http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/th...00502020729.asp

[quote]How about organizational skills? Dean ran a laughably disorganized campaign beset by poisonous infighting of epic proportions. He flamed out in embarrassing fashion while running through $52 million in ways no one yet quite understands.[/quote]


I'm hoping for a miracle last minute surge for Rosenberg.

Pretty crappy article imho. But I read the entire missive thru just for sh*ts and giggles and again, the banner about 'free' speech on campus gave a lot away.

Personally, I want Dean. No secret to anyone here. Is he perfect? Nope. Is Frost perfect? nope. Is Roemer or Wellington perfect? nope.

Is he committed to making changes and making noise while doing it? Yep.

Is he willing to rattle a few cages of the DC insiders? We'll see. Do those cages need rattling? Stupid question. They all have forgotten how they got there evidently, led by Ms. Pelosi and the wonderlady, Feinstein. (I still can't believe she came out with what she said about Condliesalota)

'nuff said. So he pees a few people off. Big deal. Bush pees me off too. At least Dean ain't killing anyone.

[quote=Tago45]http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/the_editors200502020729.asp

[quote]How about organizational skills? Dean ran a laughably disorganized campaign beset by poisonous infighting of epic proportions. He flamed out in embarrassing fashion while running through $52 million in ways no one yet quite understands.[/quote]


I'm hoping for a miracle last minute surge for Rosenberg.[/quote]

Interesting that the National Review is so interested in this. Don't they have enough "excitement" to write about in their beloved Republican Party? I don't know...

[quote]The spectacle of his candidacy steaming toward the chairmanship makes a mockery of New Republic editor Peter Beinart's call for a return to the moral seriousness and maturity of the Democrats circa 1948. The DNC is looking as though it can't even muster the moral seriousness and maturity of the Democrats circa January 2004, when they relegated Dean to a devastating `third-place` finish in Iowa.

By the way, the New Republic's Peter Beinart had endorsed Martin Frost for Chair. The National Review editors saying that Dean's candidacy makes a "mockery" of Peter Beinart - what's that all about? Why are they so concerned about the liberal Peter Beinart?

Republican writers and publications are just looking for ways to ridicule the Democratic Party. Maybe their readers need to be reassured that Bush is not that bad so they MUST find fault with democrats.

This article says more about republicans than democrats. Dean has a lot of good qualities - actually, most Americans don't know him. I can say most of us don't really KNOW him.

If the DNC chooses Dr. Dean (and it is a consensus) I will trust that the majority of our Democratic Party leaders have spent time with him, gotten to KNOW him, AND have decided that he is the best one for the job.

That's how it works. And the Republican Party's attempts to muck it up are SO transparent.

Beinart wrote an article on democrats and national defense....so I suppose since Dean opposed Iraq the idea is to paint him as "weak on defense"....well, let me tell you....there are ALOT of people who do not believe that Iraq was the right move for us who are not weak on defense...the argument could be made that Iraq isn't about "defense" at all since we went on the OFFENSIVE there. Many of us opposing it want our country to have a strong military and offer us all strong protection...we just see the futility of underhandedly trying to create an empire.

What you're seeing is a deathly afraid group of cons desperately trying to thwart their opposition. If you'll recall, Dean's "laughably disorganized" Presidential campaign was only derailed by what could be called a frighteningly organized media crusade, no doubt orchestrated by the same gang of miscreants.

I did not think Howard Dean was the man to beat The Worst President in History ™ as a `heads-up` candidate. I DO think he understands how to reach voters Dems have had trouble communicating with for a long time. I also think the degree of organization in his Presidential campaign was amazing considering most of the people running it were political neophytes and they were using `spanking-new` methodology and tech. What was accomplished can now be evaluated and refined.

Having the good doctor as a party head is a good idea. He offers an immediately and immenently quotable name with a high q rating. He appeals to voters who feel disenfranchised by the current system- remember- the Yellow Dog Dems out there are along for the ride anyhow.

The DNC needs to bolster state parties for 2006 `mid-terms` and garner `3-5`% more of the vote in 2008 to win the Presidency. Howard Dean can help with both of these tasks as well as putting to rest the felt need for a third party.

[quote]The DNC needs to bolster state parties for 2006 `mid-terms` and garner `3-5`% more of the vote in 2008 to win the Presidency. Howard Dean can help with both of these tasks as well as putting to rest the felt need for a third party.[/quote]

Dean is promising large sums to state and local parties. This along with his willingness to let them also take charge of their own campaigns is why I am supporting him.

We are just shooiting ourselves in teh foot here. Why we would put someone who is perceived by most Democrats as unfit to be the nominee, and is perceived by most Americans as a person lacking in temperment is beyond me.

And again, I'm not sure how those of us who agree with JRE can be `pro-Dean` (though I know some of y'all were not around during the primaries).
He's too leftist on cultural issues (except guns).
He's too `anti-war` (compared with JRE's correct stance).
He's a budget hawk ala Hoover and Concord Coalition (thereby making Democratic social program expansions impossible, such as JRE's college tuition and National Service).
He's `pro-NAFTA` (as opposed to JRE).
On so many issues Dean is on the `Hippie-Left` side of the Party and Edwards is on the Middle and `Working-Class` Populist side of the Party. We need someone who is closer to JRE politically and will therefore be of some assistance in getting him the nomination.

I too hope for a last minute Rosenberg or anybody (call me ABD) surge.

What is the difference between Dean and Edwards on social issues? Both believe in civil unions and are `pro-choice`. As to the war in Iraq...the majority of Americans are now against it....hardly an `out-of`-`the-mainstream` position. I agree the NAFTA position is one with which I might disagree....but how does this make Dean some kind of "hippie"? Actually, that kind of "pro business" position is the opposite of "hippiness". Oh, I know....its because he has a wife who doesn't wear make up and big Republican style hair???

I totally fail to see how Dean hurts Edwards chances in 2008.

[quote=philnwmi]We are just shooiting ourselves in teh foot here. Why we would put someone who is perceived by most Democrats as unfit to be the nominee, and is perceived by most Americans as a person lacking in temperment is beyond me.

And again, I'm not sure how those of us who agree with JRE can be `pro-Dean` (though I know some of y'all were not around during the primaries).
He's too leftist on cultural issues (except guns).
He's too `anti-war` (compared with JRE's correct stance).
He's a budget hawk ala Hoover and Concord Coalition (thereby making Democratic social program expansions impossible, such as JRE's college tuition and National Service).
He's `pro-NAFTA` (as opposed to JRE).
On so many issues Dean is on the `Hippie-Left` side of the Party and Edwards is on the Middle and `Working-Class` Populist side of the Party. We need someone who is closer to JRE politically and will therefore be of some assistance in getting him the nomination.[/quote]

You may be `mis-stating` or oversimplifying a few of both men's stances on certain issues. do not agree with JRE on several issues but I see in him a man of good character with an open mind. I see the same in Dr. Dean. Some of us can be `pro-Dean` and `pro-JRE` because we see the value in uniting the party.

