. No thanks, another wussie who wants to move to the middle...nope. Not needed. Do not apply.[/quote]
Here's the CNN article confirming that I said: Sources: Reid, Pelosi backing Roemer for DNC chair.
If, by wussie, you mean Democrat who won in a red state and did a great service to this country as a member of the `9-11` Commission...or if, by wussie, you mean someone who worked on legislation to balance the budget (with John Kerry, I might add) and on bipartisan efforts to reform welfare and improve the affordability of higher education...if that's what you mean...then yes, I guess you're right.
I don't agree, however.[/quote]
I heard him on CNN and this guy is NOT what the party needs at this juncture, imho. All he talked about was conceding to the repubs and moving the the middle and the democratic 'compassion'.....etc. (If I hear one more person use the word 'compassion' :twisted:) ..... I will allow that he was being interviewed by Judy Woodruff and she is not known for her astute interviewing skillset, but everything he said sounded like a watered down version of George W. Bush, our resident COMPASSIONATE smirky the clown.
We do NOT need someone to bow to the wind that is blowing in this country right now. What we need is someone who will stand up and do what is needed to get this party back on its feet.....and if that means taking an unpopular stand with a bunch of people who obviously care more about their political careers than the people who elected them, then so be it.
Everyone talks about how this party must change and on and on and on and how we have lost our moral compass (whatever the hell that is - I still know what I believe in and based on what I heard out of the mouths of these 'elected' people last week, they are the ones who have 'lost thier way', not me).
Well, I beg to differ. And from what I read here on the JRE site and the DU and others that I frequent, I am not alone. INHO, the vast majority of the grassroots dems have NOT lost thier compass, values, or compassion NOR have they lost the most precious gift of all....common sense and the intelligence to know right from wrong.
So I ask you - why would this party want someone who is espousing the very 'ideals' that are degrading the very core of this nation? Please don't try and tell me it is all in the spirit of `bi-partianship` either as I don't believe that for one NY minute.
What I DO believe is simply this - this party needs a mouth....a big one.....who can scream to be heard and also who can whisper when needed. One who knows how to assemble and ignite the passions of the grassroots efforts, one who can move to the middle when needed, but while doing so, not offend our 'base.'
The days of the saying of the Rodney King line of "why can't we all just get along?" -- well, they are gone and they went the way of voter fraud, blatant theft and treason by the current administration who Mr. Roemer now wants to emulate (his words on CNN, NOT my intrepretation) and imitate.
By his not speaking up and saying that this party is NOT broken and does NOT need to be fixed makes him a wussie as it would be an unpopular stance in the eyes of the people who HE wants to emulate.
That's my two cents worth and my opinion. He has done nothing, and I have read nothing, that would show me that he truly cares about the core of this party and getting it back on track....and back on track in my little corner of the world does NOT mean drifting toward the repub party lines.
From what I heard on CNN and from what I have read about Roemer, no thanks.
Here's the CNN article confirming that I said: Sources: Reid, Pelosi backing Roemer for DNC chair.
If, by wussie, you mean Democrat who won in a red state and did a great service to this country as a member of the `9-11` Commission...or if, by wussie, you mean someone who worked on legislation to balance the budget (with John Kerry, I might add) and on bipartisan efforts to reform welfare and improve the affordability of higher education...if that's what you mean...then yes, I guess you're right.
I don't agree, however.[/quote]
I heard him on CNN and this guy is NOT what the party needs at this juncture, imho. All he talked about was conceding to the repubs and moving the the middle and the democratic 'compassion'.....etc. (If I hear one more person use the word 'compassion' :twisted:) ..... I will allow that he was being interviewed by Judy Woodruff and she is not known for her astute interviewing skillset, but everything he said sounded like a watered down version of George W. Bush, our resident COMPASSIONATE smirky the clown.
We do NOT need someone to bow to the wind that is blowing in this country right now. What we need is someone who will stand up and do what is needed to get this party back on its feet.....and if that means taking an unpopular stand with a bunch of people who obviously care more about their political careers than the people who elected them, then so be it.
Everyone talks about how this party must change and on and on and on and how we have lost our moral compass (whatever the hell that is - I still know what I believe in and based on what I heard out of the mouths of these 'elected' people last week, they are the ones who have 'lost thier way', not me).
Well, I beg to differ. And from what I read here on the JRE site and the DU and others that I frequent, I am not alone. INHO, the vast majority of the grassroots dems have NOT lost thier compass, values, or compassion NOR have they lost the most precious gift of all....common sense and the intelligence to know right from wrong.
So I ask you - why would this party want someone who is espousing the very 'ideals' that are degrading the very core of this nation? Please don't try and tell me it is all in the spirit of `bi-partianship` either as I don't believe that for one NY minute.
What I DO believe is simply this - this party needs a mouth....a big one.....who can scream to be heard and also who can whisper when needed. One who knows how to assemble and ignite the passions of the grassroots efforts, one who can move to the middle when needed, but while doing so, not offend our 'base.'
The days of the saying of the Rodney King line of "why can't we all just get along?" -- well, they are gone and they went the way of voter fraud, blatant theft and treason by the current administration who Mr. Roemer now wants to emulate (his words on CNN, NOT my intrepretation) and imitate.
By his not speaking up and saying that this party is NOT broken and does NOT need to be fixed makes him a wussie as it would be an unpopular stance in the eyes of the people who HE wants to emulate.
That's my two cents worth and my opinion. He has done nothing, and I have read nothing, that would show me that he truly cares about the core of this party and getting it back on track....and back on track in my little corner of the world does NOT mean drifting toward the repub party lines.
From what I heard on CNN and from what I have read about Roemer, no thanks.
The old expression of be careful what you ask for you just might get it...comes to mind when considering Howard Dean for Chair....I have expressed my opinion countless of times on Dean, but if he were to get the job...thats fine....but I cannot see supporting him for it...but all of you who do, thats understandable...and I respect your opinions as well. I can see the pros and the cons, and in the end...the negatives just outweigh the positives......we'll just have to wait and see what happens.....I do like the Deaniac..DNC play on letters from Tank....always the clever Tank...lol
For me, one of the main advantages of Dean becoming chair is that he isn't so wedded to "past practices" within the DNC that he wouldn't consider the major structural change the party needs. That's where its all at...but change is never accomplished easily...most will only go kicking and screaming. Those who have a more "insider" track will have a much harder time accomplishing anything meaningful in that area...too many people to call in favors from them.
We gotta do the things that we've always considered "taboo" or "beneath" us...we have to set up strategies that will mimic what the Republicans have done...gotta get into the churches, gotta do radio, work with those who put out publications, embrace the base of the party, claim the mainstream (which in reality, we are), label the otherside, etc....we have to be willing to fight...not just stand around KNOWING that our ideas are better and that we are right....I just can't see Roemer or someone like him willing to do these things....
We gotta do the things that we've always considered "taboo" or "beneath" us...we have to set up strategies that will mimic what the Republicans have done...gotta get into the churches, gotta do radio, work with those who put out publications, embrace the base of the party, claim the mainstream (which in reality, we are), label the otherside, etc....we have to be willing to fight...not just stand around KNOWING that our ideas are better and that we are right....I just can't see Roemer or someone like him willing to do these things....
