Howard Dean Likely to Become New DNC Chair...

[deep]

Nixon’s domestic and foreign record would be regarded as standing firmly in the liberal progressive tradition. Johnson has gone down in the history books as the big spender for social welfare programs, yet federal spending grew faster during Nixon’s tenure than during Johnson’s. It was under Nixon that social spending came to exceed defense spending for the first time. Social spending soared from $55 billion in 1970 (Nixon’s first budget) to $132 billion in 1975, from 28 percent of the federal budget when LBJ left office to 40 percent of the budget by the time Nixon left in 1974. While Nixon would criticize and attempt to reform welfare, he nonetheless approved massive increases in funding for other Great Society programs such as the Model Cities program and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Some of the changes in spending policies that Nixon supported, such as automatic cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients and other entitlement programs, contributed to runaway spending trends in successive decades. Federal spending for the arts, which went mostly to cultural elites who hated Nixon, quadrupled. Economist Herbert Stein, who served on Nixon’s Council of Economic Advisers, summed up this dubious record: "The administration that was against expanding the budget expanded it greatly; the administration that was determined to fight inflation ended by having a large amount of it."

The explosion in spending was matched by an equally dramatic explosion in federal regulation-from an administration that regarded itself as pro-business. The number of pages in the Federal Register (the roster of federal rules and regulations) grew only 19 percent under Johnson, but a staggering 121 percent under Nixon. In civil rights, Nixon expanded the regime of "affirmative action" racial quotas and set-asides far beyond what Johnson had done. In other words, Nixon consolidated the administrative state of the Great Society in much the same way that President Eisenhower (for whom Nixon served as Vice President) consolidated the New Deal. Ronald Reagan would run and govern as much against the legacy of Nixon as he would the legacy of the Great Society, and it was a number of Nixon’s administrative creations that would cause Reagan the most difficulty during his White House years.

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/dialogue/hayward.html

 

[melon]

If Bill Clinton is a "liberal," despite Reagan accusing him of stealing his platform, then we're fucked as a nation.

Quoting Nixon on homosexuality is fairly misleading too. The APA didn't remove it as a "mental disorder" until 1973, and Nixon resigned in 1974. A different generation. It should be noted that a lot of Nixon-era fiscal conservatives come off as moderate Democrats now, because they generally disagree with all the Religious Right social conservatism that pervades the party today.

Melon

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Then there's Clinton

- For abortion
- For death penalty
- For affirmative action
- Against increased spending for armed forces

http://www.issues2000.org/Bill_Clinton.htm

 

[BVS]

Then there's Clinton

- For affirmative action

Actually he wants to see it fixed and modified before completely ending it.

- Against increased spending for armed forces

A stance he took 5 years ago before pre 9/11.

To call the Clintons the most liberal family in Washington is a joke. I have a feeling some of you are losing all grasp of politics.

 

[deep]

Then there's Clinton

http://www.issues2000.org/Bill_Clinton.htm

this is from the link you posted

Bill Clinton is a Moderate Populist.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

To call the Clintons the most liberal family in Washington is a joke.

Care to share which president was the most liberal?

 

[drhark]

As expected, I see no one bothered to read Dean's platform in the DNC. Instead, we're rehashing the same old, same old with the presidential campaign.

And the Clintons as the most "liberal family" in the White House?! Hardly!

Melon

the "same old, same old with the presidential campaign" is who he is and what he stands for. Unless he was fibbing, or as some would put it, "moving to the left".

Republicans just love this guy.

Dean: "I hate Republicans and all they stand for"

Republicans love this guy

 

[Sherry Darling]

Macwannabe--that statement about the Clintons just does not hold up. Clinton's foreign policy was rather hawkish. And just look at his education stance, for example, or his welfare "reform". The Kennedys are easily more liberal. And they're probably not even the most! Clinton's legacy, for better or worse, is precisely moving the Dems center. It's how he won. And I think the DNC is paying for it now, since the 2 parties are fairly indistinguishable. Hence Dean seeming like such a breath of fresh air to some of us (though as someone on this thread pointed out, Dean's a centerist himself).