To address your first overstatment, I am curious to see your evidence that "most" Americans perceive Dean the way you state. To what opinion polls do you refer? At what time? Just because *you* think a certain way about a person does not mean *most* people do. :wink:

I forget if it was here on JREG or on another forum.

"What do we know about the candidates for DNC chair?"

Is all of this support for Dean as DNC chair simply an extension of our outrage over the election? Shouldn't we look deeply at all of the candidates just as we did when we chose whom we would support in their run for the presidency? Don't we want the BEST leadership of the party? That's not to say that Dean isn't it, it's simply saying that we, or I, don't know enough about the contenders. I'm seeing a lot of this `Dean-mania` all around. And finally, do WE even have a say in it?

Obviously I did not support Dean in his run for the Whitehouse, so I had to ask myself "Why would I support him to be the DNC chair?". After I answered that question for myself, I asked "What exactly does the DNC chair do?" I'm still working on that, so if anyone has feedback - please enlighten us all. Seriously, my knowledge of the inner workings of any political party is sketchy at best. I think I know, but find out that it was all just what I thought, not really what it is.

Anyway for those supporting DR. Dean - here's a good article
Dean Emerging as Likely Chief for Democrats (registration required)

The bold emphasis in the excerpt below is my own. It think it begins to answer my earlier question of "What does the DNC chair do?". My understanding is that the DNC chair organizes (networks influential people) and fundraises for the party. There is a comment on Mr. McAuliffe as well. I know some folks are/were upset with him, but if you look at what he's supposed to do and what he did he did a pretty good job. I never was on baord with the McAwful stuff - I always thought those folks bashing the DNC chair didn't understand his job - I know I didn't and I'm not sure I do now, but I think I'm closer to the reality than they were (whoever "they" are - LOL).

So take a breathe, read with an open mind and keep the faith. No matter who wins the DNC chair, we still need to forge a better America.

Peace!


[quote]WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 - Howard Dean emerged Tuesday as the almost assured new leader of the Democratic National Committee, as one of his main rivals quit the race and Democrats streamed to announce their support of a man whose presidential campaign collapsed one year ago.
.
.
"It's a fait accompli, it's over: Dean's going to be it," said Gerald McEntee, head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, who runs the umbrella political organization for all the unions in the A.F.L.-C.I.O.

Actually, the final word rests with the 447 members of the Democratic National Committee, who will vote on Feb. 12 in Washington on a successor to Terry McAuliffe. And Dr. Dean faces a last obstacle, the candidacy of Donnie Fowler Jr., a Democratic operative from South Carolina.

Fowler aides said they hoped to benefit from the appearance of this as a `two-man` race with an opponent with a history of sometimes unorthodox political behavior. Still, they acknowledged that the possibility of a real competition was dimming.

There were few Democrats in Washington who doubted that Dr. Dean, the former governor of Vermont, was on the verge of taking over the party, with the support of much, though certainly not all, of its establishment. Democrats marveled at how someone who had been viewed as a symbol of some of the excesses of the party - Mr. McEntee described Dr. Dean as "nuts" after he withdrew his endorsement of him in the middle of the presidential campaign - was now on the brink of becoming a face of the opposition to President Bush.

Democrats said Dr. Dean overcame the hurdles of his failed presidential candidacy by intensely courting Democratic leaders, assuring them that he was not the liberal and undisciplined caricature that many said they saw last year. He also freely made the kind of `bread-and`-butter promises that have always helped politicians win elections, promising to channel at least $11 million in national Democratic money to pay salaries at the state parties, Democratic officials said.
.
.
The overtures have been embraced by Democratic leaders, many still demoralized by the Republican election machine that managed to outdo what Democrats had viewed as Mr. McAuliffe's extraordinary success in building the party's organization and `fund-raising`.

Dr. Dean also benefited from a relatively weak field. Democrats uncomfortable with his candidacy have had trouble finding someone to rally around: Mr. Fowler, 37, is viewed as a youthful political operative who even his allies concede may not yet have the stature to lead the party.
.
.
"I think that Governor Dean would take his lead from us," said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader.

And Mr. Reid said: "The Democratic chairman has a constituency of 447 people. Our constituency is much larger than that."

Republicans, who had already been portraying the Democrats as obstructionist and extreme, seemed somewhere between being delighted and amused to have Dr. Dean to kick around again, instantly invoking a defining moment in his career.
.
.
Richard Bond, the former head of the Republican National Committee, said: "He's a very capable guy, he's got high energy, but he will reinforce all of their worst instincts. His style and message is one that will narrow his party's options rather than expand them."

"I think it's a scream," Mr. Bond said.

Mr. Frost was one of two Democrats to drop out from the race on Tuesday. David Leland, a former Ohio party chairman, who had drawn minimal support for his bid, also quit, and endorsed Dr. Dean.

Mr. Frost did not make a public endorsement, though he left little doubt of how he saw the race settling. "The challenge ahead for Governor Dean will be to unite the party, rebuild the D.N.C. and win elections in every region of the country," he said.

In addition to Mr. Fowler, the remaining candidates are Mr. Roemer and Simon Rosenberg, the head of the moderate New Democrat Network . Both Mr. Roemer and Mr. Rosenberg said they would stay in the race, though their prospects appeared remote.

Several Democrats said that only Mr. Fowler appeared to have any chance of raising an `anti-Dean` flag, and that his hopes for doing that were contingent on Mr. Roemer and Mr. Rosenberg stepping aside.
.
.
Although some union leaders had been wary of supporting Dr. Dean, they have come to view his stewardship of the party as inevitable. Even Guillermo Meneses, a spokesman for Mr. Rosenberg, reflected a similar attitude, although he said his candidate would stay in the race.

"We are assessing the situation, with a dose of realism," he said.

Carl Hulse contributed reporting for this article.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company[/quote]

[quote] We are just shooting ourselves in teh foot here. Why we would put someone who is perceived by most Democrats as unfit to be the nominee, and is perceived by most Americans as a person lacking in temperment is beyond me.

And again, I'm not sure how those of us who agree with JRE can be `pro-Dean` (though I know some of y'all were not around during the primaries).
He's too leftist on cultural issues (except guns).
He's too `anti-war` (compared with JRE's correct stance).
He's a budget hawk ala Hoover and Concord Coalition (thereby making Democratic social program expansions impossible, such as JRE's college tuition and National Service).
He's `pro-NAFTA` (as opposed to JRE).
On so many issues Dean is on the `Hippie-Left` side of the Party and Edwards is on the Middle and `Working-Class` Populist side of the Party. We need someone who is closer to JRE politically and will therefore be of some assistance in getting him the nomination.
[/quote]

It's a short post, and not a place for `multi-paragraph` position papers.
Since you just mentioned one supposed "mistatement and oversimplication," I'll just address it:

I refer to the polling that took place around this time last year (`January-March` 2004). You may remember there was a primary back then for the Democratic Party Presidential Nomination. Among `primary-voting` DEMOCRATS, Dean proably ended up with >10% of the vote from Iowa through Super Tuesday (as long as he was in).