Xpanshun- Edwards/Obama is my DREAM for 2008! With Howard Dean as chair!
I write Edwards/Obama 2008 on the memo section of every check I write... just getting the thought in peoples' heads...
I write Edwards/Obama 2008 on the memo section of every check I write... just getting the thought in peoples' heads...
Obama doesn't have enough experience. Yes, he has just as much experience as Edwards did when he ran for VP but I think he will be more valuable in 2012 or 2016.
[quote=William477]Obama doesn't have enough experience. Yes, he has just as much experience as Edwards did when he ran for VP but I think he will be more valuable in 2012 or 2016.[/quote]
No time like... the near future...
No time like... the near future...
Alrighty. It looks like a compromise candidate - especially if the DNC is split between Roemer and Dean.
Frost.
Frost.
I just got the following email from Democracy for America (Dean's organization):
[quote]Dear sirius,
Since Governor Dean has entered the race for DNC Chair, thousands of you have been asking in email and on the blog: what comes next? I wanted to write to you about how the process works, how we can win and -- most importantly -- how you can help.
Here's how the process works: less than a month from today, on February 12, the 447 members of the Democratic National Committee (made up of leaders from across the country) will meet to select a new chairman. Between now and their vote, DNC members from various states will be holding a series of forums and listening sessions to hear from candidates and grassroots Democrats -- these events have already begun.
As Governor Dean crisscrosses the country, he will try to meet `face-to`-face with as many DNC members as possible. He has a strategy for this race not unlike his strategy for our party's future -- stand up for what you believe, make a clear case for reform, and fight for every single vote.
Other candidates for DNC Chair have put together `high-powered` slates of wealthy fundraisers to support their campaigns. That's not how we do things. By relying on financial support from small donors, Governor Dean will be accountable only to you. Make a contribution now to support his candidacy -- and to show that we really mean it when we say we want a Democratic Party accountable to the people:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/contribute
The plan for nonstop `person-to`-person outreach to DNC members requires relentless travel, staff resources, and materials to inform voting members about Governor Dean, his record, and his plan to rebuild a lasting Democratic majority.
Governor Dean wants a Democratic Party that competes in all 50 states every single year -- not just 18 states every four years. He wants a Democratic Party that thrives on grassroots energy and stops putting our fate in the hands of consultants who lose elections over and over again. He wants a party that stands for reform.
We can't afford to let superficial pundits, the Republican spin machine, or insiders addicted to the status quo define this race -- the stakes are too high. Governor Dean needs your help to put his record of leadership and his plan for fundamental change in front of DNC members.
Please contribute whatever you can to help:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/contribute
You can also help support the campaign by doing what you do best -- organizing in your local community. On January 20, George Bush will spend tens of millions of dollars celebrating with his richest supporters. That same night you can host your friends for your own party -- celebrating the victories of progressive candidates up and down the ballot.
You helped elect Dean Dozen candidates across the country -- a Governor in Montana, a Mayor in Utah, and an `African-American` woman to the bench in Alabama -- along with dozens of other fiscally responsible, socially progressive candidates at every level of office. And your hard work helped more people vote to replace George Bush than any other sitting president in history. Democracy for America has a lot to celebrate.
Most of all your parties will support Governor Dean's campaign for DNC Chair in the crucial weeks before the vote. We've launched brand new tools to make it easier than ever to invite your friends over and plan your party -- get started right now:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/houseparties
This race will be tough. Some people would rather have a position of influence in a losing party than make the reforms necessary to build a lasting majority. We may not win this race, but we can only achieve change if we step into the fray and fight for it. Together we could shape not only the future of the Democratic Party but the future of our country -- so let's get to work.
Thank you.
Tom McMahon
Executive Director
Democracy for America
[/quote]
[quote]Dear sirius,
Since Governor Dean has entered the race for DNC Chair, thousands of you have been asking in email and on the blog: what comes next? I wanted to write to you about how the process works, how we can win and -- most importantly -- how you can help.
Here's how the process works: less than a month from today, on February 12, the 447 members of the Democratic National Committee (made up of leaders from across the country) will meet to select a new chairman. Between now and their vote, DNC members from various states will be holding a series of forums and listening sessions to hear from candidates and grassroots Democrats -- these events have already begun.
As Governor Dean crisscrosses the country, he will try to meet `face-to`-face with as many DNC members as possible. He has a strategy for this race not unlike his strategy for our party's future -- stand up for what you believe, make a clear case for reform, and fight for every single vote.
Other candidates for DNC Chair have put together `high-powered` slates of wealthy fundraisers to support their campaigns. That's not how we do things. By relying on financial support from small donors, Governor Dean will be accountable only to you. Make a contribution now to support his candidacy -- and to show that we really mean it when we say we want a Democratic Party accountable to the people:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/contribute
The plan for nonstop `person-to`-person outreach to DNC members requires relentless travel, staff resources, and materials to inform voting members about Governor Dean, his record, and his plan to rebuild a lasting Democratic majority.
Governor Dean wants a Democratic Party that competes in all 50 states every single year -- not just 18 states every four years. He wants a Democratic Party that thrives on grassroots energy and stops putting our fate in the hands of consultants who lose elections over and over again. He wants a party that stands for reform.
We can't afford to let superficial pundits, the Republican spin machine, or insiders addicted to the status quo define this race -- the stakes are too high. Governor Dean needs your help to put his record of leadership and his plan for fundamental change in front of DNC members.
Please contribute whatever you can to help:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/contribute
You can also help support the campaign by doing what you do best -- organizing in your local community. On January 20, George Bush will spend tens of millions of dollars celebrating with his richest supporters. That same night you can host your friends for your own party -- celebrating the victories of progressive candidates up and down the ballot.
You helped elect Dean Dozen candidates across the country -- a Governor in Montana, a Mayor in Utah, and an `African-American` woman to the bench in Alabama -- along with dozens of other fiscally responsible, socially progressive candidates at every level of office. And your hard work helped more people vote to replace George Bush than any other sitting president in history. Democracy for America has a lot to celebrate.
Most of all your parties will support Governor Dean's campaign for DNC Chair in the crucial weeks before the vote. We've launched brand new tools to make it easier than ever to invite your friends over and plan your party -- get started right now:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/houseparties
This race will be tough. Some people would rather have a position of influence in a losing party than make the reforms necessary to build a lasting majority. We may not win this race, but we can only achieve change if we step into the fray and fight for it. Together we could shape not only the future of the Democratic Party but the future of our country -- so let's get to work.
Thank you.
Tom McMahon
Executive Director
Democracy for America
[/quote]
[quote]Dr. Dean Calling
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13, 2005
Former presidential candidate Howard Dean is running for chairman of the DNC. (Photo: AP)
Democrats need a great big, `high-profile` fight over what they want their party to be, and Dean's candidacy will give them that.
(The Nation) This column from The Nation was written by John Nichols.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Dean elbowed his way into the 2005 contest for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee with the same unbridled energy, litany of ideas big and small and outsized `self-confidence` that he brought to the 2004 campaign for the party's presidential nomination. And, just as Dean transformed the presidential race, so he has transformed the contest for a position that in recent years has been little more than that of a bagman for candidates who don't actually want to touch the `special-interest` money.