SD

 

[verte76]

Dean is indeed a centrist. You know what his NRA score is? 100%. The hard core liberals last year supported Kucinich, not Dean. In fact, the local hard core liberals in my area *hated* Dean because he wasn't lefty enough. The main thing that got him labeled a lefty was his position on Iraq. And I agree with all of this stuff about the Clintons hardly being the most liberal family in politics these days. Have you forgotten "ending welfare as we know it?" That was a total rip-off of the conservative agenda.

 

[Sherry Darling]

OMG you guys! I might be able to meet him tomorrow! He's going to be at a VA Grassroots Coalition even in DC!

Sweet!

SD

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Dean is indeed a centrist. You know what his NRA score is? 100%. The hard core liberals last year supported Kucinich, not Dean. In fact, the local hard core liberals in my area *hated* Dean because he wasn't lefty enough.

He has changed positions on a number of issues, to appear more moderate.

The main thing that got him labeled a lefty was his position on Iraq. And I agree with all of this stuff about the Clintons hardly being the most liberal family in politics these days.

Not in POLITICS in general, but as far as presidents, at least in modern terms, he was more socially liberal on issues like abortion and gays than any other president, I would think.

http://www.issues2000.org/Howard_Dean.htm
"Howard Dean is a Hard-Core Liberal."

 

[melon]

It seems that, unless you have unabated homophobia, you're a "liberal."

If that's the case, I want a "hard-core liberal."

Melon

 

[Macfistowannabe]

It should be noted that a lot of Nixon-era fiscal conservatives come off as moderate Democrats now, because they generally disagree with all the Religious Right social conservatism that pervades the party today.

I wouldn't say there is a whole line-up of Bush-likes who would run in 2008, yet. There's a good degree of ambition for independant-minded John McCain, and a surprisingly high ambition for Rudy Giuliani to contend. I doubt Rudy's pro-abortion stance will get him anywhere, but I think McCain could get the right closer to the center without dividing the right.

Getting back to Dean...

He has raised good money in the past, but I don't guarantee that he will reinvent himself in order to keep it coming. The more publicity he got, the more it hurt him. He seems as though whenever he isn't on a rant, he's holding something back. Of course he's not known so much for political correctness, and that's not really what I'm getting at. He is seen as a hot-tempered bomb, but I would think that he has more charisma than John Kerry did. Still, it would surprise me if he was successful, although he wouldn't get all the publicity he did when he campaigned in 2004. I don't know if he's moderate enough, I would think Clinton is far more moderate. I would say if Dean can unite the moderate left - such as the Clinton/Leibermann types - and the harder left, I'd be surprised.

 

[melon]

I wouldn't say there is a whole line-up of Bush-likes who would run in 2008, yet. There's a good degree of ambition for independant-minded John McCain, and a surprisingly high ambition for Rudy Giuliani to contend. I doubt Rudy's pro-abortion stance will get him anywhere, but I think McCain could get the right closer to the center without dividing the right.

But the Religious Right has had a taste of power, and they have openly admitted that they have no interest in ceding it. They think they own the GOP now, so that rules out people like McCain or Giuliani. On the contrary, in the 2000 primary contest, conservatives ruined McCain by slanderous "push polls." One push poll implied he had an interracial affair. That was enough to take him out, and it's shameful that racist tactics still work (but former Sen. Jesse Helms made a career out of racist campaigning).

If McCain had survived to become president in the 2000 election, I probably would have a more favorable view of the GOP, and I think he would have had a wider margin of victory.

He has raised good money in the past, but I don't guarantee that he will reinvent himself in order to keep it coming. The more publicity he got, the more it hurt him. He seems as though whenever he isn't on a rant, he's holding something back. Of course he's not known so much for political correctness, and that's not really what I'm getting at. He is seen as a hot-tempered bomb, but I would think that he has more charisma than John Kerry did. Still, it would surprise me if he was successful, although he wouldn't get all the publicity he did when he campaigned in 2004. I don't know if he's moderate enough, I would think Clinton is far more moderate. I would say if Dean can unite the moderate left - such as the Clinton/Leibermann types - and the harder left, I'd be surprised.