I don't know what you mean by "good character" and where you see it in Dean (I guess you don't make "mistatements" if you actually say nothing), but he comes off to me and the vast majority of Americans as someone lacking in temperment and too quick to `shoot-from`-`the-hip` first and think it through later (I'll refer to the Osama quote, the Confederate flag quote, the `Democratic-wing` quote, etc etc etc).

Um, I'm all for Party unity, but that doesn't mean that we give away the top stop to someone from one of the other wings of the party.[/quote]

Dude had $40 million dollars and got BLOWN OUT in Iowa and NC.

If we want someone who is good at raising and then wasting money, he's your man.

Having watched the forums with all the candidates for the DNC chair, I'm happy that there is agreement on the need for the party to better network and reach out and incorporate grassroots movements. This is where the emphasis needs to be and where we fell short this year. Its not just about the Presidential campaign, but about getting democrats elected at every level and Dean has placed much emphasis on this and that is why I can support him as the chairman.

While we don't want to forget the democrats we already have in Congress, I am leery of having a chairman like Roemer who might lean more towards being their cTairman than in being leader to the whole party. I think thats the "insider/outsider" argument...

As to what the Republicans will say....do you think they are going to heap praise on whoever it is that's chosen? Get real. They're going to continue to trash us no matter what we do. Just ask all the democrats who did tend to "go along to get along" with them.

Teresa, you're right. The Republicans will smear whoever is chosen and I want to add that the fact that they're already smearing Dean before he's even chosen shows that they're afraid of him. We need to learn that if the Republicans loudly criticize someone, it means they're shaking in their boots at the thought of that person coming into any sort of power. The people they criticize are usually exactly the people we need to elevate, IMO.

So wait:
If they or laugh at us for considering Dean, then it means he's our man and we should back him, cause they're just using some of that fancy `reversable-psychology`.
If they trash Dean, then they're worried, so that means he's our man and we should back him, cause they're shakin' in their boots.

Can't lose with that kinda thinkin.

Maybe we're better off making a logical choice for ourselves than trying to get inside the gop mind.

Of course the Republicans will try to bash any Democratic Chair. That goes without saying. The point is, will those attacks stick in the `swing-voters`' minds? They TRIED to bash JRE as a ambulance chasing `trial-lawyer`. It didn't stick. They tried to lable Kerry as a `flip-floper` ... it stuck. Why, because it was more in touch with an underlying reality.

ABD

If we're making our own decisions then why are we spending so much time worrying about what they may say about Dean?

The fact is that we don't know who "swing voters" might prefer....because some didn't cotton to Kerry has no relevence to what their opinion of Dean might be. For all we know, many who voted for Dean in the primaries might be "swing voters"....

This is becoming a pointless argument. We all have our beliefs as to who the best candidate for DNC chair might or might not be....and some seem to have already made up their minds. Rehashing the same arguments over and over is rather needless and quite frankly, counter productive.

1. because this is supposed to be a place for JRE supporters to discuss issues, that's why. I don't see who made you emperor as to when a discussion is `counter-productive` or productive.

2. I'm not worried about analyzing gopers, that isn't what I said. It's that we ought to keep swing voters in mind.
Apparently you didn't get the sarcasm.

3. It doesn't take a genius to see that if 9 out of 10 Democrats didn't like Dean in the primaries, that most `swing-voters` don't. Dean's ran as the leftist in the Party. Again, my point is that one might want to learn from history.

If there are those who want to indulge in meaningless `tit-for`-tat, they are welcome to do so, although I might point out, that allowing the conversation to degenerate into negativity would be a breach of the JREgrassroots TOS. For this reason, I am taking myself out of the conversation.

[quote=philnwmi]1. because this is supposed to be a place for JRE supporters to discuss issues, that's why. I don't see who made you emperor as to when a discussion is `counter-productive` or productive.

2. I'm not worried about analyzing gopers, that isn't what I said. It's that we ought to keep swing voters in mind.
Apparently you didn't get the sarcasm.

3. It doesn't take a genius to see that if 9 out of 10 Democrats didn't like Dean in the primaries, that most `swing-voters` don't. Dean's ran as the leftist in the Party. Again, my point is that one might want to learn from history.[/quote]

If anything, Teresa is an "Empress." I would lke to remind you of the JRE Grassroots Terms of Service :!: and this paragraph of the TOS in particular:

[quote]You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, `sexually-oriented` or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed).

[quote=philnwmi]I refer to the polling that took place around this time last year (`January-March` 2004). You may remember there was a primary back then for the Democratic Party Presidential Nomination. Among `primary-voting` DEMOCRATS, Dean proably ended up with >10% of the vote from Iowa through Super Tuesday (as long as he was in).[/quote]

I'll dismiss your sarcastic references to my memory or in your opinion, lack thereof.

The primaries in 2004 and their `super-weighted` "results" bear hardly any relevance when considering whether somebody would make a good party chair. That race was totally different and the duties of the job different from the position Dr. Dean now desires. As a supporter of JRE I am certain you're aware of how the process was weighted towards a John Kerry victory by those in the power positions from the very beginning of the election. This hardly supports the statement that "most" Democrats have a negative opinion of Howard Dean.

And I'm sorry if my saying it angers you but your statements regarding JRE and Dean and your perceived differences between the two ARE `over-simplified` and possible misrepresentations.

[quote]If anything, Teresa is an "Empress." I would lke to remind you of the JRE Grassroots Terms of Service Exclamation and this paragraph of the TOS in particular:
[/quote]

Now, now....we are democratic here....lets leave off with talk of "emporers" and "empresses".....

Thanks Suswah....

Well, lookie here. I got this email from the California Democratic Party. Seems that 83% of CA Democrats surveyed support Dean for DNC chair. So much for him being out of the mainstream. If the vast majority of Dems in one of the bluest of blue states supports him...and we DO know how to elect Democrats, by the way.

[quote]California Democratic Party Newsletter
If you cannot view the HTML version, please visit
California Democrats Newsletter

IN THIS ISSUE
Letter from the Chairman
News Roundup
Take Our Latest Poll
Quote of the Week

Letter from the Chairman

Dear sirius:

Last weekend in New York was very eventful as the National Association of State Democratic Chairs and Vice Chairs met to interview all seven candidates for the DNC Chair position.

As Chairs and Vice Chairs, we had made a commitment to each other in Orlando, Florida when we first heard the candidates for DNC Chair on December 9, 2004, to remain neutral until our organization made a decision by roll call vote to endorse one candidate.

I want to thank all the Democrats in California and elsewhere who wrote to me regarding their concerns and their preferences for one candidate or another. I read every letter, postcard, petition and email that was sent to me - as it should be. A leader must always listen in order to be truly representative and still compatible with one's conscience.

Our organization (the ASDC) formally endorsed Gov. Howard Dean on Monday morning with 56 Chairs and Vice Chairs voting for Dean out of 91 votes cast, giving Gov. Dean the clear majority.