Dean is not assured of winning the chairmanship. Before the former Vermont governor announced his candidacy on January 11 -- in the form of an "I'm running" `e-mail` to that very long list of Deaniacs -- Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi had sent signals that they would back former Congressman Tim Roemer, a member of the 9/11 Commission who officially entered the race in more classic Washington fashion: with an appearance on `ABC-TVs` This Week. Former Texas Representative Martin Frost, former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, former Ohio Democratic Party chairman David Leland, New Democrat Network president Simon Rosenberg, and Donnie Fowler, who briefly managed Wesley Clarks 2004 presidential bid, are mounting less likely candidacies. And Kate Michelman, the former president of NARAL `Pro-Choice` America, is pondering a bid, inspired at least in part by the fact that Roemer is a foe of abortion rights and that some other candidates have talked about the need to `de-emphasize` the choice issue.
But it is Dean who can put the race on the front pages and the evening news, and that is precisely where it belongs.
The Democratic Party is a mess. Its decline at the federal, state and local levels, while not universal, has been proceeding for the better part of a decade, and although the miserable results of 2004 contests should have forced a radical reassessment, the party has yet to decide whether it wants to fight its way back to relevance. With Dean there is no uncertainty; while other contenders wrestle with the question of how to position the party in the `media-hyped` "`moral-values`" debate, Dean's letter of announcement eschewed triangulation in favor of truth: "That word -- values -- has lately become a codeword for appeasement of the `right-wing` fringe. But when political calculations make us soften our opposition to bigotry, or sign on to policies that add to the burden of ordinary Americans, we have abandoned our true values." The man who has indicated his willingness to trade another shot at the presidency for the thankless task of reminding Democrats that an opposition party is actually supposed to oppose the party in power launched his run for the chairmanship with a refreshingly blunt assessment of the partisan zeitgeist: "The Democratic Party will not win elections or build a lasting majority solely by changing its rhetoric, nor will we win by adopting the other sides positions. We must say what we mean -- and mean real change when we say it."
Dean is, of course, correct. But is he the correct candidate for the chairmanship? His presidential run was inspired in its use of new technologies and grassroots fundraising, in its willingness to get ahead on issues like the war and in the overall boldness of its approach -- all characteristics that a resurgent Democratic Party must emulate. But Dean's penchant for causing unnecessary controversy, his often testy relations with the media and lingering memories of his 2004 campaigns collapse will cause qualms even among some progressives. Ultimately, however, Dean is the candidate against whom the 447 delegates to the party's winter meeting on February `10-12` will measure the other contenders. And the physician will have plenty of opportunity at upcoming party meetings in St. Louis, Sacramento and New York to make the case that he's got the cure for what ails the country's oldest political party.
Democrats need a great big, `high-profile` fight over what they want their party to be, and Deans candidacy will give them that. What remains to be seen is whether it will give them a rationale for finishing the internal fight and finally taking the battle to George W. Bush and the Republicans.
[/quote]
Just another view point......and a darn good one I might add.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13, 2005
Former presidential candidate Howard Dean is running for chairman of the DNC. (Photo: AP)
Democrats need a great big, `high-profile` fight over what they want their party to be, and Dean's candidacy will give them that.
(The Nation) This column from The Nation was written by John Nichols.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Dean elbowed his way into the 2005 contest for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee with the same unbridled energy, litany of ideas big and small and outsized `self-confidence` that he brought to the 2004 campaign for the party's presidential nomination. And, just as Dean transformed the presidential race, so he has transformed the contest for a position that in recent years has been little more than that of a bagman for candidates who don't actually want to touch the `special-interest` money.
Dean is not assured of winning the chairmanship. Before the former Vermont governor announced his candidacy on January 11 -- in the form of an "I'm running" `e-mail` to that very long list of Deaniacs -- Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi had sent signals that they would back former Congressman Tim Roemer, a member of the 9/11 Commission who officially entered the race in more classic Washington fashion: with an appearance on `ABC-TVs` This Week. Former Texas Representative Martin Frost, former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, former Ohio Democratic Party chairman David Leland, New Democrat Network president Simon Rosenberg, and Donnie Fowler, who briefly managed Wesley Clarks 2004 presidential bid, are mounting less likely candidacies. And Kate Michelman, the former president of NARAL `Pro-Choice` America, is pondering a bid, inspired at least in part by the fact that Roemer is a foe of abortion rights and that some other candidates have talked about the need to `de-emphasize` the choice issue.
But it is Dean who can put the race on the front pages and the evening news, and that is precisely where it belongs.
The Democratic Party is a mess. Its decline at the federal, state and local levels, while not universal, has been proceeding for the better part of a decade, and although the miserable results of 2004 contests should have forced a radical reassessment, the party has yet to decide whether it wants to fight its way back to relevance. With Dean there is no uncertainty; while other contenders wrestle with the question of how to position the party in the `media-hyped` "`moral-values`" debate, Dean's letter of announcement eschewed triangulation in favor of truth: "That word -- values -- has lately become a codeword for appeasement of the `right-wing` fringe. But when political calculations make us soften our opposition to bigotry, or sign on to policies that add to the burden of ordinary Americans, we have abandoned our true values." The man who has indicated his willingness to trade another shot at the presidency for the thankless task of reminding Democrats that an opposition party is actually supposed to oppose the party in power launched his run for the chairmanship with a refreshingly blunt assessment of the partisan zeitgeist: "The Democratic Party will not win elections or build a lasting majority solely by changing its rhetoric, nor will we win by adopting the other sides positions. We must say what we mean -- and mean real change when we say it."
Dean is, of course, correct. But is he the correct candidate for the chairmanship? His presidential run was inspired in its use of new technologies and grassroots fundraising, in its willingness to get ahead on issues like the war and in the overall boldness of its approach -- all characteristics that a resurgent Democratic Party must emulate. But Dean's penchant for causing unnecessary controversy, his often testy relations with the media and lingering memories of his 2004 campaigns collapse will cause qualms even among some progressives. Ultimately, however, Dean is the candidate against whom the 447 delegates to the party's winter meeting on February `10-12` will measure the other contenders. And the physician will have plenty of opportunity at upcoming party meetings in St. Louis, Sacramento and New York to make the case that he's got the cure for what ails the country's oldest political party.
Democrats need a great big, `high-profile` fight over what they want their party to be, and Deans candidacy will give them that. What remains to be seen is whether it will give them a rationale for finishing the internal fight and finally taking the battle to George W. Bush and the Republicans.
[/quote]
Just another view point......and a darn good one I might add.
Dean is a man who people listen to, he motivates us. Terry McA gave us indigestion and sure looks like we came out on the short side of the stick.
We need a Dean - boy we know he could pull all of us together. He already did - grassroots! Me thinks the establishment may be just a tad afraid of him...good!
We need a Dean - boy we know he could pull all of us together. He already did - grassroots! Me thinks the establishment may be just a tad afraid of him...good!
Now if just the majority of the 447 voting bloc take it to heart - we may have a chance again in '06 and '08.