First off, Dean is going to be the chair of the Democratic National Committee. He won't be running for President, and nor does he believe he should be setting the political policy. The role of the chair of the DNC is to organize candidates and raise money. He has a proven ability to do both of that, as the candidates he worked to get elected through his organization, "Democracy for America," had a respectable track record of getting elected, even in "conservative" red states.

Dean, as a presidential candidate, did shoot his mouth off, and even I was turned off by his overemphasis on opposition to the Iraq war. However, after reading a lot of what he has said in running for the DNC chair, I find myself agreeing with most everything he has said. Dean wants to work hard to make the party appeal to the South and West, and I believe he can do that.

Melon

 

[BVS]

http://www.issues2000.org/Howard_Dean.htm
"Howard Dean is a Hard-Core Liberal."

I find it interesting that you think Clinton who showed up right smack in the middle to be "most liberal" and Dean who's not even a full square out of moderate is considered "hard core liberal" on the graphs you supplied. I guess your medium line is much further to the right than the majority of people.

And yes I second what Melon said, I think some in here are quite confused as to what the chair actually does.

 

[diamond]

Dean will do worse than Terry Mc.
db9

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

OMG you guys! I might be able to meet him tomorrow! He's going to be at a VA Grassroots Coalition even in DC!

Don't get too close to him in case he decides to break into a spontaneous scream

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I find it interesting that you think Clinton who showed up right smack in the middle to be "most liberal" and Dean who's not even a full square out of moderate is considered "hard core liberal" on the graphs you supplied. I guess your medium line is much further to the right than the majority of people.

Well, Reagan definately forced the Democratic Party much closer to the center. Yes, Clinton would be seen as a centrist by any democrat out there, but with 21st century issues, I don't think a further left leaning democrat would win the presidency than perhaps Al Gore. As far as the Kennedys, it's hard to say if JFK would lean as left as Ted Kennedy on social issues - probably, but obviously there are numerous issues in the 21st century that didn't exist in the 1960s. It's tragic that we really didn't know what he would've done for sure as far as Vietnam, but records would indicate that he certainly feared the spread of communism.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kentv.htm

President Kennedy's Television Interviews on Vietnam
September 2 and 9, 1963

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) CBS Interview, September 2

MR. CRONKITE. Mr. President, the only hot war we've got running at the moment is of course the one in Viet-Nam, and we have our difficulties here, quite obviously.

PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.

And yes I second what Melon said, I think some in here are quite confused as to what the chair actually does.

As Terry McAuliffe would say, the job is to raise money and be a cheerleader for the democrats. Dean is capable of raising money, no doubt about it, but I think he will have a lot of trouble appealing the democratic party the South and mountain regions. Some of his comments might suggest that he finds them to be a bunch of hillbillies with confederate flags on their trucks. To see him overcome that obstacle and help the dems get the south back would be impressive, but unlikely.

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pick-up trucks" - Howard Dean

John Edwards offered a more digestive tone, I will say: "I grew up in the South. I grew up with the very people that you're talking about. And what Al Sharpton just said is exactly right. The people that I grew up with, the vast majority of them, they don't drive around with Confederate flags on pickup trucks. One of the problems that we have with young people today is people talk down to you. You know, you get all pigeon-holed. They've stereotype you. Exactly the same thing happens with people from the South. I have seen it. I have grown up with it. I'm here to tell you it is wrong. It is condescending. And the only way that we as a party are going to win the White House back is to reach out to everybody and treat them with the dignity and respect that they're entitled to. That's what we ought to be doing."

I think Edwards is more suitable for the DNC chair, especially if they want to appeal to the south. It's too bad he isn't interested in the job, he's one of the more reserved democrats.

 

[BVS]

Yes, Clinton would be seen as a centrist by any democrat out there, but with 21st century issues, I don't think a further left leaning democrat would win the presidency than perhaps Al Gore.

He's a centrist by anyone's standards who have any clue about politics, not just Democrats. Once again take a look at the graph, that's not just for Democrats.