LA Times Article

I want you all to know that I supported Howard Dean within the Executive Committee and then of course in the final roll call, along with our First Vice Chair Alex Rooker. The following DNC Members have contacted me with their support for Gov. Dean (the list will be updated on our Web site as I receive additional endorsements). Stay in touch.

Steven Alari
Jeremy Bernard
Rachel Binah
Mary Ellen Early
Ed Espinoza
Patricia Ford
Vice Chair Alex `Gallardo-Rooker`
Alice Huffman
Aleita Huguenin
Hon. Carole Migden
Hon. Gloria Molina
Bob Mulholland
Hon. Kevin Murray
John Perez
Robert "Big Red" Rankin
Garry Shay
Chris Stampolis
Keith Umemoto
Hon. Antonio Villaraigosa
Hon. Maxine Waters
Vernon Watkins
Hon. Diane Watson
Steven Ybarra

The response to last week's poll was tremendous - the results show Howard Dean to be the clear favorite among California Democrats with Governor Dean getting 83% of the 1,578 votes cast. By endorsing Howard Dean, I am pleased to say that many of our California DNC members value what you have to say. Working `hand-in`-hand with our grassroots leaders and activists has always been the winning combination for Democrats in California.

We will continue to build on that as we stay informed and educated on the Bush administration proposals - especially concerning Social Security, health care, education and the environment. Todd Warden in our Los Angeles office did a terrific job in organizing a dozen "State of the Union" watch parties all across the state this evening - positive proof that our great Democratic activists remain engaged and connected.

Sincerely,

Senator Art Torres (Ret.)
Chairman, California Democratic Party

News Roundup

Democrats Extend Debate on Gonzales
Los Angeles Times
Angered over the administration's policies on torture, Senate Democrats on Tuesday extended debate over the nomination of Alberto R. Gonzales as U.S. attorney general, delaying his expected confirmation until at least Thursday. California's Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Barbara Boxer both oppose his confirmation.
LA Times Article

Senator Feinstein's Statement

Senator Boxer's Statement

Commentary: Budget Proves Governor Will Break a Promise
Ventura County Star
'No new taxes": It's a promise every Republican politician makes and brags about keeping. But even when they say they're keeping the promise, some don't. Few are as open about reneging on the pledge as former President George H.W. Bush was in 1989, when he OK'd a tax increase labeled as such -- and was ousted three years later in part because he broke the promise that was the key point of his acceptance speech at the previous year's party convention.
Link to Article

County Schools Chief Takes Aim at Schwarzenegger
Hesperia Star
San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools Herbert Fischer is taking aim at Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to cut $2.2 billion from the state school budget, and shift $469 million in pension payments from the state to local school districts. In the State of Education speech scheduled for later today in San Bernardino, Fischer is expected to attack the governor's plans to cut education funding for the fourth time.
Link to Article

Sen. Barbara Boxer, Loudspeaker for Left, Steps into Spotlight
Associated Press

Sen. Barbara Boxer has always spoken up, but the California Democrat seems to have gotten a lot louder lately. Her opposition to Condoleezza Rice's secretary of state nomination was so combative that it was parodied on Saturday Night Live. That came on the heels of her decision to sign onto a House member's complaint about Ohio voting problems, forcing Congress to debate them before certifying President Bush's `re-election` victory. She's being touted on liberal blogs as the Democrats' best hope for president in 2008.
Article

Bush tells CBC he's 'Unfamiliar' with Voting Rights Act
Chicago Defender

President George W. Bush met with the Congressional Black Caucus Wednesday for the first time as a group in nearly four years, but what CBC members said stood out the most was the president's declaration that he was "unfamiliar" with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the most significant pieces of legislation passed in the history of the United States.
Chicago Defender Article

Take Our Latest Poll

During the State of the Union address, what will get the most mention? Take our poll at www.cadem.org and tell us your thoughts!

Quote of the Week

"Today's numbers from the Congressional Budget Office provide further confirmation that Social Security is on solid financial footing for decades to come. While we do face a `long-term` challenge that should be addressed, there is no reason to rush to privatize Social Security while making deep cuts in benefits and exploding our national debt."
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (`D-Nev`.)[/quote]

I believe THE NEW YORK TIMES says Dean's the overwelming favorite to be head of the DNC. I fear Howard will never live down his I HAD A SCREAM speech.

Well not to defend phil any, but he is from Grand Rapids and that is pretty much in the repub part of this state ... there are strong dem areas there as well, but mostly it's repub...and if anyone doubts me, come to Deetroit and see how our roads stack up against the western part of the state.

Personally, I saw and took no offense to what he was saying. And we all know me well enough that when I take offense the entire world knows it! Plus the mods have to take me to task and edit or remove stuff so I am used to it. :oops: :oops:

I like Dean and I know we all should be careful what we wish for, but Phil, I must say that if Dean brings even a part of what he brought to his campaign volunteers, then I am all for it - swing voters or not. They ain't voting for him, just who we decide to pick as our candidate (like there is going to be a choice! JRE! JRE! JRE!)

Yes he can influence them, but you know, people can say what they want and maybe I missed this story, but we all toss rocks at Dean and his money woes, look what Kerry did with the leftover funds he had!

To have I believe it was 10M left and the race as close as it was just speaks to me, that as bad as Bush is, Kerry ain't usin' his head either. I thought I heard Kerry funneled it into his senate coffers, but I don't think they can do that, can they? People didn't give to him as a Senator, they donated becuase of a Presidential run. I'd want and demand a refund.

Anyway, that's McAwful letting that money out of the coffers and to me, that's just awful accountability.

1****Removed due to TOS violation*****

2. Tank, we're going to have to disagree on this one. I do think the primaries matter and let us know how millions of Democrats think (which was my point, not whether he'd be a good Chair -- I've actually addressed that elsewhere; he'd be terrible since he has `foot-in`-mouth disease, wastes more money than he brings in, and alienates swing and moderate voters).
But, rest assured, I'm not really angry, I just can't reply to your vague statements without evidence. If you'd like to discuss it more, I'm willing to read.

3. I'm not sure what being from GR has to do with anything. [Commissar Suswah, is that slander?] Can you explain that to me? FYI: GR city went for Gore and Kerry. My town went 54% Bush and 46% Kerry, so you may want to rethink your generalities.

4. Sirius, it's a `non-scientific` internet "poll" of 2000 people. The primaries were a poll of millions of people. Come on, let's be serious.

4. Yes, Dean brings lots of volunteers and blogers. Did anyone notice where that got him? Yep, he won the MoveOn and dKos primary, but got whooped in Iowa and everywhere else. We maxed out our voters in 2004 (everyone who is ever going to vote, voted in 2004), thus we've got to reach out to `swing-voters`. And, no, that doesn't mean going `repub-lite`, it means a mainstream cultural platform and populist economic and political platform, preferably led by someone who has charisma, `regular-guyness` (or galness), and is `well-spoken` (ie Edwards).

Long Live the Marketplace of Ideas! (even if that means some perceived "negativity")

[quote=philnwmi]1****Removed due to TOS violation*****
.
.
.
Long Live the Marketplace of Ideas! (even if that means some perceived "negativity")[/quote]

Phil has the right to speak his mind as any of us here do. Teresa made a good point and humbly resigned as empereor (or empress as the case might be).