If things stay the way they are, I look for another 'defeat' in both years. AND, I think if Dr. Dean gets the nod, the FIRST thing he will do is attempt to get these voting machines straightened out or at least standardized (where they all don't count dem votes :oops: - Just kidding)
COngress ain't gonna do it, let's be real. IF they can't (or won't) stand up to the repubs on the floor and stick up for thier candidate in '04, then they sure as hell haven't got the balls to do much of anything else except take payola and free trips on our nickel. (ok, I am still angry about the things they all said when they didn't support Sen. Boxer) Besides, whether we like it or not, they aren't the majority party and the repubs all stick together with the thought about voting, that if it 'ain't broke, don't fix it' as they all got elected and like all the perks too. (just ask Frist and delay)
If things stay the way they are, I look for another 'defeat' in both years. AND, I think if Dr. Dean gets the nod, the FIRST thing he will do is attempt to get these voting machines straightened out or at least standardized (where they all don't count dem votes :oops: - Just kidding)
COngress ain't gonna do it, let's be real. IF they can't (or won't) stand up to the repubs on the floor and stick up for thier candidate in '04, then they sure as hell haven't got the balls to do much of anything else except take payola and free trips on our nickel. (ok, I am still angry about the things they all said when they didn't support Sen. Boxer) Besides, whether we like it or not, they aren't the majority party and the repubs all stick together with the thought about voting, that if it 'ain't broke, don't fix it' as they all got elected and like all the perks too. (just ask Frist and delay)
I know we're all probably still pretty tapped out from the election and from the holidays, but if those who support Dean can contribute anything at all to Democracy for America (as in the email I posted in my last post), I think that might be worth doing just to help ensure that we get a party leader that we want. I contributed a little something. It wasn't much. But if he gets a lot of contributions from that email, it might also show the other party leaders that the grassroots really wants him to lead the party.
The funding for Dean's presidential campaign was mostly from individual donors making small contributions. And they raised over $40 million. So little drops of water will eventually fill the bucket.
Rethinking Iowa
The Caucus System Keeps Democrats Dovish
By Peter Beinart
Friday, January 14, 2005; Page A19
In December 2000, on an obscure Canadian talk show, an obscure Democratic governor attacked the Iowa caucuses. "If you look at the caucuses system," he said, "they are dominated by the special interests in both parties. The special interests don't represent the centrist tendencies of the American people. They represent the extremes."
The governor was Howard Dean. He was absolutely right. And now, as a candidate for chairman of the Democratic National Committee, he has a chance to do something about it.
_____Today's `Op-Eds_____`
• Rethinking Iowa: The Caucus System Keeps Democrats Dovish (Post, Jan. 14, 2005)
• Help Abbas Succeed (Post, Jan. 14, 2005)
• It's More Than Social Security (Post, Jan. 14, 2005)
• Rather Biased (Post, Jan. 14, 2005)
• The New Liberalism: Democrats Need to Show Their Family Values (Post, Jan. 14, 2005)
_____What's Your Opinion?_____
• Share Your Views About Editorials and Opinion Pieces on Our Message Boards
• About Message Boards
_____Free `E-mail` Newsletters_____
• Today's Headlines & Columnists
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
• Breaking News Alerts
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Most Democrats recognize that they have a problem on national security -- a problem exemplified by November exit polls showing President Bush with an astounding `72-point` lead among voters who cited "terrorism" as their overriding issue. What most Democrats don't recognize is that the Iowa caucuses are a critical part of that problem. For starters, Iowa Democrats are dovish even by Democratic standards. Historically, the "peace churches" -- Quakers, Mennonites and the Church of the Brethren -- have thrived in the state. Few states receive as few defense dollars as Iowa, and few have as great a skepticism toward military force. Henry Wallace, the most famous Democrat in Iowa history, left the party in 1948 in opposition to Harry Truman's containment policy toward the Soviet Union. Even the state's Republican senator, Charles Grassley, voted against the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Not surprisingly, this political culture expresses itself every four years in Iowa's Democratic caucuses. It is only a slight exaggeration to call the caucuses an outgrowth of the movement against the Vietnam War. In 1968, in an effort to wrest control from party bosses, antiwar liberals established a commission to open up the party's nominating system. Headed by Iowa Gov. Harold Hughes, who had nominated Eugene McCarthy on the 1968 convention floor, the commission wrote the rules that led to the caucuses' creation. The first candidate to exploit Iowa's new prominence was George McGovern, who finished a surprisingly strong second there in 1972, en route to defeating Edmund Muskie for the Democratic nomination. In 1976 Iowa catapulted Jimmy Carter to the presidency. By contrast, the caucuses proved disastrous for hawkish Washington state Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, who finished last there in both 1972 and 1976.
In recent years the caucuses have remained a graveyard for hawkish Democrats. Al Gore, running on his `pro-defense` record in 1988, boycotted Iowa, saying it "reward[ed] ideological purity rather than intellectual honesty." And in 2004, Joseph Lieberman and Wesley Clark, the two major candidates who placed the greatest emphasis on fighting terrorism, skipped Iowa as well. Instead, in the summer before the caucuses, vocal Iraq war opponent Howard Dean came from nowhere to grab first place in the Iowa polls. His rise set the tone for the race, forcing John Kerry and John Edwards to mimic his aggressively antiwar rhetoric and thus win back the `caucus-goers` Dean had lured away.
The problem isn't merely Iowa's political culture. It's also the caucus system itself, which amplifies the party's dovish, activist base. Although spawned by reforms aimed at making the nominating system more democratic, the Iowa caucuses aren't that democratic at all. In a primary, people can vote all day. But in Iowa, you must arrive at your precinct caucus site at exactly 6:30 p.m. and stay for several hours, which virtually bars people who work at night. There are no absentee ballots, and voting is not secret -- people often raise their hands to show whom they support. Democrats generally believe in making it easy to vote. But in Iowa, voting is comparatively difficult. And that difficulty is reflected in the percentage of people who participate: In both 2000 and 2004, roughly 50 percent of registered Democrats cast ballots in the New Hampshire primary. In the Iowa caucuses, it was between 10 and 20 percent.
At least one candidate for chairman of the DNC, New Democrat Network President Simon Rosenberg, has clearly called for rethinking Iowa's primacy. But it's Dean who could sell the argument to the party's liberal base, by framing the caucuses as a barrier to wider participation in the political process. If the former Vermont governor, by far the most prominent figure running to head the DNC, questioned Iowa, he would immediately catapult the issue to the forefront of party debate. And with a party committee set to report by the end of this year on changes to the nominating schedule, that debate could lay the foundation for the most serious challenge to Iowa's role in 30 years.
Unfortunately, Dean seems to have abandoned his earlier position, perhaps not wanting to alienate the people before whom he might one day reappear as a candidate. But he had it right the first time. Unless Democrats begin their nominating process in a more representative state, which expresses its preferences in a more representative way, they will continue to weed out their most electable candidates and nominate those who can't win. Just as they did in 2004.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/`wp-dyn`/artic...s_opinion/opeds
The Caucus System Keeps Democrats Dovish
By Peter Beinart
Friday, January 14, 2005; Page A19
In December 2000, on an obscure Canadian talk show, an obscure Democratic governor attacked the Iowa caucuses. "If you look at the caucuses system," he said, "they are dominated by the special interests in both parties. The special interests don't represent the centrist tendencies of the American people. They represent the extremes."
The governor was Howard Dean. He was absolutely right. And now, as a candidate for chairman of the Democratic National Committee, he has a chance to do something about it.