Do you honestly think the rest of the 21st century will be like the 2004 election? The line will change, it always does. People will eventually see that certain spending or policies don't work. Or they'll realize that all this time and energy spent on trying to make homosexuals 2nd class citizens was ridiculous. Just look at where women and blacks are today and how they were treated 50 years ago.

As far as the Kennedys, it's hard to say if JFK would lean as left as Ted Kennedy on social issues - probably, but obviously there are numerous issues in the 21st century that didn't exist in the 1960s.

And vice versa! Are we forgetting what happened in the 60's?

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pick-up trucks" - Howard Dean

Um, I think he was trying to say he was reaching outside of his party.

I think Edwards is more suitable for the DNC chair, especially if they want to appeal to the south. It's too bad he isn't interested in the job, he's one of the more reserved democrats.

Why would you want more reserved to be a cheerleader for the party?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

He's a centrist by anyone's standards who have any clue about politics, not just Democrats. Once again take a look at the graph, that's not just for Democrats.

He's a moderate populist - qualified technically as a centrist, yes. However, I don't think further left leaning democrats (not necessarily populist types like Gore/Clinton, more like Ted Kennedy/Howard Dean types) have a shot at president, in my opinion. This time around, the "stole the election" line was a good laugh. Kerry couldn't get support from heavily populated minority states like New Mexico. While the Hispanic population is growing, the democrats are losing their support. As far as blacks and women, oppression on women and blacks wasn't partisan. There were plenty of nuts on both sides.

Um, I think he was trying to say he was reaching outside of his party.

And his best effort was stereotypical. Dean has no appeal to the South, even as a DNC chairman. You have to be a lefty in the South in order to stand him. I'd like to see him prove me wrong, but I doubt he of all people would win back southern voters.

Why would you want more reserved to be a cheerleader for the party?

Not just reserved, but in priority, someone who knows how to relate to the south, like John Edwards. Believe me, I'm no democrat, but I find the guy a lot more withstandable than Howard Dean. A lot of mainstream democrats do not feel positive about having Dean in the chair.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6857146/site/newsweek/
Now Playing: 'Anybody But Dean, Part 2'

 

[BVS]

He's a moderate populist - qualified technically as a centrist, yes. However, I don't think further left leaning democrats (not necessarily populist types like Gore/Clinton, more like Ted Kennedy/Howard Dean types) have a shot at president, in my opinion. This time around, the "stole the election" line was a good laugh. Kerry couldn't get support from heavily populated minority states like New Mexico. While the Hispanic population is growing, the democrats are losing their support. As far as blacks and women, oppression on women and blacks wasn't partisan. There were plenty of nuts on both sides.

Sorry but you didn't answer anything I talked about.

And his best effort was stereotypical. Dean has no appeal to the South, even as a DNC chairman. You have to be a lefty in the South in order to stand him. I'd like to see him prove me wrong, but I doubt he of all people would win back southern voters.

It's not his role to "win back southern voters", HE'S NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

Not just reserved, but in priority, someone who knows how to relate to the south, like John Edwards. Believe me, I'm no democrat, but I find the guy a lot more withstandable than Howard Dean. A lot of mainstream democrats do not feel positive about having Dean in the chair.

He had well over the amount of votes needed to win chair. So I'm not sure who this "a lot of mainstream Democrats" comes from.

It doesn't matter who you find more likable, his role is not to win new votes.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Sorry but you didn't answer anything I talked about.

It's not his role to "win back southern voters", HE'S NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

I know he isn't. It is however in his plans to help the democrats appeal to southern voters.

He had well over the amount of votes needed to win chair. So I'm not sure who this "a lot of mainstream Democrats" comes from.

The fact that the Clintons - basically the face of the democratic party - find Dean too left and too loose-lipped, and surely they aren't the only democratic leaders who see that. Read the link I gave in my last post.

It doesn't matter who you find more likable, his role is not to win new votes.

Again, they want to appeal to the south. Dean of all people would surprise me if he actually helps the dems appeal to the south.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Don't get too close to him in case he decides to break into a spontaneous scream

I feel sorry for his wife and kids.