I'm somewhat surprised by the attack on Phil - yes I feel that his posts, at least the parts the admins didn't blackline, were in no way negative or hateful or any other the other subective terms in the TOS. He's one of us for God's sake - let's not chase good people away because of this Party controlled election, dammit (blacklined perhaps?)

I've read a number of other BBs (Kos for example) that treat their members like adults. That being said, I've run into similar Dean "groupthink" in my area. I have no idea why he's percieved as the best candidate, and as I said before I'm not sure why TM was perceived as a bad chair.

Anyway, enjoy the debate - we don't get to choose this time either!

Peace!

[quote=philnwmi]1****Removed due to TOS violation*****[/quote]

Phil, I am requesting that you read and review our Negative Posting policy at this time. You can and will make your point without insulting or harassing the site staff or members. Thank you kindly.

http://www.jregrassroots.org/jre/viewtopic...p?p=70740#70740

[quote=Wee gordie][quote=philnwmi]1****Removed due to TOS violation*****
.
.
.
Long Live the Marketplace of Ideas! (even if that means some perceived "negativity")[/quote]

Phil has the right to speak his mind as any of us here do. Teresa made a good point and humbly resigned as empereor (or empress as the case might be).

I'm somewhat surprised by the attack on Phil - yes I feel that his posts, at least the parts the admins didn't blackline, were in no way negative or hateful or any other the other subective terms in the TOS. He's one of us for God's sake - let's not chase good people away because of this Party controlled election, dammit (blacklined perhaps?)

I've read a number of other BBs (Kos for example) that treat their members like adults. That being said, I've run into similar Dean "groupthink" in my area. I have no idea why he's percieved as the best candidate, and as I said before I'm not sure why TM was perceived as a bad chair.

Anyway, enjoy the debate - we don't get to choose this time either!

Peace![/quote]

Wee Gordie, it works both ways. I read the `Kerry-bashing` and `Dean-bashing` here every single day and it gets old fast. I don't think I've ever mentioned it because it's just my opinion and everyone else has a right to hers - or his, as the case may be. I can deal with the fact that not everybody likes the same people I do, and it's conducive to interesting discussions.

Although I appreciate a civilized debate, personal attacks on a staff member or moderator, and attempted intimidation to suppress thought and debate are not tolerable here. This isn't Daily Kos, you're right, but such posts would disappear very quickly even from that forum through the mojo system. The "blackline" would be unacceptable in any grown folks' forum.

Phil, perhaps this will help to clear up your confusion. Emphasis mine.

[quote]The Assassination of Howard Dean

Two months ago, Howard Dean was the man to beat for the Democratic nomination. Then his campaign fell over a cliff, limping in as a distant second, third and even fourth, in the primaries. On Wednesday Dean officially ended his bid for the White House, telling supporters, "I am no longer actively purusing the presidency."

What happened? How could Dean's insurgent candidacy, which had energized and excited voters in every state, come to such a screeching halt?

The pundits claim Dean's "rage" undid him, that voters took a "second look," etc. etc. Nonsense really. The answer is much simpler. Howard Dean was assassinated in broad daylight. Unlike Kennedy's "grassy knoll," Dean's killers are not hiding -- it was the Democratic Party itself, and more specifically the Democratic Leadership Council, that successfully went after, and sabotaged his candidacy.

Remember the 1980s, when the Democratic Party found itself facing unassailable Ronald Reagan, "It's morning in America" slogans and an era of `go-go` optimism? In three successive elections, the Democrats were felled by the memory of Jimmy Carter. Dems were seen as soft on the Soviets, mullahs, crime and welfare mothers. Although Carter's gentle ways secured the historic Camp David `Egypt-Israel` accord, most Americans remembered the Iranian hostages, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the infamous "malaise" speech.

In 1988, Dukakis went down to Bush I because Republicans successfully painted him with the "L" word -- "too liberal". Faced with a `12-year` losing streak, a new generation of party activists took control of the party. Led by Bill Clinton and others, they formed the DLC -- a powerful group with the explicit intention of moving the Democrats away from the left to the center, from where they would beat the Republicans. Bill Clinton was the DLC's first candidate, and his `eight-year` run solidified its hold on the party. Clinton's Commerce Secretary Ron Brown was another DLC heavyweight, and until he was killed in a plane crash, instrumental in moving the party away from "liberal" positions.

Nothing succeeds like success. Buoyed by Clinton's popularity, a balanced budget and an era of prosperity, the DLC became the `standard-bearer` for the Democrats' political identity. That is until 2000, when the DLC's next `king-apparent`, Al Gore, took a stumble in the Florida panhandle and was then `hog-tied` by the Supreme Court. When the dust had settled and King George was safely inside the palace, a recount revealed that Gore had actually won, but the damage was done. The DLC's critics now came out of hiding -- attacking the party for being too centrist, too cautious and too much like "`Republican-lite`." If you try to ape the `right-wing` of the nation, voters may decide to go for the "real thing"!

Howard Dean emerged within this specific context. From day one, he positioned himself as a reformer of the Democratic party -- the man who would bring the party back to its liberal roots. Dean hit headlines by being the `anti-war` candidate. But even within that position, most of his criticism was of his Democratic cohorts, for cravenly accepting the Iraq war. Dean took pleasure in flaying candidates like Kerry for voting in support of the war resolution. The party took notice when Dean got up on stage and announced, "I'm Howard Dean, and I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party!"

Another part of the Dean story, and threat to the party establishment, was his style and appeal. Howard Dean has often been labeled the "prophet of rage." It's certainly true that he was an angry man -- angry at Bush, the war, the budget deficit, the mushrooming unemployment cloud, at all things that had gone badly wrong in three short years. This anger hit a chord with the popular imagination; dissatisfaction with Bush was high and Dean was the perfect protest candidate.

Another core part of Dean's appeal was his overwhelming support among young people. In 2000, one of the lowest voter turnouts was among young people. If you were under 24, you tuned out and stayed home in November. By contrast, the bulk of Howard Dean's support was among the youth of America. Energized by a strategy focused on Internet campaigning, "Generation Dean" or "Dean 2.0" spread across college campuses and gave a youthful aura to the man from Vermont.

Of course, the DLC did not take kindly to this direct challenge. The crucial dynamic in America today is that big companies, political parties and media are powerful businesses -- and they will do anything to crush new threats. The DLC reacted with fury to the Dean candidacy, going all out to torpedo his momentum. Although Democratic nominees soon piled on the "`bash-Dean`" bandwagon, earlier attacks were carried out by DLC operatives. There was even the smell of scandal when two top Democratic candidates were found sharing information about Dean in an attempt to slow him down.

This is where Dean lost a crucial ally -- the mainstream media also joined in on the `anti-Dean` feeding frenzy. In his early days, he had flayed big media for caving in to George Bush on Iraq, and media giants never forgave him for this. In the same week, Time and Newsweek ran "Who is the Real Howard Dean?" stories. One cover showed a face covered in dark shadows, another showed an incomplete jigsaw puzzle! Semioticians take note -- bad guys in westerns always have their faces obscured in shadows!