_____Today's `Op-Eds_____`
• Rethinking Iowa: The Caucus System Keeps Democrats Dovish (Post, Jan. 14, 2005)
• Help Abbas Succeed (Post, Jan. 14, 2005)
• It's More Than Social Security (Post, Jan. 14, 2005)
• Rather Biased (Post, Jan. 14, 2005)
• The New Liberalism: Democrats Need to Show Their Family Values (Post, Jan. 14, 2005)
_____What's Your Opinion?_____
• Share Your Views About Editorials and Opinion Pieces on Our Message Boards
• About Message Boards
_____Free `E-mail` Newsletters_____
• Today's Headlines & Columnists
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
• Breaking News Alerts
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Most Democrats recognize that they have a problem on national security -- a problem exemplified by November exit polls showing President Bush with an astounding `72-point` lead among voters who cited "terrorism" as their overriding issue. What most Democrats don't recognize is that the Iowa caucuses are a critical part of that problem. For starters, Iowa Democrats are dovish even by Democratic standards. Historically, the "peace churches" -- Quakers, Mennonites and the Church of the Brethren -- have thrived in the state. Few states receive as few defense dollars as Iowa, and few have as great a skepticism toward military force. Henry Wallace, the most famous Democrat in Iowa history, left the party in 1948 in opposition to Harry Truman's containment policy toward the Soviet Union. Even the state's Republican senator, Charles Grassley, voted against the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Not surprisingly, this political culture expresses itself every four years in Iowa's Democratic caucuses. It is only a slight exaggeration to call the caucuses an outgrowth of the movement against the Vietnam War. In 1968, in an effort to wrest control from party bosses, antiwar liberals established a commission to open up the party's nominating system. Headed by Iowa Gov. Harold Hughes, who had nominated Eugene McCarthy on the 1968 convention floor, the commission wrote the rules that led to the caucuses' creation. The first candidate to exploit Iowa's new prominence was George McGovern, who finished a surprisingly strong second there in 1972, en route to defeating Edmund Muskie for the Democratic nomination. In 1976 Iowa catapulted Jimmy Carter to the presidency. By contrast, the caucuses proved disastrous for hawkish Washington state Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, who finished last there in both 1972 and 1976.
In recent years the caucuses have remained a graveyard for hawkish Democrats. Al Gore, running on his `pro-defense` record in 1988, boycotted Iowa, saying it "reward[ed] ideological purity rather than intellectual honesty." And in 2004, Joseph Lieberman and Wesley Clark, the two major candidates who placed the greatest emphasis on fighting terrorism, skipped Iowa as well. Instead, in the summer before the caucuses, vocal Iraq war opponent Howard Dean came from nowhere to grab first place in the Iowa polls. His rise set the tone for the race, forcing John Kerry and John Edwards to mimic his aggressively antiwar rhetoric and thus win back the `caucus-goers` Dean had lured away.
The problem isn't merely Iowa's political culture. It's also the caucus system itself, which amplifies the party's dovish, activist base. Although spawned by reforms aimed at making the nominating system more democratic, the Iowa caucuses aren't that democratic at all. In a primary, people can vote all day. But in Iowa, you must arrive at your precinct caucus site at exactly 6:30 p.m. and stay for several hours, which virtually bars people who work at night. There are no absentee ballots, and voting is not secret -- people often raise their hands to show whom they support. Democrats generally believe in making it easy to vote. But in Iowa, voting is comparatively difficult. And that difficulty is reflected in the percentage of people who participate: In both 2000 and 2004, roughly 50 percent of registered Democrats cast ballots in the New Hampshire primary. In the Iowa caucuses, it was between 10 and 20 percent.
At least one candidate for chairman of the DNC, New Democrat Network President Simon Rosenberg, has clearly called for rethinking Iowa's primacy. But it's Dean who could sell the argument to the party's liberal base, by framing the caucuses as a barrier to wider participation in the political process. If the former Vermont governor, by far the most prominent figure running to head the DNC, questioned Iowa, he would immediately catapult the issue to the forefront of party debate. And with a party committee set to report by the end of this year on changes to the nominating schedule, that debate could lay the foundation for the most serious challenge to Iowa's role in 30 years.
Unfortunately, Dean seems to have abandoned his earlier position, perhaps not wanting to alienate the people before whom he might one day reappear as a candidate. But he had it right the first time. Unless Democrats begin their nominating process in a more representative state, which expresses its preferences in a more representative way, they will continue to weed out their most electable candidates and nominate those who can't win. Just as they did in 2004.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/`wp-dyn`/artic...s_opinion/opeds
I'd love an opinion from some of our Iowa members. This could be a good discussion. I have my own opinions, but then I don't live in Iowa.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
I am from Iowa as most of you know. I guess I am very proud and honored to be the first in the nation to get the ball rolling so to speak. Iowa is a very small state and to be real honest with you, probably to others a hick town. I've lived in AZ, CA when I was younger and my roots are here in Iowa. I love the changes in the seasons (although now as I age, I like winters less and less). Iowa gets recognition every four years and I like that all the candidates want to win Iowa. What I would like to see, is that the DNC chairman not make a rush to nominate a candidate or make inuendos as to whom it is going to be and let every state have it's caucus/primary and it's no big deal to wait until June or so to find out. Iowa is very conservative but we are loosening up some, I would love to visit the `east-southern` states and I do envy you your history and the ocean. I assure you if you ever visit Iowa, please look me up as the WELCOME MAT is out to you!
The article about the Iowa caucuses doesn't make any sense to me. It's like the author has a viewpoint he's trying to prove and he's trying to shove the facts into shape so they fit his theory, but it's a mismatch.
Iowa is doveish, he claims. So Dean won in the `pre-caucus` polls. But he didn't win Iowa, did he? (Am I wrong about that? I don't remember who won. Only that Edwards came in second.) The article claims that because Dean was ahead in the polls, Kerry and Edwards had to take an `anti-war` stance. Problem with that theory is, they didn't. They continued to say they would have voted the same way they voted (to give Bush the power to go to war) long past Iowa and throughout the election.
Kerry at some point took a halfway `anti-war` stance, but the problem was that he was so `wishy-washy` about it that it was never clear to anyone whether or not it actually was an `anti-war` stance, or just less `pro-war` than Bush's. This, to me, was one of the big problems with the campaign and I tend to think that if `Kerry-Edwards` had taken a solidly `anti-war` stance, they would have done even better than they did. (Since they most likely won if all the votes had been counted accurately, I'll just say they would have done better, not that they would have won.)
My own thoughts about both Iowa and New Hampshire is that it's not fair to let anyone go first. Especially when those states are so small and unrepresentative. They essentially decide the outcome of the race long before most of us get to vote. This is partly the media's fault. If the media didn't keep repeating the mantra that whoever wins in those states is the frontrunner and is unbeatable, but instead told us that the race was still wide open and anyone could win it, maybe we might get a candidate who represents the will of the majority.
Like I said, I don't think it's fair for anyone to go first. Part of me wants us to all vote on the same day. But, I have an unresolvable conflict about what I think ought to happen, because I also think that without a long drawn out primary season, we won't know enough about the candidates to pick the best one. Not that we pick the best one now. But it seems like if the primary season had been even longer last time, we would eventually have gotten around to picking Edwards, which would have been the best choice, IMO. If everyone votes on the same day, voters will at max pay attention to the candidates for two weeks before that. So, on the one hand I think it's not fair for anyone to go first, but on the other hand, I think we ought to have a long time to get to know the candidates. Difficult problem.