In the end, Dean threatened a troika of powerful institutions. He was a threat to the political parties (because he attacked Democrats' centrist drift), to media (because he criticized their cowardly reporting) and to big business (because he would roll back chummy `tax-benefits` for corporations). All three institutions responded with venom and destroyed Dean's candidacy. In 1968, a bullet ended Robert Kennedy's `anti-establishment` candidacy. In 2004, the methods used were more subtle, but just as effective.

America is riven by a strange schizophrenia. It is an entrepreneurial nation that prizes individuality and celebrates `non-conformists`. Especially in the area of business, mavericks like Ted Turner and George Soros have been able to define their own space. But in the area of politics, the establishment guards the doors zealously -- outsiders have no chance. In 1976 an unknown peanut farmer from Georgia came out of nowhere to capture the White House. Jimmy Carter was the `anti-Nixon`, his mantra was, "Trust me, I will never lie to you!" But insurgency candidates like Carter don't appear too often. People like Bernie Sanders have to run on Socialist tickets. Other voters are deserting the Democrats for the Green Party and Working Families Party, scoring small, incremental victories in local council elections across the nation.

Coming back to the 2004 elections, barring any surprises, John Kerry will get the nomination. If GIs keep dying in Iraq, if job losses continue, if popular anger over `right-wing` policies grow, Kerry has a shot. I'm part of the ABBA (Anyone But Bush Again) brigade. If Bush goes down to Kerry, I'll be the first to celebrate. But the Democratic Party is still waiting for a candidate who will help rediscover its soul.

http://www.alternet.org/story/17881
[/quote]

Now if you've read Dean's book, Trippi's book, or either one, or even if you are willing to have an open mind about this, I beg the question: What could be wrong with putting the word Democrat back into the Democratic Party?

Howard Dean is consistent, whether you believe it or not; whether you can set aside an orchestrated media massacre in Iowa or not.

He makes no apologies for being liberal and antiwar. THAT is the guy I want as DNC chair - no concessions, no apologies, no fear.

[quote=Alexa]Howard Dean is consistent, whether you believe it or not; whether you can set aside an orchestrated media massacre in Iowa or not.

He makes no apologies for being liberal and antiwar. THAT is the guy I want as DNC chair - no concessions, no apologies, no fear. [/quote]

Well said Alexa!

[quote=Alexa]Wee Gordie, it works both ways. I read the `Kerry-bashing` and `Dean-bashing` here every single day and it gets old fast.[/quote]
Does it work both ways? I tend to skip the bashing stuff and try to find interesting commentary. You get to know who's posts are worth the time and who's posts simply waste your time very quickly.

[quote=Alexa]Although I appreciate a civilized debate, personal attacks on a staff member or moderator, and attempted intimidation to suppress thought and debate are not tolerable here.[/quote]
Civilized debate is quite boring - most of the best debaters are not very civilized. There are rules of course, points awarded and pointed taken away, but that's about where the civility ends. I tend to think of it along the "rules of war" - rules, but not civilized.
Does the TOS state anything about admins or moderators intimidating members or supressing their thought, threatening them with expulsion and a report to their ISP? I couldn't tell because you used an old debtate trick of using sympathy by pointing, not to the TOS, but to a post by Daniel. Methinks this is foul play. Daniel did his utmost best to balance the weight of his responsibility to the larger community and his responsibility to freedom of speech. But then I suppose it fits into some idea of civility.

I've seen the pack circle before, some get it and take themselves out of it, others seem to thrive on the power. I'll leave it to the reader to misinterpret this as an attack. These are my opinions, if I were to attack anyone, they would surely know it. I suspect that people here and in the real world (not on the Internet) are simply far too sensitive and see almost anything they disagree with as an attack. I personally find THAT a bit straining and that is getting old real fast. I suggest that before we break out another civilized set of rules "Duke of Queensbury" perhaps, that we all try to read and listen to each other before we blow a gasket and threaten civilization itself. I might even take my own advice.

[quote=Alexa]This isn't Daily Kos, you're right, but such posts would disappear very quickly even from that forum through the mojo system. The "blackline" would be unacceptable in any grown folks' forum. :)[/quote]
I'm confused. I understand that some form of moderation is required, especially here in the Ether. Your vague posts to "such posts would disappear quickly" doesn't help me understand. Foul language and repetitive posts was the old rule on JREG and OAC, but I don't think you were around then, so it's more difficult for you to understand the freedom all of us had there, and with that freedom our own ability to moderate ourselves (with a little help from Winn). We even tolerated folks like TarHeels and other trolls, as long as they didn't post the same thing over and over and over or exclusively use the 7 word dictionary. Then there was CW (aka EdwardsTroll) and his incessant S&B talk - he became loved by many (a mother's instinct I think). I wonder if those people could post on this board with the current set of admins / moderators. I think not!

JREgrassroots has a staff? Hmmmmm, didn't know that.

Peace!

While I think that opinions are important, they are not in and of themsleves fact. The "evidence" of your position comes from another blog. It wasn't hard to trace it back and when I did I was a bit surprised by the source. I wondered "Did Naeem support Dr. Dean in the primaries?" I am finding that many of teh `so-called` progressives were/are Dean supporters. I did my own due diligence to determine who I would support in the 2004 election. It wasn't Dean for a number of reasons.

I'm not going to rehash the faults I found in Dean, suffice it to say that I don't trust him. This is why I find the renewed `Dean-mainia` so confounding. This is why our local Dems are revolting (in both definitions of the word).

I'll also mention that while the "article" lists many of teh percieved reasons that Dean failed in IA (Kerry & Gephardt pact, Kerry wrote a check) - that it makes no account for Edwards success, unless you buy the "Kill Dean" theory. Were there politics at play - you bet - it's politics, isn't it?

Sheesh, I thought I was going to back off, but when I found the subtrefuge that had been played on the members of this board, I became annoyed again. This borders on what we rose up against in the first place.

I hope that cooler heads will prevail and that I go back to ignoring the noise. I fear that you might not hear from me in the future - expulsion looms near for I have dared to support dissent and question the wisdom of our admins / moderators. Live strong and recall the great conversations we once had.

Peace!


[quote]Posted by: naeem on Mar 17, 04 | 4:59 am | Profile

COMMENTS:

You said, "...the Democratic Party is still waiting for a candidate who will help rediscover its soul."

Your are mistaken. That candidate is already here. He is Dennis Kucinich.
Unfortunately, the media has chosen to ignore him and his positions.
Posted by: Sharon Popp on Feb 20, 04 | 12:41 pm

_/_/_/_/_/
I'd like to be persuaded by your thesis that Dean was "assassinated." But your article doesn't help much. You just *say* it happened, you never actually demonstrate with any evidence or analysis of facts that it happened. The air goes out of Dean's balloon, and so therefore it *must* have been a deliberate act, a conspiracy.

You give the folks in the DLC too much credit for competence and power. And if a shadowy photograph is enough to dissuade an electorate that is *supposedly* `hell-bent` on change, then maybe it wasn't so determined to have change afterall.

There's another explanation -- that the US electorate is lacking in moderate or progressive voters (I wish this were not the case, but I think there is more evidence to support my thesis than the one you advanced in your article).

A far more likely scenario goes something like this: Dean tapped into a *segment* of the Democratic party electorate big enough to get him out in front early, but not big enough to sustain him when the time came for people to go to the primaries.

The deeper problem is that the US electorate is deeply conservative (because it is an imperial population that is quite aware and jealous of its imperium) and its potentially progressive elements are easily segmented along racial lines (which the country's fattened elites are quite happy about).

Clinton (who is, by any reasonable measure, a moderate Republican) appears to be as "liberal" as the US electorate can bring itself to go. Dean, who is only moderately to the Left of Clinton (and we're not talking by much), represented no massive threat to the status quo. But he was just enough out of the `Right-leaning` mainstream to be rejected by the people who show up at primaries and caucuses.

Meanwhile, all of Dean's (mostly middle class white) young folk were talking amongst themselves, hived off in their cubbyholes clicking on keyboards, and blogging in an echo chamber that does not make for wide and popular victories (at least not yet).

We are still some distance from solid progressive politics in the US.

(By the way, if you have some substantial evidence to support your theory about how/why Dean went down, it would be great to write it up. I'd be glad to be convinced he didn't fail for the reasons I mentioned.)
Posted by: j winters on Feb 20, 04 | 1:33 pm

_/_/_/_/_/
Why did you not mention the fact that Gore endorsed Dean?
Posted by: Paul Dunn on Feb 20, 04 | 1:37 pm

_/_/_/_/_/
an interesting article with some very insightful responses.
i wish to help enlighten the author and readers in that schizophrenia is a biological imbalance of the human brain resulting in various pychcologial symptoms that may include a loss of touch with reality. but it does not have anything to do with a split or multi personality. that is a different disorder. the better we understand mental illness the closer we are to removing its terrible stigma. thank you
Posted by: jasonb on Feb 20, 04 | 3:09 pm[/quote]

[quote=wee Gordie]Does the TOS state anything about admins or moderators intimidating members or supressing their thought, threatening them with expulsion and a report to their ISP? I couldn't tell because you used an old debtate trick of using sympathy by pointing, not to the TOS, but to a post by Daniel. Methinks this is foul play.[/quote]

I'm not going to sugarcoat it. You don't know what you're talking about.

[quote]Sheesh, I thought I was going to back off, but when I found the subtrefuge that had been played on the members of this board, I became annoyed again. This borders on what we rose up against in the first place. [/quote]

The article I quoted is from AlterNet, at the link I already posted:

http://www.alternet.org/story/17881

I am unaware of any deliberate subterfuge that has been perpetrated on or by anyone in regards to opinions about Dean...you are right, Wee Gordie, the purpose of forums such as this one is to foster free exchange...but all freedoms come with responsibility and part of that responsibility is to accept that those with views opposing ones own feel their reasons are just as compelling. If we believe in free exchange we also have to ensure that the environment is conducive to it, and nasty, insulting, threatening behavior is prohibitive to that environment and will allow it to degenerate to the point that only those who are willing to be the most abusive will have a platform. I think we all will agree that following the "law of the jungle" is not a method that is consistent with the democratic sharing of thought. I happen to believe that it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

The concept of responsibility is meaningless without accountability. Just as we adhere to a "social contract" in the real world, we must have cyber world equivalents. This is new territory, and all of us are feeling our way through it, but in the meantime, there has to be mechanisms in place that will allow forums to serve the purpose for which they were intended. If a member chooses to indulge in behavior that is distasteful to a large number of fellow posters, its almost guaranteed that some will voice their feelings of displeasure...all well and good. Because we believe that most of our posters are indeed responsible citizens, we trust them to demonstrat e this through sharing in the responsibility of keeping our cyber environment productive...rather like a cyber Block Watch, if you will. This system works quite well until tensions run high enough to induce riot...and during the riot, it becomes the responsiblity of the moderators and administrators to protect any or all members from any looting and pillaging that occurs as a consequence. Thats exactly what happened here in this forum....we allowed the disagreement, we allowed the riot, and we allowed those who don't like riots to chime in and voice their displeasure with it. Moderators and administrators only became involved when there was an incidence that crossed from riot into downright illegality. We only "moderated" the illegality and did nothing that interferred with the reason for the riot.

I, for one, hope you will continue to visit and share your thoughts....but please don't assume that those who's opinions differ from yours are "out to get you" because they voice an opposing viewpoint or that their voicing of it is an attempt to stifle you. That's just fair exchange.

We'll just have to continue another time, another place. Honest and open discussion is the only way to see through the disinformation presented on the Internet. Fire back a response to this post, quote it it you are so inclined, but I really have nothing left to say about this.

[quote=Teresa22]I am unaware of any deliberate subterfuge that has been perpetrated on or by anyone in regards to opinions about Dean.[/quote]
It was posted once and then again by a site administrator, the URL previously posted points to AlterNet, which is sometimes mischaracterized as a place for trustworthy information. It is nothing more than a collection of interesting positions, much like this place.
Consider yourself informed and thus aware - see the origin of the "article" referenced
http://shobak.org/naeem_comments.php?id=171_0_4_0_C

It is my intention to quell a riot, to shine a light on irresponsibility and unaccountability. It is my intention to ensure that a person in a "powerful" position does not abuse that power, whether that be here in the Ether or out in the physical world. Just as a mob can riot, otherwise respectable people can form a vigilante'. BTW, what happend to Phil?

[quote=Teresa22]..you are right, Wee Gordie, the purpose of forums such as this one is to foster free exchange...but all freedoms come with responsibility and part of that responsibility is to accept that those with views opposing ones own feel their reasons are just as compelling. If we believe in free exchange we also have to ensure that the environment is conducive to it, and nasty, insulting, threatening behavior is prohibitive to that environment and will allow it to degenerate to the point that only those who are willing to be the most abusive will have a platform. I think we all will agree that following the "law of the jungle" is not a method that is consistent with the democratic sharing of thought. I happen to believe that it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. [/quote]
If I were to allow my emotions to read your post, I might take exception and think that you are refereing to my post as being one "of the most abusive". I think I know you better than that and do not not take that as a slight against me personally.

[quote=Teresa22]The concept of responsibility is meaningless without accountability. Just as we adhere to a "social contract" in the real world, we must have cyber world equivalents. This is new territory, and all of us are feeling our way through it, but in the meantime, there has to be mechanisms in place that will allow forums to serve the purpose for which they were intended.[/quote]
I must have had something "important" to say here, but it escapes me at the moment

[quote=Teresa22]If a member chooses to indulge in behavior that is distasteful to a large number of fellow posters, its almost guaranteed that some will voice their feelings of displeasure...all well and good. Because we believe that most of our posters are indeed responsible citizens, we trust them to demonstrat e this through sharing in the responsibility of keeping our cyber environment productive...rather like a cyber Block Watch, if you will. This system works quite well until tensions run high enough to induce riot...and during the riot, it becomes the responsiblity of the moderators and administrators to protect any or all members from any looting and pillaging that occurs as a consequence.[/quote]
I think I missed the large numbers of posters that found some post in this forum to be distasteful. I saw a rough and tumble discussion - heated at times, but not one "I'm offended by that", not one. As a matter of fact, one member stated that she found nothing that offended her....