I guess my best recommendation that I can think of is that we ought to have a lottery to determine what order the states vote in each time. If a state has gone first or second once, it can't ever hold that place in the order again until every other state has had a turn. This would require some flexibility from state election officials, but I think it's the fairest way.
Iowa is doveish, he claims. So Dean won in the `pre-caucus` polls. But he didn't win Iowa, did he? (Am I wrong about that? I don't remember who won. Only that Edwards came in second.) The article claims that because Dean was ahead in the polls, Kerry and Edwards had to take an `anti-war` stance. Problem with that theory is, they didn't. They continued to say they would have voted the same way they voted (to give Bush the power to go to war) long past Iowa and throughout the election.
Kerry at some point took a halfway `anti-war` stance, but the problem was that he was so `wishy-washy` about it that it was never clear to anyone whether or not it actually was an `anti-war` stance, or just less `pro-war` than Bush's. This, to me, was one of the big problems with the campaign and I tend to think that if `Kerry-Edwards` had taken a solidly `anti-war` stance, they would have done even better than they did. (Since they most likely won if all the votes had been counted accurately, I'll just say they would have done better, not that they would have won.)
My own thoughts about both Iowa and New Hampshire is that it's not fair to let anyone go first. Especially when those states are so small and unrepresentative. They essentially decide the outcome of the race long before most of us get to vote. This is partly the media's fault. If the media didn't keep repeating the mantra that whoever wins in those states is the frontrunner and is unbeatable, but instead told us that the race was still wide open and anyone could win it, maybe we might get a candidate who represents the will of the majority.
Like I said, I don't think it's fair for anyone to go first. Part of me wants us to all vote on the same day. But, I have an unresolvable conflict about what I think ought to happen, because I also think that without a long drawn out primary season, we won't know enough about the candidates to pick the best one. Not that we pick the best one now. But it seems like if the primary season had been even longer last time, we would eventually have gotten around to picking Edwards, which would have been the best choice, IMO. If everyone votes on the same day, voters will at max pay attention to the candidates for two weeks before that. So, on the one hand I think it's not fair for anyone to go first, but on the other hand, I think we ought to have a long time to get to know the candidates. Difficult problem.
I guess my best recommendation that I can think of is that we ought to have a lottery to determine what order the states vote in each time. If a state has gone first or second once, it can't ever hold that place in the order again until every other state has had a turn. This would require some flexibility from state election officials, but I think it's the fairest way.
One only has to look at the author of the article to see where this point of view is comingfrom....Peter Beinart is one who believes we should be willing to make ourselves into `Republican-lites` to win. He thinks we should be more militaristic, I guess...so, he's looking for reasons that will back up his theories. For that reason, I don't place much weight on this piece.
He is, ofcourse, wrong...most people now believe Iraq to be a mistake. During the campaign season, nearly half to half of all voters felt this way. People voted for Bush because he lied and confused the issues in voters minds...and his campaign would have done the same to any candidate opposing him.
I"m not sure what the answer is to the whole Primary question. I do believe that voters in Iowa and New Hampshire do have an unfair advantage in the choice...the momentum is build in these states and its very difficult for candidates to gain traction afterwards. I'm not sure the compressed schedule of 2004 is the answer, either....but, honestly, I don't have one to offer.
He is, ofcourse, wrong...most people now believe Iraq to be a mistake. During the campaign season, nearly half to half of all voters felt this way. People voted for Bush because he lied and confused the issues in voters minds...and his campaign would have done the same to any candidate opposing him.
I"m not sure what the answer is to the whole Primary question. I do believe that voters in Iowa and New Hampshire do have an unfair advantage in the choice...the momentum is build in these states and its very difficult for candidates to gain traction afterwards. I'm not sure the compressed schedule of 2004 is the answer, either....but, honestly, I don't have one to offer.
Ah, the same old rhetoric we Iowans hear every four years. Democrats in Iowa are no different than Democrats in any other state. Some are dovish, some are hawkish, some are urban, some are rural. We are professionals and we are union members. I believe we represent Democrats very well. Kerry lost and now we are going to blame Iowa's caucus process? That's what I call grasping.
The caucus process is a true grassroots effort. Yes, it takes time. The process forces you to listen and learn. It is true that many choose to stay home and we need to work on that, but believe me.....those that participate are very educated about the candidates. We take our politics VERY seriously. When you caucus you don't just pull a lever. You join your neighbors and discuss the candidates and the issues. When it comes time to 'raise your hand', you are choosing the RIGHT candidate, not just the one who spent the most money on TV ads or is leading in the polls.
I believe with all my heart that if we had one more week, Edwards would have won in Iowa. He had the momentum. The blame for this election belongs with the DNC and some poor decisions made by the Kerry campaign staff, not with Iowa's first in the nation caucus. We know that if given just a little more time, John Edwards would have been our nominee and our next President.
Iowa LOVES John Edwards. We need to stay first in the nation so in 2008 Iowa can lead the way in nominating the BEST man. Trust me on this one, we won't disappoint. Edwards is already making those phone calls to Iowa. Many of us are already working on this effort.
The caucus process is a true grassroots effort. Yes, it takes time. The process forces you to listen and learn. It is true that many choose to stay home and we need to work on that, but believe me.....those that participate are very educated about the candidates. We take our politics VERY seriously. When you caucus you don't just pull a lever. You join your neighbors and discuss the candidates and the issues. When it comes time to 'raise your hand', you are choosing the RIGHT candidate, not just the one who spent the most money on TV ads or is leading in the polls.
I believe with all my heart that if we had one more week, Edwards would have won in Iowa. He had the momentum. The blame for this election belongs with the DNC and some poor decisions made by the Kerry campaign staff, not with Iowa's first in the nation caucus. We know that if given just a little more time, John Edwards would have been our nominee and our next President.
Iowa LOVES John Edwards. We need to stay first in the nation so in 2008 Iowa can lead the way in nominating the BEST man. Trust me on this one, we won't disappoint. Edwards is already making those phone calls to Iowa. Many of us are already working on this effort.
[quote=Teresa22]One only has to look at the author of the article to see where this point of view is comingfrom....Peter Beinart is one who believes we should be willing to make ourselves into `Republican-lites` to win. He thinks we should be more militaristic, I guess...so, he's looking for reasons that will back up his theories. For that reason, I don't place much weight on this piece.
He is, ofcourse, wrong...most people now believe Iraq to be a mistake. During the campaign season, nearly half to half of all voters felt this way. People voted for Bush because he lied and confused the issues in voters minds...and his campaign would have done the same to any candidate opposing him.
I"m not sure what the answer is to the whole Primary question. I do believe that voters in Iowa and New Hampshire do have an unfair advantage in the choice...the momentum is build in these states and its very difficult for candidates to gain traction afterwards. I'm not sure the compressed schedule of 2004 is the answer, either....but, honestly, I don't have one to offer.[/quote]
What do you think of the idea to have a lottery to determine the order of voting each time? So that the same states don't always go first? Then an extended primary season? I'm asking because this is honestly the only answer I can think of that seems like it would work better and I'm wondering if others have different ideas or see problems with what I'm proposing.