I do see a deliberate attempt to discredit me. This would not be the first time.
[quote=Alexa]I'm not going to sugarcoat it. You don't know what you're talking about. [/quote]
That was simply uncalled for, I know many things and I talk about them all. I draw upon my experiences and finding factual information before speaking, so as to not place an extremity in a postion that would render it difficult to speak.
If this site administrator or any other wants me to stop refuting what is posted here, then they have the power, but not the authority, to revoke my access. The truth is out there if we continue to seek it. Of course there is also a lot of bad information.

[quote=Teresa22]Thats exactly what happened here in this forum....we allowed the disagreement, we allowed the riot, and we allowed those who don't like riots to chime in and voice their displeasure with it. Moderators and administrators only became involved when there was an incidence that crossed from riot into downright illegality. We only "moderated" the illegality and did nothing that interferred with the reason for the riot.[/quote]
What riot? What "illegality"? This used to be such a nice place. I'll admit that since some posts were modified, perhaps deleted, that I don't have the full story - how could I. But for a person who is supposedly in a position of responsibility to say that I don't know what I'm talking about is simply irresponsible and an abuse of the power granted by the members of this board. For that same person to repeatedly post references to an opinion masked in the aura of fact is simply irresponsible. Where is the accountability of which you speak? I tried to provide some accountability and I get told that I don't know what I'm talking about - this is BS (anyone offended by that?) The days are gone where this could be discussed openly, the pack is circling, the alpha dog is leading the pack. I am saddened that we have allowed this.

[quote=Teresa22]I, for one, hope you will continue to visit and share your thoughts....but please don't assume that those who's opinions differ from yours are "out to get you" because they voice an opposing viewpoint or that their voicing of it is an attempt to stifle you. That's just fair exchange.[/quote]
I don't know if that will be possible, especially after this entry. I'm not certain that this hasn't become just another bitch session (it's a legal word). It is far too difficult to defend one's self in this environment. Take a look around - who's posting - not the old crew, that's for sure. What happened to them? Did they get banished or did they get tired of trying to fight against one or two of this board's controllers?
I couldn't have said it better Teresa, but I'm not the paranoid type. I'm not sure if I feel that certain other people are paranoid or on a power trip. I do know that I am not the only member that feels this way, but they're all gone - membership revoked! Of course if "they" really are out to get you, it's not paranoia, is it. I've enjoyed our conversation of the past and always find you a voice of reason - like Daniel was when he was active.

[quote=Wee gordie]<snip> Foul language and repetitive posts was the old rule on JREG and OAC, but I don't think you were around then, so it's more difficult for you to understand the freedom all of us had there, and with that freedom our own ability to moderate ourselves (with a little help from Winn). We even tolerated folks like TarHeels and other trolls, as long as they didn't post the same thing over and over and over or exclusively use the 7 word dictionary. Then there was CW (aka EdwardsTroll) and his incessant S&B talk - he became loved by many (a mother's instinct I think). I wonder if those people could post on this board with the current set of admins / moderators. I think not!
<snip>[/quote]

Wee Gordie, you are mistaken. I've been around JREG almost since it first started and foul language and abusive behavior has NEVER been tolerated here. It has always been against our TOS and people who took that kind of thing too far before have been kicked off this forum in the past. This forum has never allowed the same kind of abusive posting and foul language that sometimes happened on OAC and I doubt that we ever will.

[quote=Wee gordie]<snip>
If this site administrator or any other wants me to stop refuting what is posted here, then they have the power, but not the authority, to revoke my access. <snip>[/quote]

Well, there again, I'm afraid you're wrong. This is a quote from the TOS you agreed to when you signed up here:

[quote=Wee gordie]<snip>Take a look around - who's posting - not the old crew, that's for sure. What happened to them? Did they get banished or did they get tired of trying to fight against one or two of this board's controllers?
<snip>[/quote]

The election is over and the next one's not coming for a long time. I suspect that all political boards are seeing a slow time at the moment. There haven't been more than about one or two people banned from this site in the whole history of JREG, that I'm aware of (and I would probably know).

Thank you for considering mine a voice of reason...believe me when I say that I do not like to just continue on in pointless `re-hashing`, but I do want to point out that Alexa's comment about "not knowing the facts" had nothing to do with the Dean argument...she was referring to a deleted portion of a post that had absolutely nothing to do with Dean or any other political figure or anything else of any relevance to the conversation. The deleted portion was deleted because it was a GROSS violation and in some states could be considered criminal behavior. She was not saying that you didn't know the facts about Dean, or the democratic party or DNC chairmanship or anything of the sort. Likewise, my last post about "abusive" behavior was relating to this specific violation...it had nothing to do with you. In fact, I will state that this deleted portion was the only part of the ongoing conversation that did meet the criteria of being labeled "abuse". That's the reason no other part of anyone's postings, including Phil's, was removed. The forum has to protect our members and ourselves from what some might consider liability.

As to whether Alternet is a "reliable" source, well, thats something that can be debated...I agree, most of the articles there are of the editorial/opinion variety, but it is often our custom to share these types of pieces to help explain our points of view....I'll be honest, if I had the time and wrote as well as many of the authors on Alternet do, I would be submitting articles there for publication rather than using those already posted to explain my views.

As to where other members might be....well, ofcourse, I have no way of knowing. I don't think there was any deliberate attempt on anyone's part to get them to leave....I will say, that human behavior being as it is, people do tend to naturally gravitate to places where their opinions are shared. It could well be that some chose to leave because they felt the majority of those posting here had differing opinions. Because one's view might be in the minority does not mean that those in the majority are bullying them....all we ask is that when there is disagreement that the disagreement be confined to the subject and that personal taunts be avoided....I don't think thats asking for too much, and in my own home its the rule we live by. I might disagree with you, but I can't call you names...if you consider this position to be one of censorship, then I am sorry....but if we are going to engage in anything other than name calling then we have to maintain certain standards.

I just want to address one more thing that I think has been a source of confusion here. Just because someone who happens to be a moderator or administrator of this board posts an opinion or a story from Alternet or anywhere else, it does NOT mean that anyone is trying to make that an official position of JREG. We don't take official positions except in rare cases when we've decided to do something as a group and the members have voted on it.

The moderators and administrators are free to post their opinions like anyone else and disagree with people like anyone else, but our opinions carry no more weight around here than anyone else's.

We do have the additional responsibility of organizing the forum and enforcing the rules. When we do have to do that, hopefully it's clear we're now putting on our moderator or administrator hat for the time that we're doing that.