Yeah, I think many people are against the war and we would have been better off to take an unambiguous, strongly `anti-war` stance.
He is, ofcourse, wrong...most people now believe Iraq to be a mistake. During the campaign season, nearly half to half of all voters felt this way. People voted for Bush because he lied and confused the issues in voters minds...and his campaign would have done the same to any candidate opposing him.
I"m not sure what the answer is to the whole Primary question. I do believe that voters in Iowa and New Hampshire do have an unfair advantage in the choice...the momentum is build in these states and its very difficult for candidates to gain traction afterwards. I'm not sure the compressed schedule of 2004 is the answer, either....but, honestly, I don't have one to offer.[/quote]
What do you think of the idea to have a lottery to determine the order of voting each time? So that the same states don't always go first? Then an extended primary season? I'm asking because this is honestly the only answer I can think of that seems like it would work better and I'm wondering if others have different ideas or see problems with what I'm proposing.
Yeah, I think many people are against the war and we would have been better off to take an unambiguous, strongly `anti-war` stance.
Maybe this is a bad idea but why don't we just set it up like the general election? That way all states have a say and candidates are forced to make appearances in every state, so whoever wins will have forces already in everystate and will have a greater chance to win the general election.
[quote]What do you think of the idea to have a lottery to determine the order of voting each time? So that the same states don't always go first? Then an extended primary season? I'm asking because this is honestly the only answer I can think of that seems like it would work better and I'm wondering if others have different ideas or see problems with what I'm proposing.
[/quote]
I think a lottery could work...but I would like to see at least one primary election in each region of the country early on....would that make sense? I do think we need to recognize that regional differences are there, and we'll always have candidates from different areas of the country and it will always give unfair advantage to those who would happen to be from the first states. Maybe we could have four or five different primary days? And in each, a state from each region would participate? Some kind of lottery could be set up to determine order.
[/quote]
I think a lottery could work...but I would like to see at least one primary election in each region of the country early on....would that make sense? I do think we need to recognize that regional differences are there, and we'll always have candidates from different areas of the country and it will always give unfair advantage to those who would happen to be from the first states. Maybe we could have four or five different primary days? And in each, a state from each region would participate? Some kind of lottery could be set up to determine order.
[quote=William477]Maybe this is a bad idea but why don't we just set it up like the general election? That way all states have a say and candidates are forced to make appearances in every state, so whoever wins will have forces already in everystate and will have a greater chance to win the general election.[/quote]
Well, I think the problem with that is, we won't have long enough to get to know the candidates. People will only pay attention to them for a couple of weeks before the election if it's a nationwide election, I think. But it does definitely make the process more fair for everyone.
[quote=Inspired]Ah, the same old rhetoric we Iowans hear every four years. Democrats in Iowa are no different than Democrats in any other state. Some are dovish, some are hawkish, some are urban, some are rural. We are professionals and we are union members. I believe we represent Democrats very well. Kerry lost and now we are going to blame Iowa's caucus process? That's what I call grasping. [/quote]
I don't know that the fault is with Iowa's caucus process in terms of this election. But it's definitely not fair for the same 2 states to go first and pretty much determine the nominees every time. Those of us in other states have almost no say in the nomination process. Each person in Iowa and New Hampshire has like 1000% of the political power the rest of us have. I know you all love your caucus process, but that excess of power is patently not fair and is undemocratic. This has needed to be changed for a long time, not just because of this election. But...if you PROMISE to nominate John Edwards in 2008, I think we can let it slide for another 4 years. :wink:
Well, I think the problem with that is, we won't have long enough to get to know the candidates. People will only pay attention to them for a couple of weeks before the election if it's a nationwide election, I think. But it does definitely make the process more fair for everyone.
[quote=Inspired]Ah, the same old rhetoric we Iowans hear every four years. Democrats in Iowa are no different than Democrats in any other state. Some are dovish, some are hawkish, some are urban, some are rural. We are professionals and we are union members. I believe we represent Democrats very well. Kerry lost and now we are going to blame Iowa's caucus process? That's what I call grasping. [/quote]
I don't know that the fault is with Iowa's caucus process in terms of this election. But it's definitely not fair for the same 2 states to go first and pretty much determine the nominees every time. Those of us in other states have almost no say in the nomination process. Each person in Iowa and New Hampshire has like 1000% of the political power the rest of us have. I know you all love your caucus process, but that excess of power is patently not fair and is undemocratic. This has needed to be changed for a long time, not just because of this election. But...if you PROMISE to nominate John Edwards in 2008, I think we can let it slide for another 4 years. :wink:
I don't believe a national primary is a good idea. It comes down to money. It would cost too much to run the TV ads that a national campaign requires. And we all know that a TV ad is not the best way to get your message across. A well put together campaign ad says more about the technicians and editors who put together the ad than it says about the candidate.
[quote=Teresa22][quote]What do you think of the idea to have a lottery to determine the order of voting each time? So that the same states don't always go first? Then an extended primary season? I'm asking because this is honestly the only answer I can think of that seems like it would work better and I'm wondering if others have different ideas or see problems with what I'm proposing.
[/quote]
I think a lottery could work...but I would like to see at least one primary election in each region of the country early on....would that make sense? I do think we need to recognize that regional differences are there, and we'll always have candidates from different areas of the country and it will always give unfair advantage to those who would happen to be from the first states. Maybe we could have four or five different primary days? And in each, a state from each region would participate? Some kind of lottery could be set up to determine order.[/quote]
Maybe the first 6 states to vote are one each from New England, the South, the Midwest, the Plains states, the Southwest, and the Pacific coast? Or maybe there could be other regional divisions. The specific states that are first to vote could be chosen by lottery each time, as well as the order among those regions being chosen by lottery. Then everyone else votes after that. The problem with that system might be that there are different numbers of states in each of those regions so the odds of being chosen to go first would depend on which region you're in.
[/quote]
I think a lottery could work...but I would like to see at least one primary election in each region of the country early on....would that make sense? I do think we need to recognize that regional differences are there, and we'll always have candidates from different areas of the country and it will always give unfair advantage to those who would happen to be from the first states. Maybe we could have four or five different primary days? And in each, a state from each region would participate? Some kind of lottery could be set up to determine order.[/quote]
Maybe the first 6 states to vote are one each from New England, the South, the Midwest, the Plains states, the Southwest, and the Pacific coast? Or maybe there could be other regional divisions. The specific states that are first to vote could be chosen by lottery each time, as well as the order among those regions being chosen by lottery. Then everyone else votes after that. The problem with that system might be that there are different numbers of states in each of those regions so the odds of being chosen to go first would depend on which region you're in.
[quote]I think a lottery could work...but I would like to see at least one primary election in each region of the country early on....would that make sense? I do think we need to recognize that regional differences are there, and we'll always have candidates from different areas of the country and it will always give unfair advantage to those who would happen to be from the first states. Maybe we could have four or five different primary days? And in each, a state from each region would participate? Some kind of lottery could be set up to determine order.[/quote]
I like this idea of a regional primary first. We do have regional differences and it would give the candidates time to address issues of that area. IMO, JRE would have won Iowa too if only he had enough time. This shorter period of time I never liked. Those of us who knew JRE also knew the rest of the country would love him. There was a time and money factor also involved. This type of brainstorming is good for us and our party.
I like this idea of a regional primary first. We do have regional differences and it would give the candidates time to address issues of that area. IMO, JRE would have won Iowa too if only he had enough time. This shorter period of time I never liked. Those of us who knew JRE also knew the rest of the country would love him. There was a time and money factor also involved. This type of brainstorming is good for us and our party.
Yes, it could be difficult to divide up into regions each having an equal number of states....I suppose it could be adjusted....what about size? If New York and California both fell on the same day, it could almost mean the end of the whole game....
Sirius......trust me when I say that I could care less if Iowa was first or last.
I do believe in our process and I had the time of my life this campaign cycle. but my motives are not selfish. I am going to fight for this one because I believe that Edwards will hit it out of the ballpark in Iowa in 2008. I only wish I had that same confidence about New Hampshire.
I do believe in our process and I had the time of my life this campaign cycle. but my motives are not selfish. I am going to fight for this one because I believe that Edwards will hit it out of the ballpark in Iowa in 2008. I only wish I had that same confidence about New Hampshire.
[quote=Teresa22]Yes, it could be difficult to divide up into regions each having an equal number of states....I suppose it could be adjusted....what about size? If New York and California both fell on the same day, it could almost mean the end of the whole game....[/quote]
Well, the weird thing about that is, that you'd think size would be a factor, but Iowa and New Hampshire are already almost the end of the whole game and they're small. Maybe size really doesn't matter.
You have a valid point, though. There might have to be some way to prevent all the largest states from voting first in the same year.
Well, the weird thing about that is, that you'd think size would be a factor, but Iowa and New Hampshire are already almost the end of the whole game and they're small. Maybe size really doesn't matter.
You have a valid point, though. There might have to be some way to prevent all the largest states from voting first in the same year.
First off, while I'm going to nitpick here a bit... Overall, I do have
to agree that Iowa will produce just about the same results you'd
see from democrats in ANY STATE that went first.
That said, I do think that perhaps other places should get the chance
or at least the system and media reformed to allow places that vote
later to still have some "say" in the matter :roll:
That said... on to talking about the actual act of the Caucus...
[quote=Inspired]The caucus process is a true grassroots effort. Yes, it takes time. The process forces you to listen and learn. It is true that many choose to stay home and we need to work on that, but believe me.....those that participate are very educated about the candidates. We take our politics VERY seriously. When you caucus you don't just pull a lever. You join your neighbors and discuss the candidates and the issues.[/quote]
While I readily admit that not all precincts will generate the same
Caucus experience... I have to say that I came out of Caucus HATING
the system. It has it's potential, many of those items being the ones
you listed above, however I failed to see that education and willingness
to discuss the issues in the Precinct which I participated in for Edwards.
Granted I was at a college (a very Pro Dean college actually) but the
behavior of both young and old alike left much to be desired. It was
truely disheartening to see so much division and viciousness coming
from other candidates' representatives.
Of course I took solace later as we began to get numbers in...and
I was informed we not only came in WAY above where we had expected,
but in 2nd place and beat Dean by around 13 points!
In the end though--caucus only works well when people attend, and
when people are EDUCATED on ALL Candidates and/or are openminded.
[quote]I believe with all my heart that if we had one more week, Edwards would have won in Iowa. He had the momentum.[/quote]
I couldn't agree more. I was lucky enough to speak on behalf of
the Edwards campaign in the precinct I was in...I was told by more
than a few people that they had come to Caucus still unsure, but had
decided on Edwards based on my speech about why I was supporting
JRE and his ideas.
The People of Iowa DO LOVE EDWARDS--There just wasn't enough time
to get more people to hear his message. Had there been--I have no
doubt that we would be swearing in John Edwards to office next week.
It would have truely swung the tide of the Election I believe.
[quote]Iowa LOVES John Edwards. We need to stay first in the nation so in 2008 Iowa can lead the way in nominating the BEST man. Trust me on this one, we won't disappoint. Edwards is already making those phone calls to Iowa. Many of us are already working on this effort.[/quote]
I'd be willing to let Iowa go first again in 2008 just for this reason
Btw...if you know of places/people who are working on this already...
by all means, please share! PM me if you'd prefer.
J. Frew, IL
to agree that Iowa will produce just about the same results you'd
see from democrats in ANY STATE that went first.
That said, I do think that perhaps other places should get the chance
or at least the system and media reformed to allow places that vote
later to still have some "say" in the matter :roll:
That said... on to talking about the actual act of the Caucus...
[quote=Inspired]The caucus process is a true grassroots effort. Yes, it takes time. The process forces you to listen and learn. It is true that many choose to stay home and we need to work on that, but believe me.....those that participate are very educated about the candidates. We take our politics VERY seriously. When you caucus you don't just pull a lever. You join your neighbors and discuss the candidates and the issues.[/quote]
While I readily admit that not all precincts will generate the same
Caucus experience... I have to say that I came out of Caucus HATING
the system. It has it's potential, many of those items being the ones
you listed above, however I failed to see that education and willingness
to discuss the issues in the Precinct which I participated in for Edwards.
Granted I was at a college (a very Pro Dean college actually) but the
behavior of both young and old alike left much to be desired. It was
truely disheartening to see so much division and viciousness coming
from other candidates' representatives.
Of course I took solace later as we began to get numbers in...and
I was informed we not only came in WAY above where we had expected,
but in 2nd place and beat Dean by around 13 points!
In the end though--caucus only works well when people attend, and
when people are EDUCATED on ALL Candidates and/or are openminded.
[quote]I believe with all my heart that if we had one more week, Edwards would have won in Iowa. He had the momentum.[/quote]
I couldn't agree more. I was lucky enough to speak on behalf of
the Edwards campaign in the precinct I was in...I was told by more
than a few people that they had come to Caucus still unsure, but had
decided on Edwards based on my speech about why I was supporting
JRE and his ideas.
The People of Iowa DO LOVE EDWARDS--There just wasn't enough time
to get more people to hear his message. Had there been--I have no
doubt that we would be swearing in John Edwards to office next week.
It would have truely swung the tide of the Election I believe.
[quote]Iowa LOVES John Edwards. We need to stay first in the nation so in 2008 Iowa can lead the way in nominating the BEST man. Trust me on this one, we won't disappoint. Edwards is already making those phone calls to Iowa. Many of us are already working on this effort.[/quote]
I'd be willing to let Iowa go first again in 2008 just for this reason
Btw...if you know of places/people who are working on this already...
by all means, please share!
PM me if you'd prefer.
J. Frew, IL
My favorite conservative, George Will, said this morning on ABC's Sunday program that what the Democratic Party NEEDS is...drum roll, please...
Someone JUST LIKE Karl Rove. :?
And he said it with a certain amount of awe. (No one responded to his statement, by the way).
I'm sorry, but what is it with the Republican Party and Karl Rove??
And yes, the Democratic Party NEEDS a very strong political strategist. But do we need ANOTHER Karl Rove in the world??
Do we?
Someone JUST LIKE Karl Rove. :?
And he said it with a certain amount of awe. (No one responded to his statement, by the way).
I'm sorry, but what is it with the Republican Party and Karl Rove??
And yes, the Democratic Party NEEDS a very strong political strategist. But do we need ANOTHER Karl Rove in the world??
Do we?
One Karl Rove in this world is too many. 
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.